OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions

Bryan Sant bryan.sant at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 16:54:30 MDT 2008


On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Dave Smith <dave at thesmithfam.org> wrote:
>> Or buyers could self-regulate and not purchase a home with an
>> unattractive community landscape, and then complain about the fact
>> later.
>>
>
> If you're buying a new home today, you don't have a choice. This is partly

Sure you do.  You just don't have an affordable choice.  I could go
buy 10 acres right now and build a house on it.  Likewise, I could
subdivide that 10 acres and sell 10 houses on it...  But guess what, I
would quickly find that people aren't willing to pay for 1 acre lots.
So then I would divide the lots to 1/2 acre, sell a few, realize that
the profits (or lack there of) wasn't worth the effort, and the next
time I develop a subdivision, I'll be sure to sell 1/4 acre lots (or
smaller).  It's not rocket science, it's basic economics.

> because of developer choice, but mostly because pretty much every tree along
> the Wasatch front was planted by humans. As a result, the only mature trees
> in the state exist only in older neighborhoods. Daybreak is poised to change
> this since every house has at least two maple or sycamore trees in front
> (most lot sizes are still too small for my cup of 1/4 acre decaff though).

I don't care what Daybreak is doing.  Any community that has a shared
"common yard" for three houses might as well be a polygamy compound.
I know I've been arguing in defense of developers choosing small lots,
but honestly, that is just too bloody small for me.  I would gladly
spend more for my *own* private yard.  Daybreak is weird.

> You forgot: 11) Profit.

:-)  That's just it.  There is not "Profit" step.  All you end up with
is a greater surplus of unsold homes and increased unemployment for
builders/developers/realtors (through Realtors should always be out of
work regardless -- I'd be in favor of passing a law that would enforce
that!)

>> Why not just buy in a city or community that has current rules on the
>> books that meet your requirements without imposing those restrictions
>> on me or anyone else who wants an affordable house firstly and a big
>> lot secondly?
>>
>
> Because such a city does not exist in Utah for the reasons I outlined above.

Not true.

Lindon has a 1/2 acre minimum lot size
Pleasant Grove is the same
There is a gated community near the point of the mountain (can't
remember the name) that has a minimum lot size (I don't know the exact
size).
etc.

There are choices if you have the money.

> Bummer, eh? Check out North Carolina: Lots of inexpensive beautiful real
> estate. Try Charlottesville or the tri-city area (Red Hat is hiring in
> Raleigh, I believe).

I don't understand the inexpensive part.  I notice that too.  You sure
don't seem to get your money's worth for a home in Utah compared to
some other states (particularly the south east).  Too many people
moving here that pushes the price up -- supply vs. demand...  Oh well.

It's a good thing this thread is marked OT :-)

-Bryan



More information about the PLUG mailing list