dls,
What you say makes sense. If you might retire in seven years and leave the Seattle area, buying a home right now could still be a risk you might not want to take, especially if you can rent for a couple of hundred dollars a month less than a mortgage payment. Do what you're comfortable with, not what you think you should be doing because of what's expected, or because you're 48 and don't own a house and isn't that a sign of weakness, or because people will talk.
Some people love owning houses. I love having a big garden and having the freedom to make whatever changes I see fit to the house. But a lot of people are perfectly happy being renters. More power to them. New York City has hundreds of thousands of middle and upper middle class life long renters.
Criticizing a single guy for wanting an 1100 sq ft house is silly. Nobody makes houses for single people, they're made for families. There are relatively few 2 bedroom SFH properties that haven't been turned into rentals. My places since college (excluding dorms):
2 people, ~800 sq ft 2 BR 1 BA apartment: Plenty big, but my roommate was a huge slob. Living room was only big enough for 3 or 4 people, no where to put a dinner table.
1 person, ~950 sq ft 2 BR 2 BA apartment: 2nd bathroom was mostly wasted space. 2nd bedroom was office/storage.
1 person, ~1400 sq ft 3 BR 2 BA SFH, 2 car garage: House sat for a friend. Way way too big. 3rd bedroom was completely empty. Formal dining room also empty.
1 person, 980 sq ft 3 BR 2 BA SFH, 1.5 car garage: 3rd bedroom was storage (which the rest of the house lacked). Probably about the right size for me - proper sized bedroom and office. Used the "dining room" as an extension of living room.
3 people, 2800 sq ft 4 BR, 6 BA SFH, 3 car garage: McMansion hell. I opn't think the Sq footage included the basement, and it was more like 3600 sq ft. Also had a large screen porch and a larger patio. 4th bedroom was a guest room. Sitting room and living room very rarely used, except during parties. Two offices in basement got used a lot. I think this house needed about 6 people to be properly utilized. I could go weeks at a time without seeing my housemates.
3-4 people, 1500 sq ft 3 BR, 2 BA SFH, 2 car garage: '20s Seattle home, not particularly large. Good size.
3-4 people, 1600 sq ft, 3 BR, 2.5 BA SFH, 3 car garage: Newer Seattle home, almost perfect size, except I don't have an office (which is good in some ways, forced me to clean up my crap accumulated over the last decade). Supports parties of 50+ people, abundant storage.
I agree that it's a bit wasteful for a single person to live alone in a 3 bed room house. But if you're going to live alone in a SFH, 900-1100 sq ft is probably the size of home you'll end up in. 1500-1700 for 3-4 people seems to be about right. I had some friends with large families in 2500+ sq ft homes and even then it seemed like a big waste of space.
Criticizing a single guy for wanting an 1100 sq ft house is silly. Nobody makes houses for single people, they're made for families.
So you're saying a single guy doesn't need a house at all, which I can totally agree with.
I don't care if people get more space than they really need. I'm just a little annoyed that when a single guy does it everyone is like "That's fine, I'm sure he needs an office and another room to store the bodies in." But if a family gets more space than they really need it's a McMansion. As if family men can't be serial killers too.
Criticizing a single guy for wanting an 1100 sq ft house is silly. Nobody makes houses for single people, they're made for families.
So you're saying a single guy doesn't need a house at all, which I can totally agree with.
I don't care if people get more space than they really need. I'm just a little annoyed that when a single guy does it everyone is like "That's fine, I'm sure he needs an office and another room to store the bodies in." But if a family gets more space than they really need it's a McMansion. As if family men can't be serial killers too.
Nobody needs a house. Most families in major metropolitan areas the world over don't have houses.
I'm struggling to understand why you equate one person in 1100 sq ft to four people in 3000+ sq ft. Having lived in both scenarios, I assure you the level of waste in the former is fractional compared to the latter.
Criticizing a single guy for wanting an 1100 sq ft house is silly. Nobody makes houses for single people, they're made for families.
So you're saying a single guy doesn't need a house at all, which I can totally agree with.
I don't care if people get more space than they really need. I'm just a little annoyed that when a single guy does it everyone is like "That's fine, I'm sure he needs an office and another room to store the bodies in." But if a family gets more space than they really need it's a McMansion. As if family men can't be serial killers too.
Nobody needs a house. Most families in major metropolitan areas the world over don't have houses.
I'm struggling to understand why you equate one person in 1100 sq ft to four people in 3000+ sq ft. Having lived in both scenarios, I assure you the level of waste in the former is fractional compared to the latter.
It's 5 people, but that doesn't really matter. Why is one more wasteful than the other? If any it would seem that 600sf/person, 1bd/person and 1 kitchen/living room/garage per 5 people is less wasteful 1100 sf/person, 3bd/person and 1 kitchen/living room/garage per person is more wasteful. That's like saying 5 people riding in Van is more wasteful than 1 guy in an Civic.
Can you explain it to me in some other way than "I've done it and that is how it is."?
You could tear it town and build a 150 square foot mud hut in its place. At least Angie won't think you are a self-indulgent American pig for living in (gasp) 1100 square feet. You'd have to beat the seal pups out back though.
You could tear it town and build a 150 square foot mud hut in its place
Too bad the mud nut wouldn't be in Ballard.. Then they could advertise it as "green" even though it would be brown ,and sustainable, and available for a limited time only for 700,000 dollars. Act Now! A mud hut in Ballard might come around only once in a lifetime. Are you going to let this opportunity pass you by?
It's 5 people, but that doesn't really matter. Why is one more wasteful than the other? If any it would seem that 600sf/person, 1bd/person and 1 kitchen/living room/garage per 5 people is less wasteful 1100 sf/person, 3bd/person and 1 kitchen/living room/garage per person is more wasteful. That's like saying 5 people riding in Van is more wasteful than 1 guy in an Civic.
Can you explain it to me in some other way than "I've done it and that is how it is."?
Waste was probably a poor word choice.
Sorry for offending your 300 sq ft home, I'm not going to bother elaborating a point which you're not interested in.
Breeders popping out useless eaters in 1100 sf = GOOD
The fact that Breeders of Useless Eaters have their spawn's public school educations subsidized by the "oh-so-politically-incorrect" single homeowners property taxes = PRICELESS
No...I'm just having a little fun with the absurdity of all the responses to the thread...with the exception of the first few (Losh, Jillayne and Ira.) that actually give an opinion on the house and not the lifestyle.
Who's to say...or judge...what one person wants or needs?
Why did this thread turn into a long-dick contest as to who grew up, lived or currently lives in the least amount of square footage? Of course, the caveats were made where everybody stated that they didn't mind it...but really...dls just wanted an opinion on the house.
Trash talk the house if you don't like it.
If you really think about it...most of what we perceive as "needs" are actually, in fact, just "wants".
perfectfire, is the point to all this that you grew up in a really small house, or that you currently have a really big house? I don't quite get it.
EconE is right about the wants vs needs thing. There are several examples out there of people living in "microhousing" solutions (less than 300 sq ft for two people, for instance).
Regarding your complaints about my argument of utilization, please allow me to elaborate. Current utilization is set by both the actual *needs of the resident and societal norms. You need to eat, the societal norm is that you purchase groceries on a regularly spaced schedule and then prepare the meal at a later time, ergo you need a kitchen regardless of how many people live in your house. Other societies operate differently, but their communities are also structured differently. If the expectation is that nobody has a refrigerator (many poorer areas), then you will live near (within walking distance usually) of a market where fresh meat can be purchased the day it is to be used. In Europe, for example, many people live in smaller homes, but they also tend to have small local grocery stores so that on the way home (walk from subway perhaps) it's convenient to stop by and pick up a loaf of bread or a carton of milk. If that's the world you live in, then having a fully stocked American style kitchen is indeed wasteful, but it's really just a different norm.
That's why I won't berate a single who buys an 1100 sq ft house. As was pointed out earlier, his only other SFH option was a 950 sq ft house. Sure, you can argue that he doesn't need a SFH at all, but then nobody actually does. Owning the ground under your feet is something our society values (there I go, talking about societal norms again) and so it's unsurprising to find a person within that society who has the same values. Particularly if they have concerns about the community costs associated with the alternatives (HOA dues, emergency funds raising votes).
Which brings us to why McMansions are worthy of such scorn, even if five whole people are living in one. The premise of a McMansion takes many of the least agreeable aspects of our society and emphasizes them to the breaking point. Many people are uncomfortable with the rat-race American society has become, but owners of McMansions seem to be saying "look at me, look at what a big rat I've become!" Second, the McMansion emphasizes the loss of community that many Americans feel. Forty years ago, it was common for people to spend much more time outside their homes, which meant they got to chat with neighbors across the fence. But when you put a 4,000 sq ft home on a 5,200 sq ft lot, you don't even have a yard anymore. You're ostensibly saying to the whole world "STAY OUT!!" Finally, the McMansion pulls off the feat of combining what many people consider to be the worst aspect of living in a city with the worst aspects of living in the suburbs. It creates a community as densely built up as any multifamily living situation (condos/townhomes), but at the same time you're still clogging the streets to get to work in the city centers. Most people probably can't put it at words, but those are at least some of the essential reasons McMansions make us sick.
You can't really apply any of the same arguments to a single guy in a 1000 sq ft home. He's just a family guy who never actually got married or had kids.
* note, "needs" for this conversation will relate to those things which for the price make a person's life more comfortable rather than less.
It's been interesting to follow the responses to the my original post. Ira, Jillayne, DL, thanks for your objective comments.
Angie, Whether or not a single person, guy or gal, (I know SFH owners of both genders) 'needs' a single family home is a personal decision. I don't like listening to the neighbors stomping on the stairs, slamming their doors, blasting their music through the walls. An SFH provides some relief from these issues (not perfect I know). Basic grounds and house maintenance doesn't bother me, I've taken care of my folk's yards, painted their houses, and performed basic maintenance and repair work. I do have an understanding of what is required to keep up a property.
One thing I've not seen anyone mention is that what a person wants does not always jib with what is available. Yes, a 3br place is a bit more than I need, but the 2br places (on smaller but acceptable lots) are either old worn out junk, or in expensive places such as the Edmonds bowel, so, one has to balance one's wants with what one can afford. The house I posted the link to is on the smaller end of what is available in the MLT/Lynnwood/Edmonds area of South Snohomish county. For personal and work reasons I prefer South SnoCo over North King county. Mukilteo and South Everett are thoughts (close to work) but Mukiteo is somewhat too expensive for me and I'm having difficulty judging whether Everett is growing, declining, or just somewhat coasting. Shoreline isn't out of the picture, but I've yet seen anything there (SFH) that looks better than what I see in So. SnoCo, so I might as well stay north of the county line and save a bit on taxes (I am assuming folks outside of King county won't be taxed for the viaduct replacement tunnel). Thanks for all your comments, always good to get somebody else's point of view.
I'll go to the point. What you want and need are two different things. People come to me all the time with what they want and I say no.
You're 48 with a job and want to move after retirement. Most people do want to move unless they have family ties. One of the things I worked on for a long time was getting people to retire to say South America or Morocco.
Your Social Security check would go further there than in the United States. For that matter if you netted $10K after expenses for your living situation those would be dollars ahead for you.
Most people don't want the inconvenience of making money with Real Estate. People want to go to a foreclosure auction then sell a home for $100K net profit. It does happen
The reality is you probably want a nice place to live with a payment comparable to rent. The reality is that if there was a way to come out ahead you will need to make sacrifices.
So, the house I originally posted the link to is now no longer listed. The Redfin message says it is no longer listed, I read that as it has been taken of the market, not sold (I could be wrong), interesting.
Comments
What you say makes sense. If you might retire in seven years and leave the Seattle area, buying a home right now could still be a risk you might not want to take, especially if you can rent for a couple of hundred dollars a month less than a mortgage payment. Do what you're comfortable with, not what you think you should be doing because of what's expected, or because you're 48 and don't own a house and isn't that a sign of weakness, or because people will talk.
Some people love owning houses. I love having a big garden and having the freedom to make whatever changes I see fit to the house. But a lot of people are perfectly happy being renters. More power to them. New York City has hundreds of thousands of middle and upper middle class life long renters.
2 people, ~800 sq ft 2 BR 1 BA apartment: Plenty big, but my roommate was a huge slob. Living room was only big enough for 3 or 4 people, no where to put a dinner table.
1 person, ~950 sq ft 2 BR 2 BA apartment: 2nd bathroom was mostly wasted space. 2nd bedroom was office/storage.
1 person, ~1400 sq ft 3 BR 2 BA SFH, 2 car garage: House sat for a friend. Way way too big. 3rd bedroom was completely empty. Formal dining room also empty.
1 person, 980 sq ft 3 BR 2 BA SFH, 1.5 car garage: 3rd bedroom was storage (which the rest of the house lacked). Probably about the right size for me - proper sized bedroom and office. Used the "dining room" as an extension of living room.
3 people, 2800 sq ft 4 BR, 6 BA SFH, 3 car garage: McMansion hell.
3-4 people, 1500 sq ft 3 BR, 2 BA SFH, 2 car garage: '20s Seattle home, not particularly large. Good size.
3-4 people, 1600 sq ft, 3 BR, 2.5 BA SFH, 3 car garage: Newer Seattle home, almost perfect size, except I don't have an office (which is good in some ways, forced me to clean up my crap accumulated over the last decade). Supports parties of 50+ people, abundant storage.
I agree that it's a bit wasteful for a single person to live alone in a 3 bed room house. But if you're going to live alone in a SFH, 900-1100 sq ft is probably the size of home you'll end up in. 1500-1700 for 3-4 people seems to be about right. I had some friends with large families in 2500+ sq ft homes and even then it seemed like a big waste of space.
I don't care if people get more space than they really need. I'm just a little annoyed that when a single guy does it everyone is like "That's fine, I'm sure he needs an office and another room to store the bodies in." But if a family gets more space than they really need it's a McMansion. As if family men can't be serial killers too.
" No, Junior, don't go in there. That's daddy's private office."
Nobody needs a house. Most families in major metropolitan areas the world over don't have houses.
I'm struggling to understand why you equate one person in 1100 sq ft to four people in 3000+ sq ft. Having lived in both scenarios, I assure you the level of waste in the former is fractional compared to the latter.
Can you explain it to me in some other way than "I've done it and that is how it is."?
Too bad the mud nut wouldn't be in Ballard.. Then they could advertise it as "green" even though it would be brown ,and sustainable, and available for a limited time only for 700,000 dollars. Act Now! A mud hut in Ballard might come around only once in a lifetime. Are you going to let this opportunity pass you by?
Single guys should be living in a van ...
... down by the river.
Waste was probably a poor word choice.
Sorry for offending your 300 sq ft home, I'm not going to bother elaborating a point which you're not interested in.
Single in 1100 sf = BAD
Breeders popping out useless eaters in 1100 sf = GOOD
The fact that Breeders of Useless Eaters have their spawn's public school educations subsidized by the "oh-so-politically-incorrect" single homeowners property taxes = PRICELESS
I'll translate:
I think Westside Billy meant to say 3000 sq ft, not 300.
No...I'm just having a little fun with the absurdity of all the responses to the thread...with the exception of the first few (Losh, Jillayne and Ira.) that actually give an opinion on the house and not the lifestyle.
Who's to say...or judge...what one person wants or needs?
Why did this thread turn into a long-dick contest as to who grew up, lived or currently lives in the least amount of square footage? Of course, the caveats were made where everybody stated that they didn't mind it...but really...dls just wanted an opinion on the house.
Trash talk the house if you don't like it.
If you really think about it...most of what we perceive as "needs" are actually, in fact, just "wants".
EconE is right about the wants vs needs thing. There are several examples out there of people living in "microhousing" solutions (less than 300 sq ft for two people, for instance).
Regarding your complaints about my argument of utilization, please allow me to elaborate. Current utilization is set by both the actual *needs of the resident and societal norms. You need to eat, the societal norm is that you purchase groceries on a regularly spaced schedule and then prepare the meal at a later time, ergo you need a kitchen regardless of how many people live in your house. Other societies operate differently, but their communities are also structured differently. If the expectation is that nobody has a refrigerator (many poorer areas), then you will live near (within walking distance usually) of a market where fresh meat can be purchased the day it is to be used. In Europe, for example, many people live in smaller homes, but they also tend to have small local grocery stores so that on the way home (walk from subway perhaps) it's convenient to stop by and pick up a loaf of bread or a carton of milk. If that's the world you live in, then having a fully stocked American style kitchen is indeed wasteful, but it's really just a different norm.
That's why I won't berate a single who buys an 1100 sq ft house. As was pointed out earlier, his only other SFH option was a 950 sq ft house. Sure, you can argue that he doesn't need a SFH at all, but then nobody actually does. Owning the ground under your feet is something our society values (there I go, talking about societal norms again) and so it's unsurprising to find a person within that society who has the same values. Particularly if they have concerns about the community costs associated with the alternatives (HOA dues, emergency funds raising votes).
Which brings us to why McMansions are worthy of such scorn, even if five whole people are living in one. The premise of a McMansion takes many of the least agreeable aspects of our society and emphasizes them to the breaking point. Many people are uncomfortable with the rat-race American society has become, but owners of McMansions seem to be saying "look at me, look at what a big rat I've become!" Second, the McMansion emphasizes the loss of community that many Americans feel. Forty years ago, it was common for people to spend much more time outside their homes, which meant they got to chat with neighbors across the fence. But when you put a 4,000 sq ft home on a 5,200 sq ft lot, you don't even have a yard anymore. You're ostensibly saying to the whole world "STAY OUT!!" Finally, the McMansion pulls off the feat of combining what many people consider to be the worst aspect of living in a city with the worst aspects of living in the suburbs. It creates a community as densely built up as any multifamily living situation (condos/townhomes), but at the same time you're still clogging the streets to get to work in the city centers. Most people probably can't put it at words, but those are at least some of the essential reasons McMansions make us sick.
You can't really apply any of the same arguments to a single guy in a 1000 sq ft home. He's just a family guy who never actually got married or had kids.
* note, "needs" for this conversation will relate to those things which for the price make a person's life more comfortable rather than less.
Angie, Whether or not a single person, guy or gal, (I know SFH owners of both genders) 'needs' a single family home is a personal decision. I don't like listening to the neighbors stomping on the stairs, slamming their doors, blasting their music through the walls. An SFH provides some relief from these issues (not perfect I know). Basic grounds and house maintenance doesn't bother me, I've taken care of my folk's yards, painted their houses, and performed basic maintenance and repair work. I do have an understanding of what is required to keep up a property.
One thing I've not seen anyone mention is that what a person wants does not always jib with what is available. Yes, a 3br place is a bit more than I need, but the 2br places (on smaller but acceptable lots) are either old worn out junk, or in expensive places such as the Edmonds bowel, so, one has to balance one's wants with what one can afford. The house I posted the link to is on the smaller end of what is available in the MLT/Lynnwood/Edmonds area of South Snohomish county. For personal and work reasons I prefer South SnoCo over North King county. Mukilteo and South Everett are thoughts (close to work) but Mukiteo is somewhat too expensive for me and I'm having difficulty judging whether Everett is growing, declining, or just somewhat coasting. Shoreline isn't out of the picture, but I've yet seen anything there (SFH) that looks better than what I see in So. SnoCo, so I might as well stay north of the county line and save a bit on taxes (I am assuming folks outside of King county won't be taxed for the viaduct replacement tunnel). Thanks for all your comments, always good to get somebody else's point of view.
You're 48 with a job and want to move after retirement. Most people do want to move unless they have family ties. One of the things I worked on for a long time was getting people to retire to say South America or Morocco.
Your Social Security check would go further there than in the United States. For that matter if you netted $10K after expenses for your living situation those would be dollars ahead for you.
Most people don't want the inconvenience of making money with Real Estate. People want to go to a foreclosure auction then sell a home for $100K net profit. It does happen
The reality is you probably want a nice place to live with a payment comparable to rent. The reality is that if there was a way to come out ahead you will need to make sacrifices.
It's gone "pending inspection."
Brier has much better resale value than MLT. Two ramblers just came on the market:
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Brier/22416-32 ... me/2680791
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Brier/3605-233 ... me/2764281