|
Eileen,
This is a matter of interest to me. Sarah
Susanka's books have sold really well and she is a popular speaker. There
seems to be an interest in the public for well detailed homes that are nurturing
and and create a human place to be. Although she has struck a responsive
chord, it doesn't mean that people can afford what she proposes or are
willing to pay for it. Her premise, remember, is build smaller so that you
can afford to buy the features.
It seems to me that most people are struggling
financially to have enough square footage to store their family and stuff.
I know houses used to be 1300sf or so, but I think 2000sf really does push the
limit for what an American family will settle for. Here in a blue collar
town west of Worcester, MA - not expensive ($35,000 to $40,000 lot cost), that
house is $250,000. Most of those buyers don't have the incomes to pay for
more.
Secondly is lot cost. With land costing
$200,000 to $700,000 and more in the greater Boston area, one is not going to
build a small house.
For the most part, I don't fault builders or
architects. If the public didn't want the huge houses, they wouldn't buy
them. There is a select segment of the market that wants quality design in
their home. I question whether they can recoup that investment when they
go to sell it. This is the fundsamental question a builder must ask when
choosing the house to build, or (s)he won't be in business long. For most
people, judging by how they actually live, design is not an issue for them, in
my opinion.
Ironically, the architect for the 14,000 sf house
is listed on the NotSo Big website.
Bob Jordan
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:51
AM
Subject: [GBlist] monster houses
Dear Folks on the GBList,
I'm a design writer. My work gets published
in "style" magazines, newspapers, etc. (I write as "green" as I can; for
example, a couple of years ago I did a solarization article for Log Home
Illustrated Magazine, and I've serveral articles on the solar home
tour for the local newspaper here in Cleveland, OH.)
Here's a question for us to mull
over:
With regard to the 14,000 square foot home
that's been the object of some discussion on the list, is it homeowners
demanding bigger and more luxurious and more resource-consuming homes for
themselves or is it architects (who want to "leave something for posterity and
make a living"), builders and interior designers/planners (ditto the above),
and product manufacturers (who just want to make a living) who present
people who want to buy and build their own homes with only the
bigger-is-better options/products/materials?
Homebuilders are only going to be able to want
(OK, maybe it's lust-after) what they are shown. In other words,
they aren't going to be able to imagine/envision a resource-consuming, trophey
home if they have not been presented with it as an (sometimes the only)
option.
I'm not beating up on builders and architects and
interior designers (and "style magazines, too) with this question. I
really wonder where the "homeowners' wants/needs/desires and the
designer/builder/decorator's need to make a living (and ego, too)
intersect.
Oh well, this is another one of those food for
thought questions.
Eileen Beal, MA
Writer - Editorial
Consultant
3205 Meadowbrook Blvd., Apt. 7
Cleveland Heights, OH
44118
(216) 320-1358
eojb@visn.net
| 
