J_Mortimer, says:

If the justification for large numbers of bedrooms is large families and 52 percent of Allen homes have 4+ bedrooms are we then saying 52 percent of families in Allen have large families? Well, no. 52 percent don't have large families.

I grew up in a two parent house with 3 other siblings in a 3 bedroom house and we weren't poor and we were comfortable. Also, it wasn't 50 years ago either.

Not only did families simply get along in smaller and more closely knit communities but they thrived. However, they don't seem to be thriving now but they seem to be more dysfunctional.

WARNING!! RANT TIME!! WARNING!!

I'm not going to blame all of that on house size but if a person can't look into history to see that a large house isn't necessary to build thriving and healthy family then it indicates that such a person has bought into the hype fed to him/her by a consumer driven culture that treats people as instruments rather than real human ends in themselves.

Nothing could be clearer that larger houses are a matter of selfish indulgence and gratification.

J

J_Mortimer, says:

Nobody condemned "all" anything or anyone. The trend to larger houses is a matter of selfish indulgence and gratification.

Does that clear it up?

J

Cantonson, says:

So... Utah huh? Must be big Mormon families :-) That explains it, right?

bryan1788, says:

I'm with Deborah. The fact that a home has 4+ bedrooms should hardly be considered absurd and crazy so rashly. In Sandy and other Salt Lake area suburbs many of the homes have finished basements, which practically adds a whole other house without having any sort of 'McMansion' effect. And yes, most of those homes are owned by Mormons with larger families.

Out of the total number of households in both Allen and Sandy, 85% of those are family households. A city that might be considered the antithesis of Allen or Sandy, San Francisco, has 44% of its households as family households.

People want houses with more bedrooms for their families. Why is this incomprehensible?

No, of course it's not necessary. I'm from a family of 5, grew up in an apt, and shared a bedroom. It wasn't bad but a house with 4 bedrooms would have been nice, and I don't think that it's materialistic or anti-community to say so.

J_Mortimer, says:

bryan,

You made my point for me: "People WANT ... MORE ... Why is this incomprehensible?"

This is material driven consumer desire at its finest.

J

jenn, says:

I do agree the bedroom argument has it's problems...some families are just larger than others. What I would be curious about is the total square footage of these houses...somehow I doubt that any of these bedrooms would be mistaken for closets, and I can imagine that these houses often include superfluous space such as "media rooms", bathrooms as big as the bedroom I grew up in, and 4 car garages. Truly I'd really love to see some stats on the media room phenomenon, a trend which I'm sure is at it's best (worst) in Big D.

Shelia_in_Lancaster, says:

Did anybody suggest that the excess number of bedrooms is a result of city zoning?

Cities always need more tax money. The city provides police, fire protection, sewers, stormwater drainage, libraries, and all, all the same to each household. The cost of services is about the same to each household. But the taxes on the household depend on the size of the lot and house. A bigger house generates more tax money.

So we set up conditions when the developers come in. We say we want a range of houses no smaller than, maybe, 1800 square feet up to 3500 square feet. The builders put in media rooms, breakfast nooks, and 5th bedrooms to comply with zoning deals as much as to satisfy consumer demand.

Those houses baby boomers report growing up in, 4 kids and their parents in a 3 bedroom, 900 square foot bungelow? Plan to develop a neighborhood with a few hundred homes in that affordable price range. Go in front of P&Z or city council with that plan. Betcha the full force of the law is pushing you to add bedrooms.

If your afforable housing had stucco or hardy-plank exterior instead of brick; the zoning would force you to switch to the more expensive (and labor intensive) surface.

There are always lots of complaints about the monotonous rows of identical mcmansion houses but the reason for that is the master planning by city governments, at least as much as the greed of consumers.

J_Mortimer, says:

I've never been to plan commission meetings in Allen but I have in other cities.

I have never seen anyone city-side push for more bedrooms. Larger houses lowers unit density which is usually less optimum for taxation than smaller units at a higher density.

Retail development tends to follow linearly from the general wealth of the residents but the density as well. So high end large homes with low density might not attract a great amount of retail development which in turn lowers sales tax revenue. Upper middle class homes at higher density might actually be better for sales tax revenue because the density of people with disposable income is better.

Thus, I think the claim that they would usually prefer higher number of bedrooms doesn't hold up.

Actually a city is better off with affordable housing AND unaffordable housing. While affordable housing gets a lot of lip service, very high priced homes attracts certain people who are more likely to have high end political and business relationships which can then benefit that city.

I have a disdain for Frisco, but to their credit their planning has involved mixing sizing of houses in the same areas to avoid some of the inherent problems of all houses in a subdivision being too similar. That is not to say that you aren't going to find ugly mcmansions in Frisco and you wont find uniform subdivisions. You will. However, they have made an effort to lessen that problem and try to avoid it by intentionally getting a mix of housing sizes.

J

J_Mortimer, says:

Sorry there is a typo above... The 3rd paragragh should start:

"Retail development does NOT tend to follow linearly from the general wealth of the residents but the density as well."

noleman, says:

You're all stupid. Houses in Allen sell for under $100 a square foot. They aren't high end, they aren't mansions, they're big boxes. Big boxes that apparently have a bunch of bedrooms.

DC, says:

Y'all so stupid?

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/content...

I'll guess this is what goes on up there.