Small may be the new big, but ...
With all the attention on smaller homes nowadays, you might think nobody wants a big place. Well, Mark Patzschke does. In today's Dream Home feature, he says he bought his 6,700-square-foot Fallston home because of its spaciousness.
You could fit six moderately sized condos in that sort of house. Heck, you could fit a condo on his "1,200-square-foot, multilevel deck."
This is the exact opposite, size-wise, as an earlier Dream Home that is six rooms in total.
Would you want a huge home if price wasn't an issue? I'd find it exhausting just to decorate, but I'm not the decorating sort.
Comments
I don't see a practical reason to have a house that large. I mean just to heat and cool it would be insane! I have better things to do with my money than to prove that I am a real "man" or success because my house is the biggest...I also think in the future, those homes are going to be tougher to unload, because people aren't having as many kids to even justify a home half the size of that. There is just no way to justify a home that large.
Posted by: Wallace | September 27, 2009 4:08 PM
That example in the paper this morning is both ostentatious and obnoxious. Acknowledging the existence of such in the course of other reporting is bad enough but to write a feature piece on it is just inexcusable.
400sf for core common features and mechanical equipment plus 200sf x 4.5people yields the very common and more than adequate 1300sf so common.
A bit more elbow room can be nice but isn't really needed... is it? Most of the not overly large families (a whole other issue) have manged quite well with a fair bit less.
Posted by: MrRational | September 27, 2009 8:14 PM
Why is it that hardly anyone I know who have--- and can afford these homes have no kids? Hmmm. OK, so all that the space is for entertaining, right? And the folks with larger families who could use the space can't afford them. I guess that's a no-brainer.
Posted by: lisa | September 28, 2009 2:47 AM
Why does 1 person and 2 small dogs need 6,700 square feet and 3 acres??
I agree, the home was obnoxiously large; a typical boring McMansion. But Mr. Rational, don't blame the reporter for writing the story. It's a weekly feature; anyone can submit their Dream Home, whether it's 1,000 square feet or 8,000. Our home was featured about a year ago and the reporter is a very nice lady.
Posted by: Kathy | September 28, 2009 10:27 AM
Kathy, I blame the assignment editor. The reporter is just working for a living. ;)
but I also take your point.
Posted by: MrRational | September 28, 2009 10:58 AM
In my humble opinion more than 3,000sf is overkill if your family is comprised four or less occupants. Most people get caught up in the race to “keep up with the Jones”. In other words, you motivated not by your needs buy by the implied status you have with friends who see you in a grand home or McMansion.
When you buy a larger house, most client of our do not realize or even take into consideration the cost involved in decorating, furnishing, landscaping or even the BGE bill.
Posted by: Baltimore Homes | September 28, 2009 8:50 PM