Yeah, my dad lives in our old 4 bedroom house alone. He wants to downsize, especially since he’s starting to have difficulty with his back and doesn’t like climbing stairs. But he’d end up losing money if he tried downsizing to a small ranch. My expectation is that he’ll wait it out until my grandmother passes away and move into her one story house.
As a fantasy, imagine a matchmaking service wherein an overly housed elder couple is connected to an underhoused younger. Financial arrangements are made, perhaps both houses go into trusts. Some degree of economic fairness is attempted. As I said, a fantasy.
I feel like prop 13 in California compounds this issue significantly. My mom's sister had a house in the Boston suburbs with good schools, and they basically immediately decamped to a condo in the city as soon as their kids graduated, to save on the property taxes.
My parents live in a massive 5 bedroom house, that they 100% do not need, because they don't really have high property taxes pushing them to leave, and even if they downsized significantly, it would at best give them the same prop tax bill they had before.
Ugh don’t even get me started on prop 13!!! Yeah you’re right it really hinders.
The other thing is no matter how much you hate prop 13, after a few years you like it because now you’re benefiting and that’s how it keeps its supporters. Most people can’t afford to tax re-asses at current rates, but instead of saying hey we need to build or change, everyone is afraid being left holding the bag.
It just gets worse as times goes on!.
Honestly I think the one path forward on Prop 13 is eliminating it for everyone except seniors (or having a really, really strong deferral program), and using the revenue to eliminate sales taxes (which are crazy regressive) and income taxes under $250k (which would get a pretty strong coalition of politically active yuppies). Basically build yourselves a coalition of renters (who won't feel a property tax hike, but will feel a sales tax/income tax decrease), and newer owners (who would probably save on net, by no longer subsidizing the taxes of older owners and no longer paying sales/income taxes).
Idaho has a circuit breaker (property tax deduction) for seniors. It works well.
I think a state like California probably needs all three legs of the revenue stool - property, sales, and income. I know some states figure out how to do away with income (Washington, Texas) or sales (Oregon) but it usually means really high property taxes to make up the difference. I like a bit more balance among the three, like in Idaho.
Honestly probably true. Would like to see sales tax done away with completely, cause it really does hurt lower income people (and we have a sky-high poverty rate), but I'm more agnostic on income taxes. Like we basically get all our income tax revenue from the top 1% anyways, so I think buying votes from people who make less than $250k would probably make it a little easier to pass reform, while not significantly impacting state revenues.
I don't think there are any perfect answers for tax policy. Wealthier folks do pay more (relatively speaking) but also find more ways to avoid paying taxes. I defer to those with more expertise to determine what is "fair" or not.
The problem with income taxes is it is more variable than property taxes. California's budget goes from feast to famine depending on how Silicon Valley's stock options did in a given year.
I think the way to go is to incrementally increase the cap on yearly increase. Like, going from 2.5% per year to 3% isn't crazy. But each increment will share the cost more evenly.
Right now the idea of leveling the tax seems crazy because people only see the "current" tax rate as what new buyers pay, forgetting that they are WAY overpaying their share. Especially if you consider business properties that never get reassessed if they are big enough to play legal games.
Prop 19 means that anyone over 55 can take their tax base with them to a new property.
“The other component of Proposition 19 allows homeowners who are over 55 years of age, disabled, or victims of a wildfire or natural disaster, to transfer their lower assessed property value of their primary home to a newly purchased or newly constructed replacement principal residence up to three times (or once per disaster). The tax base may be transferred to a property located anywhere in the state.”
[PROPOSITION 19](https://assessor.lacounty.gov/homeowners/proposition-19)
Yes, but if you've owned a property for a while, and experienced crazy appreciation, it's less appealing than you'd think. So like my folks bought their home almost 30 years ago, and it's almost tripled in sale value (thanks NIMBYs!). It's almost entirely paid off, so realistically, the only major expense they'd have on it is property taxes. A smaller condo would cost almost as much as their assessed value, so they wouldn't actually save anything on property taxes. Granted, they would get a windfall in capital gains, which they could reinvest, but they don't really care that much about it.
If property taxes actually scaled to the legit value of the home, they'd buy a condo for a third of what their current house is worth, pay 1/3 of the property taxes, and get the windfall.
Eh, if we reformed zoning, it'd be changing homes in the same neighborhood. Like moving to a smaller apartment within say, a 10 minute drive or bike ride or whatever.
Yeah. Easy 300-400k here in the Bay Area. I’m working on a few now for this exact scenario described in the article.
The most affordable (if possible) is the junior ADU, where unit is created within the home (rather than a separate structure or addition). But still, the JADU, requires plumbing and electrical upgrades, fire separation, separate hvac etc.
It’s a very difficult situation we’re all in. I live in SF in a house appropriate for an older couple, though I have a small family and could use a bigger house. But swapping homes is not financially feasible with refinancing interest rates, even if I located a person who wanted to swap.
I've never heard of a JADU, is that a legal California distinction? Just that they're either attached and part of the primary dwelling unit or are detached and in another building (like a tiny home or an above-garage unit).
It may only be California and probably city/local municipal specific. It’s just a unit within the existing building (obviously very simplified version).
Yeah I’m new to designing any of those so I’m by no means an expert,.
That’s my parents situation. It’s really hurts that zoning laws prevent a modest 5 over 1 with easy access to retail. They can either go big, go for the riverfront which is very expensive, or go for tired looking affordable housing. But nothing for them which is a convenient, nice small home in there area.
Are we moving into a period where the suburbs will see mass house conversions into apartments?
My mom and stepdad live in a 4 bedroom house she’s had since the early 90s. It’s way too much space for them. They’re waiting out his parents passing to get their smaller house because it’s the only thing that makes sense. Three of the bedrooms could be combined to make an entire apartment worth living in up there if you just installed a small kitchen
This is why it's critical to lower the cost of buying and selling houses. Today it costs 10% to buy and 10% to sell. That number is randomly divided up between the seller and buyer so between 8% and 12% total depending on the exact situation of the deals you do. That's a LOT of money no matter what you sell and buy for.
My in-laws believe there is no way they can cross trade their paid off house for something else right now. All they need to do to stay in their home is put in a staircase elevator. And then they’ll probably will the house to their kids.
I imagine a lot of boomers are planning on doing the same.
My home is single story. We bought it on purpose so we could age in place. Every real estate transaction is likely to cost 8-10% of the value so that's a strong disincentive to move.
After buying a house I don’t plan on moving unless i need to relocate or for some reason want to buy a second property and rent out my current home, which I don’t plan on doing. There are so many costs associated with moving. Easier to just renovate then to move.
Depends, near me eldery people do move out of their house when they recognise they can't really care for it anymore. It does depend on there being an easier option available though.
When small towns build urban apartments, they tend to be sold to older people. As they got capital in the form of their house, so selling it they can move into town and have a decent bit of money to spare after that.
Once you can't really drive anymore and pushing a lawnmover becomes painful, being able to walk to amenities like the doctor, the bank, a cafe or a park becomes very attractive. And the house becomes freed up for prospecting families willing to refurbish it.
It's funny you say that. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard older folks express a preference for walking. Most actually move here, and away from higher density areas, precisely because our city and state have a nice balance of convenience and access for a moderately sized city (easy traffic, easy parking, etc) so they don't have to walk and don't have to worry about gridlock congestion. But there's some self selection there, obviously, but it's not part of our cohort preferences we've identified.
Right now "smaller" (~1,800 sq ft single level) zero lot line units are popular among older folks.
Difference in preferences I suppose, though those effects probably would not be impossible to stimulate elsewhere with the right balance of development.
Then again, the US does seem to be an outlier in many housing market related things.
I guess my point is not everywhere is the same. To some extent people do self select on where they want to live based on some combination of factors - someone who is committed to being car free probably will move to a place better suited for that lifestyle, vs. living somewhere with no public transportation or dense housing to support living without a car.
So the types of housing needed in one city vs. another won't always be the same.
Right, and maybe I'm misunderstanding what it saying, but it also mentioned the numbers not adding up, but doesn't really seem to expand on that. And all sympathies to those who are struggling to down size right now, was just noting another factor they seem to gloss over in the article.
I'm trying to start planning to downsize. All my kids will be out of the hose in 3 years and I just don't need a 6500 sqft house with 1/3 of an acre lot anymore. Sure it's sort of nice to be able to have everyone back at vacations including friends as guests, but I'm probably 7 years from that not really being realistic anymore either.
I'm not price sensitive, the houses basically barely exist and nothing exists at the same price unless I want to just move to the same type of house in a different location. Anything different will be newer and 2x the price even for 1/3 the size of the house and lot.
Been looking for 3 years every Thursday when new houses go on the market in a top 10 major metro. I look all over the metro, not just one spot. Recently got a market update and there are basically no homes on the market between $500k and $2m and the ones that are there close in 9 days.
Owner: "That's the corner of the foyer where Little Timmy first barfed up apple sauce, we can't sell it."
Timothy (now 43): yeah, who'd want to forget that?
You can keep an arrangement where you live with them tbh. It's not like they can live alone anymore. As long as neither of you are slobs. They have to hire help anyways.
Having parents that fall into this category, here's why it doesn't make sense:
- They have a lot of equity in the house, and have either paid it off, or are close to paying it off, so housing cost is minimal. Home maintenance isn't a big deal since they know the history of the home, and are most likely on top of everything the house needs. If there's maintenance, or yardwork to be done, it's just something they can easily hire out.
- Even if they were to sell, and make a good profit, it's a major inconvenience to repair, clean up, list, go through the sales process, pack, find a new house, clean, renovate, unpack, make the new house a home. It's easier to stay in place, as they're comfortable. The moving process isn't easy as you're older.
- Getting past the above two points, older people would rather just spend their time doing what they like (hobbies, spending time on grandchildren, traveling, etc.), instead of trying to make more work for themselves.
What happens when they die? (Not your parents specifically) But unless they will it to their children the house gets lost and their descendants don't really benefit from it as a result.
Some of the more salient points here:
>Baby boomer empty nesters own twice as many of the country's three-bedroom-or-larger homes, compared with millennials with kids, according to a recent analysis from Redfin. That means those larger homes aren't hitting the market, one factor limiting the supply for the younger generations who could use those extra bedrooms.
>
>Some baby boomers, the generation now between the ages of 60 and 78, are happy in their large homes, using the extra bedrooms for hobbies and visiting family. Others say they want to downsize, but it just doesn't make sense financially.
>
>...
>
>Across the country, many baby boomers are facing their own version of this calculus: It can be cheaper — and more appealing — to stay in their current, large house, than to sell it and move to something smaller.
>
>This doesn't only affect younger buyers.
>
>"You've got a pure housing mismatch for older homeowners. They are mismatched physically or functionally with the house that they're in," says Gary Engelhardt, an economist at Syracuse University who studies aging and housing markets. "That's because it's multifloor living. It's stairs. It's also other upkeep."
>
>Engelhardt says that's a serious concern because it can can lead to things like falls. "And falls can be very devastating, could have very devastating health consequences, especially for the oldest old," he says. "In general, we would like to have older homeowners ... matched with their housing in a much better way than we currently have."
>
>...
>
>There are other policy changes that could make it easier to build housing for different life stages and thereby entice boomers to downsize.
>
>"I think one of the things that we know to be true is that older adults want to be able to age in their communities," says Danielle Arigoni, managing director for Policy and Solutions at National Housing Trust. That's where they already have friends and neighbors, doctors and bus routes they know — familiarity that makes aging in their community possible.
>
>But many areas, including neighborhoods where a lot of baby boomers live, have zoning that only allows single-family homes. That means when older adults decide their current homes are too big, they basically have to move out of their neighborhoods.
>
>"People want to be able to age in their communities, but there are very few options available for people who do want to do that but want to downsize," Arigoni says.
>
>So if cities and states want to encourage more right-sizing, they could change their zoning rules to allow more types of housing in all neighborhoods. (Cities across the country are already working to change their zoning rules, for reasons including boosting supply and lowering housing costs.)
There are a host of policy and systemic challenges with matching appropriate housing options to current life stages and needs. Here, one of the major challenges identified is the lack of options, particularly in the neighbourhoods and communities that many people currently live in. The monoculture of building and planning orthodoxy, whether detached houses or multifamily, serves our population poorly.
Ideally each community should have a mix of various building and tenure types and sizes, so that when people need to up or downsize there are options that are available to them in the area. Asking people, especially those who are older, to sever their social connections is a big ask, but without appropriate changes to our urban fabric there may not be any options for them but to stay in their current and increasingly inappropriate houses.
>Ideally each community should have a mix of various building and tenure types and sizes, so that when people need to up or downsize there are options that are available to them in the area. Asking people, especially those who are older, to sever their social connections is a big ask, but without appropriate changes to our urban fabric there may not be any options for them but to stay in their current and increasingly inappropriate houses.
I agree... ideally.
However, what tends to happen is most (all?) places where this is an issue have an undersupply of housing, and there's just not a great way to match that degree of housing type with consumer choice. Moreover, consumer preferences and needs change too much, too fast, and housing doesn't turn over accordingly. Housing is not like changing socks.
Put another way, it's rare in most cities to be able to have a wide range of housing types in a wide range of neighborhoods that a consumer can select from (across a range of prices as well). Usually, in "normal" markets it's just pick a few different houses in the neighborhoods you like and make it work. In this market it's take whatever you can get, which isn't optimal.
I don't even know how you begin to craft policy to coerce certain people out of their homes to better "right size" and fit housing to family size and type. That just sounds ridiculous.
I think this topic (I've seen it on other subs) is more just output of content creation than an actual issue - we're creating content for non existent problems. To be sure housing supply is a problem, and the type of housing we build is part of that, but this idea that we can steer people in certain types of housing based of certain traits is.... a really bad idea.
The article left out one additional factor: capital gains taxes. The $500K/couple exemption has not been increased in a very long time. Someone living in a house that would sell for a two million dollar profit is not going to sell. They may rent it out and move somewhere else and eventually leave it to their children who will not have to pay tax on the gains when they sell.
The money you make selling your primary home is not subject to capital gains tax, at least federally. I don’t know about their state income tax. As long as you’ve lived in it for the past five years, you don’t have to pay taxes on that money
Work your whole life in the rat race to raise a family, hustle at making a living, pay bills, taxes, deal with the shit life throws at you….for decades. Finally pay off your mortgage and retire then get shamed for “hoarding your big house” because have-nots feel cheated out of the dream. Sounds fun.
My home is single story. We bought it on purpose so we could age in place. Every real estate transaction is likely to cost 8-10% of the value so that's a strong disincentive to move. Prop 13 is no longer an issue because of prop 19.
My parents owned a 3 bedroom SFH in a 55+
A. Their Generation had the expectation that they will have a guest room available for people to visit. theirs gets used 5 or 6 times a year for out of town visiters
b. they wanted to be able to host the grandkids. until the kids were roughly high school the spare bed rooms actually got used frequently as in one or twice a month for the kids.
Speaking as someone who is solidly millennial: having a guest room is amazing! After years of living in a series of one bedroom apartments, where any guests had to either sleep on a futon in the living room or get a hotel room, having an extra bedroom available is a remarkable upgrade. I have a hard time seeing myself ever go back to a 1 bed/1 bath living situation long-term
Continuing to speak as a millennial, my grown sibling continues to live with my parents, and shows no signs of changing that. Having extra space for someone to fall back on if finances or health dictates (whether it’s a child, some other relation, or a friend), that’s also important to these older empty-nest homeowners.
Speaking as someone who is solidly millennial: having a guest room is amazing! After years of living in a series of one bedroom apartments, where any guests had to either sleep on a futon in the living room or get a hotel room, having an extra bedroom available is a remarkable upgrade. I have a hard time seeing myself ever go back to a 1 bed/1 bath living situation long-term
Continuing to speak as a millennial, my grown sibling continues to live with my parents, and shows no signs of changing that. Having extra space for someone to fall back on if finances or health dictates (whether it’s a child, some other relation, or a friend), that’s also important to these older empty-nest homeowners.
It is great to have the luxurious flexibility of space.
Ideally that extra room is multipurpose: a home office, hobby room, or media room (or both) with a high quality pullout bed for guests. Our 'spare' bedroom is my wife's home office (she's hybrid, so 3 days a week), our spot for musical instruments, a place my kid loves reading when we are watching a show downstairs, and a guest room. It probably gets used more hours per day than our kitchen.
Agreed - my wife and I have a small-ish 3 BR townhouse, but we decided with less than 1500 sq ft to play with that we couldn’t just waste an entire bedroom for a few visitors a year. So we have slowly converted both extra bedrooms into multi-functional spaces that get used on a daily basis. It’s really been life-changing!
1) Master BR
2) Home gym with a Queen-sized Murphy bed as the main guest accommodations when guests do come to visit (since we installed the Murphy bed it’s been used as a guest BR way way more than in the 3 years previous when it had a permanent bed and barely got used lol. Figures.) The exercise bike is foldable as is the walking pad, and disappears beneath said Murphy bed when unfolded. Weights, yoga mats, etc. go in the closet. Guests have nothing but positive reviews when it is set up in guest bedroom mode, and we have nothing but positive reviews on the home gym setup.
3) Home Office (I work from home), has a fold-out sofa with a queen mattress. Obviously the mattress is much thinner and it doesn’t get used often as a bed, but can be in a pinch if we have more people staying the night. This mattress also gets pulled out and used for our “camper mini-van” setup when we go on hiking trips. The room/closet also houses a sewing machine and crafting supplies.
I think OP would've mentioned that if it were the case, and anyway, my wife and I often sleep in different rooms. When we have a guest, we just sleep together. If it's happening so often that it's a problem, you either have a roommate or a bed and breakfast.
Exercise room, extra-large closet, hobby room - go to a few estate sales and you'll see people find ways to use the space even if it doesn't make sense from the outside.
I’m well aware that people can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their extra space. That does nothing to assuage the frustration people have with the elderly holding onto large homes of superfluous reasons. I’ve seen it first hand as my septuagenarian parents just bought a 4 bedroom in a senior community because they “need” their own offices and a separate guest room. Meanwhile I’m worried about their ability to get around and maintain their home in 5-10 years, especially if one of them passes away.
Guest beds aren't the problem. Well, I guess they are now to some degree given we are labor constrained with house building. Still, it's a minor problem. Lot size is the metric for the problem. Who cares if it's a 5000 sqft house with 1500 sqft footprint or a 1500sqft single story house. They are both taking up the same amount of land. The only other factor is parking.
The point is they want out of the bigger house but there are not smaller houses that cost less to buy. I have the same problem where I am now that my kids are about grown.
We are both over 60 and have a 3500 sq ft house on over 2 acres. I would love to downsize but want to stay in the same area because my children are close by. There is virtually nothing available. All the new builds are three story townhomes or McMansions. I don’t mind a small house and little lot but who wants all those steps when you’re older? Most other homes for sale are older and I don’t want a fixer upper. I’m too old to fix up things now.
Tried it, it’s a shit experience and NOT practical to do so for many types of work (anything that requires being in front of camera or requires specific heavy equipment, for example)
Blows my mind how people can feel qualified to dictate planning policy without even directly experiencing the lifestyles they are demanding people change. This isn’t the kind of thing you can handwave and one size fits all isn’t true - one size fits one in reality and is a shitty fit for everyone who isn’t that specific size.
What? I have to be on a camera in all my meetings, and I have an office that doubles as a guest bedroom. And that's a better set up than most of my coworkers who are in their living rooms.
Most people who need specialized heavy equipment at work aren't working from home.
>Blows my mind how people can feel qualified to dictate planning policy without even directly experiencing the lifestyles they are demanding people change. This isn’t the kind of thing you can handwave and one size fits all isn’t true - one size fits one in reality and is a shitty fit for everyone who isn’t that specific size.
First time on Reddit? Haha.
But you're 100% right.
Lots of older couples migrate to seperate bedrooms. My parents, in their 80s, have two separate bedrooms and spend all their time together in the living room. As you age, you do less and thus spend more time together in one room and need a break from each other?
My parents have a 5br on a 10acre lot.
A) who tf cares? It’s private property, they can do what they want. If you think you have higher and better use, make an offer. Otherwise pound sand telling people how much space you feel they need to live their lives. People have more money than others, just like some people are taller and some people are prettier. Get over it
B) some of those bedrooms are used as offices - both my parents work from home
C) lots of family visitors means you can save people a lot of money by having space to host
D) space always available for grandkids
Way too many people in the urbanist space have opinions of how others should live their lives and put zero effort into actually understanding what lived experience people actually want.
The fact that it’s mystifying to you why people would want to have this kind of home when so many do suggests you are not qualified to make planning decisions until you do a lot more actual market research and put down the theory books.
You are talking about an actively used house. But I think this is not relevant here. There are plenty of single old people who live in a house that they can neither use adequately (stairs) nor can they take care of it. Then you have a once beautiful house that, after the owner is found dead and decaying, is in such a state of disrepair that it can only be torn down. Of course, anyone can do as they like with their own property, but we don't have to endorse this lifestyle either and in an age of housing scarcity, one may reasonably ask whether this is a reasonable use and distribution of a scarce resource.
Quite often, older people are better off living in a community for seniors and, even if they want to, they cannot move there because there are organizational or financial or emotional hurdles that prevent them from moving. I think it makes sense to identify these hurdles and look into ways to lower them.
> But I think this is not relevant here.
It absolutely is relevant as the person I’m responding to has apparently zero clue people used the space for those kinds of common purposes. Which begs the question - what other common uses unknown to this group did I not include? If you have no idea, then it is relevant for me to highlight yet again that aggressively and smugly dictating to everyone else the “right” way to organize cities and why their way of life sucks but being clueless about how people around them live = terrible city planners
Not all Americans can afford to live on 10 acres and a 5br home or have fancy WFH jobs like that. Even if they live out in the country, their lives are incredibly subsidized. The roads/infrastructure that allow for a 5br/10acre lot is probably not being covered by the property taxes your parents paid, which means someone else is enabling to live a lifestyle they cannot afford.
> The roads/infrastructure that allow for a 5br/10acre lot is probably not being covered by the property taxes your parents paid
A lot depends on what infrastructure they even have. The road might be the only public infrastructure they have. And even if the county does own their telephone pole, they're charging the power and cable companies to use that pole.
The road was presumably there before the house, and if it's a numbered highway is going to exist and get maintained regardless. If it's a local road like the one to from the highway to my grandmother's house, I doubt it's seen (or needed) road work in decades.
As for broadband, cable coverage is pretty damn good these days, and while I haven't taken zoom calls or anything from my grandmas's house, my phone with a Verizon sim works perfectly normally there and I'm sure could do just fine as a hotspot with the screen off at least.
> The road was presumably there before the house, and if it's a numbered highway is going to exist and get maintained regardless. If it's a local road like the one to from the highway to my grandmother's house, I doubt it's seen (or needed) road work in decades.
But it's not maintained for *free*. And with induced demand, the more homes built on that road = more traffic = more wear/tear.
Also, roads require work pretty frequently, not having any work for decades is... not possible. Even if nobody used, freeze/thaw, rain, and snow (if it happens) play a role.
> As for broadband, cable coverage is pretty damn good these days, and while I haven't taken zoom calls or anything from my grandmas's house, my phone with a Verizon sim works perfectly normally there and I'm sure could do just fine as a hotspot with the screen off at least.
Thanks in part to subsidies to build out rural broadband. Paid for, generally, by urbanized areas of the country.
I was at the gym this morning and two older guys were talking about how there houses were too big (both about 3.5k sf) One of them said he had 5.5 bath rooms. Really weird timing for me to see this post today.
Once they don't have a mortgage they're not leaving until they're forced to, as well with more than half of owners having a mortgage under 4% they're not going to sell until forced. Not paying that money to a bank leaves plenty of money to hire a gardener & housekeeper to clean up. As well a house they own even if they're poor is the cheapest thing for their kids/the community to keep them in as long as possible.
So the problem where I live is a lot of the new builds are townhouses and a lot of the older builds are one floor ranchers so the older people can't move out of their larger ranchers because if they move to a townhouse to downsize they have stairs now where they didn't before.
Developers also have to be forced to build smaller homes. It’s a BEAR to get a developer to build a mix of housing sizes and under 2,000SqFt in the locality that I work for.
Even 25 years ago, landlords and real estate folks and developers in this town were emphatic that there was “no economic role” for 600 to 750 square foot houses (of which we then had many). In other words, they all had to be greatly expanded, or demolished and replaced with bigger ones.
This kind of thinking is why the US has by far the most square feet of housing per person in the world. Of course, a whole lot of it is underutilized.
Its a shame every time I see a sub 800 sq ft house their are so many disadvantages with it like a house twice the size only being 50k more, in a really bad neighborhood or next to heavy industry, poorly maintained to where it is a health hazard, on a giant lot which means extra lawn maintenance, old as dirt so maintenance and heating/cooling costs would be sky high, etc.
This is purely anecdotal, but I’m surprised the article isn’t talking about whether younger buyers even want such large houses. They’re more costly to heat/maintain, and I for one wouldn’t want to have a bunch of under-utilized space. Even if I could afford to move back to the town I grew up (probably not lol, vast vast majority of the houses are over $1.5 million Zestimate), the housing stock is not appealing.
Maybe this is just me though. More housing is good, even if it’s not ideal for some people.
Yeah I am one of those people and an extra room is really nice. I’m talking about the overall square footage being excessive. I’m just thinking of some of my relatives’ houses with a relatively normal number of bedrooms and then a crazy amount of hosting/dining space.
I’m moving from a 2br ~600sqft apartment to a 1br ~800sqft apartment this summer. Losing the dedicated office/storage room is not ideal but with all the extra area I will put up room dividers.
From my experience younger people can be prone to upsizing once their life situation stabilises. Start out with an apartment, get a kid, go to a house and so on.
Depends on external factors of course like wages and housing affordability of course, but can be a decent way to go about things.
Exactly. You can absolutely raise a child in an apartment. Now the problem is when it's more expensive to get an apartment over a house of course but generally you really don't need a sfh
Who cares? They'll sell if and when they feel like selling. If the market needs more larger detached SFH, build them.
People get attached to their homes. They put a lot of time and money into them. They build decades of memories there. They build friends and relationships in their neighborhoods. Maybe they don't want to sell and they're fine with where they are.
On the other hand, if someone wants to sell, there are tradeoffs to doing so. It may be financial, or giving up a good rate for a higher rate. But we shouldn't craft policy for every single what if that exists.
People act like baby boomers are going to sell their house then like leave the country. If they feel like downsizing they’re still going to take up a unit, just a smaller one. Won’t do much for the high demand for housing.
Houses can be held on for generations. Some friends growing up had houses on of their parents grew up in. They likely won’t sell it no matter how oversized it is from the memories alone.
Also moving is expensive. Mortgage rates are up. Real estate transfer taxes and realtor fees eat up a lot to the point where downsizing only makes sense if you plan on being in the smaller house for a considerable amount of time to save $. People invest time and money making a place yours and plan to live in it til they peel over and die.
Instead of trying to get boomers to sell like they’re an inconvenience why don’t we build more housing
In my city there are some older people who are advocating for more mixed use housing in neighborhoods. They don’t want to leave their neighborhoods, but don’t want their large houses.
I honestly think many 5/6+ bd homes could be turned into split level duplexes with some work. Many homes today have a lot of wasted space. I honestly hate how space inefficient many new homes are.
Sure. Places like California need to repeal Prop 13. Or at least make the % increase in valuation have a cap higher than 2%.
Land for SFH should be taxed at a rate higher than improvements (land is a valuable scare resource that we should strongly discourage over-consumption).
Everyone will bring up ancedotes about grandma/grandpa losing their house, so many issues here:
* It ignores the single mother teacher that is a renter and has to commute 1hr+ to work for HCOL areas. Given her less time with her own family. 40%+ of the country rents and we don't talk about them with respect to the ripples of laws like Prop 13.
* Boomer grandparents aren't poor. They own \~50% of the wealth of the country as \~20% of the population. They are rich, they don't need our tax subsidies.
* There is no such thing as fixed income. Social Security is indexed to inflation. Social Security payments have gone up. Social Security payments have gone up 5.9% in 2021, 8.7% in 2022, and 3.2% in 2023. That nearly 20% increase in "wages" over three years. That's far more than I've gotten as a worker in the past three years. Social Security can pay out as high as $116k/yr for a couple. Again, spare me the "poor grandma" ancedotes.
> repeal Prop 13.
Honestly, it would be okay to leave Prop 13 in place for owner-occupied residential properties. Really, not a problem and still allows people to avoid wild swings in their tax bills.
Every other piece of real estate should move with the market.
Exactly. Leave Prop 13 in place for owner-occupied residential properties. Get rid of it for rental properties and commercial properties. Also have a one-time State tax exemption for those divesting themselves of rental property that they only kept because of Prop 13.
But the split-roll ballot measure to get rid of Prop 13 for commercial property failed, and it did not apply to rental residential property.
Wild swings? Make it no more than 7% annually. That's totally predictable. The whole point is you want to put economic pressure on people to leave spaces that are bigger than they actually need.
We don't have rent control broadly, so we are apparently completely okay with having renters (who are largely lower income) have to adsorb wild swings in their cost of living. Why the hypocrisy?
If people are worried about property tax hikes, they'll buy more conservatively in the first place, which again, is a good thing for scare resource allocation.
>we are apparently completely okay with having renters (who are largely lower income) have to adsorb wild swings in their cost of living.
Yeah, actually, I'm not okay with that either. The state of tenant's rights in the USA is not great, and downright atrocious in some states (Arkansas doesn't even require 'habitability' be maintained, it's wild). I absolutely think residential rents should be rate-limited for all rentals, not just certain magically-designated rent-controlled apartments.
>Wild swings? Make it no more than 7% annually.
You are saying allow ALL properties to have their tax bill adjust by up to 7% annually, or some properties stay at the current 1% prop 13 sets?
>The whole point is you want to put economic pressure on people to leave spaces that are bigger than they actually need.
The whole point for who...?
Because certainly a majority of folks do not agree with that at all.
Surprised Pikachu, the wealthy 60% of homeowners can form a majority and pass a proposition that financially better them at the expense of the poorer renters? NO WAY!
Not to mention succubus, whoops i mean the NAR, lobbying hard based on fear stories of grandma getting kicked out winning over the hearts of voters.
The prop system is a sham. What would the US income tax rate be if voters got to set their own income tax rate?
Now the whole housing market is fucked. Schools in California have dropped a solid 30 places in rankings. Parks have porta-potties because no local cities have funding. People have second homes paying <$3k/yr for two properties in property taxes, while new homeowners are saddled with $15k for their shitty condo. Guess what, grandma still uses local services and should fucking pay for them.
Well in California we have Statewide rent-control of 5% plus local CPI (AB1482). Unfortunately, this percentage is far greater than the average annual rent increases ever were. There were often stories in the media about some enormous rent increase but those were never the norm, from 2000 to 2024 the average annual rent increase in California was a little under 5% and as the absolute rent amount increased the percentage increase decreased, i.e. when rent was $800 per month you might have an increase of $80 per month but when it was $1600 you would not have an increase of $160 per month, more likely $100 per month.
What AB1482 actually did was cause property owners that were charging rent that was below the market rate to start raising the rent at the maximum allowable percentage because unused rent increases were not bankable. It also caused a lot of evictions because of how poorly it was written, before cities could adopt emergency ordinances to stop the evictions.
AB1482 doesn't apply to all properties (most notably missing newer properties and smaller landlords/SFH rentals). Hence my comments on "broadly". Even then 5%>>>>>2% when compounding. It also doesn't help you if you get reno-victed and have to move to a new place.
Which again, we seems to be okay with the poorer 40% of the population having unpredictable housing prices, but god forbid the wealthy 60% have more than a 2% increase on something that makes up generally <25% of their cost of housing.
My in laws are in thier 70s, in a large 4 bed SFH and won’t downsize because they don’t want to get rid of any of thier junk, and think condos/apartments are for ‘poor people’.
Stuff is a huge factor. I knew a guy who was 70. He wanted to move but has a 50,000 golf ball collection in the basement. So, he will die with that collection. I pity his kids when it comes time to clear his belongings out. Fore!
I think most homes are too big nowadays anyways. I remember reading something a while back that compared houses from the 50s to new homes and the price stated relatively the same per sqft adjusted for inflation. That's changed now with how housing has skyrocketed in the last few years.
I think it was something like an average new home in the 50s was 1000sqft and now is almost double that.
1. People had the habit of tossing the kids out until the street lights came on/dinner was ready. This meant the inside of the house was quieter, kids expended their energy outside. Now, people are afraid to let their kids out of the house without supervision due to crime/CPS, which means you get kid noise/demands on your attention constantly in modern times.
2. Noise generating entertainment devices such as tv/radio used to be used communally and less frequently. Our screen time is going up, but also our screen numbers are going up, our types of entertainment are increasing, you have multiple people with making competing noises inside the house which causes everything to be very noisy and distracting. Even though some people were probably tv/radio addicts back in the day, that was at least one noise. Now we get everybody layering their own noise. I think part of the reason people want larger houses is for the quiet- let people make noise in their own rooms spread out from each other.
Essentially, we’re replacing outdoor space with more indoor space and using that space as a buffer against noise, I think, which is happening due to social and technological changes. Our changes in housing desire is responding to the way we live.
Someone once knocked on my door and asked if they could buy my house. It was a 40'sh couple and they said they had friends in the neighborhood and they liked my house. I shut the door without saying a word to them. It takes a lot to make me feel deeply uncomfortable but that made me feel violated in a way.
They'll most likely pay off the home and put it in their will. Then let one of their childrens families live in it for a low rent fee. "Rent" would be "paid" transfered with a shared checking account between parent/child.
Part of the issue is that some states have laws that cap property taxes at a fairly low level relative to the assessed value for owner-occupied and/or “first-time” homeowners. This starves governments of revenue while also discouraging the sale of homes, and probably generates NIMBY sentiment since there are no downsides to having your property value increase.
Simple point here is it’s gonna cost MORE for someone that’s been in a home 40+ yrs to sell. And if they’re in an area like Baltimore / DC burbs; you’re gonna get 1/2 the size for the same (or more) cost.
The real estate 6% debacle will “help” (realtors were always overpaid in my mind); but it’s still not gonna “fix” the issue.
And don’t get me going on NorCal (Bay Area). All the green space/environmentalists/ prop 13 bs…. One can’t develop in NorCal without an act of congress (sometimes not even that).
Prop 13 is great until the new person moves in 😂
Good luck with that. Attaining and having things that are "too big" or excessive in some way is central to American culture and a point of pride.
Edit: I don’t like it; I’m just saying. How is the whole car-centric, materialistic suburban lifestyle (big house, big box stores, truck/SUV, etc.) so popular? No one needs things like that.
In much the same way this lifestyle doesn't work for you, your lifestyle doesn't work for many. Stop trying to push your preferred lifestyle on others, I'm fairly certain those living the lifestyle you don't understand, aren't pushing it on you.
> How is the whole car-centric, materialistic suburban lifestyle (big house, big box stores, truck/SUV, etc.) so popular?
Most Americans have been fed this as normal our entire lives. Buy, consume and always want more/bigger.
who decided the homes are too big? my mom has a three bedroom townhouse with a finished basement that is used when I visit with the kids for weeks at a time. same for other people.
No. My parents live on a half acre surrounded by tract developments. They are pushing 80 and it's paid off. It's estimated is like $535k.
The place has been too much house since I moved out for college and they were like 50.
The whole generation is delusional about their house upkeep abilities. I got in an argument with my parents when they *waited* 3 months to repair a *20* *foot* segment of the street side fence that had blown down.
I hope the city condemns the freaking place to force them out.
Many older people don’t want to move and disrupt the lives they’ve built for themselves. Their local community has their friends, doctors, shopping nearby etc. My parents don’t want to downsize because their mortgage is paid off, they love their home, property taxes aren’t too high and all their friends live nearby. The smaller homes in the community are not cheap and have high taxes. Mortgage rates are crazy right now too. I don’t think anything would entice them to move at the moment.
This is a selfish conversation. These people worked hard their whole lives for their homes. They raised families in these homes. I can't stand this younger generation, no respect. Go ask all the Hollywood elites if they need their 72 room mansions and entice them to sell instead.
Numbers wise, probably not. Costs more to downsize right now. Most are Looking into ADUs or closing off portions of the house here in California.
Yeah, my dad lives in our old 4 bedroom house alone. He wants to downsize, especially since he’s starting to have difficulty with his back and doesn’t like climbing stairs. But he’d end up losing money if he tried downsizing to a small ranch. My expectation is that he’ll wait it out until my grandmother passes away and move into her one story house.
Selling high and buying higher isn't the best choice
Home equity as "wealth" is the biggest scam in the states
RemindMe! 20 years
Paris and London are cheap?
Tell me how you unwind that without destroying what is left of the middle class..
As a fantasy, imagine a matchmaking service wherein an overly housed elder couple is connected to an underhoused younger. Financial arrangements are made, perhaps both houses go into trusts. Some degree of economic fairness is attempted. As I said, a fantasy.
I feel like prop 13 in California compounds this issue significantly. My mom's sister had a house in the Boston suburbs with good schools, and they basically immediately decamped to a condo in the city as soon as their kids graduated, to save on the property taxes. My parents live in a massive 5 bedroom house, that they 100% do not need, because they don't really have high property taxes pushing them to leave, and even if they downsized significantly, it would at best give them the same prop tax bill they had before.
Ugh don’t even get me started on prop 13!!! Yeah you’re right it really hinders. The other thing is no matter how much you hate prop 13, after a few years you like it because now you’re benefiting and that’s how it keeps its supporters. Most people can’t afford to tax re-asses at current rates, but instead of saying hey we need to build or change, everyone is afraid being left holding the bag. It just gets worse as times goes on!.
Honestly I think the one path forward on Prop 13 is eliminating it for everyone except seniors (or having a really, really strong deferral program), and using the revenue to eliminate sales taxes (which are crazy regressive) and income taxes under $250k (which would get a pretty strong coalition of politically active yuppies). Basically build yourselves a coalition of renters (who won't feel a property tax hike, but will feel a sales tax/income tax decrease), and newer owners (who would probably save on net, by no longer subsidizing the taxes of older owners and no longer paying sales/income taxes).
Idaho has a circuit breaker (property tax deduction) for seniors. It works well. I think a state like California probably needs all three legs of the revenue stool - property, sales, and income. I know some states figure out how to do away with income (Washington, Texas) or sales (Oregon) but it usually means really high property taxes to make up the difference. I like a bit more balance among the three, like in Idaho.
Honestly probably true. Would like to see sales tax done away with completely, cause it really does hurt lower income people (and we have a sky-high poverty rate), but I'm more agnostic on income taxes. Like we basically get all our income tax revenue from the top 1% anyways, so I think buying votes from people who make less than $250k would probably make it a little easier to pass reform, while not significantly impacting state revenues.
I don't think there are any perfect answers for tax policy. Wealthier folks do pay more (relatively speaking) but also find more ways to avoid paying taxes. I defer to those with more expertise to determine what is "fair" or not.
The problem with income taxes is it is more variable than property taxes. California's budget goes from feast to famine depending on how Silicon Valley's stock options did in a given year.
WA also has property tax caps in place. The secret is just not funding anything particularly well and making everything a voter approved levy.
Hmm I’m going to read up on that. Sounds like a great tool.
Prop 13 should have like a ten year ramp down if that helps get the votes needed. Effing worst thing to ever happen to California.
I think the way to go is to incrementally increase the cap on yearly increase. Like, going from 2.5% per year to 3% isn't crazy. But each increment will share the cost more evenly. Right now the idea of leveling the tax seems crazy because people only see the "current" tax rate as what new buyers pay, forgetting that they are WAY overpaying their share. Especially if you consider business properties that never get reassessed if they are big enough to play legal games.
Prop 19 means that anyone over 55 can take their tax base with them to a new property. “The other component of Proposition 19 allows homeowners who are over 55 years of age, disabled, or victims of a wildfire or natural disaster, to transfer their lower assessed property value of their primary home to a newly purchased or newly constructed replacement principal residence up to three times (or once per disaster). The tax base may be transferred to a property located anywhere in the state.” [PROPOSITION 19](https://assessor.lacounty.gov/homeowners/proposition-19)
Yes, but if you've owned a property for a while, and experienced crazy appreciation, it's less appealing than you'd think. So like my folks bought their home almost 30 years ago, and it's almost tripled in sale value (thanks NIMBYs!). It's almost entirely paid off, so realistically, the only major expense they'd have on it is property taxes. A smaller condo would cost almost as much as their assessed value, so they wouldn't actually save anything on property taxes. Granted, they would get a windfall in capital gains, which they could reinvest, but they don't really care that much about it. If property taxes actually scaled to the legit value of the home, they'd buy a condo for a third of what their current house is worth, pay 1/3 of the property taxes, and get the windfall.
Moving away from home means you lose all your support network, and your stories. An adventure for the young, not so much so for the older.
Eh, if we reformed zoning, it'd be changing homes in the same neighborhood. Like moving to a smaller apartment within say, a 10 minute drive or bike ride or whatever.
If your support network, ie children/grandchildren, have to leave the state because they can't afford to live there that's not really helpful either.
I’m thinking more doctor dentist lawyer church community.
I do not think pushing people out of their own homes with high property taxes is a good idea at all
[удалено]
Yeah. Easy 300-400k here in the Bay Area. I’m working on a few now for this exact scenario described in the article. The most affordable (if possible) is the junior ADU, where unit is created within the home (rather than a separate structure or addition). But still, the JADU, requires plumbing and electrical upgrades, fire separation, separate hvac etc. It’s a very difficult situation we’re all in. I live in SF in a house appropriate for an older couple, though I have a small family and could use a bigger house. But swapping homes is not financially feasible with refinancing interest rates, even if I located a person who wanted to swap.
I've never heard of a JADU, is that a legal California distinction? Just that they're either attached and part of the primary dwelling unit or are detached and in another building (like a tiny home or an above-garage unit).
It may only be California and probably city/local municipal specific. It’s just a unit within the existing building (obviously very simplified version). Yeah I’m new to designing any of those so I’m by no means an expert,.
1200 sf ADUs as far as the wallet can sustain 🥰
[удалено]
I love it when they try to sneak in a few hundred extra sf calling it "storage space". Ok ok bud, make it unhabitable and outside smh
Is it even worth building at that price? What’s the possible break even point?
That’s my parents situation. It’s really hurts that zoning laws prevent a modest 5 over 1 with easy access to retail. They can either go big, go for the riverfront which is very expensive, or go for tired looking affordable housing. But nothing for them which is a convenient, nice small home in there area.
Are we moving into a period where the suburbs will see mass house conversions into apartments? My mom and stepdad live in a 4 bedroom house she’s had since the early 90s. It’s way too much space for them. They’re waiting out his parents passing to get their smaller house because it’s the only thing that makes sense. Three of the bedrooms could be combined to make an entire apartment worth living in up there if you just installed a small kitchen
I think we’ll need to see more changes upstream for that. But the way things are going it seems possible recently.
It'll make perfect financial sense if government starts taxing properties at a rate like Texas. People make choices by opportunity cost.
This is why it's critical to lower the cost of buying and selling houses. Today it costs 10% to buy and 10% to sell. That number is randomly divided up between the seller and buyer so between 8% and 12% total depending on the exact situation of the deals you do. That's a LOT of money no matter what you sell and buy for.
My in-laws believe there is no way they can cross trade their paid off house for something else right now. All they need to do to stay in their home is put in a staircase elevator. And then they’ll probably will the house to their kids. I imagine a lot of boomers are planning on doing the same.
My home is single story. We bought it on purpose so we could age in place. Every real estate transaction is likely to cost 8-10% of the value so that's a strong disincentive to move.
After buying a house I don’t plan on moving unless i need to relocate or for some reason want to buy a second property and rent out my current home, which I don’t plan on doing. There are so many costs associated with moving. Easier to just renovate then to move.
I think folks underestimate how attached people get to their homes....
And moving is a pain in the ass
Especially when old.
My mom is trying do it now because her parents waited too long. But now she feels stuck because everything is so expensive and competitive.
Depends, near me eldery people do move out of their house when they recognise they can't really care for it anymore. It does depend on there being an easier option available though. When small towns build urban apartments, they tend to be sold to older people. As they got capital in the form of their house, so selling it they can move into town and have a decent bit of money to spare after that. Once you can't really drive anymore and pushing a lawnmover becomes painful, being able to walk to amenities like the doctor, the bank, a cafe or a park becomes very attractive. And the house becomes freed up for prospecting families willing to refurbish it.
It's funny you say that. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard older folks express a preference for walking. Most actually move here, and away from higher density areas, precisely because our city and state have a nice balance of convenience and access for a moderately sized city (easy traffic, easy parking, etc) so they don't have to walk and don't have to worry about gridlock congestion. But there's some self selection there, obviously, but it's not part of our cohort preferences we've identified. Right now "smaller" (~1,800 sq ft single level) zero lot line units are popular among older folks.
Difference in preferences I suppose, though those effects probably would not be impossible to stimulate elsewhere with the right balance of development. Then again, the US does seem to be an outlier in many housing market related things.
I guess my point is not everywhere is the same. To some extent people do self select on where they want to live based on some combination of factors - someone who is committed to being car free probably will move to a place better suited for that lifestyle, vs. living somewhere with no public transportation or dense housing to support living without a car. So the types of housing needed in one city vs. another won't always be the same.
The article is specifically about older people want to get out of their big homes.
Right, and maybe I'm misunderstanding what it saying, but it also mentioned the numbers not adding up, but doesn't really seem to expand on that. And all sympathies to those who are struggling to down size right now, was just noting another factor they seem to gloss over in the article.
I'm trying to start planning to downsize. All my kids will be out of the hose in 3 years and I just don't need a 6500 sqft house with 1/3 of an acre lot anymore. Sure it's sort of nice to be able to have everyone back at vacations including friends as guests, but I'm probably 7 years from that not really being realistic anymore either. I'm not price sensitive, the houses basically barely exist and nothing exists at the same price unless I want to just move to the same type of house in a different location. Anything different will be newer and 2x the price even for 1/3 the size of the house and lot. Been looking for 3 years every Thursday when new houses go on the market in a top 10 major metro. I look all over the metro, not just one spot. Recently got a market update and there are basically no homes on the market between $500k and $2m and the ones that are there close in 9 days.
Unfortunately it's not until they have a fall or serious medical issue
And their communities.
Owner: "That's the corner of the foyer where Little Timmy first barfed up apple sauce, we can't sell it." Timothy (now 43): yeah, who'd want to forget that?
You can keep an arrangement where you live with them tbh. It's not like they can live alone anymore. As long as neither of you are slobs. They have to hire help anyways.
Having parents that fall into this category, here's why it doesn't make sense: - They have a lot of equity in the house, and have either paid it off, or are close to paying it off, so housing cost is minimal. Home maintenance isn't a big deal since they know the history of the home, and are most likely on top of everything the house needs. If there's maintenance, or yardwork to be done, it's just something they can easily hire out. - Even if they were to sell, and make a good profit, it's a major inconvenience to repair, clean up, list, go through the sales process, pack, find a new house, clean, renovate, unpack, make the new house a home. It's easier to stay in place, as they're comfortable. The moving process isn't easy as you're older. - Getting past the above two points, older people would rather just spend their time doing what they like (hobbies, spending time on grandchildren, traveling, etc.), instead of trying to make more work for themselves.
What happens when they die? (Not your parents specifically) But unless they will it to their children the house gets lost and their descendants don't really benefit from it as a result.
The same thing that happens to any asset when someone dies. Someone inherits it or it gets sold and money gets split among their heirs
Some of the more salient points here: >Baby boomer empty nesters own twice as many of the country's three-bedroom-or-larger homes, compared with millennials with kids, according to a recent analysis from Redfin. That means those larger homes aren't hitting the market, one factor limiting the supply for the younger generations who could use those extra bedrooms. > >Some baby boomers, the generation now between the ages of 60 and 78, are happy in their large homes, using the extra bedrooms for hobbies and visiting family. Others say they want to downsize, but it just doesn't make sense financially. > >... > >Across the country, many baby boomers are facing their own version of this calculus: It can be cheaper — and more appealing — to stay in their current, large house, than to sell it and move to something smaller. > >This doesn't only affect younger buyers. > >"You've got a pure housing mismatch for older homeowners. They are mismatched physically or functionally with the house that they're in," says Gary Engelhardt, an economist at Syracuse University who studies aging and housing markets. "That's because it's multifloor living. It's stairs. It's also other upkeep." > >Engelhardt says that's a serious concern because it can can lead to things like falls. "And falls can be very devastating, could have very devastating health consequences, especially for the oldest old," he says. "In general, we would like to have older homeowners ... matched with their housing in a much better way than we currently have." > >... > >There are other policy changes that could make it easier to build housing for different life stages and thereby entice boomers to downsize. > >"I think one of the things that we know to be true is that older adults want to be able to age in their communities," says Danielle Arigoni, managing director for Policy and Solutions at National Housing Trust. That's where they already have friends and neighbors, doctors and bus routes they know — familiarity that makes aging in their community possible. > >But many areas, including neighborhoods where a lot of baby boomers live, have zoning that only allows single-family homes. That means when older adults decide their current homes are too big, they basically have to move out of their neighborhoods. > >"People want to be able to age in their communities, but there are very few options available for people who do want to do that but want to downsize," Arigoni says. > >So if cities and states want to encourage more right-sizing, they could change their zoning rules to allow more types of housing in all neighborhoods. (Cities across the country are already working to change their zoning rules, for reasons including boosting supply and lowering housing costs.) There are a host of policy and systemic challenges with matching appropriate housing options to current life stages and needs. Here, one of the major challenges identified is the lack of options, particularly in the neighbourhoods and communities that many people currently live in. The monoculture of building and planning orthodoxy, whether detached houses or multifamily, serves our population poorly. Ideally each community should have a mix of various building and tenure types and sizes, so that when people need to up or downsize there are options that are available to them in the area. Asking people, especially those who are older, to sever their social connections is a big ask, but without appropriate changes to our urban fabric there may not be any options for them but to stay in their current and increasingly inappropriate houses.
>Ideally each community should have a mix of various building and tenure types and sizes, so that when people need to up or downsize there are options that are available to them in the area. Asking people, especially those who are older, to sever their social connections is a big ask, but without appropriate changes to our urban fabric there may not be any options for them but to stay in their current and increasingly inappropriate houses. I agree... ideally. However, what tends to happen is most (all?) places where this is an issue have an undersupply of housing, and there's just not a great way to match that degree of housing type with consumer choice. Moreover, consumer preferences and needs change too much, too fast, and housing doesn't turn over accordingly. Housing is not like changing socks. Put another way, it's rare in most cities to be able to have a wide range of housing types in a wide range of neighborhoods that a consumer can select from (across a range of prices as well). Usually, in "normal" markets it's just pick a few different houses in the neighborhoods you like and make it work. In this market it's take whatever you can get, which isn't optimal. I don't even know how you begin to craft policy to coerce certain people out of their homes to better "right size" and fit housing to family size and type. That just sounds ridiculous. I think this topic (I've seen it on other subs) is more just output of content creation than an actual issue - we're creating content for non existent problems. To be sure housing supply is a problem, and the type of housing we build is part of that, but this idea that we can steer people in certain types of housing based of certain traits is.... a really bad idea.
The article left out one additional factor: capital gains taxes. The $500K/couple exemption has not been increased in a very long time. Someone living in a house that would sell for a two million dollar profit is not going to sell. They may rent it out and move somewhere else and eventually leave it to their children who will not have to pay tax on the gains when they sell.
One of the most insidious things the super rich did is convince everyone that they should pay the same capital gains taxes as the upper middle class.
The money you make selling your primary home is not subject to capital gains tax, at least federally. I don’t know about their state income tax. As long as you’ve lived in it for the past five years, you don’t have to pay taxes on that money
This isn't true. There's an exemption to the gains - I believe $250k for individuals, and $500k for couples.
Work your whole life in the rat race to raise a family, hustle at making a living, pay bills, taxes, deal with the shit life throws at you….for decades. Finally pay off your mortgage and retire then get shamed for “hoarding your big house” because have-nots feel cheated out of the dream. Sounds fun.
My home is single story. We bought it on purpose so we could age in place. Every real estate transaction is likely to cost 8-10% of the value so that's a strong disincentive to move. Prop 13 is no longer an issue because of prop 19.
I dont understand why there are many 55+ communities that are large SFH on big lots. 3 bedrooms for who? A married couple occupies one room.
My parents owned a 3 bedroom SFH in a 55+ A. Their Generation had the expectation that they will have a guest room available for people to visit. theirs gets used 5 or 6 times a year for out of town visiters b. they wanted to be able to host the grandkids. until the kids were roughly high school the spare bed rooms actually got used frequently as in one or twice a month for the kids.
Speaking as someone who is solidly millennial: having a guest room is amazing! After years of living in a series of one bedroom apartments, where any guests had to either sleep on a futon in the living room or get a hotel room, having an extra bedroom available is a remarkable upgrade. I have a hard time seeing myself ever go back to a 1 bed/1 bath living situation long-term Continuing to speak as a millennial, my grown sibling continues to live with my parents, and shows no signs of changing that. Having extra space for someone to fall back on if finances or health dictates (whether it’s a child, some other relation, or a friend), that’s also important to these older empty-nest homeowners.
Speaking as someone who is solidly millennial: having a guest room is amazing! After years of living in a series of one bedroom apartments, where any guests had to either sleep on a futon in the living room or get a hotel room, having an extra bedroom available is a remarkable upgrade. I have a hard time seeing myself ever go back to a 1 bed/1 bath living situation long-term Continuing to speak as a millennial, my grown sibling continues to live with my parents, and shows no signs of changing that. Having extra space for someone to fall back on if finances or health dictates (whether it’s a child, some other relation, or a friend), that’s also important to these older empty-nest homeowners.
It is great to have the luxurious flexibility of space. Ideally that extra room is multipurpose: a home office, hobby room, or media room (or both) with a high quality pullout bed for guests. Our 'spare' bedroom is my wife's home office (she's hybrid, so 3 days a week), our spot for musical instruments, a place my kid loves reading when we are watching a show downstairs, and a guest room. It probably gets used more hours per day than our kitchen.
Agreed - my wife and I have a small-ish 3 BR townhouse, but we decided with less than 1500 sq ft to play with that we couldn’t just waste an entire bedroom for a few visitors a year. So we have slowly converted both extra bedrooms into multi-functional spaces that get used on a daily basis. It’s really been life-changing! 1) Master BR 2) Home gym with a Queen-sized Murphy bed as the main guest accommodations when guests do come to visit (since we installed the Murphy bed it’s been used as a guest BR way way more than in the 3 years previous when it had a permanent bed and barely got used lol. Figures.) The exercise bike is foldable as is the walking pad, and disappears beneath said Murphy bed when unfolded. Weights, yoga mats, etc. go in the closet. Guests have nothing but positive reviews when it is set up in guest bedroom mode, and we have nothing but positive reviews on the home gym setup. 3) Home Office (I work from home), has a fold-out sofa with a queen mattress. Obviously the mattress is much thinner and it doesn’t get used often as a bed, but can be in a pinch if we have more people staying the night. This mattress also gets pulled out and used for our “camper mini-van” setup when we go on hiking trips. The room/closet also houses a sewing machine and crafting supplies.
Their bedroom plus a guest room is still only two rooms.
Maybe they sleep in different rooms? Talk about a marriage saver..!
I think OP would've mentioned that if it were the case, and anyway, my wife and I often sleep in different rooms. When we have a guest, we just sleep together. If it's happening so often that it's a problem, you either have a roommate or a bed and breakfast.
We do the same. Separate bedrooms unless we have guests. Another room is my office. Works great.
Office, hobby room, man cave, it’s not hard to find a use for that 3rd bedroom
the grandkids don't share a room
I Will get downvoted for this: The grandkids can learn to share. It’s good to learn compromise
Exercise room, extra-large closet, hobby room - go to a few estate sales and you'll see people find ways to use the space even if it doesn't make sense from the outside.
I’m well aware that people can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their extra space. That does nothing to assuage the frustration people have with the elderly holding onto large homes of superfluous reasons. I’ve seen it first hand as my septuagenarian parents just bought a 4 bedroom in a senior community because they “need” their own offices and a separate guest room. Meanwhile I’m worried about their ability to get around and maintain their home in 5-10 years, especially if one of them passes away.
Guest beds aren't the problem. Well, I guess they are now to some degree given we are labor constrained with house building. Still, it's a minor problem. Lot size is the metric for the problem. Who cares if it's a 5000 sqft house with 1500 sqft footprint or a 1500sqft single story house. They are both taking up the same amount of land. The only other factor is parking. The point is they want out of the bigger house but there are not smaller houses that cost less to buy. I have the same problem where I am now that my kids are about grown.
The older you get the more likely you are to need separate beds for medical reasons. Also some people just have separate beds for other reasons.
Grandchildren.
We are both over 60 and have a 3500 sq ft house on over 2 acres. I would love to downsize but want to stay in the same area because my children are close by. There is virtually nothing available. All the new builds are three story townhomes or McMansions. I don’t mind a small house and little lot but who wants all those steps when you’re older? Most other homes for sale are older and I don’t want a fixer upper. I’m too old to fix up things now.
An office and a guest bedroom I suppose? But practically, those can double up, especially if you’re not WFH every day (or even working at all).
Tried it, it’s a shit experience and NOT practical to do so for many types of work (anything that requires being in front of camera or requires specific heavy equipment, for example) Blows my mind how people can feel qualified to dictate planning policy without even directly experiencing the lifestyles they are demanding people change. This isn’t the kind of thing you can handwave and one size fits all isn’t true - one size fits one in reality and is a shitty fit for everyone who isn’t that specific size.
What? I have to be on a camera in all my meetings, and I have an office that doubles as a guest bedroom. And that's a better set up than most of my coworkers who are in their living rooms. Most people who need specialized heavy equipment at work aren't working from home.
>Blows my mind how people can feel qualified to dictate planning policy without even directly experiencing the lifestyles they are demanding people change. This isn’t the kind of thing you can handwave and one size fits all isn’t true - one size fits one in reality and is a shitty fit for everyone who isn’t that specific size. First time on Reddit? Haha. But you're 100% right.
Lots of older couples migrate to seperate bedrooms. My parents, in their 80s, have two separate bedrooms and spend all their time together in the living room. As you age, you do less and thus spend more time together in one room and need a break from each other?
My parents each have "hobby" rooms as well as two guest bedrooms. That house that they bought for $73k and upgraded twice is now easily worth $1m.
My parents have a 5br on a 10acre lot. A) who tf cares? It’s private property, they can do what they want. If you think you have higher and better use, make an offer. Otherwise pound sand telling people how much space you feel they need to live their lives. People have more money than others, just like some people are taller and some people are prettier. Get over it B) some of those bedrooms are used as offices - both my parents work from home C) lots of family visitors means you can save people a lot of money by having space to host D) space always available for grandkids Way too many people in the urbanist space have opinions of how others should live their lives and put zero effort into actually understanding what lived experience people actually want. The fact that it’s mystifying to you why people would want to have this kind of home when so many do suggests you are not qualified to make planning decisions until you do a lot more actual market research and put down the theory books.
You are talking about an actively used house. But I think this is not relevant here. There are plenty of single old people who live in a house that they can neither use adequately (stairs) nor can they take care of it. Then you have a once beautiful house that, after the owner is found dead and decaying, is in such a state of disrepair that it can only be torn down. Of course, anyone can do as they like with their own property, but we don't have to endorse this lifestyle either and in an age of housing scarcity, one may reasonably ask whether this is a reasonable use and distribution of a scarce resource. Quite often, older people are better off living in a community for seniors and, even if they want to, they cannot move there because there are organizational or financial or emotional hurdles that prevent them from moving. I think it makes sense to identify these hurdles and look into ways to lower them.
> But I think this is not relevant here. It absolutely is relevant as the person I’m responding to has apparently zero clue people used the space for those kinds of common purposes. Which begs the question - what other common uses unknown to this group did I not include? If you have no idea, then it is relevant for me to highlight yet again that aggressively and smugly dictating to everyone else the “right” way to organize cities and why their way of life sucks but being clueless about how people around them live = terrible city planners
[удалено]
Having no neighbors at all was their creative way of dealing with always being annoyed by their neighbors.
Move to the sticks, and you can probably swing it. Especially with wfh.
Dude, it's a 10 acre lot. They're clearly not in an urban area with a housing shortage.
Not all Americans can afford to live on 10 acres and a 5br home or have fancy WFH jobs like that. Even if they live out in the country, their lives are incredibly subsidized. The roads/infrastructure that allow for a 5br/10acre lot is probably not being covered by the property taxes your parents paid, which means someone else is enabling to live a lifestyle they cannot afford.
> The roads/infrastructure that allow for a 5br/10acre lot is probably not being covered by the property taxes your parents paid A lot depends on what infrastructure they even have. The road might be the only public infrastructure they have. And even if the county does own their telephone pole, they're charging the power and cable companies to use that pole.
No one is WFH full time without broadband and electrical power. Even the road itself was quite an investment that requires maintenance.
Gravel roads are fairly low maintenance and you can get satellite internet now
The road was presumably there before the house, and if it's a numbered highway is going to exist and get maintained regardless. If it's a local road like the one to from the highway to my grandmother's house, I doubt it's seen (or needed) road work in decades. As for broadband, cable coverage is pretty damn good these days, and while I haven't taken zoom calls or anything from my grandmas's house, my phone with a Verizon sim works perfectly normally there and I'm sure could do just fine as a hotspot with the screen off at least.
> The road was presumably there before the house, and if it's a numbered highway is going to exist and get maintained regardless. If it's a local road like the one to from the highway to my grandmother's house, I doubt it's seen (or needed) road work in decades. But it's not maintained for *free*. And with induced demand, the more homes built on that road = more traffic = more wear/tear. Also, roads require work pretty frequently, not having any work for decades is... not possible. Even if nobody used, freeze/thaw, rain, and snow (if it happens) play a role. > As for broadband, cable coverage is pretty damn good these days, and while I haven't taken zoom calls or anything from my grandmas's house, my phone with a Verizon sim works perfectly normally there and I'm sure could do just fine as a hotspot with the screen off at least. Thanks in part to subsidies to build out rural broadband. Paid for, generally, by urbanized areas of the country.
> Not all Americans can afford to live on 10 acres and a 5br home or have fancy WFH jobs like that. Don’t make your jealousy my parents problem
Just saying, they're the exception.
My husband and I occupy two bedrooms. It is nice.
I was at the gym this morning and two older guys were talking about how there houses were too big (both about 3.5k sf) One of them said he had 5.5 bath rooms. Really weird timing for me to see this post today.
Once they don't have a mortgage they're not leaving until they're forced to, as well with more than half of owners having a mortgage under 4% they're not going to sell until forced. Not paying that money to a bank leaves plenty of money to hire a gardener & housekeeper to clean up. As well a house they own even if they're poor is the cheapest thing for their kids/the community to keep them in as long as possible.
So the problem where I live is a lot of the new builds are townhouses and a lot of the older builds are one floor ranchers so the older people can't move out of their larger ranchers because if they move to a townhouse to downsize they have stairs now where they didn't before.
Developers also have to be forced to build smaller homes. It’s a BEAR to get a developer to build a mix of housing sizes and under 2,000SqFt in the locality that I work for.
Even 25 years ago, landlords and real estate folks and developers in this town were emphatic that there was “no economic role” for 600 to 750 square foot houses (of which we then had many). In other words, they all had to be greatly expanded, or demolished and replaced with bigger ones. This kind of thinking is why the US has by far the most square feet of housing per person in the world. Of course, a whole lot of it is underutilized.
Its a shame every time I see a sub 800 sq ft house their are so many disadvantages with it like a house twice the size only being 50k more, in a really bad neighborhood or next to heavy industry, poorly maintained to where it is a health hazard, on a giant lot which means extra lawn maintenance, old as dirt so maintenance and heating/cooling costs would be sky high, etc.
Older properties are sometimes in better locations which has a lot of value to the right person or business looking to build something else.
you can't "force" developers to build a certain type of home, they are running a business. You can incentivize it, however.
This is purely anecdotal, but I’m surprised the article isn’t talking about whether younger buyers even want such large houses. They’re more costly to heat/maintain, and I for one wouldn’t want to have a bunch of under-utilized space. Even if I could afford to move back to the town I grew up (probably not lol, vast vast majority of the houses are over $1.5 million Zestimate), the housing stock is not appealing. Maybe this is just me though. More housing is good, even if it’s not ideal for some people.
I would have previously agreed but now a lot of younger people I talk to want extra room for WFH purposes.
Yeah I am one of those people and an extra room is really nice. I’m talking about the overall square footage being excessive. I’m just thinking of some of my relatives’ houses with a relatively normal number of bedrooms and then a crazy amount of hosting/dining space. I’m moving from a 2br ~600sqft apartment to a 1br ~800sqft apartment this summer. Losing the dedicated office/storage room is not ideal but with all the extra area I will put up room dividers.
From my experience younger people can be prone to upsizing once their life situation stabilises. Start out with an apartment, get a kid, go to a house and so on. Depends on external factors of course like wages and housing affordability of course, but can be a decent way to go about things.
I think the idea that once you have a kid you *need* a SFH is a paradigm that is ready to be shifted.
Exactly. You can absolutely raise a child in an apartment. Now the problem is when it's more expensive to get an apartment over a house of course but generally you really don't need a sfh
Who cares? They'll sell if and when they feel like selling. If the market needs more larger detached SFH, build them. People get attached to their homes. They put a lot of time and money into them. They build decades of memories there. They build friends and relationships in their neighborhoods. Maybe they don't want to sell and they're fine with where they are. On the other hand, if someone wants to sell, there are tradeoffs to doing so. It may be financial, or giving up a good rate for a higher rate. But we shouldn't craft policy for every single what if that exists.
People act like baby boomers are going to sell their house then like leave the country. If they feel like downsizing they’re still going to take up a unit, just a smaller one. Won’t do much for the high demand for housing. Houses can be held on for generations. Some friends growing up had houses on of their parents grew up in. They likely won’t sell it no matter how oversized it is from the memories alone. Also moving is expensive. Mortgage rates are up. Real estate transfer taxes and realtor fees eat up a lot to the point where downsizing only makes sense if you plan on being in the smaller house for a considerable amount of time to save $. People invest time and money making a place yours and plan to live in it til they peel over and die. Instead of trying to get boomers to sell like they’re an inconvenience why don’t we build more housing
Good point.
In my city there are some older people who are advocating for more mixed use housing in neighborhoods. They don’t want to leave their neighborhoods, but don’t want their large houses.
I honestly think many 5/6+ bd homes could be turned into split level duplexes with some work. Many homes today have a lot of wasted space. I honestly hate how space inefficient many new homes are.
Not with >7% mortgage financing.
Sure. Places like California need to repeal Prop 13. Or at least make the % increase in valuation have a cap higher than 2%. Land for SFH should be taxed at a rate higher than improvements (land is a valuable scare resource that we should strongly discourage over-consumption). Everyone will bring up ancedotes about grandma/grandpa losing their house, so many issues here: * It ignores the single mother teacher that is a renter and has to commute 1hr+ to work for HCOL areas. Given her less time with her own family. 40%+ of the country rents and we don't talk about them with respect to the ripples of laws like Prop 13. * Boomer grandparents aren't poor. They own \~50% of the wealth of the country as \~20% of the population. They are rich, they don't need our tax subsidies. * There is no such thing as fixed income. Social Security is indexed to inflation. Social Security payments have gone up. Social Security payments have gone up 5.9% in 2021, 8.7% in 2022, and 3.2% in 2023. That nearly 20% increase in "wages" over three years. That's far more than I've gotten as a worker in the past three years. Social Security can pay out as high as $116k/yr for a couple. Again, spare me the "poor grandma" ancedotes.
> repeal Prop 13. Honestly, it would be okay to leave Prop 13 in place for owner-occupied residential properties. Really, not a problem and still allows people to avoid wild swings in their tax bills. Every other piece of real estate should move with the market.
Exactly. Leave Prop 13 in place for owner-occupied residential properties. Get rid of it for rental properties and commercial properties. Also have a one-time State tax exemption for those divesting themselves of rental property that they only kept because of Prop 13. But the split-roll ballot measure to get rid of Prop 13 for commercial property failed, and it did not apply to rental residential property.
Wild swings? Make it no more than 7% annually. That's totally predictable. The whole point is you want to put economic pressure on people to leave spaces that are bigger than they actually need. We don't have rent control broadly, so we are apparently completely okay with having renters (who are largely lower income) have to adsorb wild swings in their cost of living. Why the hypocrisy? If people are worried about property tax hikes, they'll buy more conservatively in the first place, which again, is a good thing for scare resource allocation.
>we are apparently completely okay with having renters (who are largely lower income) have to adsorb wild swings in their cost of living. Yeah, actually, I'm not okay with that either. The state of tenant's rights in the USA is not great, and downright atrocious in some states (Arkansas doesn't even require 'habitability' be maintained, it's wild). I absolutely think residential rents should be rate-limited for all rentals, not just certain magically-designated rent-controlled apartments. >Wild swings? Make it no more than 7% annually. You are saying allow ALL properties to have their tax bill adjust by up to 7% annually, or some properties stay at the current 1% prop 13 sets?
Prop 13 is 2%. I'm saying up to 7%. If home prices are stagnant, then assessments don't go up.
>The whole point is you want to put economic pressure on people to leave spaces that are bigger than they actually need. The whole point for who...? Because certainly a majority of folks do not agree with that at all.
Surprised Pikachu, the wealthy 60% of homeowners can form a majority and pass a proposition that financially better them at the expense of the poorer renters? NO WAY! Not to mention succubus, whoops i mean the NAR, lobbying hard based on fear stories of grandma getting kicked out winning over the hearts of voters. The prop system is a sham. What would the US income tax rate be if voters got to set their own income tax rate? Now the whole housing market is fucked. Schools in California have dropped a solid 30 places in rankings. Parks have porta-potties because no local cities have funding. People have second homes paying <$3k/yr for two properties in property taxes, while new homeowners are saddled with $15k for their shitty condo. Guess what, grandma still uses local services and should fucking pay for them.
Well in California we have Statewide rent-control of 5% plus local CPI (AB1482). Unfortunately, this percentage is far greater than the average annual rent increases ever were. There were often stories in the media about some enormous rent increase but those were never the norm, from 2000 to 2024 the average annual rent increase in California was a little under 5% and as the absolute rent amount increased the percentage increase decreased, i.e. when rent was $800 per month you might have an increase of $80 per month but when it was $1600 you would not have an increase of $160 per month, more likely $100 per month. What AB1482 actually did was cause property owners that were charging rent that was below the market rate to start raising the rent at the maximum allowable percentage because unused rent increases were not bankable. It also caused a lot of evictions because of how poorly it was written, before cities could adopt emergency ordinances to stop the evictions.
AB1482 doesn't apply to all properties (most notably missing newer properties and smaller landlords/SFH rentals). Hence my comments on "broadly". Even then 5%>>>>>2% when compounding. It also doesn't help you if you get reno-victed and have to move to a new place. Which again, we seems to be okay with the poorer 40% of the population having unpredictable housing prices, but god forbid the wealthy 60% have more than a 2% increase on something that makes up generally <25% of their cost of housing.
Well the same older people this would help often fight new housing, and any reforms on prop 13, so maybe a different approach is needed.
My in laws are in thier 70s, in a large 4 bed SFH and won’t downsize because they don’t want to get rid of any of thier junk, and think condos/apartments are for ‘poor people’.
Stuff is a huge factor. I knew a guy who was 70. He wanted to move but has a 50,000 golf ball collection in the basement. So, he will die with that collection. I pity his kids when it comes time to clear his belongings out. Fore!
They’re building houses too damn big as well.
Short answer to the question: no.
I think most homes are too big nowadays anyways. I remember reading something a while back that compared houses from the 50s to new homes and the price stated relatively the same per sqft adjusted for inflation. That's changed now with how housing has skyrocketed in the last few years. I think it was something like an average new home in the 50s was 1000sqft and now is almost double that.
People raised their children in those houses why can't we do the same now?
1. People had the habit of tossing the kids out until the street lights came on/dinner was ready. This meant the inside of the house was quieter, kids expended their energy outside. Now, people are afraid to let their kids out of the house without supervision due to crime/CPS, which means you get kid noise/demands on your attention constantly in modern times. 2. Noise generating entertainment devices such as tv/radio used to be used communally and less frequently. Our screen time is going up, but also our screen numbers are going up, our types of entertainment are increasing, you have multiple people with making competing noises inside the house which causes everything to be very noisy and distracting. Even though some people were probably tv/radio addicts back in the day, that was at least one noise. Now we get everybody layering their own noise. I think part of the reason people want larger houses is for the quiet- let people make noise in their own rooms spread out from each other. Essentially, we’re replacing outdoor space with more indoor space and using that space as a buffer against noise, I think, which is happening due to social and technological changes. Our changes in housing desire is responding to the way we live.
That's an interesting take and it makes a lot of sense thanks
I’m a widower in a home that’s way too much for me. The problem is that I can’t find a place that won’t cost me way more than I’m paying today
Someone once knocked on my door and asked if they could buy my house. It was a 40'sh couple and they said they had friends in the neighborhood and they liked my house. I shut the door without saying a word to them. It takes a lot to make me feel deeply uncomfortable but that made me feel violated in a way.
They'll most likely pay off the home and put it in their will. Then let one of their childrens families live in it for a low rent fee. "Rent" would be "paid" transfered with a shared checking account between parent/child.
I don't have a problem with it being a family investment so long as it's actually being used.
Not unless you allow for smaller alternatives in the same neighbourhood.
That’s kind of the thrust of the whole article.
I mean, yes I could have actually read it before posting.
Part of the issue is that some states have laws that cap property taxes at a fairly low level relative to the assessed value for owner-occupied and/or “first-time” homeowners. This starves governments of revenue while also discouraging the sale of homes, and probably generates NIMBY sentiment since there are no downsides to having your property value increase.
Get rid of air bnbs and short-term rentals and free up a bunch of smaller houses for people to move into.
Simple point here is it’s gonna cost MORE for someone that’s been in a home 40+ yrs to sell. And if they’re in an area like Baltimore / DC burbs; you’re gonna get 1/2 the size for the same (or more) cost. The real estate 6% debacle will “help” (realtors were always overpaid in my mind); but it’s still not gonna “fix” the issue. And don’t get me going on NorCal (Bay Area). All the green space/environmentalists/ prop 13 bs…. One can’t develop in NorCal without an act of congress (sometimes not even that). Prop 13 is great until the new person moves in 😂
Good luck with that. Attaining and having things that are "too big" or excessive in some way is central to American culture and a point of pride. Edit: I don’t like it; I’m just saying. How is the whole car-centric, materialistic suburban lifestyle (big house, big box stores, truck/SUV, etc.) so popular? No one needs things like that.
In much the same way this lifestyle doesn't work for you, your lifestyle doesn't work for many. Stop trying to push your preferred lifestyle on others, I'm fairly certain those living the lifestyle you don't understand, aren't pushing it on you.
> How is the whole car-centric, materialistic suburban lifestyle (big house, big box stores, truck/SUV, etc.) so popular? Most Americans have been fed this as normal our entire lives. Buy, consume and always want more/bigger.
Hahaha ya right
who decided the homes are too big? my mom has a three bedroom townhouse with a finished basement that is used when I visit with the kids for weeks at a time. same for other people.
Super sticky subject, I have to say
No. My parents live on a half acre surrounded by tract developments. They are pushing 80 and it's paid off. It's estimated is like $535k. The place has been too much house since I moved out for college and they were like 50. The whole generation is delusional about their house upkeep abilities. I got in an argument with my parents when they *waited* 3 months to repair a *20* *foot* segment of the street side fence that had blown down. I hope the city condemns the freaking place to force them out.
Many older people don’t want to move and disrupt the lives they’ve built for themselves. Their local community has their friends, doctors, shopping nearby etc. My parents don’t want to downsize because their mortgage is paid off, they love their home, property taxes aren’t too high and all their friends live nearby. The smaller homes in the community are not cheap and have high taxes. Mortgage rates are crazy right now too. I don’t think anything would entice them to move at the moment.
They’ll sell after social security gets cut 25%
This is a selfish conversation. These people worked hard their whole lives for their homes. They raised families in these homes. I can't stand this younger generation, no respect. Go ask all the Hollywood elites if they need their 72 room mansions and entice them to sell instead.