Jay Windley wrote:
snip

I fail to see why they apply that toward square footage as opposed to good
design and fine workmanship.

Because the people they're trying to impress wouldn't know good design and fine
workmanship if it ran out from under the front porch and bit them on the leg.

In fairness, I have to point out this is not a new phenomenon. In an earlier
life I was on the board of directors of a museum which acquired a Queen Anne
mansion built in the 1870s for a leading merchant family in a small western
town. Once we got it on the museum grounds, we had to renovate the house.

Talk about an experience! Talk about shoddy workmanship where it wouldn't show!
I was particularly charmed by t he fact that the chimney was a structural member
helping to support the upper floors. There was stuff like that all through the
house.


How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Depends on what you're trying to do. My wife and I occasionally play the 'when
we win the lottery' game where we design our ideal house. The place is huge, but
almost all the space is libraries, workshops, sewing rooms and a kitchen the
size of Texas. The actual living space usually comes out between 1200-2000 sq.
ft.



Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

Does anyone here remember a Limeliters' song called "Charlie The Midnight
Marauder"? Based on an actual incident, so I'm told.

--RC



--Jay