There's big and then there's too big. OK, I draw the line at 2,500 square feet. After all, who needs a 3,000 or even 4,000 square foot home?
After all, given our crazy Greater Boston prices, what a waste to pay for all that extra space!
Families in the 40s, 50s and into the 60s raised four and five children in what today would be considered modest, 1,500 square foot capes, ranches and colonials.
No one back then was moaing and groaning about their lack of a walk-in closet or not having a master bath - having grown up in the Depression years and survived World War II, many of these newly minted homeowners were thinking they had it pretty good.
In today's market you definitely pay for extra space - check out these Natick listings on Redfin.
You'll generally need to spend around half a million to get 2,500 square feet, while $700,000 or more will get you an extra 500 square feet, bringing you up to a total of 3,000.
Looking for 4,000 square feet or more? Better be ready to break a million, even in Natick.
I just don't like big homes - old Victorians being the exception.
The gigantic new stuff being built by today's robber barons has about as much appeal as living in an office park.
While some may look with envy at John Henry and his 35,000-square-foot compound in Brookline, it has all the charm of living in a hotel for me. It didn't come cheap - the Sox owner bulldozed former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt's $16 million Georgian revival to clear the way for his own, office-building sized residence.
Does anyone really need all that extra space? And at what point does a home morph from a place to live to a useless lifestyle statement?
The author is solely responsible for the content.