Irvinecommuter said:
I don't know why you would get less space? With traditional rooms, you have walls that block flow to the floorplans and physically take up space.
You're still not getting it... by removing the living/dining they are giving you a smaller footprint of a home because they either make the house more narrow or less deep. You don't notice a drop in overall square footage because instead of vaulted ceilings on the 1st floor, they use the entire space for the second floor, so your 2000sft house actually feels smaller because everything is less spread out.
Even if it technically gives you for space, the space is largely underused. Yes, I could put a gym in my dining room area but I can also put it in a bedroom or the garage. I much rather have the space in one flowing space where it can be used just about everyday. I mean, square footage is square footage.
I hear this a lot but it's just not a good excuse in my opinion. To me, people love more space even if they don't use it all the time. I don't use the 3rd row seat in my minivan very much but I love having it when I need it. Before our kids, we never used 2 of the bedrooms but we liked having a 4-bedroom house for guests or whatever.
Having a spacious house isn't just about using all of the space all of the time... but having that space available if and when you need it.
But like someone else mentioned, it's a personal choice. It's why I like 3CWG homes even though we only have 2 cars. Or a driveway even though we try to always park in the garage. Maybe it's fat guy thing... I need to spread out but I also want to compartmentalize and don't want everything in one giant downstairs living space.
True-true 
