"So maybe it's time to think again about [re]imagining our homes. Not as vehicles for investment, but as wise and well engineered buildings which have limited floor space that "average" people can afford.
...Small houses, from 1,000-1,500 square feet, sited on parcels within walking distance of stores and public transportation, would be a great addition to the San Fernando Valley."
[floorplan: Philip's Mid-Century Mini]
Alexis' Modern Glass House 
Before & After: A Bathroom Goes From Pinky Peach to Sleek and Chic
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Tom Black Espadrille
20 Scrumptious Brunch Recipes 
Magic One-Ingredient Ice Cream 5 Ways: Peanut Butter, Nutella, and More
Comments (6)
apt not just for the San Fernando valley, but worldwide
Affordable is the key word. I'm a former Angeleno who moved to Austin and bought a house several years ago. Condos and apartment-like dwellings -- on the lower end of the market, not the luxury towers going up downtown -- just aren't a wise investment here. They're very hard to re-sell because people want yards.
I bought a 1,300 sq. ft. house, which was fine -- if still a bit roomy -- when I had another person living with me, but now it's just huge for one person and a dog. I really want a smaller place (small enough to enter the Smallest, Coolest contest), but they're too expensive because they're in the city core. They either get knocked down or expanded until they're unrecognizable. I'd preserve the little house (I have one picked out) and be close enough to a bus stop to not have to drive to work. But I can't afford to do that. I have done the mortgage math multiple times. And it sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I love my current home. But I recognize that it's wasteful (and costly) to have this kind of occupant-to-square-footage ratio. If there was an incentive program to downsize, I'd gladly do it.
In the small-town Midwest it's hard to buy or build small. Many older small homes have been flipped and enlarged, or they are located in areas that make them too expensive for the average person on a small-town salary to buy. Affordable pieces of land often have restrictions that make building small impossible. Minimums are usually set at 1,500-1,800 s.f. "to protect property values." There is a belief that size is an indicator of quality/value.
If that's the square footage frame of mind, why not just buy a condo? Isn't labelling it a house just going to jack up the price and make a condo look more appealing? I'm in a market where apartments are that size.
I agree with the quote. I live in an area where my house (1200 sf) is considered small and they are being torn down and constantly replaced with McMansions... which in turn is pricing out the majority of people to outside city limits...
When you think of housing affordability, do you factor in transportation costs? Where I live (Vancouver, BC) houses cost nearly double the price in the city as in the suburbs. However, the cost of buying, owning, maintaining & feeding gas to two cars negates the difference in the long run. I had to spend a lot for my house in the city, but I don't need a car & I can walk or cycle everywhere I need to go. The exercise I get commuting also saves me money & time--I don't need to go to the gym & I'm healthier.