Being Rich Used Be Represented by a big house.
An architect Susanka said, “Size is not where the sense of home resides.” Wealth and a size of house used be coincided as a symbol of rich and famous. It is true that the bigger the house takes the more money to maintain. Therefore, one has to be wealthy enough to have a big house.
However, there is a current trend that many homeowners are trading their home size for comfort according to the Orange County Register Weekly Magazine, Parade. Many of these homeowners were finding more comfort in less space and freedom. Is this trend wealthy new generations’ wisdom and practical minds? The following is a part of the article by Rory Evans.
How Big Is Too Big?
During the real-estate boom of the last decade, it seemed like there was no such thing as too big a home. Today, many Americans—and their local governments—are reconsidering that notion.
- Lawmakers in DeKalb County, Ga., passed a bill that allows residents to veto construction of new “megahouses.”
- In Marin County, Calif., would be owners of new homes larger than 4,000 square feet must get approval from local authorities.
- Pitkin County, Colo. (which includes Aspen) is now considering a 15,000-square-foot cap on home size. Already, houses larger than 5,000 square feet must include a source of renewable energy (such as solar panels) or pay a fee to support local renewable-energy projects.
- Interim legislation passed last February in Austin, Tex., restricts the size of new homes on existing residential lots: The homes must be no larger than 2,500 square feet, or less than 20% larger than the home that was removed, or no more than 40% as large as the lot.
- In April, a six-month moratorium was placed on construction of houses larger than 2,000 square feet in historic districts of Delray Beach. Fla.
Source: Parade, the Orange County Register (Insert) Weekly Magazine.
If you like to find out more related articles: Visit http://www.road2million.com
Posts
Text Link:
No comments:
Post a Comment