OT - Gas to hit 4.00
santiago at mr-r.net
Tue Jun 17 14:53:29 MDT 2008
On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Thus said "Jonathan Ellis" on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:11:30 MDT:
>>> I suspect most home buyers _like_ a big house on a small yard,
>>> it's cheaper than a big house on a big yard.
> Yes, I suppose some home buyers have *consciously* opted to
> sacrifice acreage in favor of a larger house. I just don't happen to
> know any. Whatever the case, you can't deny or discount the fact
> that it's in the developers' best money-making interest to pack as
> many houses on as little land as possible. Having witnessed the real
> estate boom in Northern Virignia from 2000 to 2003, and having
> watched developers buy up small plots in my own Murray back yard , I
> have seen huge 3,000 to 4,000 square feet homes
You and I obviously have a different definition of huge. :) I've
seen truly huge homes. One in Salt Lake was ~20,000 sq ft. Believe
me, 3000 square feet is not huge.
> erected with barely 6 feet between them.
That is the biggest factor for me. For the most part, it is about
proportion, not size. The size of the house should be proportional to
the size of the lot, and to a lesser extent, proportional to other
homes in the neighborhood.
You seem to have something against a 3000 square foot home. Why is
that, Dave? :)
More information about the PLUG