Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

c_c_c__combobreaker t1_iy8dob1 wrote

I'm surprised Texas is pretty low considering the large plots of land out there. I'm also surprised that the average lot size in Hawaii is so high.

42

VeseliM t1_iy8y4c2 wrote

Suburban sprawl in Texas cities, my entire neighborhood is almost all 6000sqft lots except corner and cul-de-sac lots. The 4 story townhomes they're building inside the city are all 3500 sqft houses on 2000sqft lots. Completely outnumbers all the 60 acre faux ranches in bumfuck nowhere.

27

ESPiNstigator t1_iyaypnx wrote

Living in Texas suburbs, I believe it. They are selling 2,000 sq ft homes, with basically no yards, for 700k. All 20-30 miles out of downtown major cities.

1

Inle-rah t1_iy8r5od wrote

10,890 ft^2 = 1/4 acre, just in case you were wondering.

29

bakerzdosen t1_iy8zszv wrote

That did strike me as odd that 3 states all “tied” with that number.

(Still confused how lots in NY are larger than Iowa, SD, and Utah though…)

10

linkinzpark88 t1_iy91oma wrote

I'm assuming lot size is only for homes and many people in NYC don't own a house. Rural NY has some pretty large lots.

11

Yankee831 t1_iy9co31 wrote

Also there’s electricity and well access pretty much even in the most rural spots. Grew up in Upstate NY on 50 acres and I didn’t really have a large property compared to others. Now I live in AZ on a 1/2 acre and if I wanted a similar sized lot I would be in the desert hauling water and living off grid or spending $$$ on prime property.

6

Beansilluminate t1_iy8le5e wrote

Seems like just another case of r/peopleliveincities

States with lots of cities (California, Texas) are skewed smaller. Even though the lot sizes in those cities are large compared to other cities

23

Downvote_me_dumbass t1_iy8s9oa wrote

Well another part is that Western states have a greater percentage of their land owned by the Federal government. So, looking at Nevada, where over 80% of the land is owned by the feds skews how much could be developed. In New England, the feds have such a small percentage of land, it’s laughable, so those states can build almost anywhere.

5

miguelandre t1_iy8m7pu wrote

There should be a “residential lot size” version of this.

17

wdmartin t1_iy8xjve wrote

Colorado, Florida, North Dakota, New Jersey and Ohio all came out with an average lot size of 10,019 square feet. Those states have very different population densities and climates. Later in the same article it gives data for average price per square foot -- $55.20 in Florida compared to $29.27 in North Dakota, to pick two.

It's deeply weird that these five states came out with an exactly identical average lot size, to the foot, despite their very different conditions.

12

NorthBus t1_iy8ya80 wrote

The list is for median lot size, not average. Seems like those states just break up a ton of their lots into a quarter acre?

EDIT: Yes, every title and headline says average, but the actual data tables say median.

14

wdmartin t1_iy96pwf wrote

That makes a lot more sense. Median is generally a better measure of central tendency anyway.

6

bag_o_potatoE t1_iya5yjk wrote

Live in a 2002 house in Denver metro with a 10k lot, most new you are lucky to get a 6k lot now even in the burbs.

2

77Gumption77 t1_iy8d1jq wrote

>"Many Vermont towns have strict zoning laws that establish minimum lot size to preserve low population density..."

Yep, that sounds about right. Vote for a socialist, but keep costs high and fiercely protect your own property and prevent others (the "wrong sort") from encroachment. Sounds familiar to some Europeans, I'm sure.

5

Uberschrift t1_iy8xtm8 wrote

Interesting how you intentionally left out the environment protection part…

The USA is NOT Europe btw

3

Swivman t1_iy8zr3f wrote

Texas so low is not surprising if you live here. The builder buys land and shoves as many houses as possible on it. You can touch the neighbor’s house from your kitchen window.

4

Selfless- t1_iy97atq wrote

Title is misleading. Seems it’s a median, not an average, of only municipal areas that had an arbitrary 500 single family homes for sale at the time of the sample. This also links to an article that links to another article that seems to provide only the analysis and not actual data.

3

formerlymtnbkr531 t1_iy9ca6h wrote

There is something to add to this which may help people understand why some of the western states like Nevada are so low is not just that people live in cities. That plays a part especially in places like TX, but in other states like Nevada the government owns A TON of public land. Vermont is rural and lacks density like those other states but also has a very small amount of public land. Hence, there is more land proportionally to spread around.

1

TediousNut t1_iy9ges6 wrote

How do several states have the exact same figure (MI, MO, etc)?

1

[deleted] t1_iya3vsp wrote

Chartwise it looks good but man, but looking up data is too tough. Example, find Ohio

1

AmbitiousFlowers t1_iyadvy7 wrote

Wow, great viz. I knew before clicking that Nevada would have to be last. The homes are soooo close together in Vegas with such tiny, tiny backyards.

1

Loud-Candle-3692 t1_iyb9vsr wrote

That's how the New England states keep out the poor people.

1

LonerDottyRebel t1_iy9vchp wrote

My brain remembered the sizes of Vermont and New Hampshire and insists upon calling bullshit.

Basically everyone has multiple acres?

In states barely bigger than RI and DE?

Just... how?

Are developers aware of this?

0

VeseliM t1_iybfmic wrote

Density. There's no big cities in those states with small lots. Lots of small towns with big multi-acre lots

1

PrimeNumbersby2 t1_iy91ikt wrote

Illinois can just suck it on so many levels.

−2