I love the dataset, but this has to be one of the worst visualizations I've seen: it takes way too long to scroll through the whole list and the differences in the size of the rendered houses is essentially meaningless to the average observer.
And even in the US most of science and the engineering world now use the metric system. Imperial is largely just a public facing/public consumption unit of measure now.
I'm in a 1950 sqft home and find it way too small (2 little kids with tiny rooms, one big open great room that combines dining room, living room and kitchen). I think layout makes a big difference too .. if you have multiple floors, you end up with wasted space. Also, basements and garages are not counted, and they make a big difference.
Quite interesting that New York ranks second smallest and a whopping $420/sqft. The data are quite skewed by the NYC area. We sold our typical Western New York home (~1,700 sqft) in 2016 for about $42/sqft.
22 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 61.2 ms ] threadMeters? Space per inhabitant? Irrelevant to your next hive where water should only be .5 seconds of beeswagger dance away!
Posted on the internet with a worldwide audience. (Including this HN audience of engineers and scientists).
> where such units are the default.
All the more baffling!
And even in the US most of science and the engineering world now use the metric system. Imperial is largely just a public facing/public consumption unit of measure now.
You change units depending on what the data is about. Thats wild
But what if your data is about the US AND UK? What do you do then ?
1600 was fine. We're in about 2k now, and definitely wouldn't want to go any bigger.
It never ceases to amaze me how cheap land is in the US