Sf Vs Acres

[PhiloFarnsworth]

Does anyone have any idea why the Fannie and most clients insists that lots under 1 acre be expressed in terms of square feet? And how many of you think that expressing a lot's size in square feet gives a better "feel" for the relative sizes among comparable sales than would a lot expressed as a decimal part of an acre.
I am sure the answer at this point is that it has always been done this way, but personally, it seems to me that it is far easier to judge the relative sizes when expressed as "0.32", "0.85", "0.16" vs. "13939 sf", 37026 sf, 6970 sf. Even less clear is when lots range above and below 1 acre so one has "40895 sf" and "1.04 acres", etc.

 

[Mark K]

The rules must have been written by a city slicker in one of those east or west coast cities. My bro-in-law manages a real estate office in Seattle. He has always described properties as a 'nice 1,400 s.f. home on a 4,500 s.f. lot', etc. I'm converting 4,500 sf in my head and thinking "1/10 of an acre, what the hell good is that?" He told me that they recently lowered the minimum lot size to 2,500 sf for an SFR in Seattle because the ground is so expensive.

If you describe a lot size as 10,890 s.f. instead of 1/4 acre people in this area will look at you with that deer-in-the-headlights stare, think you're talking calculus or maybe some foreign language.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

It just depends on the size which is easier, imho.
Mostly I'm using SF, but out of town acres may be better.
I just don't want to mix them in one report.

 

[residentialguy]

I use sq meters. Get with the times, man. Metric is the wave of the future. I don't eat at McDonalds because they don't have a double quarter kilogramder

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

I use sq meters. Get with the times, man. Metric is the wave of the future. I don't eat at McDonalds because they don't have a double quarter kilogramder

LMAO. Try Burger King.

 

[Mark K]

I use sq meters. Get with the times, man. Metric is the wave of the future.

LOL!!! You and Jimmy Carter. As president he decreed that highway road plans had to be drawn up using the metric system. As of about 10 years ago I was still dealing with some old legal descriptions and plan sheets for r/w work that used meters, sq. m., and hectares in the legals.

 

[JTip]

In ROW work, we begin acreage at 0.25 acre, anything less is expressed in square feet.

 

[Flakey]

Prior to UAD, it was discretionary and you were free to use which ever you considered appropriate in providing an unambiguous discription of the property relative to the market. You no longer have that option.

 

[timd354]

Does anyone have any idea why the Fannie and most clients insists that lots under 1 acre be expressed in terms of square feet? And how many of you think that expressing a lot's size in square feet gives a better "feel" for the relative sizes among comparable sales than would a lot expressed as a decimal part of an acre.
I am sure the answer at this point is that it has always been done this way, but personally, it seems to me that it is far easier to judge the relative sizes when expressed as "0.32", "0.85", "0.16" vs. "13939 sf", 37026 sf, 6970 sf. Even less clear is when lots range above and below 1 acre so one has "40895 sf" and "1.04 acres", etc.

What difference does it make? As long as everyone is aware of the unit of measure being utilized, it does not matter and it could be sf, acres, square meters, hectares and still not matter

 

[gregb]

All one needs to know is that one acre = 43,560 SF.