It was the wrong thread

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You forgot a key part of the argument, so I fixed this sentence. Do you still agree with the rest?

I'm an ass man. You aren't buying that. Nature either gifted it, or it didn't.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Perhaps your home is not higher quality and larger, but I'm fairly certain the average home is.

You are obviously not a homeowner.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You are obviously not a homeowner.

I'm a condo owner. My building was built in 1985. It is certainly larger and better quality than condo buildings built before then. Both because of improvements in building codes and because it was built as a luxury building and has been maintained that way.

But that's not the point. We're comparing the housing stock in existence in 1980 to that built since 1980. In what ways do you think my statement is untrue?

I don't think there is any doubt that houses have gotten bigger, on average. And, lo!, lookie here. Census data showing that the mean and median size of new single family homes has gone up over time, both up about 50% between 1973 and 2010.

Now quality is a tricky thing. On the one hand, there might be less brick and stone and other stuff that feels sturdy and heavy. And of course there's the annoyance the new stuff doesn't seem to last as long.

But those new homes have more features (things like more bathrooms per bedroom, and, of course, air conditioning which didn't used to be universal), improved safety and code standards, especially when it comes to plumbing and electric, bigger garages, gas or electric heat instead of fuel oil or coal (going way back), and all kinds of stuff.

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

ETA: I'll grant you that modern subdivisions can be soulless and lacking in other ways, but the houses are bigger and better quality than their equivalents from earlier periods.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm a condo owner. My building was built in 1985. It is certainly larger and better quality than condo buildings built before then. Both because of improvements in building codes and because it was built as a luxury building and has been maintained that way.

But that's not the point. We're comparing the housing stock in existence in 1980 to that built since 1980. In what ways do you think my statement is untrue?

I don't think there is any doubt that houses have gotten bigger, on average. And, lo!, lookie here. Census data showing that the mean and median size of new single family homes has gone up over time, both up about 50% between 1973 and 2010.

Now quality is a tricky thing. On the one hand, there might be less brick and stone and other stuff that feels sturdy and heavy. And of course there's the annoyance the new stuff doesn't seem to last as long.

But those new homes have more features (things like more bathrooms per bedroom, and, of course, air conditioning which didn't used to be universal), improved safety and code standards, especially when it comes to plumbing and electric, bigger garages, gas or electric heat instead of fuel oil or coal (going way back), and all kinds of stuff.

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

ETA: I'll grant you that modern subdivisions can be soulless and lacking in other ways, but the houses are bigger and better quality than their equivalents from earlier periods.

I'll bet you enjoy eating at the Olive Garden.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm a condo owner. My building was built in 1985. It is certainly larger and better quality than condo buildings built before then. Both because of improvements in building codes and because it was built as a luxury building and has been maintained that way.

But that's not the point. We're comparing the housing stock in existence in 1980 to that built since 1980. In what ways do you think my statement is untrue?

I don't think there is any doubt that houses have gotten bigger, on average. And, lo!, lookie here. Census data showing that the mean and median size of new single family homes has gone up over time, both up about 50% between 1973 and 2010.

Now quality is a tricky thing. On the one hand, there might be less brick and stone and other stuff that feels sturdy and heavy. And of course there's the annoyance the new stuff doesn't seem to last as long.

But those new homes have more features (things like more bathrooms per bedroom, and, of course, air conditioning which didn't used to be universal), improved safety and code standards, especially when it comes to plumbing and electric, bigger garages, gas or electric heat instead of fuel oil or coal (going way back), and all kinds of stuff.

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

ETA: I'll grant you that modern subdivisions can be soulless and lacking in other ways, but the houses are bigger and better quality than their equivalents from earlier periods.

Sounds delightful.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'll bet you enjoy eating at the Olive Garden.

I do not, but I'll consider the possibility that the Olive Garden is better than the typical red-sauce, 1950s "Italian" cuisine that would have been available before it showed up.

You seem to be confusing average and high end.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sounds delightful.

I was thinking exactly that.

But I'll see you and raise you:

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

This confirms for me that there are several areas in which it is dangerously stupid to have a national policy or program. Like maybe we really needed a national law of personhood because the South couldn't manage to do the decent thing for Dred Scott, but pretty much everything else? The subtle ways in which your context is different from mine renders your congressman wrong on everything in my life and my congressman wrong on everything in yours.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You are obviously not a homeowner.

Condo ipsa loquitur.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

bwaHAHAHAHAHAHA

ETA I do take your point as to the rest.

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do not, but I'll consider the possibility that the Olive Garden is better than the typical red-sauce, 1950s "Italian" cuisine that would have been available before it showed up.

You seem to be confusing average and high end.

Sure it's dressed up American fast food going down. But when you wash off the remnants of it coming out of the other end later, using the bidet in your condo, the experience is all Europe.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You are obviously not a homeowner.

Yeah, they might be bigger, but they're not better.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm a condo owner. My building was built in 1985. It is certainly larger and better quality than condo buildings built before then. Both because of improvements in building codes and because it was built as a luxury building and has been maintained that way.

But that's not the point. We're comparing the housing stock in existence in 1980 to that built since 1980. In what ways do you think my statement is untrue?

I don't think there is any doubt that houses have gotten bigger, on average. And, lo!, lookie here. Census data showing that the mean and median size of new single family homes has gone up over time, both up about 50% between 1973 and 2010.

Now quality is a tricky thing. On the one hand, there might be less brick and stone and other stuff that feels sturdy and heavy. And of course there's the annoyance the new stuff doesn't seem to last as long.

But those new homes have more features (things like more bathrooms per bedroom, and, of course, air conditioning which didn't used to be universal), improved safety and code standards, especially when it comes to plumbing and electric, bigger garages, gas or electric heat instead of fuel oil or coal (going way back), and all kinds of stuff.

Seriously, do you people never visit the neighborhoods built in the 40s, 50s and 60s?

ETA: I'll grant you that modern subdivisions can be soulless and lacking in other ways, but the houses are bigger and better quality than their equivalents from earlier periods.

Quality isn't one big thing. It's the only thing. We've had to replace almost everything that can be replaced without a building permit on a house that is less than ten years old.

Today's subdivision is full of boxes made of prefab panels and the cheapest materials available. My parents lived in one house for almost 30 years and the only time they had to replace anything was one water heater.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Condo ipsa loquitur.

Si. On a stick.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've had cause in the last two days to look at the real estate market in the Peninsula and I think I can afford to live in East Palo Alto. Maybe.

Please come!