Living paycheck to paycheck (article)

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, DawnM said:

So are you proposing that all size houses can all co-exist next to one another in all areas?   Or are you suggestion that there simply needs to be more affordable housing in all major areas somewhere?

I purchased my home in an area that I knew would be safe, and I want to live in an area that is safe for my kids.   There are areas I would not choose to live if I didn't have to.   I am not going to apologize for that.

I am proposing that if a neighborhood was determined to shut down building in their neighborhood and I was mayor I would assign their local park the designated homeless camping space, rather than a middle class neighborhood and I would NOTapologize for it. 😁

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, DawnM said:

So are you proposing that all size houses can all co-exist next to one another in all areas?   Or are you suggestion that there simply needs to be more affordable housing in all major areas somewhere?

I purchased my home in an area that I knew would be safe, and I want to live in an area that is safe for my kids.   There are areas I would not choose to live if I didn't have to.   I am not going to apologize for that.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about  people living in smaller homes.  A lot of neighborhoods with very big, nice houses also have a section with duplexes or town homes in one part of the development.  The neighborhoods are still very nice.  In my hometown “the rich neighborhood”, where people have basketball courts and bowling alleys in their houses, has a section of duplexes towards the front.   In parts of VA it’s required that new developments to have more affordable option in addition to the other bigger houses. That forces builders to build smaller homes in addition to just mega houses.  In my opinion that’s a good way to work towards fixing the shortage.  

[Frances]

11 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

My grandparents have been on the list for a place like this for over a year.  They are rental only and still cost a lot of money when you consider their house is paid for- only insurance and taxes to pay each year.  If they move, the rent for the senior living space could change at any time!  They are old- like 90- but if they had rented at one of these places at 75 or 80, they would be broke by now.  Their home is nice,  they built it new about 20 years ago with the idea that they could grow old there.  One day a family could move in and enjoy it, but for now I don't think there is anything wrong with them living there!  The idea that they need to move in order to make space for families is insulting- they are just as deserving of a nice house as anyone else!  

I hope you don’t think I’m implying your grandparents need to move just because it worked out well for my mom, they should certainly stay in their home as long as the like.

I will say that my mom saves on a lot more than homeowner’s insurance and property taxes by not owing a home though. All utilities are included in her apartment rent, she has no maintenance or repair costs, and she doesn’t have to find and pay someone to do yard work and shovel snow. Plus, there are numerous free and low cost social activities right at the complex, friends with cars to drive her places live right there, and it’s one block from the major medical center where she gets all of her care. So no traveling over snowy rural roads when she has appointments or wants to go places.
 

Probably the biggest benefit for her has been a drastic increase in the amount of exercise she gets. She routinely gets 10,000 steps per day with her walker now because she can walk indoors over the whole complex compared to worrying about and actually falling while walking outdoors on badly maintained sidewalks in all kinds of weather.

My mom primarily lives on SS and a small amount of savings. I keep mentioning this because while it might not be true in all parts of the country, there are affordable, nice retirement places out there. And actually, her place is 55+. Her best friend only stopped working two years ago, long after she moved into the complex. And one of the 90+ year old residents still owns and runs a business in town. I’m sure there are others who still work also.

Edited January 19 by Frances

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Sometimes it is zoning. Sometimes neighbors can get a project shut down even within zoning parameters. Sometimes it is low income. Sometimes people shut down projects that are just affordable housing not designated low income. I have been way more involved the past few years and it is eye opening. 

Of course, every locality is different but dang it is bad where I live. 

 

I agree we absolutely need more affordable housing options, but I don't think people should be allowed to build willy nilly. Infrastructure (or lack thereof) really, really needs to be taken into consideration. I get tired of the people in my area griping about all the new housing developments going up, but on the infrastructure front they do have valid arguments, IMO. There have to be workable plans for our schools, roads, and fire/LEO/EMS services to keep up with a growing population. Right now schools and the basic public safety services are in pretty dire shape here. The existing schools are bursting at the seams, response times for fire/EMS/LEO are significantly longer than they should be, and the county can't hire enough people to fill existing vacant positions. There are fewer and fewer large(ish) tracts of vacant land, and it's expensive. Where are the schools going to be built to accommodate more students?

I don't know the answers to all that, or how to go about planning to meet the needs of more/most people best, but I do know that careful planning is required, and that some areas are dropping the ball on that.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

5 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I agree we absolutely need more affordable housing options, but I don't think people should be allowed to build willy nilly. Infrastructure (or lack thereof) really, really needs to be taken into consideration. I get tired of the people in my area griping about all the new housing developments going up, but on the infrastructure front they do have valid arguments, IMO. There have to be workable plans for our schools, roads, and fire/LEO/EMS services to keep up with a growing population. Right now schools and the basic public safety services are in pretty dire shape here. The existing schools are bursting at the seams, response times for fire/EMS/LEO are significantly longer than they should be, and the county can't hire enough people to fill existing vacant positions. There are fewer and fewer large(ish) tracts of vacant land, and it's expensive. Where are the schools going to be built to accommodate more students?

I don't know the answers to all that, or how to go about planning to meet the needs of more/most people best, but I do know that careful planning is required, and that some areas are dropping the ball on that.

And overall, the people moving in are not the people taking teaching, fire/LEO/ems jobs.

nearby to my house, a farmer retired and sold hundreds of acres.  Some of that has been sold to developers and they’ve built very nice homes that are far beyond my ability to pay but have done well in attracting people who can afford them.  But the people who can afford them and are moving in are most definitely not working public service jobs.

[Bootsie]

33 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

There is nothing inherently unsafe about  people living in smaller homes.  A lot of neighborhoods with very big, nice houses also have a section with duplexes or town homes in one part of the development.  The neighborhoods are still very nice.  In my hometown “the rich neighborhood”, where people have basketball courts and bowling alleys in their houses, has a section of duplexes towards the front.   In parts of VA it’s required that new developments to have more affordable option in addition to the other bigger houses. That forces builders to build smaller homes in addition to just mega houses.  In my opinion that’s a good way to work towards fixing the shortage.  

In my area, condos and townhomes are generally not lower cost/more affordable options.  DH and I have looked into condos and duplexes and have found that their cost/sq foot is higher than a single-family home.  In addition, they are often associated with high fees--security, landscaping, property management, etc.  

[frogger]

24 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I agree we absolutely need more affordable housing options, but I don't think people should be allowed to build willy nilly. Infrastructure (or lack thereof) really, really needs to be taken into consideration. I get tired of the people in my area griping about all the new housing developments going up, but on the infrastructure front they do have valid arguments, IMO. There have to be workable plans for our schools, roads, and fire/LEO/EMS services to keep up with a growing population. Right now schools and the basic public safety services are in pretty dire shape here. The existing schools are bursting at the seams, response times for fire/EMS/LEO are significantly longer than they should be, and the county can't hire enough people to fill existing vacant positions. There are fewer and fewer large(ish) tracts of vacant land, and it's expensive. Where are the schools going to be built to accommodate more students?

I don't know the answers to all that, or how to go about planning to meet the needs of more/most people best, but I do know that careful planning is required, and that some areas are dropping the ball on that.

Which generally have to be met by the time you get to the community comments who scream "neighborhood character". They (like Dawn it appears) believe that anyone who doesn't make big money are criminals and shouldn't be allowed into their "safe" neighborhood. 

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, frogger said:

Which generally have to be met by the time you get to the community comments who scream "neighborhood character". They (like Dawn it appears) believe that anyone who doesn't make big money are criminals and shouldn't be allowed into their "safe" neighborhood. 

NIMBYism is a real barrier, but talking about it will just get me accused of disregarding old people.   It’s easier to just complain about kids these days.  If they just made more sacrifices they could pull housing out of their bootstraps.  

Edited January 18 by Heartstrings

[frogger]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In my area, condos and townhomes are generally not lower cost/more affordable options.  DH and I have looked into condos and duplexes and have found that their cost/sq foot is higher than a single-family home.  In addition, they are often associated with high fees--security, landscaping, property management, etc.  

Yes, for all the complaints about younger people wanting giant homes and the homes are bigger now days etc.  The truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes but they often aren't allowed. Demand is high while supply is restricted by local government and people who don't actually own the property which drives up prices.

 

  Also, you have to include all maintenance of a single family home and difference in utilities. Plus, car centric large suburbs use way more tax dollars. Utilities are spread out, there is more road per person to plow. Snow removal has been a huge problem in our city the last couple years And people expect the city to plow the road to their mansion on the hillside faster than the sidewalks downtown which many many more people use.

 

[Pawz4me]

7 minutes ago, frogger said:

Which generally have to be met by the time you get to the community comments who scream "neighborhood character". They (like Dawn it appears) believe that anyone who doesn't make big money are criminals and shouldn't be allowed into their "safe" neighborhood. 

I'm not sure I'm following you?

In my area the development is happening and has been for awhile. The infrastructure planning isn't happening, or where it is (mainly road improvement plans) it's moving slower than a snail's pace. And that (IMO) is a valid complaint being made by the people who rant and rave about the "neighborhood character."

[Pawz4me]

7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

NIMBYism is a real barrier, but talking about it will just get me accused of disregarding old people.   It’s easier to just complain about kids these days.  If they just made more sacrifices they can pull housing out of their bootstraps.  

In my area it's the younger, newer people who are the ones doing the complaining! It's not lifelong residents my age (61) or older, it's the younger people who moved here in the last 5-10 years. They moved here because they wanted the lifestyle (and less expensive property taxes and better/safer school system for their kids than in the nearby city) but by golly now they don't want others to have that opportunity. So they say the families who've owned farms here for a century or more and have now decided to retire and sell to a big developer are greedy.

Edited January 18 by Pawz4me

[frogger]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm not sure I'm following you?

In my area the development is happening and has been for awhile. The infrastructure planning isn't happening, or where it is (mainly road improvement plans) it's moving slower than a snail's pace. And that (IMO) is a valid complaint being made by the people who rant and rave about the "neighborhood character."

If your local government really doesn't have code requirements and required plans for that, it is an interesting government to say the least but I don't live there so I can't say. I find it more probably that the people just don't like the plan but unless I was looking at the plan I couldn't tell you.  Local governments can function very differently from each other. 

[frogger]

4 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm not sure I'm following you?

In my area the development is happening and has been for awhile. The infrastructure planning isn't happening, or where it is (mainly road improvement plans) it's moving slower than a snail's pace. And that (IMO) is a valid complaint being made by the people who rant and rave about the "neighborhood character."

Are you actually looking at planning and in the discussions or is all this internet complaints and rumors?

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

Are you actually looking at planning and in the discussions or is all this internet complaints and rumors?

I read the minutes of all local planning and zoning committees (both our little town and the county) and DH and I periodically attend public information meetings. So it's official stuff. The complaints I hear are IRL and on FB. I have close family members who are first responders, so I also get their take on that end of things.

Edited January 18 by Pawz4me

[Catwoman]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

That's a great option for some older folks, and I'm very glad it exists.

But for many older folks, there is an emotional attachment to their home.  The hard work they put into it, the many memories, and even "stuff" that won't all fit into a senior apartment. It seems a lot of people are ignorant of that emotion, and it bothers me on multiple levels.

To add insult to injury, apparently the time to move is more or less the day after they finally pay off their mortgage.  Like that's nothing.  The writers of those articles must have never paid off a 30-year mortgage.

I suspect that many of those writers have never even seen their 30th birthday yet. 😉 

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

If your local government really doesn't have code requirements and required plans for that, it is an interesting government to say the least but I don't live there so I can't say. I find it more probably that the people just don't like the plan but unless I was looking at the plan I couldn't tell you.  Local governments can function very differently from each other. 

My hometown tends to be like that, they kind of just build things then try to fix things that got broken.  It’s annoying. New blood has been trying to get them to consider that on the front end.  

[Catwoman]

22 minutes ago, frogger said:

Which generally have to be met by the time you get to the community comments who scream "neighborhood character". They (like Dawn it appears) believe that anyone who doesn't make big money are criminals and shouldn't be allowed into their "safe" neighborhood. 

I think you are completely misinterpreting Dawn's post. 

[Catwoman]

16 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

NIMBYism is a real barrier, but talking about it will just get me accused of disregarding old people.   It’s easier to just complain about kids these days.  If they just made more sacrifices they could pull housing out of their bootstraps.  

Why do you have to complain about either group? 

I'm seeing so many ridiculous generalizations on this thread. 

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

In my area it's the younger, newer people who are the ones doing the complaining! It's not lifelong residents my age (61) or older, it's the younger people who moved here in the last 5-10 years. They moved here because they wanted the lifestyle (and less expensive property taxes and better/safer school system for their kids than in the nearby city) but by golly now they don't want others to have that opportunity. So they say the families who've owned farms here for a century or more and have now decided to retire and sell to a big developer are greedy.

I think we have a wide range of localities represented here and housing is undoubtly a local issue with a lot of variation. 

[frogger]

1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

Why do you have to complain about either group? 

I'm seeing so many ridiculous generalizations on this thread. 

She isn't saying you should complain about either group but she is saying if you push back against NIMBYs that is what you will be accused of. 

[Bootsie]

13 minutes ago, frogger said:

Yes, for all the complaints about younger people wanting giant homes and the homes are bigger now days etc.  The truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes but they often aren't allowed. Demand is high while supply is restricted by local government and people who don't actually own the property which drives up prices.

 

  Also, you have to include all maintenance of a single family home and difference in utilities. Plus, car centric large suburbs use way more tax dollars. Utilities are spread out, there is more road per person to plow. Snow removal has been a huge problem in our city the last couple years And people expect the city to plow the road to their mansion on the hillside faster than the sidewalks downtown which many many more people use.

 

What is the evidence that the truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes?  Real estate markets are highly location-centric, but I am not aware of people in my area wanting smaller homes.  I cannot remember a time of hearing someone (either younger people or older people) saying that they are looking for a smaller home and cannot find one.  

[frogger]

Just now, Bootsie said:

What is the evidence that the truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes?  Real estate markets are highly location-centric, but I am not aware of people in my area wanting smaller homes.  I cannot remember a time of hearing someone (either younger people or older people) saying that they are looking for a smaller home and cannot find one.  

Yes, housing is local but you xan tell by

 

Prices.

Lack of vacancy. 

Small homes and condos are more per square foot and sell faster. Large homes have a softer market where I live. 

[Heartstrings]

Just now, Catwoman said:

Why do you have to complain about either group? 

I'm seeing so many ridiculous generalizations on this thread. 

I honestly haven’t seen anyone complain about older people.  Merely observing that people are staying in homes longer is 1 factor in the shortage, homes used to come available more quickly because people didn’t live as long.  That’s been interpreted as wanting to kick them out of their homes, not just one reason if many that we need to build more housing.  People aren’t able to be rational about this, it’s apparently too close to emotional triggers.  

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What is the evidence that the truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes?  Real estate markets are highly location-centric, but I am not aware of people in my area wanting smaller homes.  I cannot remember a time of hearing someone (either younger people or older people) saying that they are looking for a smaller home and cannot find one.  

Ooh, ooh, me!   I have!  Many times in my friend group we’ve observed that we’d prefer a cheaper house but all that’s available is larger, more expensive homes. 

[Bootsie]

Just now, frogger said:

Yes, housing is local but you xan tell by

 

Prices.

Lack of vacancy. 

Small homes and condos are more per square foot and sell faster. Large homes have a softer market where I live. 

Where I am condos, duplexes, and townhouses will sit on the market forever.  One of the reasons that I would be very hesitant to buy one is that the resell is a nightmare.  It depends upon how "smaller home" is measured, but some of the smaller--two bedroom one bath houses with no dishwasher, microwave, etc. sell quickly as teardowns, not because people are wanting to live in them.  Two bedroom houses that are too nice to teardown sell very slowly here.  

[Catwoman]

Just now, frogger said:

She isn't saying you should complain about either group but she is saying if you push back against NIMBYs that is what you will be accused of. 

Yes, but it seems like the accusations go both ways with equal lack of compassion for the "other side." 

The accusations are ridiculous because you can't really generalize on issues like this. Different parts of the country -- and even different parts of individual states -- vary so much in terms of things like available land, infrastructure issues, etc.

Also, a lot of new development adds a tremendous tax burden which may strongly affect the current residents of an area, and it's hard to blame longtime residents of a community for being upset when their property taxes double within not very many years. Sure, their home values may have increased as well, but that's not an immediate benefit to someone who plans to age in place, so it's understandable that they may not be in favor of dramatic growth.

[Pawz4me]

9 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I'm seeing so many ridiculous generalizations on this thread. 

There have been lots of generalizations, and I hate it, and I've engaged in a little of it myself. Of course in my area it's not *only* younger people who are complaining and wanting to keep more developing out, and not *all* older people are welcoming of new development. But overall I do hear more younger people complaining than I do older people. But of course my experience may or may not be an accurate indicator, it's only the perception of one person.

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Ooh, ooh, me!   I have!  Many times in my friend group we’ve observed that we’d prefer a cheaper house but all that’s available is larger, more expensive homes. 

I am curious as to what size of smaller houses people would want to buy in your area, if they were available: about how many sq feet?  how many bedrooms?  baths?  And, how much does that vary from what is available?  In other words, are most of the houses in your area 3000 sq ft and people want 2000 sq ft?  Or, are most of the houses 2000 sq ft and people want 1500 sq ft, etc.?  

I have also found that it is difficult even to talk about sq feet size in different parts of the US.  I live in an area where sq footage looks high, but when people from other parts of the country move here and say "but where is the basement?" they are used to significantly more space from unfinished basement which doesn't count in the sq footage, but we don't have basements here. 

[frogger]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

I honestly haven’t seen anyone complain about older people.  Merely observing that people are staying in homes longer is 1 factor in the shortage, homes used to come available more quickly because people didn’t live as long.  That’s been interpreted as wanting to kick them out of their homes, not just one reason if many that we need to build more housing.  People aren’t able to be rational about this, it’s apparently too close to emotional triggers.  

I have. But it isn't meant to be a generalization or I would be complaining about myself. 🤣 There is a tendency to not want to change. I have heard the phrase "Eagle River has too many homes now, let them move farther out."  I go to these meetings and I do get frustrated. They want to freeze my town in place. Why freeze it now. If we froze land use 50 years ago then the people who are complaining now wouldn't be here. A frozen town is a dead town. I want to stay in my hometown long term but I also don't want all my children to have to move out and I want to leave the labor jobs to them. 😂 We need each other and I see so many narrow views of the world that want to only benefit themselves.

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am curious as to what size of smaller houses people would want to buy in your area, if they were available: about how many sq feet?  how many bedrooms?  baths?  And, how much does that vary from what is available?  In other words, are most of the houses in your area 3000 sq ft and people want 2000 sq ft?  Or, are most of the houses 2000 sq ft and people want 1500 sq ft, etc.?  

I have also found that it is difficult even to talk about sq feet size in different parts of the US.  I live in an area where sq footage looks high, but when people from other parts of the country move here and say "but where is the basement?" they are used to significantly more space from unfinished basement which doesn't count in the sq footage, but we don't have basements here. 

Good question.

I will say that in my location people are preferring smaller less expensive places over time.   I would say our birth rate as a nation is sinking. Locally it is sinking dramatically.  There are way more single people or DINKs and fewer large families. Many people feel they can't afford homes that will fit children plus daycare.  Utilities are also more expensive here (Alaska) and shared walls save on heating expenses. 

My 1100 sq foot home was snatched up within days on the market in 2012. It went for way more per square foot then larger homes because the overall expense was still cheaper. I don't have a chart in front of me but I would say <1500 tends to go for more per square foot. 

It isn't that they might not personally like a larger home if all costs were equal but that isn't how the world works. 

Edited January 18 by frogger

[SHP]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I haven't seen statistics on variation in size, but the average size was definitely smaller 100 years ago.  Even in 1970, only 49% of the houses in the US had 3 or more bedrooms.  The median  sq footage of a house built before 1960 is only about 1500 (as it stands today after any expansion).  There may have been a high standard deviation because of a few very large houses, but the majority of the houses in the US were small two-bedroom houses

I was addressing her broad sweeping statement that all 100 year old houses were small, they very much were not. I worked very hard to make the class distinction when talking about the house sizes. If there are more working class than middle class then it stands to reason that their would be more working class houses. To say that ALL houses were small is inaccurate. 

 

To say that working class people could afford a Sears Crafton (I believe that is what that style was) is accurate. To say that middle class could afford the very popular American Four Square house is also accurate. They are not mutually eexclusive.that is what I brought up the class.

The American Four Square is the type of house we have. This was a standard middle class house. Many are massive compared to the houses that the middle class in the 50's-60's. And the smaller houses popular in the 50's and 60's does not negate that in the Era SKL mentioned the same class built larger houses.

 

There is so much more to the housing shift just from 1920 to 1960. It involved racism and politics. It is not possible to discuss those policies without either pretending that it is only a historical event with no ongoing impact or delving into topics that are still very political and would risk violating the board rules.

 

[scholastica]

26 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I honestly haven’t seen anyone complain about older people.  Merely observing that people are staying in homes longer is 1 factor in the shortage, homes used to come available more quickly because people didn’t live as long.  That’s been interpreted as wanting to kick them out of their homes, not just one reason if many that we need to build more housing.  People aren’t able to be rational about this, it’s apparently too close to emotional triggers.  

I don’t think anyone was saying that observing the fact that older Americans are staying in their homes is a problem. The headline of the article linked early literally said “Boomers Won’t Part with Their Homes…”. There is an implication in that construction that they should part with their homes because other people are entitled to them now that the Boomers kids are grown. The article itself wasn’t really strong on that point. It’s a terrible headline, though. 

[frogger]

28 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Where I am condos, duplexes, and townhouses will sit on the market forever.  One of the reasons that I would be very hesitant to buy one is that the resell is a nightmare.  It depends upon how "smaller home" is measured, but some of the smaller--two bedroom one bath houses with no dishwasher, microwave, etc. sell quickly as teardowns, not because people are wanting to live in them.  Two bedroom houses that are too nice to teardown sell very slowly here.  

I kind of want to ask where you live but I don't want you to have to say.

Was it like a tourist town that is dying or something? Especially with the air b&b craze it seems strange that resell on a condo would be that hard unless the money were mismanaged or there was maintenance backlog. 

It does seem odd to me that they wouldn't just lower the price. If it is more expensive to buy and own a condo like you stated earlier and they aren't selling why aren't they lowering the price? I mean maybe they are clueless about supply and demand but still everyone knows a deal. 

Edited January 18 by frogger

[KungFuPanda]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

So are you proposing that all size houses can all co-exist next to one another in all areas?   Or are you suggestion that there simply needs to be more affordable housing in all major areas somewhere?

I purchased my home in an area that I knew would be safe, and I want to live in an area that is safe for my kids.   There are areas I would not choose to live if I didn't have to.   I am not going to apologize for that.

I live in a city that purposely built different sized homes in the same neighborhood. There are apartments, townhomes, condos, very small houses, medium houses, and large houses all within walking distance to the same high school.  Even on the same block you can see different sizes and types of houses.  It was planned this way. The vision was that the janitor, teacher, and executive could live and work in the same community. It’s often voted “safest city” or getting green city rewards. It can work, but it takes some intentional city planning and governance. We’ve been walking around at night for over twenty years without ever feeling unsafe.  This city is over 50 now and still growing and thriving. It’s probably doubled in size since we moved here, but since it has planned green spaces my neighborhood doesn’t feel crowded. It’s built to feel more smaller-town than it really is. 
 

 

Edited January 18 by KungFuPanda

[Heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, scholastica said:

I don’t think anyone was saying that observing the fact that older Americans are staying in their homes is a problem. The headline of the article linked early literally said “Boomers Won’t Part with Their Homes…”. There is an implication in that construction that they should part with their homes because other people are entitled to them now that the Boomers kids are grown. The article itself wasn’t really strong on that point. It’s a terrible headline, though. 

I would expect people on this board to not be so stirred by overly dramatic headlines and to be able to focus on the substance, if there is any.  Don’t we often talk about needing be smart consumers of media? 

[DawnM]

6 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I live in a city that purposely built different sized homes in the same neighborhood. There are apartments, townhomes, condos, very small houses, medium houses, and large houses all within walking distance to the same high school.  Even on the same block you can see different sizes and types of houses.  It was planned this way. The vision was that the janitor, teacher, and executive could live and work in the same community. It’s often voted “safest city” or getting green city rewards. It can work, but it takes some intentional city planning and governance. We’ve been walking around at night for over twenty years without ever feeling unsafe.  This city is over 50 now and still growing and thriving. It’s probably doubled in size since we moved here, but since it has planned green spaces my neighborhood doesn’t feel crowded. It’s built to feel more smaller-town than it really is. 
 

 

We have places like that too but they are still out of financial reach of many.   Are yours vastly different in price?   Ours range from $400k for a townhouse to $900k+ for a house.

The only way to get a $300k or lower house is to go to the areas of town that aren't so nice.

 

[Heartstrings]

41 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am curious as to what size of smaller houses people would want to buy in your area, if they were available: about how many sq feet?  how many bedrooms?  baths?  And, how much does that vary from what is available?  In other words, are most of the houses in your area 3000 sq ft and people want 2000 sq ft?  Or, are most of the houses 2000 sq ft and people want 1500 sq ft, etc.?  

I have also found that it is difficult even to talk about sq feet size in different parts of the US.  I live in an area where sq footage looks high, but when people from other parts of the country move here and say "but where is the basement?" they are used to significantly more space from unfinished basement which doesn't count in the sq footage, but we don't have basements here. 

The houses in the middle are missing.  It’s either a 2 bed house under 1000 sq ft or it’s 2500 square ft for $300k.   2 bedrooms isn’t enough with 3 kids but a 1500-1800 home isn’t available.   They are gone the day they come to market.   
 

( I know someone’s grandparents raised 72 kids in a 1 bedroom house and it was amazing and that my wanting 3 bedrooms makes me terribly wasteful but it is what it is.) 

[DawnM]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

The houses in the middle are missing.  It’s either a 2 bed house under 1000 sq ft or it’s 2500 square ft for $300k.   2 bedrooms isn’t enough with 3 kids but a 1500-1800 home isn’t available.   They are gone the day they come to market.   
 

( I know someone’s grandparents raised 72 kids in a 1 bedroom house and it was amazing and that my wanting 3 bedrooms makes me terribly wasteful but it is what it is.) 

Then I am worse than terribly wasteful!    Our first house in NC had 4 bedrooms, our 2nd (the last house we were in) had 5 bedrooms plus a 2nd office that we used as a bedroom, AND a game room/extra bonus room that we renovated into an apartment/bedroom for my dad.   So, essentially 7 bedrooms.   

Our current house as 4 bedrooms, which is not quite enough, so my oldest lives in a trailer out back.   But that was our end goal anyway.

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

2 minutes ago, DawnM said:

We have places like that too but they are still out of financial reach of many.   Are yours vastly different in price?   Ours range from $400k for a townhouse to $900k+ for a house.

The only way to get a $300k or lower house is to go to the areas of town that aren't so nice.

 

That is the trouble today.  Prices have climbed up and up. You might find a 1 bedroom 1 bath condo for less than 300k, but I’m not positive about that. Because of our growth, location, and job market prices have never really dropped. Even during the last couple recessions they just increased at a slower pace. 
 

I’m trying to do my part, but my daughter and her husband refuse to move in with us! I’d love to have that baby in this house. She just paid for a full week of daycare that will likely contain 3 snow days, so I’m hoping that will wear her down. 😬

[DawnM]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Which generally have to be met by the time you get to the community comments who scream "neighborhood character". They (like Dawn it appears) believe that anyone who doesn't make big money are criminals and shouldn't be allowed into their "safe" neighborhood. 

How incredibly insulting to me.   You go ahead and think whatever you want about me, but you don't need to post it.   

I am not even going to defend myself to you, it isn't worth it.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

What is the evidence that the truth is there is higher demand for smaller homes?  Real estate markets are highly location-centric, but I am not aware of people in my area wanting smaller homes.  I cannot remember a time of hearing someone (either younger people or older people) saying that they are looking for a smaller home and cannot find one.  

Where I am, people very much want less expensive homes, because they can't afford what's available. Less expensive usually means smaller.

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

Yes, but it seems like the accusations go both ways with equal lack of compassion for the "other side."

Equal "both sides"-ism doesn't make a lot of sense to me when it comes to the needs of one side to have a place to live and the wants of the other side to have multiple homes without sharing neighborhoods with low cost housing. I hear it a lot here--no one wants apartments nearby, no one wants affordable housing developments. I get some of the reasons, but when I also know people who literally can't afford to live anywhere anymore, it's the people who are trying to figure out how not to be homeless that seem rightfully deserving of the extra compassion on this issue.

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Then I am worse than terribly wasteful!    Our first house in NC had 4 bedrooms, our 2nd (the last house we were in) had 5 bedrooms plus a 2nd office that we used as a bedroom, AND a game room/extra bonus room that we renovated into an apartment/bedroom for my dad.   So, essentially 7 bedrooms.   

Our current house as 4 bedrooms, which is not quite enough, so my oldest lives in a trailer out back.   But that was our end goal anyway.

 

 

4 beds seems like a unicorn.  I currently have 6 because it was either 3 or 6.  I only wanted 4!  I love having 6 but we were initially looking for a smaller 4 bedroom.  I was thinking 1800-2000 and got 2500 but spent about $75k more than I wanted.  It was well within our comfort zone so I’m glad we did it now.  

[QueenCat]

25 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I live in a city that purposely built different sized homes in the same neighborhood. There are apartments, townhomes, condos, very small houses, medium houses, and large houses all within walking distance to the same high school.  Even on the same block you can see different sizes and types of houses.  It was planned this way. The vision was that the janitor, teacher, and executive could live and work in the same community. It’s often voted “safest city” or getting green city rewards. It can work, but it takes some intentional city planning and governance. We’ve been walking around at night for over twenty years without ever feeling unsafe.  This city is over 50 now and still growing and thriving. It’s probably doubled in size since we moved here, but since it has planned green spaces my neighborhood doesn’t feel crowded. It’s built to feel more smaller-town than it really is. 
 

Yes! It was a small town when my parents moved us there in1969. People moved there to raise their children in an economically, racially, and religiously diverse city. I was clueless that it wasn't normal until I went to college in Southern Maryland. Although, I did take a bus to high school 😉. 

The interfaith centers were incredible for supporting religious diversity. I hope they are still that way. 

I wish I could have raised my children somewhere like Columbia.

[DawnM]

19 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

4 beds seems like a unicorn.  I currently have 6 because it was either 3 or 6.  I only wanted 4!  I love having 6 but we were initially looking for a smaller 4 bedroom.  I was thinking 1800-2000 and got 2500 but spent about $75k more than I wanted.  It was well within our comfort zone so I’m glad we did it now.  

Really?   Wow.  We wanted 5 as we have 4 kids, but we bought on a septic system and only 4 bedrooms are allowed.

We have talked about adding on, but the cost was outrageous so we are opting to not do that, however, we may end up with a detached garage that my son and DH can build an apt above.   we will see.

And just to clarify, our added spaces would be considered "offices" or something like that to avoid the extra bedrooms we can't have.....

Edited January 18 by DawnM

[Catwoman]

41 minutes ago, DawnM said:

We have places like that too but they are still out of financial reach of many.   Are yours vastly different in price?   Ours range from $400k for a townhouse to $900k+ for a house.

The only way to get a $300k or lower house is to go to the areas of town that aren't so nice.

 

Yes, the idea of a variety of home types and sizes can provide a wide range of prices, but that still doesn't mean any of those prices will be affordable for many buyers. 

The idea of "affordable housing" in one area may be vastly different from another area. 

 

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

Where I am, people very much want less expensive homes, because they can't afford what's available. Less expensive usually means smaller.

Equal "both sides"-ism doesn't make a lot of sense to me when it comes to the needs of one side to have a place to live and the wants of the other side to have multiple homes without sharing neighborhoods with low cost housing. I hear it a lot here--no one wants apartments nearby, no one wants affordable housing developments. I get some of the reasons, but when I also know people who literally can't afford to live anywhere anymore, it's the people who are trying to figure out how not to be homeless that seem rightfully deserving of the extra compassion on this issue.

That's a lovely sentiment, but what about when there is no available land for this wonderful new affordable housing of which you speak?

So yes, I have multiple homes. And yes, they are in upscale areas. But NO, the neighborhoods are NOT shared with low income housing, because there is literally no available land upon which to build them. 

So am I supposed to sell my home and ask my neighbors to sell their homes, so they can be razed and low income housing built in our neighborhood instead?

And even if any vacant land was to become available, it would be priced so high that no one would be able to afford to build low income housing on it. Land here is very scarce, and thus it is also extremely expensive -- and our property taxes are insanely high as well, so even if someone was able to buy a less expensive home, they might very well not be able to afford to maintain it.

This isn't a lack of compassion. This is just the reality in many places. We can't create available land that doesn't exist.

Edited January 18 by Catwoman
A sentence didn't make sense!

[goldberry]

On 1/16/2024 at 10:10 PM, Heartstrings said:

I imagine that it’s really hard to decide to leave a 3000 sq ft house that you paid $150k for to buy a 2 bedroom 1000 sq ft house for $350k, even if you could pay cash for it.   House prices are so crazy.  

We bought our house in 2014 and still have a mortgage.  It's a 4-bed house, too big for us now.  But downsizing would put us in a smaller house (which is fine) but less nice neighborhood (which I would miss) at about the same monthly payment (which makes no sense). So, we won't be moving any time soon!  or ever...?    We've thought about renting out a room, but the layout of the house is not designed very well for that.  So we're just stuck here in a big house basically.  

Regarding younger couples that bought oversized houses... I knew a few couples that would have preferred a smaller house, but they just weren't building them.  Existing smaller houses were sometimes in not great neighborhoods, or not great school systems.  There were no new communities with small houses.  It's starting to change now, we have some new build communities with townhomes and smaller (1500sf-ish) houses... but THOSE are still priced at over $350,000.  So not sure they qualify as affordable.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, SHP said:

I was addressing her broad sweeping statement that all 100 year old houses were small, they very much were not. I worked very hard to make the class distinction when talking about the house sizes. If there are more working class than middle class then it stands to reason that their would be more working class houses. To say that ALL houses were small is inaccurate.

To say that working class people could afford a Sears Crafton (I believe that is what that style was) is accurate. To say that middle class could afford the very popular American Four Square house is also accurate. They are not mutually eexclusive.that is what I brought up the class.

The American Four Square is the type of house we have. This was a standard middle class house. Many are massive compared to the houses that the middle class in the 50's-60's. And the smaller houses popular in the 50's and 60's does not negate that in the Era SKL mentioned the same class built larger houses.

Maybe go back and read what I actually wrote, because the above is grossly inaccurate if not dishonest.

[DawnM]

22 minutes ago, goldberry said:

We bought our house in 2014 and still have a mortgage.  It's a 4-bed house, too big for us now.  But downsizing would put us in a smaller house (which is fine) but less nice neighborhood (which I would miss) at about the same monthly payment (which makes no sense). So, we won't be moving any time soon!  or ever...?    We've thought about renting out a room, but the layout of the house is not designed very well for that.  So we're just stuck here in a big house basically.  

Regarding younger couples that bought oversized houses... I knew a few couples that would have preferred a smaller house, but they just weren't building them.  Existing smaller houses were sometimes in not great neighborhoods, or not great school systems.  There were no new communities with small houses.  It's starting to change now, we have some new build communities with townhomes and smaller (1500sf-ish) houses... but THOSE are still priced at over $350,000.  So not sure they qualify as affordable.

Wait, you bought a house for $150k that was 3,000 sq. ft?   Wow.   They were not even that price here in 2005 when we moved here.

[SKL]

https://populationeducation.org/resource/average-u-s-house-and-household-size-infographic/

"Infographic shows that the average size of houses in the United States has increased from 831 square feet in 1790, to 945 square feet in 1910, to 2,496 square feet in 2019. Over the same time range, the number of people living within each house as decreased. The average number of people per house in 1790 was nearly six, but by 2019 the average number of people per house had dropped to less than 2.5."

Data sources: U.S. Census Bureau; National Association of Home Builders.

[frogger]

14 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

That's a lovely sentiment, but what about when there is no available land for this wonderful new affordable housing of which you speak?

 

It is highly unlikely that an entire city or area will have nothing to work with.  There is always turnover in various location at any one time. 

Housing will only become affordable when it becomes plentiful. If you build 10 units in a housing shortage and that is it then no, those units won't be cheap. If you flood the city with housing then all levels of housing will become cheaper. 

My city is locked between a military base, mountains, and the ocean but developers are typically looking for the best deals and places to build. My city has turned three large hotels into housing last year since actual homes were being used for short term rentals. Another great idea was to allow property owners to build small rental units on their own property.  Sometimes an oddball business will go out of business and the location can work for apartments or condos. 

I don't think you should raze homes. I think you shouldn't make it illegal to build and people: home owners, developers, and young people will problem solve if the local government will get out of the way.