Our houses are small

[badga416]

I owned a very modest home in Scottsdale about 7 years ago. It was about 1500 sq ft. Pretty much no homes in the "valley of the sun" have basements. The homes reside on concrete slabs and are blown stucco on chicken wire over either simple wood frame or cinder block construction. As well they are built with gangs of Mexicans which pretty much throw the place up in a matter of weeks (for a 2000 sq ft place). As you might imagine the quality and cost of construction is much lower.

I couldn't stand living there and got out as soon as I could.

 

[Observer Walt]

Shmoopie: I don't think two people "need" a house of this size, but a lot of people"want" it. I don't think it's glib to say that this is one more aspect of our consumer society, which makes us want more, bigger, and better. Houses are no different.

Lifestyles in many areas are energy-wasteful as mentioned already, whether in Phoenix or in some parts of the 905 not too far outside Toronto. Some kind of a reckoning will come sooner or later, unless there is a really radical breakthrough in terms of new sources of energy.

 

[afransen TO]

My parents' place is something like 2300 sqft, five bedroom, three bath, living room, dining room (used as a rec room), large eat-in kitchen (essentially a second dining room--room for a table for up to 14).

It's more house than my parents really needed for four kids. They have big parties (40 - 50 guests--extended family) every so often and it's big enough for that).

So, I would say that for the the typical family with 2.2 kids, 2500+ sqft is massive overkill. I would agree that less than 2000 sqft for my family would have involved sharing bedrooms, which is probably best avoided for teens.

 

[spmarshall]

I grew up in a house about 2100 square feet in Brampton - four bedrooms, two and a half bath, big two-car garage, on a 50x100 lot (before they started to build 2200 square feet houses on 45, 40 and 38 foot wide lots). Of course it was wasteful, but there were four children in the house, so the bedrooms were needed. We were also fortunate that at least we could, and did, walk and take transit enough, being walking distance to a semi-regional mall with a bus terminal (that even had MT service), so it wasn't all evil.

 

[building babel]

A single person may have a library that requires an extra room, or a collection of art to display, or whatever. If you own an old house, the rooms don't have to be used for the purposes they were created for in 1910, when families were larger. Spaces can be adapted.

One person can inhabit a small, monastic cell of a space if it suits them. Or fill a much larger space with all kinds of stuff. Or live with very few possessions in a huge space. Whatever suits them.

I could very happily live alone in Noah and Rose Torno's luxurious but minimalist former residence on Bloor, for instance, with plenty of space between objects.

 

[Observer Walt]

Amen Babel; I'm sure most of us could happily live in that space! There is no doubt that different people have both differing needs and differing desires for space.

One of the effects of the current condo boom is that people are becoming oriented to the idea that they actually can live in less space, and might be able to trade off space for other benefits (lower cost of living, attractive location closer to urban amenities, etc.) I submit that we need more of this way of thinking, as energy costs and consumption continue to rise. It's becoming more and more of an open question as to whether we can sustain the present forms of living, with houses of 2500 sq. ft. or more (sometimes considerably more) on large lots spread out over the landscape.

 

[BuildTO]

Everything is relative. The minimal amount of space people think they "need" is affected by local constraints and habits, plus supply and demand. People here are willing to sacrifice space to live downtown. Through recessions and real estate crashes, our downtown has never lost its desirability. We will pay more for a small space in order to take advantage of all that downtown living offers, not the least of which is the ability to get around without a car.

People who move to Phoenix are not moving there because of a vibrant downtown core. They are moving because of the climate and the very fact that there are sprawling, wide open spaces which afford larger properties and houses. They may even view car dependency as a plus - especially in the US where public transit has a lower-income stigma.

Compare with Tokyo, where even the well off are willing to accept that if they stay downtown, they will never be homeowners. They are accustomed to smaller spaces than ours. They marvel at the amount of space we use for highway interchanges, which to them is completely wassteful. Maybe they even pity us for the fact that our transit system only has 2 (main) subway lines.

 

[yyzer]

There are plenty of 3000+ sq. ft. homes in the GTA, and plenty of buyers for them. The different types of housing reflect different sets of values. Your visitors from PHX would probably feel more at home in Mississauga or Richmond Hill, than in the urban downtown core.

I have seen houses in Mississauga that are so big, that they require 2 furnaces to heat them....an ensuite bathroom in /every/ bedroom...triple car garages, etc. - so much for 'urban' values.

Phoenix does have Sedona, Az. just a couple of hours north of it - one of the most beautiful places anywhere in the world.