My advice in your case, and consider what it's costing you and take it for what it's worth, is to look for a house >50 years old that you can "fix up" not in terms of liveability but in terms of energy efficiency. If you insulate the walls and ceiling, and double-pane the windows, you can significantly improve their energy efficiency. Back in the '50's houses such as what I imagine you want were built for families with two or three children. Nowadays, if a tennis court won't fit in the family room, people think it's too small. OTOH, if you buy a house built today at the size you want, it will not be terribly inexpensive, but will fall down around you within a decade. You'll be disappointed with what you can get in CA along the coastline for <800K. If you wait a couple of years, that may change, though. CA is at the zenith of a "housing bubble" which is projected to burst soon, and the "real" doomsayers, of which I'm one, are predicting 60% losses in the high-end of the market and maybe as much as 12% at the low end.

Another factor is how far you're willing to drive. Those same doomsayers, and they've bee right so far in this respect, are saying the current $2.50 per gallon prices will inflate to between $15 and $25 within the next 5-10 years. If you're wanting to drive your SUV from an outlying county to the center of town you may quickly be confronted with gasoline costs that exceed your mortgage.

Remember that there's "housing cost" and there's housing "cost." The latter is the combined cost of mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, transportation, and any cost differential affecting local commodity prices, e.g. groceries, water, etc. The former is what the sellers and promoters of real estate want you to believe, and the two are often quite different.

I suspect you know all this, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded.

Newer houses, at least the way they're built in the U.S, tend to be full of space that you have to heat but can't use for anything, while the older houses, particularly the ranch-style houses like mine, tend to be quite thrifty, yet provide lots of useable living space. Nowadays, the trends are set by what folks see on their television, and that has to be large to allow for all the equipment. It's rare to see a living room less than 1000 square feet, even in what's supposed to be a small apartment, on the tube, but then, it only has two walls.

I'd recommend staying away from tri-level houses. They tend to be too warm upstairs and coolish downstairs, with the middle, where living room and kitchen are located, being close to the thermostat. Also, by the time you get to my age, you'll likely want to climb fewer stairs.

Realtors tend to refer to houses based on the accessible floor space, while bankers refer to the "plan" view. That means that a 150-story house and a 1-story house have the same plan. It's a twisted way of looking at things. Be sure you know what they're talking about before you go have a look, else you'll be wasting a few trips. My house has 2500 sf of useable area but is technically classified as a nominally 1250 sf plan. I'm just a bachelor with two dogs, but I have 2000 SF of floor space used for random storage of old computers, support materials, etc, so I have to have that much space. That would be entirely unaffordable in CA, particularly since they don't often build basements there. It's cheaper to fly out a time or two when necessary or when I have the urge for fresh seafood.

RE