On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:36:12 -0500, 127.0.0.1 wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:48:07 GMT, Steve Stone
wrote:



It isn't what they need. It is what they want and how big of a mortgage they can get.
how do you presume to know what anyone but yourself needs?


I got my "What People Need" overseer badge right here..

Found it at the bottom of my Captain Crunch cereal box at breakfast.
you don't need captain crunch, 30 years ago there was only corn
flakes, rice krispies or cheerio and people survived!

Want to bet on that?

(Doug Miller) wrote in message gy.com...
In article , 127.0.0.1 wrote:

lifestyles change, it wasn't uncommon in the 50's and 60's to have
children share rooms, live in a house with only one bedroom, live in a
house without a "den"/entertainment room. People are more affluent now
and demand more from the home they live in. Maybe you want to remain
stuck in a decades old lifestyle but obviously many others don't.

Actually, if you go back farther than the 50s and 60s to around the
turn of the century, people in my town lived in gargantuan mansions.
Families were bigger and undoubtedly these mansions housed
grandparents and servants, and not just the immediate family. To say
the trend is for larger and larger houses is to only look at the last
50 years. Go back 100 years and the picture is more complicated.

I suppose people got tired of living with extended family underfoot,
and started moving out to the 'burbs in the 50s and 60s. Advances such
as washing machines made having servants less of a "need."

Today few people can afford to buy these piles (much less heat them
and pay for other maintenance costs) so they are being divided into
condos or in some cases torn down to make way for subdivisions -- yes,
large rambling single family houses but only a fraction of the size of
the century-old mansion they're replacing.

Another trend in our area is people downsizing and opting for condos.
Yes, these condos are quite luxurious and spacious, but much less
smaller than what the owners had before, and with no yard to maintain.

Many of these condo conversions include an in-law/au pair suite as a
major selling point. Which seems to indicate to me that there's a
trend back towards living with extended family underfoot, and housing
employees who help in the childcare. Still, these condos are only a
fraction of the size of those homes from the turn of the century.

It is true that the burbs around my neck of the woods contain two
types of housing stock: 1) existing houses from the 50s and 60s, which
lots of people buy and consider as "starter" homes; and 2) new
construction that is in the range of 2500-5000 square feet.

Around here $500K will get you either 1) new 2500+ square foot home on
an acre lot in the 'burbs, *or* 2) a 1500 square foot condo closer to
the city. There is a big difference in the size of the lot and space
within the house, and yet the price tag is the same. It boils down to
a matter of personal choice. I prefer the city and low yard
maintenance to a house in the burbs. We are a family of four and our
condo is just enough room for us. I suppose we could move out to a
1500 sq ft house in the 'burbs and have a smaller mortgage, but for us
it's not about a smaller mortgage - it's about living where we want to
be. You couldn't pay me to live in the burbs. (Heck, you couldn't pay
me to live in new construction ever again - has no character. I like a
sense of history).

jen

On 23 Mar 2004 08:40:41 -0800, shinypenny wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message gy.com...
In article , 127.0.0.1 wrote:

lifestyles change, it wasn't uncommon in the 50's and 60's to have
children share rooms, live in a house with only one bedroom, live in a
house without a "den"/entertainment room. People are more affluent now
and demand more from the home they live in. Maybe you want to remain
stuck in a decades old lifestyle but obviously many others don't.

Actually, if you go back farther than the 50s and 60s to around the
turn of the century, people in my town lived in gargantuan mansions.
Families were bigger and undoubtedly these mansions housed
grandparents and servants, and not just the immediate family. To say
the trend is for larger and larger houses is to only look at the last
50 years. Go back 100 years and the picture is more complicated.


Not quite that simple. The big, quality houses are still around
because, they were built well. The small crappy houses that the
vast majority of people lived in were bulldozed long ago.

It's rather like people thinking that "They made things better in
the good old days, because I still have Great Grandma's cherry
Armoire, and it's still in perfect condition." They forget that just
as much crap was made back then, if not more, but nobody bothered
keeping it, or it broke, long ago, and got tossed out.


I suppose people got tired of living with extended family underfoot,
and started moving out to the 'burbs in the 50s and 60s. Advances such
as washing machines made having servants less of a "need."


Well, yes, but that's only a small part of it. A century ago,
human labor was dirt cheap - so cheap that even a lower middle class
family would have live-in help. How many solidly middle class people
can afford to hire anyone for more than a few hours a week, now?

-Rich

Some good tips here, but I notice Weekley does not recommend an
inspection on a NEWLY BUILT house, only a resale...this is bad advice,
but not surprising, coming from a builder. And, he forgot to mention
the pitfalls of using a builder's lender, also not surprising. As for
researching the builder's reputation...Weekley is one of those listed
on consumer complaint sites, to name two, hadd.com and hobb.org. Far
more research needs to be done than i've ever seen anyone in the
housing related industries recommend...also not surprising.
Unfortunately there's no one, single source that has all the answers
and tips. A buyer still has to do a lot of research in multiple
places.

(D. Gerasimatos) wrote in message ...
In article ,
XOR wrote:

I am not sure you can convince me that all those single people or
young couples w/no kids *really need* a 3000+ sq ft house. That's the
going model for most new homes in this town. Around here, it seems
*most* people buy more house than they need.


This sounds specific to your town. Do not project it across the entire
USA. Nationwide, the average house is less than 3000 square feet.


Dimitri

Well, I didn't project it across the entire country, but it is not
specific only to one town. 3 of the 4 states I have lived in the past
10 years (in 4 different parts of the country) have this phenomenon.
Most places that are seeing a growth spurt are following this trend.

Buying an old, small house, I was recommended a book "Not so Big
House" about the new Urbanism and the anti-McMansions. The size of the
houses being touted as the anti-McMansions? 3000 SF. Obviously, that's
only one author, and one following, but it does reflect a general
trend in many suburban areas. Note that in urban areas it's a lot
different. In the suburbs (take your pic - LA, Atlanta, Chicago, South
Texas - you have House Farms full of McMansions), 3000 SF is pretty
much the norm. Unfortunately, this poses a number of problems:
destruction of landscape along with increased energy use to heat and
cool those huge things, not least of which because they're not built
with the climate in mind....

Locally, and I did state that clearly in the initial post, 3000SF is
pretty normal. On the larger side, but normal. The vast majority of
people I know who have bought such homes are either single, or couples
w/o kids. So, 3000 SF for 1-2 people (these same folks tend not to be
the type to have overnight guests like family stay either).

Steve Stone wrote in message . net...
I am not sure you can convince me that all those single people or
young couples w/no kids *really need* a 3000+ sq ft house. That's the
going model for most new homes in this town. Around here, it seems
*most* people buy more house than they need.



Where is here ?

Over in my area anything under 3,000 sq feet is considered an outhouse.


You'd like our 1000 SF house then . We could do with an extra 500
SF, especially when visitors come or little ones arrive, but it's
totally comfortable. Do have a large backyard which I love. It's 100
yrs old, though.

Here = So. Texas. Suburbs are sprawling. Very much like East Los
Angeles County or the Inland Empire 20 years ago. Lot size is not very
big - I think our lot, located walking distance to downtown, is the
same size as our friends' lot which has a 2800 SF house and is 30 min
drive away, but still part of the city limits. A few years ago that
was the country side. Now it's packed with traffic.

There are times I wouldn't mind 3000 SF - eg when family comes to
visit. But on a daily basis, it's certainly not a necessity. Cleaning
1000 SF is enough It's also nice to have very small gas/elec/water
bills.

Andy wrote:
Fact: 30 years ago the average new home was substantially smaller
than the average new home today.

Fact: The average number of people per household has declined during
that period.

I have a hunch that as the average size of home (interior square
footage) has gone up (if this is true), I certianly have seen a trend
for less and less exterior space that come with these homes. The outdoor
yard space has been shrinking. There is an increasing trend for homes in
Multi-unit complexes (townhomes, condo's). And even for new detatched
houses, it appears that the average is for less and less outdoor space
as the indoor space increase. It appears that americans or american
homebuilders (on average) are sacrificing outdoor space for the indoor
space.

I own and have read David Weekley's book. For a novice it gives solid
advice, however what he leaves out is that his company uses binding
arbitration if you have problems with your Weekley home. You cannot
sue builders with this clause, you cannot make the matter public, and
the arbitration companies (most in Texas) are owned by the builders.

What David Weekley didn't say is that he does not honor his
warranties, and he does not care about the consumer. I am a Weekley
homeowner, and was treated horribly by this firm when I found blatant
plumbing problems in my house. Weekley's firm would not help me.
Although the laws in Texas at the time were not as worthless as they
are now, I still could not get my builder to aid me, thus I had to
turn to my insurance company for aid that my builder should have given
us.

The house developed toxic mold and we abandoned on 4-12-01. I'm still
tied up in litigation, as I am the second owner of this house, thus
not tied to the binding arbitration agreement that the buyers signed.

This builder is the 2nd largest privately held builder in the US. He
built a subdivision in Celebration, FL that was approximately 700
homes, with 600 defective. This builder has been sued by the State of
Colorado for non-compliance and for not allowing CO inspectors on
sight to approve the homes or look for code violations.

I can go on and on however if you believe what he writes in his book
is what he practices then you're dumb as mud. This man looks good,
while he and his brother, Richard (Dick) fund Texans for Legal Reform.
Every consumer right we have is slowly being taken away as builders,
and product companies, lobbyists are paying off our legislators.

He is right in what he says to look for however it is very
hypocritical for a man such as he is to write what he does. I say
let's rename the book, "How to Buy a Home by Weekley and Get
Hammered."

Any builder that uses binding arbitration in their contracts should be
watched out for as they are hiding behind this law and ripping off the
consumer. Our homes are one of the single most expensive investment
today, yet our government will not regulate the building industry.

Have a complaint about a builder? Check out this org.: www.hadd.com.





Ablang wrote in message ...
[Ed. I wonder if some people disagree with #10, considering some are
waiting for prices to go down, yeah right, before actually buying one.]

10 biggest home-buying mistakes

By Pat Curry ? Bankrate.com


David Weekley, CEO of Houston-based David Weekley Homes, is one of the
country's largest home builders and also the author of a new book, How to
Buy a Home Without Getting Hammered.



Based on 25 years of home-building experience for 30,000 people, Weekley
offers these 10 biggest mistakes in home buying:

Not doing your homework. Knowledge is power. Tremendous information is
available on the Internet. There is no excuse for entering the market
unprepared.

Trying to make a shrewd investment. People need to buy based on what fits
their family. Don't try to guess what will happen to the market.

Choosing a poor location. Even within a neighborhood, location matters. Is
it on the busiest street? Is there a shopping center out the back window?

Overlooking an inferior floor plan for an attractive exterior. It may have
gorgeous curb appeal, but you don't live on the lawn. No matter how
attractive the exterior, you need a livable home.

Continued below


Overlooking how the house will function for your family. How do you really
live? Do you really need a formal dining room and living room? Would you be
happier with an eat-in kitchen and a great room and a den to use as a home
office? The house only needs to fit one family -- yours.

Not having the home properly inspected in a resale. This is not the time
for surprises. Get an inspection from a qualified, respected professional.


Ready to find a mortgage? Check rates in your area.


Not checking out the builder's reputation on a new home. Talk to three or
four people who live in the builder's homes and see what they have to say.
If one builder did all the houses in a neighborhood, talk to the residents
and get their input. It's also a great way to see what your neighbors would
be like.

Not getting what you want because you're impatient. This is a big decision.
You need time. Impatient decisions can lead to mistakes.

Waiting for a better market and interest rates. Warren Buffett says the
rear view mirror is always clearer than the windshield.

Not buying at all. If you can afford a home and you don't make that
purchase, you'll lose the benefit of tax deductions, building home equity
and the appreciation in value.

-- Posted: March 15, 2004

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/rea...0-mistakes.asp

"Andy" wrote in message
...
D. Gerasimatos wrote:

However, I doubt that very many people buy more house than they need.
Lots
of people buy more expensive cars then they need, but I insist that it
is a rare bird who could've gotten away with a much smaller dwelling but
who just decided to go ahead and splurge on a bigger one.

By the way, do you really *need* a garage? Lots of folks don't have one.
You must be one of those people out to impress the Joneses.

Dimitri

I guess you haven't been living in the United States anytime in the last
20 years. People routinely buy much bigger houses than they need here.
Its almost become standard practice in the US upper middle class.
How else can you explain why the average size of a new house has gone up
at least 20-30% in the last 20 years but family sizes are the same or
smaller?

That's like saying people buy more medical care than they need today,
because 20 years ago they bought less. Or like saying that today people
routinely buy more computer than they need, because a generation ago almost
no one had a computer of any description. The possibility exists that 20
years ago, people "routinely" bought less house than they needed, probably
because that was the best they could do.

"127.0.0.1" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:48:07 GMT, Steve Stone
wrote:



It isn't what they need. It is what they want and how big of a
mortgage they can get.
how do you presume to know what anyone but yourself needs?


I got my "What People Need" overseer badge right here..

Found it at the bottom of my Captain Crunch cereal box at breakfast.
you don't need captain crunch, 30 years ago there was only corn
flakes, rice krispies or cheerio and people survived!

You're forgetting my two all time favorites, frosted flakes and trix.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , Anthony Matonak
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , 127.0.0.1
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:17:56 -0700, Andy
wrote:


I guess you haven't been living in the United States anytime in the
last
20 years. People routinely buy much bigger houses than they need
here.
Its almost become standard practice in the US upper middle class.
How else can you explain why the average size of a new house has gone
up
at least 20-30% in the last 20 years but family sizes are the same or
smaller?

and when did you get appointed the arbiter of what people need?


Do you honestly think that anybody *needs* a 5,000 sq ft house?

Do you honestly think that anybody *needs* indoor plumbing or
electricity?

Much of the world's population manages to survive without them.

This reminds me of a college class umpty-ump years ago. The subject of the
day was poverty. The definition offered was being without the necessities
of life, like food, housing, medical care, education. At the time, this
struck me as kind of foolish - if you don't have the "necessities" of life,
aren't you by definition dead?

It took me quite a while to realize that, on average, people who don't have
what we'd consider adequate food, shelter, education, medical care, etc.
tend to die younger than people who do.

Much of the world's population may manage to live for a time without indoor
plumbing or electricity. But take a look at mortality tables for countries
where access to these things is rare and compare with tables for countries
where these things are the norm.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , 127.0.0.1 wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:40:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Much of the world's population manages to survive without them.

[electricity and indoor plumbing]

do you? would you? I don't think you would


No, and I do not want to. But the point is that many people can and do
survive
without them. They are *not* necessities.

So tell that to a citizen of Afghanistan or Angola, where the life
expectancy at birth is 35.5 and 33.4 years respectively, compared to places
like Australia, where it's 72.6 years, or San Marino at 73.4 years.

"Andy" wrote in message
om...
In article , 127.0.0.1
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:17:56 -0700, Andy
wrote:


I guess you haven't been living in the United States anytime in the
last
20 years. People routinely buy much bigger houses than they need
here.
Its almost become standard practice in the US upper middle class.
How else can you explain why the average size of a new house has gone
up
at least 20-30% in the last 20 years but family sizes are the same or
smaller?

and when did you get appointed the arbiter of what people need?

As a matter of fact, I have not been appointed the arbiter of what
people need. I only made the following logical analysis:

Fact: 30 years ago the average new home was substantially smaller
than the average new home today.

Fact: The average number of people per household has declined during
that period.

Assumption: People's square footage needs were met by the new houses
being produced by the free market 30 years ago.

Assumption: Human "needs" do not change over time; only preferences
change over time.

Conclusion: People are now buying houses bigger than they need.

That sounds like a justification, even though it's couched in terms that
make it sound like a logical argument.

As a member of a seven person family who grew up in a small (under 1,000
square feet) house, in my experience the first assumption is flat out
wrong - we had what the family could afford, not what we "needed".

The second assumption is open to debate as well - when you see some
mummified human from a few millennia back with bad teeth, it seems obvious
that they needed modern dentistry way back then. But it's doubtful they
thought so, such a thing hadn't even been conceptualized.

It's almost trite. People don't worry about a lot about personal safety if
they're starving or dying of thirst. Satisfy those needs and they start
worrying about safety. Get that under control, and they start looking for
love (as opposed to sex). Once they find love, they concentrate on esteem,
and next comes self-actualization, the desire to be all you can be.

That's a classic description of the motivators of behavior for healthy human
beings. It's not obvious that this ascending order of needs ever tops out.
Historical experience would indicate that, as a society makes it possible
for people to satisfy their needs at one level, a whole new level manifests
itself.

The direct tie-in of all this to average house size is, if anything,
somewhat obscure. But the idea that human needs don't change, at least in
an operational sense, with time is certainly not the self-evident
proposition you imply.

"Andy" wrote in message
...
127.0.0.1 wrote:
On 22 Mar 2004 15:07:54 -0800, (Andy)
wrote:

Assumption: Human "needs" do not change over time; only preferences
change over time.

Conclusion: People are now buying houses bigger than they need.

Andy

2+2=5

lifestyles change, it wasn't uncommon in the 50's and 60's to have
children share rooms, live in a house with only one bedroom, live in a
house without a "den"/entertainment room. People are more affluent now
and demand more from the home they live in. Maybe you want to remain
stuck in a decades old lifestyle but obviously many others don't. What
you should be stating is that people are buying home that would be too
large for YOU

I guess we define "need" differently. What you call a need, I call a
preference. To me a need is something that you die without. To you
something you want is a need.

I'd tend to define "need" the same way as you do, but...

You don't have to die right this minute. If you die 5 or 10 years earlier
than you would have had you had whatever the need is, you've died from not
having a need satisfied, even if you've lived to a ripe old age.

If you're not happy (well, maybe some people never learn how to be happy),
if you're miserable, and some "thing" or bunch of things would change that,
you're lacking something you need.

In article ,
Lou wrote:

This reminds me of a college class umpty-ump years ago. The subject of the
day was poverty. The definition offered was being without the necessities
of life, like food, housing, medical care, education. At the time, this
struck me as kind of foolish - if you don't have the "necessities" of life,
aren't you by definition dead?

It took me quite a while to realize that, on average, people who don't have
what we'd consider adequate food, shelter, education, medical care, etc.
tend to die younger than people who do.

Much of the world's population may manage to live for a time without indoor
plumbing or electricity. But take a look at mortality tables for countries
where access to these things is rare and compare with tables for countries
where these things are the norm.


Sure, and if you spend $100 million per citizen annually on health care then
people will have a REALLY long life expectancy. What's your point?


Dimitri

In article ,
XOR wrote:
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote in message ...
In article ,
XOR wrote:

I am not sure you can convince me that all those single people or
young couples w/no kids *really need* a 3000+ sq ft house. That's the
going model for most new homes in this town. Around here, it seems
*most* people buy more house than they need.


This sounds specific to your town. Do not project it across the entire
USA. Nationwide, the average house is less than 3000 square feet.

Well, I didn't project it across the entire country, but it is not
specific only to one town. 3 of the 4 states I have lived in the past
10 years (in 4 different parts of the country) have this phenomenon.


Three of the four states you lived in had average house sizes larger
than 3000 square feet? Are you sure about that? Which states are those?


Dimitri

going model for most new homes in this town. Around here, it seems
*most* people buy more house than they need.

and just how do you know it is more than they need?

One only needs what one can afford.

Another trend in our area is people downsizing and opting for condos.
Yes, these condos are quite luxurious and spacious, but much less
smaller than what the owners had before, and with no yard to maintain.

Depends where you live. Paris, London, Vancouver, not so. Each year
the
square footage of a condo/apartment gets smaller and the prises go up,
up,
up. The planet is getting full, more full in some areas than others.

Size isn't everything. Reason to buy a house for me and perhaps others
is
Can't hear the neighbour's television. Hot water is your choice of
temperature. Can't smell the neighbour's food cooking. Can't hear the
neighbours period. Whether the place is 450 sq. ft. or 10,000 sq. ft.,
costs
20,000 or a millions dollars, those are the key things to good living.

Lou wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
...

127.0.0.1 wrote:

lifestyles change, it wasn't uncommon in the 50's and 60's to have
children share rooms, live in a house with only one bedroom, live in a
house without a "den"/entertainment room. People are more affluent now
and demand more from the home they live in. Maybe you want to remain
stuck in a decades old lifestyle but obviously many others don't. What
you should be stating is that people are buying home that would be too
large for YOU

I guess we define "need" differently. What you call a need, I call a
preference. To me a need is something that you die without. To you
something you want is a need.

I'd tend to define "need" the same way as you do, but...

You don't have to die right this minute. If you die 5 or 10 years earlier
than you would have had you had whatever the need is, you've died from not
having a need satisfied, even if you've lived to a ripe old age.

If you're not happy (well, maybe some people never learn how to be happy),
if you're miserable, and some "thing" or bunch of things would change that,
you're lacking something you need.

I'd tend to agree with you that long term true unhappiness can lead to
early death, and so something that contributes to long term happiness
could be called a "need." There have been many studies showing that
people who lost a parent when they were young, or dropped out of high
school, or never married, tend to die a bit younger, on average, than
other people. When and if someone shows a substantial correlation
between longevity and size of home (after correcting for educational
level and income) I will cheerfully say that big homes are a need.

I have never seen any scientific evidence that the quality or size of
one's possessions is correlated with greater happiness (after correcting
for other factors like income). I am pretty sure being married and
having a good social network have been shown to be correlated with
higher level's of happiness.

Andy

be wrote:

I have a hunch that as the average size of home (interior square
footage) has gone up (if this is true), I certianly have seen a trend
for less and less exterior space that come with these homes. The outdoor
yard space has been shrinking. There is an increasing trend for homes in
Multi-unit complexes (townhomes, condo's). And even for new detatched
houses, it appears that the average is for less and less outdoor space
as the indoor space increase. It appears that americans or american
homebuilders (on average) are sacrificing outdoor space for the indoor
space.

That is definitely true in my area. It is very easy to find a 2500 sq
ft home where you can stand between the houses and touch two houses at
the same time. In other parts of the country I have been in 7,000 sq ft
homes built in the last 5 years whose yards are smaller than my 1,700 sq
ft home built in the 70s.

Fashions and preferences change. I am not sure what is behind the
trend towards bigger interiors and smaller yards, but it is definitely
happeing. You could theorize that with TV, computers, etc. people spend
more and more time indoors and less outdoors, but I haven't seen any
hard numbers on that.

Andy

Lou wrote:

Assumption: Human "needs" do not change over time; only preferences
change over time.

Conclusion: People are now buying houses bigger than they need.

That sounds like a justification, even though it's couched in terms that
make it sound like a logical argument.

As a member of a seven person family who grew up in a small (under 1,000
square feet) house, in my experience the first assumption is flat out
wrong - we had what the family could afford, not what we "needed".

The second assumption is open to debate as well - when you see some
mummified human from a few millennia back with bad teeth, it seems obvious
that they needed modern dentistry way back then. But it's doubtful they
thought so, such a thing hadn't even been conceptualized.

It's almost trite. People don't worry about a lot about personal safety if
they're starving or dying of thirst. Satisfy those needs and they start
worrying about safety. Get that under control, and they start looking for
love (as opposed to sex). Once they find love, they concentrate on esteem,
and next comes self-actualization, the desire to be all you can be.

That's a classic description of the motivators of behavior for healthy human
beings. It's not obvious that this ascending order of needs ever tops out.
Historical experience would indicate that, as a society makes it possible
for people to satisfy their needs at one level, a whole new level manifests
itself.

The direct tie-in of all this to average house size is, if anything,
somewhat obscure. But the idea that human needs don't change, at least in
an operational sense, with time is certainly not the self-evident
proposition you imply.

I guess it all depends on how you define needs. To me needs are things
that must be satisfied for physical survival and basic happiness. To
you "needs" are what it is that people find themselves desiring at
whatever stage they are at in life. Certainly human physical needs
haven't changed in the last 10,000 years. I think its debateable
whether the fundamental "needs" for basic happiness have truly changed
in that period. I have met plenty of people in other countries who
showed every sign of being truly content and happy despite having fewer
material comforts and conveniences than a family living below the
poverty line here in the US. If people with very little in the way of
material possessions can be happy, that, to me at least, shows that
there is no fundamental link between possessions and happiness once
someone has basic shelter and protection from the elements.

By the way, you are absolutely right about evolving desires. As soon a
human satisfies his current set of desires a new set tends to pop up and
off he goes pursuing them. Having observed this process in myself and
others, and having read other's observations about this dynamic, I
presently believe that this dynamic is simply a habitual behavior of
fixating on and craving whatever it is that we see but don't have.

Some scientists are studying this process and there is a growing body of
evidence indicating that after a certain point of material comfort and
job satisfaction fulfilling material and career desires/goals does not
lead to greater happiness. There may be a point of diminishing returns
after which fulfilling new desires has little or no payback in terms of
happiness.

Andy

be wrote in message ...
Andy wrote:
Fact: 30 years ago the average new home was substantially smaller
than the average new home today.

Fact: The average number of people per household has declined during
that period.

I have a hunch that as the average size of home (interior square
footage) has gone up (if this is true), I certianly have seen a trend
for less and less exterior space that come with these homes. The outdoor
yard space has been shrinking. There is an increasing trend for homes in
Multi-unit complexes (townhomes, condo's). And even for new detatched
houses, it appears that the average is for less and less outdoor space
as the indoor space increase. It appears that americans or american
homebuilders (on average) are sacrificing outdoor space for the indoor
space.

A good example: A few years ago my family sold my childhood home,
along with the two homes next to it. There are now at least *15*
homes. I am not sure of the exact SF, but they're at least 2000 SF
each. One of the original homes used to be a grand old place (built c.
1900), and it's now dwarfed by the others. The yards have about just
enough space for a swingset in the back, but barely. The front
wouldn't even hold a tree. Not unusual in a city, but this is in the
suburbs.

(D. Gerasimatos) wrote in message ...
In article ,
XOR wrote:
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote in message ...
In article ,
XOR wrote:

I am not sure you can convince me that all those single people or
young couples w/no kids *really need* a 3000+ sq ft house. That's the
going model for most new homes in this town. Around here, it seems
*most* people buy more house than they need.


This sounds specific to your town. Do not project it across the entire
USA. Nationwide, the average house is less than 3000 square feet.

Well, I didn't project it across the entire country, but it is not
specific only to one town. 3 of the 4 states I have lived in the past
10 years (in 4 different parts of the country) have this phenomenon.


Three of the four states you lived in had average house sizes larger
than 3000 square feet? Are you sure about that? Which states are those?


NEW construction. Not old.

occupant wrote in message ...
Another trend in our area is people downsizing and opting for condos.
Yes, these condos are quite luxurious and spacious, but much less
smaller than what the owners had before, and with no yard to maintain.

Depends where you live. Paris, London, Vancouver, not so. Each year
the
square footage of a condo/apartment gets smaller and the prises go up,
up,
up. The planet is getting full, more full in some areas than others.

Assuming there are 7 billion people in the world, and they are each
and every one of them six feet tall with a waist size of 48 inches, I
calcullate that the total bulk of humanity is around a third of a
cubic mile. Someone check my arithmetic, but the world is a
looonnnnggg way from being "full", though in some areas, a lot of
people are trying to stand on the same dime.

Andy wrote in message ...
Some scientists are studying this process and there is a growing body of
evidence indicating that after a certain point of material comfort and
job satisfaction fulfilling material and career desires/goals does not
lead to greater happiness. There may be a point of diminishing returns
after which fulfilling new desires has little or no payback in terms of
happiness.

Even if that turns out to be the case, that doesn't mean the need isn't there.

lpogoda wrote:

occupant wrote in message ...
Another trend in our area is people downsizing and opting for condos.
Yes, these condos are quite luxurious and spacious, but much less
smaller than what the owners had before, and with no yard to maintain.

Depends where you live. Paris, London, Vancouver, not so. Each year
the
square footage of a condo/apartment gets smaller and the prises go up,
up,
up. The planet is getting full, more full in some areas than others.

Assuming there are 7 billion people in the world, and they are each
and every one of them six feet tall with a waist size of 48 inches, I
calcullate that the total bulk of humanity is around a third of a
cubic mile. Someone check my arithmetic, but the world is a
looonnnnggg way from being "full", though in some areas, a lot of
people are trying to stand on the same dime.


Ah, if only the infrastructure needed to keep 7B people alive
would fit in a small space as well. Crop land, grazing land,
water treatment and sewage treatment facilities, the wall space
between persons since people won't live packed
like sardines in a can, it all adds up. True, the world isn't
"full" as you put it, and will collapse long before the overall
body density gets anywhere close to what you've postulated
above.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

In article ,
XOR wrote:

Three of the four states you lived in had average house sizes larger
than 3000 square feet? Are you sure about that? Which states are those?

NEW construction. Not old.


Which states?


Dimitri

In article et,
"Stasher" wrote:

My wife and I built 6,500 Sq. Ft. 10 years ago. We love the space. All rooms
are large and my wife has an old fashioned "parlor" that she loves.



What are your property taxes, utility bills, your maintenance costs,
your insurance? Who cleans the house and how often?

--
SteveO