People looking for distinction and isolation will have a rude awakening when these monsters become the first thing on the block to turn into multiple dwellings. Joke will be on them! And economic pressures will make multiple-dwellings INEVITABLE in all but the poshest suburbs. Local ordinances will not be able to stop it. That constitutional right will be a big comfort to you then.

Good for you if you are happy in a smaller home. Personally, I have dreams of a bigger home where I can have a workshop, my wife has her hobby room, and the office isn't a piled mess in the corner of the family room. I'd also like enough space that family can visit and feel welcome without having to sleep in public rooms. Reducing house size as a means of climate control is likely the least effective avenue you could pursue, and will create a great deal of opposition.

I'll make a promise that my house will always be smaller than Al Gore's.

I live in a 1250 square foot house for a very practical reason: It's all I can do to keep it clean and still have free time! How do you keep a 6,000 square foot house clean unless you pay someone to do it for you?

And if the choice is between a house that costs twice as much and hiring a full-time butler or maid, I'll take the maid.

This is really a form of real estate speculation. It is a simple matter of return on investment. In many markets, the more expensive the home the better the return. If you drive through many new subdivisions you will see many things that are done to increase cost seemingly only to increase cost. For example, the many twists and turns in roofs that create little dormers or other items of "interest" really only make the house more expensive without increase utility (size, functionality, etc). If this were just a rush by some foolish consumers to buy design hand bags we all might just shake our heads and laugh, but there are some real impacts due to this trend to both the broader environment and to the livabilities of our cities.

It is disappointing to always see these articles air some windbag's nebulous constitutional claims without talk about responsibilities. It is always gi'me, gi'me, gi'me, take, take, take, but never give back.

Funny they mention taking away our freedom of choice. I can't find a house in a good neighborhood that is under 2000 square feet. I don't need a house 2000 square feet or larger but will have to buy one to get into a decent place to live.

This makes me think of one of the houses in my mother's neighborhood. The new owners knocked down the old house because you just can't raise a family in a home under 3000 square feet. The other homes in the neighborhood are under 2000 square feet, and I recall thinking we had plenty of room.

The larger house looks absurd next to the other homes, and there is just something odd about a gigantic house with just a one car garage, that being all they had room for.

And no more yard... sad, really.

In 1973, homes averaged 508 sq ft per person; last year, they averaged 865 sq ft per person... This actually made me feel better, because our house is 2200 sq ft, which always made me feel very guilty, but that works out to just 550 sq ft per person...

Yes, we have a "big" new house, but compared to the house we moved from (an 80 year old Dutch colonial), it is much greener. It has a high-efficiency gas furnace instead of a converted coal furnace; it has insulation in the walls and triple-pane windows. Our fuel bills NOW are half what they were in the old house, and we have twice the floor space.

I agree witht he poster who said he keeps his house small becuase that's all he wants to maintaine (e.g., clean)... I couldn't agree more. The day my son goes off to college, this house is going up for sale, and we're moving to a loft in the city. :)

where I live there is a minimum requirement of 1200 sq ft for new homes!

I am moving into a house under 700sq ft ...and it feels like a mansion compared to my 1 bed rm apt

I can't begin to imagine a 6000 sq ft home thats nuts!

I grew up in a 1500 square foot house (there were 5 of us, my two older brothers shared a room.) People used to marvel at how small our house was. My parents preferred a larger lot to a bigger house, and the appreciation on the lot price far exceeds the appreciation on the house price. In the long run a much better investment.

There's no F'n way the median size of homes in Boulder is 6300sqft. That would make half the population more than millionairs - it's welthy there, but puleeez. Check your facts TH, this is sloppy reporting!!!!!!!!!!

That said, smaller lot footprint requirments may lead to sprawl. I would favor financial incentives/penalties to with the issue but the culprit I believe is status or the trophy house movement.

This is in fact a very complex issue.....I challenge anyone to propose a fair and acceptable solution to chubby houses!

Look no further than Al Gore, and John Edwards, they have houses that are astounding.

Al Gore and John Edwards can pay CASH for their houses, they're homes were not built by speculators gooned up on cheap credit. Plus their footprints are appropriate for their lot size and don't lower the quality of their neighborhoods.

People are ALWAYS trying to make environmentalists look like communists. It doesn't work, partially because environmentalists (like Al Gore and John Edwards) seem to be good at public service AND making money.

nikitee:
you cant compare the avg. sq. ft. per person in '73 vs. now. what was the avg. family size? i would think they had more people living together in smaller houses.

PullMyFinger:
do you not understand the idea of a global footprint. bigger house, more material, more construction (trucks) more manufacturing (logging, pollutants, voc's) do you need me to keep going?

when energy costs get high enough no one will want them. Mortgage foreclosures are through the roof because people on buying these on interest only mortgages...hoping the value would go up. they got caught with their pants down and that makes everything more expensive with higher interest rates for everyone.

Make them use geothermal heating, high efficiency everything or update the building code to require solar energy to offset the large house. they can afford it, right?

Ask the postman. He'll tell you that half the monster homes have hardly any furniture. Two income couples bought them as status symbol investments to park their mobile status symbol s(the monster SUV's) in front of, both at low or no down payment, and nowcan't afford a pot to cook in, much less a dining room set. Within a decade these will be subdivided as multiplex units.

I don't live too far from Plano, where that photograph was taken. Sprawl like that surrounds Dallas for miles. If you drive into one of these subdivisions, you better leave a trail of breadcrumbs, because every house and street looks alike and you'll never find your way out if you don't memorize the names of every street you turn on. And that comment about rooms being empty is true. I've never gone into a new Mcmansion when I haven't seen at least one room without furniture.

In my own neighborhood, bungalows are being bulldozed by the dozen to build these monstrosities and like the other poster mentioned, virtually everyone who moves into them parks in the street or in their driveway, because the garage (of which the door is at least 1/3 of the front of the house) isn't high enough for their SUVs to fit.

I think it says volumes about our American values that even as our families grow smaller we more space from each other.