The primary feature of suburbs is the single-family home. It is where people live and spend their family time in a society where people have become increasingly private. It represents ownership of a piece of land and a dwelling. It is a status symbol to friends, neighbors, and the broader society. It is an investment (though single-family homes were not always viewed this way). Arguably, the rest of suburbia is geographically laid out around single-family homes with networks of roads, stores, and businesses all ordered around residential areas and subdivisions. The federal government even subsidizes single-family homes.
At its base, the single-family home may be about a place away from the rest of the world. If Americans are individualistic, they need a place to which they can retreat. Suburbanites protect their homes, land, and property values. The battle lines can be both grand – planning whole zoning schemas around protecting single-family homes – and minuscule as neighbors bicker (two good examples here and here). The ultimate goal is to have private space where the owners can enjoy the best America has to offer inside their own home.
The single-family suburban home has evolved over the decades. In the mid-nineteenth century, the suburban home was more like a cottage in the woods. Even as mass-produced homes started in the early twentieth century, many suburban homes were still built by small builders or even by residents through the 1920s and 1930s. After World War II, the large subdivision became more common, even if many suburbs and builders never reached the scale of the paradigmatic Levittown on Long Island. These many suburban homes are also marked by a variety of styles, including Victorians in the late 1800s, bungalows in the early 1900s, ranches and Cape Cods in the postwar era, and McMansions in recent decades.
One key marker of American suburban homes is their size. On the world scale, Americans have big homes. The size has steadily increased over recent decades even as many would argue such large homes are not necessary. Why exactly do Americans need such large homes? If they do not regularly use much of the space, why not make and purchase smaller homes? Perhaps they have a lot of stuff, perhaps they simply can afford more space. They probably do not really need it need it but since large homes are common, why not join everyone else? The biggest regret homeowners have is not purchasing a larger home.
The meaning of the single-family home has also changed in significant ways. I’ll highlight two changes here. First, the home is a status symbol. In a consumeristic and wealthy society where what people own presumably says something about them, the home is an important marker. Americans can choose among dozens of kinds of homes in different locations and can endlessly customize the exterior and the interior. Even the lawn can become a coded or not-so-coded message about the owners. Second, the home is an investment. Whereas in the early days a home was a dwelling and private space, most Americans now expect to make good money when they sell their home. This changes how homeowners treat their home as well as how they use the home as part of their wealth portfolio.
All that said, single-family homes can be found in many cities, whether in denser neighborhoods of row houses and brownstones or in more sprawling urban Sunbelt neighborhoods. Yet, I would guess suburban aspirations rarely include images of living in apartments. The dominant picture of suburbia is living on a street of well-kept single-family homes (and this is often replicated in media depictions such as on television shows). Even if suburbs become denser (very likely in numerous locations), the single-family home will remain the key feature of suburban life.
82 thoughts on “Why Americans love suburbs #1: single-family homes”
Pingback: Peytonville, the suburbs, and football | Legally Sociable
Pingback: A strange housing market: limited supply, less construction, rent prices diverging from home prices… | Legally Sociable
Pingback: In a land of driving, both a bifurcated housing market and car buying market | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Searching for the perfect name for a slate of candidates in local elections | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Pushing to ban grass in Las Vegas | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Black homeownership rate barely improved since 1970 | Legally Sociable
Pingback: When two suburban residential developments border each other and have clear differences | Legally Sociable
Pingback: McMansions as a symbol of excessive consumption, end of life satisfaction edition | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Trying to attract suburban voters by fighting Critical Race Theory | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Air conditioning and a “homogenized standard of comfort” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: A denser suburbia in California and the rest of the United States | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The real New (Sub)Urbanism in the United States: a 10 minute drive from daily needs | Legally Sociable
Pingback: A religious destination in the Chicago suburbs: Shrine of our Lady of Guadalupe in Des Plaines | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Suburban lawns and religious alternatives | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The importance and consequences of separating single-family homes from other land uses in the United States | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Adjusting housing for single-person households? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Suburban voters and the French presidential election | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The arguments for and against banning zoning for only single-family homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Purchase your home to live in it…and consider its long-term investment potential | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The suburbs as the test market for delivering prescription medicine via drone | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Can a suburban newspaper call for less driving and two long-term options for minimizing driving in suburbs | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Many goods come via truck, few want to encounter those trucks on a suburban road | Legally Sociable
Pingback: A significant majority of Americans “believe it is better for the environment if houses are built further apart” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: “The late-twentieth-century United States doesn’t make sense without the mall” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: How many suburbs will be willing to replace suburban office parks with denser housing? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The spread of suburban chickens in the Chicago region | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The suburbs are about homeownership but some property owners see more money in rental units | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Argument: emphasizing homeownership for investment purposes as the ultimate American goal leads to worse housing outcomes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Housing, the holidays, and the economy | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Fights between suburban neighbors turn more rancorous, according to lawyers | Legally Sociable
Pingback: In assessing the rise of McMansions and SUVs, SUVs reign supreme | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The suburbs as the perfect places for drone deliveries | Legally Sociable