Quantcast

Comments about ‘Shrinking the American dream house’

Return to article »

New trend fights against bigger is better mentality

Published: Monday, Nov. 28 2011 8:16 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Wow, what a novel concept!

BobP
Port Alice, B.C.

Great ideas.

I was broke at 60, went to teach unversity English in Korea for 8 years and managed to save 80,000 in 8 years.

I bought a strata title mobile home 35000 cash. I am 200 meters from the Marina, the tennis court is outside my rear door. My condo fees, including water and garbage are 200 bucks a month. No other debts at all. I live very well with a pension income of 2500. In the world of today that is the way to do it.

Size about 1200 square feet. No in the least ostenatious and not big.

Lowonoil
Clearfield, UT

The last five years of the housing crash have destroyed the concept that a house is an investment vehicle and that the more you pay, the more you will eventually profit. Now people see houses as things that must be heated, cooled, and maintained, and that have mortgage and tax bills that must be paid for decades on end. When viewed in this light smaller and less expensive is definitely better.

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

I've always thought my dream house was a smaller but luxuriously built home. I'll take a smaller home with stain-grade wood throughout rather than a larger home with lower quality materials...

Cat
Centerville, UT

There is a point where smaller isn't better. When we moved into our 1910 bungalow with 2300sqf it was fine for our 3 kid two adult family. Now with 6 kids and two adults it is way too small. We only have one room that can fit every one in at the same time and our dinning table is in it. There are many things that we would love to add on to this house. We would love a family room, a garage and at least one more bedroom. I know eventually, the kids will be gone but our house is so crampt that no one will want to come and visit and even two people would be crowded there.

BobP
Port Alice, B.C.

If it keeps the rain and snow out and the heat in it's good enough.

2300 sq. ft. is not small.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Apparently my house (just about 2300 sf) is a bungalow. Wow! Guess it's a good thing we stopped at 2 kids or we'd be in trouble.

justaguy
Out There in, WI

Years ago the first home I bought was in the Salt Lake Valley. It is also the only home I have ever had built. I was so frustrated that so many things that should have been options were standard features that did nothing more than drive the cost of the home up but really didn't add functionality. I was frustrated that there was no way I could have a home built that didn't include all that extra stuff I really didn't want. If things are changing that's a good thing.

Cat
Centerville, UT

My mistake. I should have proof read. It's 1300 not 2300. I'm actually assessed by the county at 1050 sqft. Since I did the math that's 165.5 to 131.5 sqft /person who lives at our house. Less if we get to count the dog who weighs about the same as an 8 year old.

luv2organize
Gainesville, VA

I like the quote "You don't need a lot of square footage to feel bigger. It's how you shape the space and how you connect views that makes a place feel bigger or smaller." I totally agree with this. When we minimize the stuff we acquire and get rid of things we don't need our homes can function even when small. You just need systems in place such and keep a tidy house to manage. My family of 6 lived in 1750 sq feet and although it was a bit small because of the way it was configured we were able to make it work until we were relocated.

LAL
South Jordan, UT

Maybe it's just me but I noticed that the 2nd picture in the series of images on this article the house shown went from a smallish bungalow to much increased sq. footage 2 story? Is this the best picture to use in a story about smaller space made bigger by usage and design? Looks to me like the homeowner in this case nearly doubled his sq. footage by the sizable addition added to the top of the home.

Michael De Groote

@LAL 7:33 a.m. Nov. 30, 2011
The second photo is an illustration for the print edition. The graphic designer was trying to show one aspect of the story, that homes have grown bigger over time. So the idea was to show a smaller typical home of the past next to a larger home of the present. It wasn't meant to imply a before/after remodeling photograph.

The overall theme of the article was homes have grown over time, but economic pressure (and other trends) are leading people to consider building smaller homes -- or in other cases, to remodel the home to reallocate space to the way we live today.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments