OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
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
> 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
>> 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.
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
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 :-)
More information about the PLUG