Majority Of US Prefers Communities With Big Houses, Even If Local Amenities Are Far

[pj3000]

I make a rather high amount of money for what I do.

I live in a rather small suburban house on 1 acre that’s very close to urban amenities.

I’m in paradise, as far as I’m concerned.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Walkability is certainly a factor for many, myself included, but that’s setting the bar pretty low if that’s your only criteria or the most significant especially with kids involved, at least in my opinion.

Exactly, to the bolded.

My opinion is very different than yours.

Because I'm a HARDCORE location person.

House is stupid. Neighborhood is everything.

In my opinion.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Exactly, to the bolded.

My opinion is very different than yours.

Because I'm a HARDCORE location person.

House is stupid. Neighborhood is everything.

In my opinion.

You also happen to live in one of the very few cities in the US where you wouldn't haven't have to compromise urbanity for a place where a family would actually fit and can actually afford. The benefits of the fact that the walkable area of Chicago covers such a huge area and that its population has stayed stable rather than boomed so there is no crush of people falling over eachother for each unit that opens up.

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by dave8721

You also happen to live in one of the very few cities in the US where you wouldn't haven't have to compromise urbanity for a place where a family would actually fit and can actually afford. The benefits of the fact that the walkable area of Chicago covers such a huge area and that its population has stayed stable rather than boomed so there is no crush of people falling over eachother for each unit that opens up.

Its so weird how affordable it still is. I wonder if the reason the costal media goes so hard at chicago is because the owners and pundits are heavily invested in the costal cities.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Exactly, to the bolded.

My opinion is very different than yours.

Because I'm a HARDCORE location person.

House is stupid. Neighborhood is everything.

In my opinion.

That’s fine, but certainly you are aware that you are an extreme outlier, even people who are adamant about location rarely don’t care at all what their housing situation is. It’s also an odd take from somebody who’s spent half their life on a skyscraper site talking about architecture.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by dave8721

You also happen to live in one of the very few cities in the US where you wouldn't haven't have to compromise urbanity for a place where a family would actually fit and can actually afford. The benefits of the fact that the walkable area of Chicago covers such a huge area and that its population has stayed stable rather than boomed so there is no crush of people falling over eachother for each unit that opens up.

While Chicago is certainly less expensive than coastal cities like Boston or NYC, it isn’t as affordable as you think, especially when you factor kids and schools become a big consideration. Most people aren’t like Steely who build there life around what they can walk to in 7 min, and make that their only criteria, children’s education be damned.

[Steely Dan]

^ I was quite obviously being hyperbolic.

Of course I cared about the home we ultimately bought. (And we love it too!)

But where it was located in terms of being able to conveniently walk to shit like school, L stop, grocery store, and other essential dailies was the first priority.


I refuse to live anywhere where I have to get into a car most days.

That's my ultimate real-breaker.

Everything else has to fit inside that requirement.

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

While Chicago is certainly less expensive than coastal cities like Boston or NYC, it isn’t as affordable as you think, especially when you factor kids and schools become a big consideration. Most people aren’t like Steely who build there life around what they can walk to in 7 min, and make that their only criteria, children’s education be damned.

I feel children are much more deprived living in rural suburbia. How cruel for you to lock them away like that. What a monster.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ I was quite obviously being hyperbolic.

Of course I cared about the home we ultimately bought. (And we love it too!)

But where it was located in terms of being able to conveniently walk to shit like school, L stop, grocery store, and other essential dailies was the first priority.


I refuse to live anywhere where I have to get into a car most days.

That's my ultimate real-breaker.

Everything else has to fit inside that requirement.

Ok, so you’re really not all that different than anybody else, though you obviously require an urban / mostly urban environment. Buying a home comes down to many criteria for the vast majority of people, I doubt anyone is saying “here are the requirements for my house, I do t care where it’s located” and few are saying “here are my neighborhood requirements I don’t care what the home looks like”. Neighborhood choice is preference, somebody building a house in Plainfield IL may not think they’re sacrificing location, just as someone staying in the city may not think they are sacrificing housing type. The fact that “Americans” prefer more space and are ok driving isn’t really all that shocking, especially when adults with children are the ones who are less likely to want a city environment. Having had children in both Urban and more suburban settings, the suburbs are just objectively easier in my experience. I certainly would live in tribeca or soho if I didn’t have kids but that’s not the stage of life I’m in.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SnowFire

I feel children are much more deprived living in rural suburbia. How cruel for you to lock them away like that. What a monster.

Very few people are raising their kids in rural areas in 2023, do you live under a rock? Do you have kids?

To me the best place to raise kids are areas like Rye or Scarsdale, NY or Hinsdale or Winnetka IL or where I currently live, Wayzata, MN

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I doubt anyone is saying “here are the requirements for my house, I do t care where it’s located” and few are saying “here are my neighborhood requirements I don’t care what the home looks like”.

Well duh.

But most regular people tend to lean more one way than the other.

(Unless you're rich and have unlimited resources)

And according to the results of this poll, Americans tend to lean more "house" over "location" by a roughly 60l40 split.

Hence all of the endless regrettable auto-centric sprawl.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Well duh.

But most regular people tend to lean more one way than the other.

(Unless you're rich and have unlimited resources)

And according to the results of this poll, Americans tend to lean more "house" over "location" by a roughly 60l40 split.

Hence all of the endless regrettable auto-centric sprawl.

You're still not getting what i'm saying, the article might be saying "house" vs. "Location", but I don't think most people think that way. I'd wager many people, who live in say, Suburban Chicagoland, think living in Lincoln Square is a terrible location, and that you are the one sacrificing both house AND location. Obviously you don't feel that way, and that is really all that matters. However, somebody who lives in a 4,000 sq ft house in say, Downers Grove, probably thinks they have the house AND location.

[Steely Dan]

^ oh, so it's the word "location" that you're hung up on.

Fine.

There are two basic kinds of regular people:

- House people

- Walkability people


If you prioritize a large house on a large piece of land, you will be sacrificing on the walkability of its location.

If you prioritize the walkability of your location, you will be sacrificing on the size of your home and the piece of land it sits upon.


More Americans are house people according to the results of this poll.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ oh, so it's the word "location" that you're hung up on.

Fine.

There are two basic kinds of regular people:

- House people

- Walkability people


If you prioritize a large house on a large piece of land, you will be sacrificing on the walkability of the location.

If you prioritize the walkability of your location, you will be sacrificing on the size of your home and the piece of land it sits upon.


More Americans are house people according to the results of this poll.

Bingo.

[JManc]

I love the walkability of an urban area but I love my backyard even more.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ oh, so it's the word "location" that you're hung up on.

Fine.

There are two basic kinds of regular people:

- House people

- Walkability people


If you prioritize a large house on a large piece of land, you will be sacrificing on the walkability of its location.

If you prioritize the walkability of your location, you will be sacrificing on the size of your home and the piece of land it sits upon.


More Americans are house people according to the results of this poll.

My impression of Americans is that they're divided into:

- House people

-General location people

House people emphasize having the biggest, nicest house they can afford which they often frame in terms of "need". Aka, we "need" such 'n' such amount of space or features and we have to tolerate the few places where we can afford it. General location people seem to focus on various aspects of location with some wanting good schools or a convenient commute. But there seems to be a very big focus on crime, stability, and aesthetics. They're scared of areas that seem sketchy in any way, often over-dramatizing how threatening different areas are. And some put increased importance in areas looking posh or at least well kept including how green the lawns and landscaping are. People who want walkability would fall into the location category, but that concern would not be near the top of the group priority list.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Count me as someone who lived in an old school college dorm that was very basic.

Us older millenials born in the late 80s/early 90s who were in college in the late 2000s/early 2010s were probably the last generation to experience that as a mainstream thing.

You guys are right, college housing since about 2010 now is ridiculous luxury.

In the 80s I remember driving with my grandmother to visit my aunt when she lived in the dorms, and this was when female enrollment was increasing much faster than they were able to adapt housing. Her dorm was an old men's dorm and had no female bathrooms (at least on that floor). I remember this because I had to use the bathroom on the trip and my aunt walked in to make sure there weren't any women in there. There were like 8 urinals and 3 stalls for a floor full of women. Imagine a similar circumstance in 2023 - the ALL-CAPS OUTRAGE, the marches, the bullhorns, the slogans, the flash bulbs.

We're literally to the point where colleges are having to retrofit/tear down dorms with shared bathrooms but then we have housing advocates calling for the return of dorm-type setups for adults to bring down the cost of housing the general public.

Wealthy people are absolutely choosing colleges based on the quality of the housing. Its not the fault of the universities - it's the huge numbers of wealthy families who vote with their feet.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Bingo.

Probably because if you do prefer a single-family house, it is so expensive in a city or even in a decent close-in suburb. I would guess a lot of the persons who want a single-family house could settle for a close-in suburb and its moderate urbanity, but most of the existing houses in close-in suburbs are old, need some work, or are less modernly functional (such as small kitchens, lots of small rooms). There are tear downs and there may be some vacant lots to build, but most people would decide that they can have a big new modern house for so much cheaper in newer exurbs even if it means being miles away from the core of the city.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JManc

I love the walkability of an urban area but I love my backyard even more.

Moving to a rural area with cheap land, now I just want a bunch of acres opposed to a condo in a tower. I would do both if I could afford it tho with either a place somewhere in the bay or sac. Small towns CAN be walkable especially the ones in Northern-Northern California as well as those Eastern gem kinda towns.
As far as "big house", I'm struggling to fill my triple-wide (1500sf) which probably isn't the case for families? I have always lived a light and mobile kind of lifestyle so I don't require many things.

[SnowFire]

I mean i would love a mansion with a yard on top of a skyscraper like in spiderman, but not a billionaire.