Houses Getting Bigger, Not Smaller (Commentary With Stats)

[M II A II R II K]

Houses Getting Bigger, Not Smaller


February 17, 2012

By Lew Sichelman



Read More: http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/20...ichelmanBigger

.....

Through the first half of last year, the typical newly built single-family house measured 2,522 square feet (234.3 sq m), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s 141 square feet (13.1 sq m) larger—the equivalent of a full 14-by-10-square-foot (1.3 by 0.9 sq m) secondary bedroom in some houses, a living room in others—than the 2,381 square feet (221.2 sq m) recorded in 2010. And it’s 18 square feet (1.6 sq m) larger than the record 2,504 square feet (232.6 sq m) counted in 2007. That means that even as builders were putting up the fewest houses since World War II last year, they also were erecting the largest ones—with more bedrooms, bathrooms, and finished basements than ever before.

- First-time buyers—the purchasers who tend to go for smaller, less expensive houses with fewer features and amenities—were largely ignored by homebuilders in favor of people moving up to their second, third, and fourth houses, explains Rose Quint, a research specialist at the NAHB. Those are the people who have well-documented incomes, strong employment histories, great credit, and lots of cash for a downpayment. And those are also the people who tend to go for a lot of splash and flash. “The market was dominated by a segment of buyers who tend to buy better-than-average homes,” Quint says. “You pretty much had to be a superstar to buy last year, and that forced builders to chop off the lower half of the market.”

- However, the NAHB economist says she thinks that will change—and a trend toward smaller homes finally will take root—once lenders loosen their requirements and “allow less-creditworthy buyers back into the market.” But that won’t happen this year—at least not if what builders told the association in a December poll is on target. The survey found that builders are still producing for well-heeled folks. Not only are 47 percent of builders planning no change in the size of the houses they put in the ground this year, 14 percent said they are switching to larger models. Similarly, while 38 percent indicated that they are sticking to their current price range, 12 percent said they were moving toward more expensive product.

.....

[mhays]

If only a small submarket is getting many houses at all, it doesn't really speak to broad trends. The mass market will probably trend toward smaller.

[dimondpark]

I dont really mind so long as lots arent getting bigger.

[Austinlee]

My house is a 2 story brick with 3 bedrooms. It's 841 sq ft.

Built in 1943. Perfect size for a single guy such as myself.

[1Boston]

I have a kind of big house, 4 bedroom 3 bath, upstairs downstairs, and theirs this new development in my town and the basements alone are bigger than my house. And their all that big, it's ridiculous. I don't know if that's a very good example compared to the rest of the US, since my county wasn't really affected by the housing bubble.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Does urban housing/apartments count as homes? There are more multi-unit apartments/condo's/lofts being built in our downtown than single family, detatched homes in most other parts of the city. And yes, it seems that a lot of the suburban style homes that are being built are quite large and for wealthy people that were not hit as badly by the downturn, where as the mid-market suburban single family housing slowed dramatically.

[vid]

Originally Posted by PA Pride

My house is a 2 story brick with 3 bedrooms. It's 841 sq ft.

Built in 1943. Perfect size for a single guy such as myself.

Why does a single person need three bedrooms?

[10023]

Originally Posted by vid

Why does a single person need three bedrooms?

Office and a guest room?

I would say ~850 square feet is the right amount of space, but I'd rather have it in the form of a one bedroom with bigger rooms.

I'm renting a house for the summer that's about 1,500 square feet, but after years of living in NYC the place seems huge.

[Chicago103]

Space is overrated, I live in the city and in the neighborhood; home is just a place to eat, sleep, shit and shower. Granted right now I have tons of extra space, I live alone in a 1,000 square foot (not including semi-finished basement) three bedroom, one bath bungalow with a yard but that is only because I am living in my late grandmother's house for the time being. To me this is the ideal size house to have with a wife and two kids. As far as people saying the need all this guest space call me a rude host but do all guests expect the Hilton? I mean if I was wealthy enough I would like to have guest rooms but I won't sacrifice location just to provide more room for guests, I want a place for my own needs not for once a year party. So many suburban minded people want to show off and make their house like a hotel or a banquet hall for parties. It would actually be cheaper to live in a smaller house in the city and just rent out a space at a local restaurant for a special event when you need to. Why slave away paying bigger mortgages, higher utility rates and more lawn care to impress people you hardly see and every other shmuck's house party they go to in the burbs impresses them with the same shit and thus no one will remember the hue of your granite counter tops anyways, stupid. I would rather impress people with the location I live in.

[10023]

How old are you?

I ask because once you get a little older, you'll appreciate having a place that's at least comfortable to hang out in. You and your wife won't always want to be right on top of each other (so to speak). I like to cook, and the tiny kitchen in my Manhattan apartment just doesn't cut it. You'll want to host friends more often, not that you won't go out as well. And with kids... well there better be somewhere for them to be and not be underfoot.

I don't actually think 2,000 square feet or so is more than I'd want with a couple of kids. But if the average is ~2,500 square feet, then there must be a lot of houses quite a bit larger than that. Remember that there are quite a lot of city lofts that are 2k+ square feet.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by 10023

How old are you?

I ask because once you get a little older, you'll appreciate having a place that's at least comfortable to hang out in. You and your wife won't always want to be right on top of each other (so to speak). I like to cook, and the tiny kitchen in my Manhattan apartment just doesn't cut it. You'll want to host friends more often, not that you won't go out as well. And with kids... well there better be somewhere for them to be and not be underfoot.

I don't actually think 2,000 square feet or so is more than I'd want with a couple of kids. But if the average is ~2,500 square feet, then there must be a lot of houses quite a bit larger than that. Remember that there are quite a lot of city lofts that are 2k+ square feet.

I think the increase in average house size is one of the major reasons more young adults are choosing to live with their parents after college. My parents house is 2,800 SF plus a full finished basement and both me and my older sister still live with them. She is 27 and I am 24 and we both have steady jobs and have enough money to move out but there is really no need because we all have plenty of space. When we want to have time to ourselves the house is big enough we do not need to interact. When we want to hangout we all can spend time in the living room or dining room.

[philvia]

and what's the average US household size now? 2.5?

1000sf per person is ridiculous. too many americans buy for the sake of vanity (in terms of size) and not purpose.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

The scourge of the McMansion continues.

[Dac150]

^^^ As far as I'm concerned that's straight off an assembly line. Has manufactured labeled all over it.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by philvia

and what's the average US household size now? 2.5?

1000sf per person is ridiculous. too many americans buy for the sake of vanity (in terms of size) and not purpose.

It's not ridiculous if that's what an individual chooses to have. People have different needs and desires and make choices based on what they can afford. You have no reason to speak about what is right for someone else. If you like living in a small space then that's fine - for you. The fact is that most people enjoy some space, hence the popularity of suburbs and larger homes.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Dac150

^^^ As far as I'm concerned that's straight off an assembly line. Has manufactured labeled all over it.

Wow...it looks pretty nice to me. I certainly wouldn't mind living in it.

I guess we all have opinions.

[mhays]

People have choices, but I wouldn't mind them losing their shirts for being that wasteful.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by mhays

People have choices, but I wouldn't mind them losing their shirts for being that wasteful.

Again, it's not up to you to decide what is unnecessary for someone else. It's up to each individual...if additional space is wasteful for you then fine, but you can't assume that it's equally wasteful for everyone.

I can't imagine wishing financial ruin for anyone. That's just wrong.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Wow...it looks pretty nice to me. I certainly wouldn't mind living in it.

I guess we all have opinions.

It's not that it's a bad looking home, however when you see the same home multiplied over and over all in the same proximity, the character of the home becomes diminished. That's when that manufactured feel comes into play.

I have no issue with substantial square-footage, though if I'm going to shell out some serious cash for a sizable home, I would prefer something with individual character that's not being breathed on by neighboring properties.

[vid]

I agree that that house isn't too bad. It doesn't suffer from "let's give the house six rooflines" syndrome (which I like to describe as multiple houses wanting to appear at the same point in the space time continuum) and there is no obvious garage. It's definitely in that little, awkward addition on the left of the house but you can't see the door, so it's progress at least.

Architecturally speaking though, most of the houses in the suburbs are disgusting pieces of shit that have no idea what they're supposed to be. It's just a combination of the ten most popular residential architectural features in some way, regardless of whether or not they actually work well together.