Get 25% more life by fleeing the city for the outter suburbs

[miketoronto]

My friend and I just got back from London, Ontario, where we had to pick up his sister from university.

Anyway we were driving through London and had the local radio station on, and we heard the weirdest commercial ever, from a town called St Thomas, which is located about 20min outside of London.

Anyway the commerical was telling people to leave London and move to St Thomas, because you can get 25% more house, and pay 25% less property tax then in London.

The commercial then went on to say that by moving to St Thomas you could get 25% more life, by being able to have more house for your money and pay less money.

In closing the commercial goes on to say "LONDON IS A GREAT PLACE", and then a pause and then the the voice goes "TO VISIT".

We were laughing. I can't believe towns and cities are doing stupid commercials like that.

Do you guys have any weird commercials like that in your areas?

So get up and move to St Thomas and get 25% more life :)

A quote from the St Thomas website.
---

http://www.elginconnects.ca/

"OUR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
Are you interested in reducing your cost of living? When you add it all up the advantages of living and conducting business in St. Thomas is impressive. Building costs, utilities, recreation costs all work to your advantage in St. Thomas. So what are you waiting for ---- there is 25% More Life in St. Thomas. "

[BTinSF]

What's so wierd about it? They are right. And if you had 4 or 5 young kids, it would get you interested. In the Bay Area, people are moving to places like Manteca and Antioch and Vacaville for exactly the same reason:

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7da35b3127cce834f258cf5a500000016100Acsmblw0ZsmLA

They trade hellish commutes for mcmansions in the exurbs, but if you've got a big or growing family, what are you going to do? If you could find a place with 4 or 5 bedrooms in the city or inner suburbs, you almost certainly couldn't afford it.

It's easy for us, most of whom are single, to sneer, but people with big families have different needs and take a different approach to things. Nothing wrong with that.

[mhays]

On what planet does any family NEED a separate bedroom for each kid? Is "separate bedrooms" a good tradeoff for having absentee parents?

[BnaBreaker]

I think a more accurate statement would be that by moving to St. Thomas they lose 50% of their life by gaining 50,000 hours per year sitting alone in your car in traffic jams.

[BTinSF]

On what planet does any family NEED a separate bedroom for each kid? Is "separate bedrooms" a good tradeoff for having absentee parents?

I don't make lifestyle decisions for other people and certainly not for their kids. I do know that I had my own bedroom starting around age 5 and I sure appreciated it.

[waterloowarrior]

What's so wierd about it? They are right. And if you had 4 or 5 young kids, it would get you interested. In the Bay Area, people are moving to places like Manteca and Antioch and Vacaville for exactly the same reason:

They trade hellish commutes for mcmansions in the exurbs, but if you've got a big or growing family, what are you going to do? If you could find a place with 4 or 5 bedrooms in the city or inner suburbs, you almost certainly couldn't afford it.

It's easy for us, most of whom are single, to sneer, but people with big families have different needs and take a different approach to things. Nothing wrong with that.

My parents' house is 2100 sq ft, and we each had our own bedroom (4 kids).. 2.5 + 1 bathrooms too. You don't need a McMansion to have a family.

[Kilgore Trout]

And if you had 4 or 5 young kids, it would get you interested.

but there just aren't many families with "4 or 5 young kids" today, at least not in ontario. the whole of canada has an average fertility rate of 1.5 children per woman! three kids is unsual nowadays, let alone four or five.

[BTinSF]

Lots of people coming up with reasons not to move to the exurbs. My point was, though, that some people--making decisions for themselves--think they have reasons to do it because, at least in the Bay Area, a surprising number have. For them, and for people like them whatever they are like, the ad Mike heard wouldn't seem wierd but worth checking out.

[waterloowarrior]

but there just aren't many families with "4 or 5 young kids" today, at least not in ontario. the whole of canada has an average fertility rate of 1.5 children per woman! three kids is unsual nowadays, let alone four or five.

in addition to this, I thought these statistics were interesting (taken from Statcan/US Census/National Post article)


Average household size in Canada / US

1940s - 4.3 / 3.7
2000s - 2.6 / 2.6

Average House size in Canada / US
1940s - 800 sq feet / 983 sq feet (1950)
2000s - 2000 sq feet / 2459 sq feet

Lots of people coming up with reasons not to move to the exurbs. My point was, though, that some people--making decisions for themselves--think they have reasons to do it because, at least in the Bay Area, a surprising number have. For them, and for people like them whatever they are like, the ad Mike heard wouldn't seem wierd but worth checking out.

The Bay area is really a real estate anomaly compared to 99% of North American cities though, is it not?... in the city that Mike is talking about (the main one, London - not the far away city), you can get a 4 bed 3 bathroom house for 120k, and a pretty nice house like this for 200k Canadian (4 bed/3.5 bath) . encouraging buildup in a nearby city is only going to lead to congestion, accidents, more auto-only commutes, big box economy, weardown of London's infrastructure without London getting money for it, etc and not the type of development that would be good to encourage (unless they live/work in St. Thomas, which would be great!)... lots of externalized costs

http://pictures.mls.ca/mls/reb13/highres/6/3964661.jpg

[MonkeyRonin]

On what planet does any family NEED a separate bedroom for each kid? Is "separate bedrooms" a good tradeoff for having absentee parents?

What matters is not that there is alot of space, but that everyone has their own space... and face it, pretty much everyone likes their own room (and with family sizes today, thats not hard at all).

Developers just need to design the space more effiecently in order to fit as many rooms as possible. Like a 500 sqft. condo would have no problem holding 3 bedrooms, but most at that size only have 1. (sorry, just had to rant)


Average House size in Canada / US
2000s - 2000 sq feet / 2459 sq feet

Thats depressing.

[TransitEngr]

I can't comment about sub-urbs..... but I remember reading an article back in 2002 where a study was done in metro Atlanta. The study pointed out that death rates from the extremely long drive/commute between Ex-urbs and downtown Atlanta were so high that they offset the so-called increased safety by living in the ex-urbs where crime is extremely low.

The study obviously didn't take into account those living in the ex-urbs who worked in the suburbs....

whatever.... i'm not a fan of living outside the city....but then to be my own devil's advocate... we don't have kids yet

[JManc]

On what planet does any family NEED a separate bedroom for each kid? Is "separate bedrooms" a good tradeoff for having absentee parents?

earth. don't know if you had siblings or not but i liked having my own space growing up as most kids do.

Developers just need to design the space more effiecently in order to fit as many rooms as possible. Like a 500 sqft. condo would have no problem holding 3 bedrooms, but most at that size only have 1. (sorry, just had to rant)

3 bedrooms in 500 square feet? i don't think so unless you prefer to live without many personal effects and sleep in a room about the size of a closet.

[Xelebes]

On what planet does any family NEED a separate bedroom for each kid? Is "separate bedrooms" a good tradeoff for having absentee parents?

Having to share a bedroom with three brothers is hell. My two sisters had to share a room. And we lived in a bedroom community.

Thankfully we don't live in a bedroom community anymore and that my older brother and two sisters have moved out.

Really, it is nice having the space when you have more than 2 or 3 children. Having less space is a disincentive to having more children.

[PhillyRising]

Developers just need to design the space more effiecently in order to fit as many rooms as possible. Like a 500 sqft. condo would have no problem holding 3 bedrooms, but most at that size only have 1. (sorry, just had to rant)

I lived in a 1000 sq foot home with three bedrooms and they were small and closet space was a joke. How could 500sq feet hold 3 bedrooms? Will the beds pull out of the walls? Where do you put dressers? How about a bathroom? The kitchen? Living Room?

[MonkeyRonin]

3 bedrooms in 500 square feet? i don't think so unless you prefer to live without many personal effects and sleep in a room about the size of a closet.

Okay, 3 Bedrooms may be pushing it, but two could easily fit.

Take this 535 sqft. condo for example. As you can see, by narrowing the hallway, and making the bathroom and kitchen a little smaller, we can greatly increase the size of the singe bedroom. Now, simply divide that in half. A bit small, but certainly liveable.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/2497/condogy6.th.jpg (http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=condogy6.jpg)


Really, it is nice having the space when you have more than 2 or 3 children. Having less space is a disincentive to having more children.

..And? Aside from the obvious over-population issue of having 5 kids, who in their right mind even wants that many damn kids?

[Xelebes]

*shrugs*

Maybe me?

[MonkeyRonin]

Then good luck to you sir, finding a girl who also wants that many children.

[JManc]

Okay, 3 Bedrooms may be pushing it, but two could easily fit.

Take this 535 sqft. condo for example. As you can see, by narrowing the hallway, and making the bathroom and kitchen a little smaller, we can greatly increase the size of the singe bedroom. Now, simply divide that in half. A bit small, but certainly liveable.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/2497/condogy6.th.jpg (http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=condogy6.jpg)

for a minimalist couple, yes it could work but most couples would get clusterphobic pretty quick.

[cornholio]

Okay, 3 Bedrooms may be pushing it, but two could easily fit.

Take this 535 sqft. condo for example. As you can see, by narrowing the hallway, and making the bathroom and kitchen a little smaller, we can greatly increase the size of the singe bedroom. Now, simply divide that in half. A bit small, but certainly liveable.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/2497/condogy6.th.jpg (http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=condogy6.jpg)



..And? Aside from the obvious over-population issue of having 5 kids, who in their right mind even wants that many damn kids?


Someone has to plow the fields, milk the cows and then take care of you in your old age.

I dont think of them as kids but rather labour investments or retirement investments. Oh and the best thing is you can mold them to the perfect worker. Also remeber its not that much more difficult to mold 5 at once in stead o just one, infact why stop at 5 the women body is perfectly capable of producing 10+ of these things.

[b-s]

Someone has to plow the fields, milk the cows and then take care of you in your old age.

I dont think of them as kids but rather labour investments or retirement investments. Oh and the best thing is you can mold them to the perfect worker. Also remeber its not that much more difficult to mold 5 at once in stead o just one, infact why stop at 5 the women body is perfectly capable of producing 10+ of these things.
:worship: :jester:

[SapphireBlueEyes]

delete

[Chicago103]

Average household size in Canada / US

1940s - 4.3 / 3.7
2000s - 2.6 / 2.6

Average House size in Canada / US
1940s - 800 sq feet / 983 sq feet (1950)
2000s - 2000 sq feet / 2459 sq feet

That is sick, that means that when you compare the average household size to the average house size in the U.S. it's approaching 1,000 square feet (946 square feet to be exact) per person! Since when does every human being require 1,000 square feet in which to live in? In 1950 U.S., the average was only 266 square feet per person. Space preferences have increased almost fourfold in just 57 years! This cannot sustain itself, people need to wake up and realize that 1,000 square feet can't be an entitlement of every Joe Blow and Jane Doe. Basically, it's the equivalent of every person having space equal to the size of a 1950 house!

Claustrophobic couples? Married people lived like that for generations and divorce rates were lower, what the hell is wrong with married people nowadays when people call it cramped? Now it seems everyone needs their own personal bubbles even if they are married, no wonder there is so much divorce. I don't think it's a coincidence that average house size increases have coincided with increased divorce rates.

[PhillyRising]

^I don't think house sizes had anything to do with it.....more like the stigma and taboo of divorce went away as mass media took hold and showed it as not being such a bad thing. I'm sure if people could get cheap divorces 80 years ago...they would have happened.

Like I said...I lived in a 1000 sq foot house for many years....and the rooms were too small...the closet space was a joke and trying to entertain any more than 5-6 people was a hassle. It is not as if big homes are a new thing......

[Chicago103]

^I don't think house sizes had anything to do with it.....more like the stigma and taboo of divorce went away as mass media took hold and showed it as not being such a bad thing. I'm sure if people could get cheap divorces 80 years ago...they would have happened.

Like I said...I lived in a 1000 sq foot house for many years....and the rooms were too small...the closet space was a joke and trying to entertain any more than 5-6 people was a hassle. It is not as if big homes are a new thing......

Did you live in that 1000 square foot house by yourself?

[austin356]

its sad some internet intellectuals believe they know what is better for specific families than those families themselves.:koko: :koko: :koko: :koko:


Sounds like something out of Washington, everyone knows what is best for everyone else, except those who it actually pertains to.


If people on here would get out in the real world they would find out that a vast majority (over 90%) of people in the world would rather have more space per person. Demand is only limited by means. And if people have the means, and there are not externals that offset the demand (wanting to live in the city) then people will inevitably jump at the occasion to have more house for less money.

The problem is the policies which use regulation and taxation to practically force people to live like this (at the expense of others), not the will of the people to live in a large house.

[MonkeyRonin]

for a minimalist couple, yes it could work but most couples would get clusterphobic pretty quick.

Couples? I was thinking more like an average family (3 people.. a couple really only needs 1 bedroom). With 50-60 sqft though, you'd have to be seriously claustorphobic to find that claustorphobic. But as I said earlier, this is more of an extreme example. Ideally, every family of 3 would have 700-1000 sqft.

[austin356]

Couples? I was thinking more like an average family (3 people.. a couple really only needs 1 bedroom). With 50-60 sqft though, you'd have to be seriously claustorphobic to find that claustorphobic. But as I said earlier, this is more of an extreme example. Ideally, every family of 3 would have 700-1000 sqft.


Thanks for helping me determine what size of home is best for my family and I. I am such an unenlightened ignorant bastard, I could never figure that one out myself.

[Xelebes]

Then good luck to you sir, finding a girl who also wants that many children.

It's why I hang out around the country bars... in Stettler.

[e2ksj3]

^ I agree on some levels with what you are saying. Typically people do want larger spaces, and I think they can have that as well as live in a more pedestrian friendly and transit oriented area. So why not build larger homes on smaller lots?

I disagree however, about what you were saying in your other post, that government policy is the direct cause of high cost of housing in those cities that you mention. That has more to do with land. Places like San Francisco and Miami, simply don't have the room to expand like places like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston that seem to have an endless supply of available land.

[austin356]

I disagree however, about what you were saying in your other post, that government policy is the direct cause of high cost of housing in those cities that you mention. That has more to do with land. Places like San Francisco and Miami, simply don't have the room to expand like places like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston that seem to have an endless supply of available land.



What I was saying is not in disagreement with this. Of course land prices will go up when room runs out (best ex. are the cities already mentioned).

But, what is suppose to happen when an area runs out of room to built out? It is suppose to build up. That is the natural workings of the city without restrictions on density and use. But, instead these cities with very few exceptions, keep areas that would otherwise be building up with highrise condos and even townhomes as single family residences.

This interference of keeping neighborhoods below what their otherwise density would be is a much greater effect than even the massive effects that come along with running out of land.

[LordMandeep]

actually i notice a lot of those small communities around the big cities are much more heavily regulated then the cities.

Like those stupid neighbour association meeting i went to one with my cousin (for the hell of it). He lived in some small gated community very far from LA. Neighbours are threatening the other neighbour because he doesn't like his garage colour and that its deflating his property value.

Well i made a witty comment that was suppose to be in my head but i said it aloud to myself "sell it quick, before the "coloured" people come to town." Yeah i couldn't believe those people, sad lives they live...

Like i think suburban life is alright but that community was almost totalitarian in nature.

However, i wonder if they are any places in Canada... (none in this area, i know of, a few gated communities though)

[Xelebes]

Condo associations can be like that, particularily with the rowhouse types.

[SFUVancouver]

The ironic thing is that statistically your life will be shortened by moving to the suburbs.

[austin356]

actually i notice a lot of those small communities around the big cities are much more heavily regulated then the cities.

Like those stupid neighbour association meeting i went to one with my cousin (for the hell of it). He lived in some small gated community very far from LA. Neighbours are threatening the other neighbour because he doesn't like his garage colour and that its deflating his property value.




Your completely right to an extent. The only difference is that the density regulations have not been as major of an impediment to development because the density they are requiring is pretty much would the market would have built anyways (with some significant exceptions).

The real problem comes in cities such as SF when the demand for housing is ever increasing but the supply is not allowed to be fulfilled.

[Boris2k7]

I just did some quick calculations on the amount of personal space I realistically would desire for myself... comes out around 500-580sqft. Realisitically speaking, if you made my room a little larger, you could throw in two people into that much space. Throw in a kid and it goes up to 650-700sqft. Another kid and it is at maybe 800-900sqft... remember that aside from some storage space and maybe more rooms, stuff like the main living area and the bathroom can be used by more than one person.

Sad thing is, even if I wanted to get into a new condo here in Calgary, I took a couple looks at some of the floorplates and it doesn't seem that anything is being built under 605 sqft. And no doubt, that would cost me over $300K in our current market. Prices in the burbs aren't much different, and that is even less desirable due to the relative auto-dependency. :(

A diverse housing stock, higher overall community densities (enough to support public transit and local amenities), public green space, and efficient housing designs are key, I think. Ideally, I would have some sort of setup where all my walls are used for some sort of purpose, in order to clear up floor clutter. We also have a bathroom with a seperate shower and tub... it really isn't necessary. Stuff like that.

[PhillyRising]

Did you live in that 1000 square foot house by yourself?

No...it was my parents house. There were 4 kids and two adults living in it at one time. Then I bought it from them when they moved to Florida and me and partner lived there. My brother moved in for the last 4 years we lived there. The closet space was terrible. My partner had to put his clothes in the spare bedroom and we had to change out the clothes for each season and pack the rest in trunks in the basement. The bathroom was as wide as the bathtub. An extra 500 sq feet would have been nice...just for some storge space alone. I think I only bought the house because I was only in my mid 20's and felt like I wouldn't have a home anymore if my parents sold it to someone else...even though I hated that house growing up because of how cramped it was for all of us. If I lived in it by myself maybe it would have been okay...but that wasn't ever going to happen. I miss living in the more urban setting than where I currently live...but I do like having the extra 900 sqaure feet my townhouse has over the old house.

[hoosier]

Your completely right to an extent. The only difference is that the density regulations have not been as major of an impediment to development because the density they are requiring is pretty much would the market would have built anyways (with some significant exceptions).

The real problem comes in cities such as SF when the demand for housing is ever increasing but the supply is not allowed to be fulfilled.

There is LIMITED SPACE to build housing in the bay area, the city needs to get the most out of what land is has available for development.

Put away your fucked up politics for a second and look at the problem as it really is.

[JManc]

Couples? I was thinking more like an average family (3 people.. a couple really only needs 1 bedroom). With 50-60 sqft though, you'd have to be seriously claustorphobic to find that claustorphobic. But as I said earlier, this is more of an extreme example. Ideally, every family of 3 would have 700-1000 sqft.

if it's 3 people (including the couple) and one bedroom, where is that one extra person supposed to sleep in that 500 sq. ft. shoe box? on the couch? i prefer some breathing room. i live in a 720 sq. ft. apartment by myself i and i wish i could have a second room for an office/ work area.

[austin356]

There is LIMITED SPACE to build housing in the bay area, the city needs to get the most out of what land is has available for development.

Put away your fucked up politics for a second and look at the problem as it really is.



The problem is there is limited space as you said. What is the ONLY solution? To build denser development, thats what I am saying, this is not politics from the CE thread, this is my interpretation of the problems and what the solutions are.

And I do not know why you always resort to attacking the person instead of attacking the ideas? Is it because you cannot put up a rational, debatable argument for like the rest of the people on the forum? Well in any case you are using argumentative fallacy in EVERY single response directed towards me, of which only lessens any argument you are attempting to make.

[KEVINphx]

haha. this post cracks me up, i live in an 800 square foot apartment, 2 bedrooms w/a jack and jill bathroom and nice living room/dining room and kitchen! i think this is my ideal space, and unless i lived ALONE i would not live in a smaller home, unless i was living somewhere like Paris, London, NYC or some other city with a lot to offer!

The part that will upset some of you who see fit to determine how people should live (with all the experience im sure you have had) I grew up in a 5,000 square foot house most of my life! It was actually mostly just LARGE rooms as the house was only 3 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bathrooms, Living room, Dining room, large kitchen, Office, Billiard room all built around a central courtyard. This house is not your common Mcmansion though (as i take that term to be a large wal*mart of a house built as big as possible for the least amount of money) my family home was (is, my parents still live there) a very lovely home with quite a bit of architectural character and detail, it took over 2 years to construct and that was by my fathers own company! So not all large homes today are cheap, inefficeint ex-urb mcmansions!

it is something that i do believe is for a limited part of society, or at least should be even though that is a very snobish thing, the world can no sustain itself if all live in a house like that, but for those who can afford it, who is one to attempt to say no? Besides, most cities have basic zoning codes that permit only a certain percentage of a residential lot to be built (at least in Arizona they do)

[arbeiter]

I grew up an only child and never had to share a room, obviously. In fact I don't recall having to share a bathroom until I moved to New York. My last apartment in Austin was one I picked because it was larger, thinking I needed the space. But my quality of life has gotten SO much better with less space. I bet half the people who think they need extra space are just inefficient.

Regulating density to me falls in line with regulations for seatbelts, beef, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, environmental standards, and so on and so forth - decent protection needs to exist for open spaces and greenfields.

The right to own a McMansion, built on greenfields and without sidewalks and mass transit, should seem as ridiculous as an automobile with no catalytic converter or no power plant without scrubbers on their smokestacks.

[MonkeyRonin]

if it's 3 people (including the couple) and one bedroom, where is that one extra person supposed to sleep in that 500 sq. ft. shoe box? on the couch? i prefer some breathing room. i live in a 720 sq. ft. apartment by myself i and i wish i could have a second room for an office/ work area.

..There were 2 bedrooms in the place I posted. One for the parents and one for the kid.

(and 720 sqft. not being enough for one person..?)

[Boris2k7]

..There were 2 bedrooms in the place I posted. One for the parents and one for the kid.

(and 720 sqft. not being enough for one person..?)

People own too much junk... my room contains probably 80% of my stuff, and it is only 105sqft. I've recently started converting the left-hand side of my closet into a bookshelf. I imagine that I completely filled it up with all my material, and threw in more shelves, I could free up about 4 sqft of floorspace. There's also tons of space under my desk (it's an office-sized Ikea thing) for more stuff. And still space on the walls to hang more shelves...

[JManc]

..There were 2 bedrooms in the place I posted. One for the parents and one for the kid.

(and 720 sqft. not being enough for one person..?)

a 2 bedroom 1000' apartment should be ok for a family of 3 who lives light. anything smaller than that and everyone start's getting under each other's hair.

i don't feel crowded in my apartment but i would like a small 2 bedroom house.

[bricky]

There is LIMITED SPACE to build housing in the bay area, the city needs to get the most out of what land is has available for development.

Put away your fucked up politics for a second and look at the problem as it really is.

There is limited space in the Bay Area to house everyone in single family homes. That's absolutely true. But if the Bay Area started to densify, there is more than enough space for 6 million or even 10 million people to live comfortably. And remember, highrise apartment buildings (as exist all over Asia) don't have to have small living spaces. Lots of apartments in South Korea, Singapore, HK and other places have 1,000 or more sq ft.

Granted, only a (sizable) minority would want to live in apartment buildings in this country. But that minority would take a lot of pressure off of living space in places like LA, the Bay Area, and other large metros. It shouldn't be the job of the government to force people to live in densely built apartments. Nor will this ever happen in America. But neither should local or county governments prevent densification in the hope of maintaining a uniformly suburban lifestyle that simply is no longer possible in metros like SF, that are essentially built out.

When inner ring suburbs and anti-growth cities like SF start to allow densification, things like commutes will start to get better. Until then, exurbs will continue to expand.

[wong21fr]

There is LIMITED SPACE to build housing in the bay area, the city needs to get the most out of what land is has available for development.

Put away your fucked up politics for a second and look at the problem as it really is.

And his argument is perfectly legitimate and devoid of politics, it's you, sir, who are showing your bias.

Why isn't SF building up more? The city is incredibly popular and there should be dozens of residential high-rises going up to meet the demand, yet there are not. Oh yeah, NIMBY's hold SF hostage.

As for spacing, there's a certain amount of personnel preference, but each person should have their own room in a house, abet small, simply for the sake of privacy and mental well being. Unfortunately, developers are not really addressing that kind of development model, instead going for bigger rooms, higher ceilings, ect.

[bricky]

In fact, the anti-development mentality across the Bay Area is a major limitation on the high tech industries in the region. By essentially preserving a built environment in large part from the 1970s and prior (all those crappy tract homes in places like San Jose), when the economy and population were much poorer and smaller than they are today, the local governments have created some of the worst traffic and most ridiculous housing prices on earth.

All other things being equal, why on earth would a computer or biotech engineer want to pay $700,000 for a glorified tract home shack in Sunnyside, when he can buy a mansion in places like Austin, Houston, or NC? It's a testament to the importance of the Bay Area as a tech center that more jobs and companies haven't left. But imagine how important the Bay Area could have become if it had followed more intelligent planning processes.

It's this blindness in American politics and in the public discourse today - including other things like education, immigration, health care, etc - that unfortunately make me pessimistic about the short to medium term prospects for this country.

[fflint]

By essentially preserving a built environment in large part from the 1970s and prior (all those crappy tract homes in places like San Jose)...
Can you name a US metro with millions of residents in 1970 that has subsequently failed to "preserve" the vast majority of what was built prior to that year?

[bricky]

Can you name a US metro with millions of residents in 1970 that has subsequently failed to "preserve" the vast majority of what was built prior to that year?

Why does the reference point have to only be America? If you look at East Asia, there's tons of churn in their housing stock. And not just in authoritarian China.

The Bay Area went through an unprecedented economic boom starting in the late 1970s. It is now perhaps the richest large metropolitan area on earth, on a per capita basis. Not allowing more development has helped choke that boom by making it increasingly expensive to do business in Silicon Valley and adjoining areas. There are other very important factors, such as relatively tight immigration procedures for skilled migrants, coupled with outsourcing. But a generalized anti-development stance has certainly hurt the metro.

[cornholio]

haha. this post cracks me up, i live in an 800 square foot apartment, 2 bedrooms w/a jack and jill bathroom and nice living room/dining room and kitchen! i think this is my ideal space, and unless i lived ALONE i would not live in a smaller home, unless i was living somewhere like Paris, London, NYC or some other city with a lot to offer!

The part that will upset some of you who see fit to determine how people should live (with all the experience im sure you have had) I grew up in a 5,000 square foot house most of my life! It was actually mostly just LARGE rooms as the house was only 3 bedrooms, 4 1/2 bathrooms, Living room, Dining room, large kitchen, Office, Billiard room all built around a central courtyard. This house is not your common Mcmansion though (as i take that term to be a large wal*mart of a house built as big as possible for the least amount of money) my family home was (is, my parents still live there) a very lovely home with quite a bit of architectural character and detail, it took over 2 years to construct and that was by my fathers own company! So not all large homes today are cheap, inefficeint ex-urb mcmansions!

it is something that i do believe is for a limited part of society, or at least should be even though that is a very snobish thing, the world can no sustain itself if all live in a house like that, but for those who can afford it, who is one to attempt to say no? Besides, most cities have basic zoning codes that permit only a certain percentage of a residential lot to be built (at least in Arizona they do)


Well in France back in the day that is the same way of thinking that much of the so called Royalty had. Well they learned the hard way that when you are the minority then there is always someone that can attempt to say no more.
Now im not trying to say that people are going to go and start removing the heads of rich, wealthy and snoby people, people that think they have some sort of divine right that places them above the rest...but at some point people are going to have enough and once the majority are forced to make sacrifices due to the deteriorating earth and our massive boot print they sure ass hell are going to make sure that the rich are going to make some sacrifices also no mater if they want to or not.

By the way I have a quick question for you, once your parents kick the bucket im going to asume that you are going to inherit the house and likely move in. Now please enlighten me as to why you deserve to live in that house while most dont, what contributions to society have you made to be rewarded with the honour of living a life of luxury?

What if you sold the house donated the money to charity and then worked your way up to the point of being abel to afford it again like your dad did...hopefully unless he also inherited large sums of money. Though if you have already made tons of money for your self, by you self, then sure this is pointless.

[brian_b]

Average household size in Canada / US

1940s - 4.3 / 3.7
2000s - 2.6 / 2.6

Average House size in Canada / US
1940s - 800 sq feet / 983 sq feet (1950)
2000s - 2000 sq feet / 2459 sq feet



Your head might explode even more violently when you consider that the average home size in 2000 includes all the millions of housing units that were part of the average home size count in 1940/1950. While a household gets replaced by a smaller one as the generations go by the houses, by and large, stay standing and continue to be counted. I would venture to guess that the average home built today is somewhere between 3000 and 5000 sq feet.


On the original subject, I suspect that for most people in London Ontario, the 25% savings they would get by moving to St Thomas Ontario would be eroded to a degree by the additional commute (time and cost) since their job probably isn't moving with them. How much is a good question, but certainly one that St Thomas hopes you aren't asking.

Also, when I was growing up, a friend of mine lived in a 3 bedroom mobile home that couldn't have been more than 600 sq feet. The two kids had their own rooms - tiny as the were. Their father had built their beds so they were hinged to the wall and folded down at night. In the day, you folded it up and out of the way. I forget what you call this bed type, but seriously if you have a small space you can get by. Having more space is a luxury and if you have the money for it why not go ahead and get more space? I mean no matter how much money I had I wouldn't go crazy and buy a huge home, but I'd get something like a 1200 sq ft condo instead of the 650 sq feet I have now. Is that so wrong?

[fflint]

Why does the reference point have to only be America? If you look at East Asia, there's tons of churn in their housing stock. And not just in authoritarian China.
If you look to East Asia then you're not looking to the Bay Area and I fail to see your point. This is an American metro, with all the historical developments that entails. You accuse this region of something that is true of every other major North American metro, circa 1980: what existed then exists, for the most part, today.

Now, I agree the region failed to accomodate more residents than it could have if we had somehow bucked the post-war North American suburbanization trend. But we didn't, and in any case, that is only half the story. The other half: the bay, hills, mountains, wetlands and coast all break up and restrict growth naturally. This isn't like Atlanta, where development can spread out limitlessly if the public wills it, or even Chicago, where it can go on in three directions to the horizon. This also isn't Hong Kong, where most everyone in the region is and was, for decades now, willing to forego owning actual land. Postwar American buyers wanted houses on land, postwar developers built houses on land, and postwar lenders steered the money that way. There would never be enough land here to meet the demand for single-family homes and keep prices reasonable, just as there was never enough enough demand here for skyscraper condos to set up the entire region in such a manner.

The best we can hope for right now is densification that is closely tied to the demands of the market and the regional topography.

[bricky]

If you look to East Asia then you're not looking to the Bay Area and I fail to see your point. This is an American metro, with all the historical developments that entails. You accuse this region of something that is true of every other major North American metro, circa 1980: what existed then exists, for the most part, today.

Now, I agree the region failed to accomodate more residents than it could have if we had somehow bucked the post-war North American suburbanization trend. But we didn't, and in any case, that is only half the story. The other half: the bay, hills, mountains, wetlands and coast all break up and restrict growth naturally. This isn't like Atlanta, where development can spread out limitlessly if the public wills it, or even Chicago, where it can go on in three directions to the horizon. This also isn't Hong Kong, where most everyone in the region is and was, for decades now, willing to forego owning actual land. Postwar American buyers wanted houses on land, postwar developers built houses on land, and postwar lenders steered the money that way. There would never be enough land here to meet the demand for single-family homes and keep prices reasonable, just as there was never enough enough demand here for skyscraper condos to set up the entire region in such a manner.

The best we can hope for right now is densification that is closely tied to the demands of the market and the regional topography.

I think there would be more consumer demand for midrise or highrise density in the Bay Area than you give the locals credit for. If there's demand to pay $700,000 for a pathetically small and poorly built tract home, there would be demand for brand new condos of the type that are routinely built in Toronto or Vancouver. I don't think the problem is demand or the vagaries of the market. I think the problem is how local zoning and NIMBY attitudes massively distort the market.

Of course zoning and development procedures that massively favor single family developments are by no means unique to the Bay Area. This is a symptom of the great majority of America. I'm not saying the Bay Area is somehow more to blame than other parts of America. Just that the Bay Area, with its space limitations and money brought in from the tech industry, is seeing the negative effects of a lack of dense development more than perhaps anywhere else in the country.

[KEVINphx]

By the way I have a quick question for you, once your parents kick the bucket im going to asume that you are going to inherit the house and likely move in. Now please enlighten me as to why you deserve to live in that house while most dont, what contributions to society have you made to be rewarded with the honour of living a life of luxury?

What if you sold the house donated the money to charity and then worked your way up to the point of being abel to afford it again like your dad did...hopefully unless he also inherited large sums of money. Though if you have already made tons of money for your self, by you self, then sure this is pointless.


I am only 21, my mother and father are only 39 and 43 years old respectively. My father inherited NO money, and I do work with the family business and intend to do so as long as I possibly can.

It is always irritating to face a person who imply the ignorance of an individual, as you have done with your brief french revolution history and bit about what those with money do, despite the fact that you do not know the details about a particular family. I would have to say that if you are going to compare anyone to the French monarchy it would be the billionaires of the world, NOT the millionaires. But I have to ask, who is it that you find yourself to be to question what contributions I have made to society to "deserve" anything? I never said that it the wealthy "deserve" ANYTHING, rather that I do not believe in limiting the rights of people to do with their property as they wish!

It is quite irritating that you have chosen to ignore the rest of my post, where i state that I prefer a smaller place and do not feel the need for a large home as my family does.

I will not inherit anything without working for it, my father did not, and neither will I. Statistically, most people worth a million dollars of more in teh US did not enherit any of their wealth. Now consider yourself "enlightened"

[cornholio]

^Well I was mostly responding to the last coupkle sentences of your post and I thought I said at the end that if you have made contributions to society/made money then most of what I said at the end was pointles. The rest of what I wrote was in response to you typing something along the lines that "who is one to atempt to say no" if someone who has the money wants to build a jumbo house and put more strain on to the planet then a dozen midle class individuals do. This coment goes further then the house by the way as it says that if you have the money you can do what you want without consequence, well america is a wealthy place and most americans are millionairs compared to a majority of the people in the world, hence they also consume the most resources per capita, produce the most co2 per capita, etc. What you said is the same as saying well the world cant suport everyone living like americans so only americans can live like americans in america. Anyways im forgeting what my point is but again im not trying start a fight here i was just responding to the last couple senteces of your post, sorry if i came acros a bit harsh.

[KEVINphx]

point taken. too early to comment, but i am not in dis-agreeance (is this a word?) with you, just have a slightly different view is all

[MayDay]

I'm sure they're out there, but most real estate ads in the Cleveland area tend not to bash Cleveland proper. They're usually playing up things like newer schools, lower taxes, etc. There was quite a coup for the city when one of the area's largest real estate companies (Realty One) relocated from a suburban office campus to the heart of downtown Cleveland.

From here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Independence,+Ohio&layer=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=16&ll=41.400039,-81.647966&spn=0.011991,0.023067&t=h

To here (brick building in center with green windows):
http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/cleveland/stclairwest6th.jpg

Others real estate companies have followed suit by opening locations within city limits and with ad campaigns promoting downtown development. Howard Hanna has been running ads along the lines of "Boot the Commute". As far as getting 25% more house, my partner and I happily share a little under 3300 sq. feet (4 bedrooms, finished basement). Mind you, the house is over 100 years old and it's not exactly on a cul-de-sac:
http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/hood.jpg

[Chicago103]

People keep bringing up the need for personal space but someone also brought up the excellent point in space efficiency and how in reality there is less space used for personal usage percentage wide today than in houses in the past. For instance in older houses 1,000 square feet oftentimes included three bedrooms, today there are many 1,000 square foot condos with only one bedroom. Why? Its because they build these huge living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, master baths, huge walk in closets that take up space that could otherwise be used for more bedrooms.

The bedrooms need not be prison cell sized either, for instance the two non-master bedrooms in my parents new suburban house are about the same size of the bedrooms of my grandma's city bungalow built in 1963. It seems only the master bedrooms have been supersized, the other bedrooms typically havent gotten any larger. The difference between my parent's house and my grandma's house though is that the living room is much bigger (or perhaps family room is a better term for it) there is a kitchen with seating area attached, a more formal dinning room, and a secondary living room, also a den upstairs and my parent's house is just over 2,000 square feet not even that huge. The problem is not enough personal space but rather too much communal space in a house that goes unused alot of the time, if they only built more bedrooms and less secondary living rooms and dining rooms people wouldnt think you need 3,000 square feet to accomidate four bedrooms, it can be done with half that space.

[miketoronto]

I often wonder about that Chicago103. I never got the whole idea of needing a living room and family room.

Alot of my aunts and uncles have huge houses with family rooms, living rooms, etc. And all they use is the family room with the TV in it. The living room, etc sits empty. So what is the point of having it?
Because really all they are doing is living in the same amount of space they were living in before, in a smaller house. :)

You are right that we have all these huge spaces, yet the bedrooms really are the same.

[ardecila]

The living room isn't really used by anybody anymore. Most people don't even furnish it, but perhaps they put the Christmas tree in there or something. Sometimes, it's even used for storage.

My family, on the other hand, has a large house by national standards, but we use most of it regularly.