Posted on 01/28/2007 11:48:56 AM PST by BronzePencil
It sits on top of a hill, overlooking a busy road -- a big, pink stucco house that dwarfs all the houses around it. It is conspicuous consumption at its worst, or at its best, depending on your point of view.
It's not the biggest house around. There are many bigger -- one just a few miles from where I live, not on top of a hill but practically on the offramp of a highway. So many smaller houses have been knocked down to make room for these Goliaths. This is called progress.
I don't understand who lives in these massive homes or who can afford them
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You posted it. If you want privacy, stay private.
LOL .. I laugh at that dumb concoction, too. How tacky.
"In Europe, homes are built to last for generations, so that a free reserve of capital -- rather than a generator of waste -- is passed down through the ages."
Isn't that what death taxes are supposed to prevent?
The first room you enter after coming from outside where you can take off your snowy or muddy shoes, get out of wet jackets, etc. and not track dirt and water into the main part of the house. I think people up here call it a breezeway. But unlike my breezeway, it's totally weather-tight and heated like the rest of the house. Some mud rooms have the washer and dryer there for convenience.
Ok, we call ours "utility room."
You're right on with those comments. A more productive story may have come to light if the reporter had interviewed a few of those big house owners. Who knows, maybe they would turn out to be evil money hoarders whose success came from illicit or immoral conduct. That would have give the article some weight. But an interview might have revealed them as kind, moral, educated, hard working people who made good decisions and society is better for their efforts, regardless of how big their house may be. But that would not have fit this reporter's agenda. So she took the easy way out and just wrote commentary from her biased victim based perspective.
Then there is the possibility that she did interview the people, found them as you describe, and therefore decided to feign ignorance in order to maintain the agenda. Not that any reporter would actually do that.
"Not only do they all look alike, they barely have enough room to get a lawnmower between the houses and yet the houses must have at least a 3000 sq foot floor plan."
Not my idea of a high-end home to be sure, but not a new idea. Many expensive homes were built in cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, right up against each other on relatively small lots. In any case, from my "dream" house's yard you wouldn't be able to see any other houses.
You can't legislate good taste.
Obviously they do it to maximize density. I agree with your dream home. Unfortunately, we only bought a 1/2 acre but we are still far away from our neighbors and I've never ever seen a house that looks like the one I live in.
The minimum floor plan on my street is 3500 sq ft. My house is the small one on the street. Only 3900 sq ft. It does sit on 1/3 acre. It is a custom house. Not to my specs, but to the specs of the original builder. Every house on the street is different. All owner occupied.
Sound like the developer really did mean custom houses. Here in California, custom house means the exact same floor plan, they just invert it our put the garage on the left side of the front door instead of on the right.
That describes my old neighborhood in Mira Mesa (north San Diego). Sometimes they even change the colors :-) I left when the customization included gang graffiti. It was a nice house in a nice neighborhood when I purchased it in 1983. I almost waited too long to sell it by 2000.
2nd amendment friendliness was a key requirement in selecting a replacement for San Diego. The endless parade of anti-gun laws from Sacramento was intolerable. Idaho is a big improvement.
Bravo Sierra!
It looks yankee to me.
Down south we don't connect our living quarters with the barn.
That's not a house. It's a compound.
Actually, my dreams are relatively modest, or at least would have been 15 years ago and 1000 miles from here. The last home I shared with my parents was a real beauty. Probably "only" a little over 2000 sq ft, exterior was all brick and cedar siding, on .9 acres of wooded property on an island (connected by a causeway) with 150 ft of water frontage. For the first 6 years we lived there the lot next door was empty - the people who bought it cleared far too many of the trees (or rather the people they hired to do the work did - they weren't pleased) too close to the property line. Next big wind storm we had a 14" diameter 60' tall fir tree laying across our driveway when we came home. Every house on that island was custom built, and there was a real variety. Classic places like ours. Big ranch-style places. Even a geodesic dome. My parents sold that place for CDN$170,000 in '94. Where I live now I couldn't buy a comparable piece of land for less than $500,000, probably more. Without a house.
I guess they want to turn this country into the 3rd world. Were everyone takes care of everyone by doing nothing.
Ms. Whiner apparently is unaware that the taxes paid on these houses funds a couple of teams by themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.