Yesterday I wrote that ASAP all levels of government need to sponsor and demonstrate the building of [small, energy-efficient] homes because most home builders won’t do it. We need to see a few examples... to get the bigger picture.
Reader kvl made me think again when he said the following (in part):
I would argue that home builders would build those types of houses if that’s what people wanted... but as sad as it might be, most people want to live in the "burbs" and want their monster house.
I thought, kvl makes a good point but perhaps only in part.
For example, do we have something like the proverbial chicken and egg question here?
Do most people want to live in the burbs or is that just where most of the new homes are that are in a reasonable price range?
Do people want their monster house - because after looking closely at all the alternatives, from 1,000 to 4,800 sq. ft., they really feel a monster home is the best buy - or because that’s all that is offered?
[Click here to see the Enesti: Under 800 sq. ft.]
Do home builders build what people want or something that will compete with other offerings (or look even better: “We’ll make the red oak kitchen island standard!”) and that’s what people have been enticed to buy?
Do you feel dizzy right now? Sorry.
Imagine how the chicken feels. Or would it be the egg?
I think that smart-looking, energy-efficient 1,000 sq. ft. homes or condos would sell very well if given the chance.
But a typical London home builder won’t take that chance for a variety of reasons.
For one, the climate isn’t right.
Other reasons?
.
4 comments:
just a thought:
Didn't the egg come first? I mean, weren't reptiles (dinosaurs) laying eggs long before the chicken was around?
Hmmm.....
As for a real comment I will leave that until later.
hi john,
it's a dizzying matter for me; gets even worse if it's true that chickens are related to the smallest raptors.
cheers,
gord h.
That is true.
Currently I live in a 1X bedroom, 690 sq ft apartment with one other person. Aside from not having personal laundry in our unit and a little more storage room it is more than enough space for the two of us. Apartments themselves present a number of problems that I don't care to address right now, but as you have laid out, there are not enough options out there for varying housing types with such a small floor area.
With that said the minute something 900-1100 sq ft pops up in the city that is not an apartment I would not doubt for one second that myself (and many other like minded people) would snatch one up.
My two sense.
(oh and just to clear things up, my name is Kevin)
hi kevin,
i apologize for getting your name wrong; it will take me a moment to figure out - if i can - how I messed up.
690 sq. ft. for two sounds like a 'small' apt. but you prove it can be doable.
the 'crock' over at Four Mugs and a Crock (another local blog site) lives in an apt. of 350 sq. ft. and is as happy as a clam. being close to The Village helps.
though my wife and I have 1,050 sq. ft. (not incl. almost full basement - full of stuff) we could easily go smaller based on our long-standing routines.
thanks for your input.
cheers,
gord h.
Post a Comment