While the article I discussed yesterday did not provide a helpful definition of a McMansion, it did provide five trends regarding which metropolitan areas had the largest homes:
Supersize trend No. 1: Outdoorsy types need plenty of space
Supersize trend No. 2: Seeking space in the suburbs
Supersize trend No. 3: Southern cities are churning out jobs and big homes
Supersize trend No. 4: Big homes are all that’s left in tight Midwestern markets
Supersize trend No. 5: Tech hubs + deep pocked buyers = more McMansions available
And, like the McMansion definition, another important caveat:
And if it wasn’t for the fact that we limited our ranking to one housing market per state, Colorado and Utah would’ve had all five top metros.
And a third caveat: this is based on only homes that are on the market.
Even with these significant limitations, I wonder if an analysis could reveal some underlying patterns behind these noteworthy metropolitan areas:
- They have a growing population and thus a growing stock of larger, new homes, particularly in suburbs.
- They have relatively low housing prices paired with enough higher income jobs. (Seattle and Portland are the ones that stick out here but perhaps this is relative: those same buyers could find higher prices in the Bay Area, LA, Vancouver, etc.)
- These places have looser zoning restrictions on the whole that allows for more and/or quick construction. (I imagine there is some variation in these top 10 places. Portland and Bridgeport, for example, likely have some tight restrictions compared to an Indianopolis or Provo.)
This could be worth pursuing though the data needs to provide a more complete picture of the housing stock.