Thus said "Jonathan Ellis" on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:11:30 MDT:
I suspect most home buyers _like_ a big house on a small yard, since it's cheaper than a big house on a big yard.
Yes, I suppose some home buyers have *consciously* opted to sacrifice acreage in favor of a larger house. I just don't happen to know any. Whatever the case, you can't deny or discount the fact that it's in the developers' best money-making interest to pack as many houses on as little land as possible. Having witnessed the real estate boom in Northern Virignia from 2000 to 2003, and having watched developers buy up small plots in my own Murray back yard , I have seen huge 3,000 to 4,000 square feet homes erected with barely 6 feet between them. Who can blame them? If you can squeeze an 11th house onto a plot of land that would comfortably only fit 10, that's 10% more profit for the same expense. And since it was such a great sellers' market for so long in most of the nation for 15 years, they got away with it. And seriously, what shrewd business man wouldn't do that (provided all the houses would sell)? Couple the developer's desire for more profit with a taste-lacking populace of consumers who only sees square footage and garage capacity, and, well, welcome to the United States. Things weren't exactly better before that either, but hey, the McMansion seems to be the building style du jour so it's an easy target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion --Dave /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
