Tag Archives: builders

Size of new Canadian homes has dropped 400 square feet since peak

Posted on by

While American new home size picked up in 2011, new homes in Canada have dropped in size over recent years:

Gone are the days of the McMansion, with the homeowner’s dream of a plus-sized home replaced by pint-sized living.

According to the Canadian Home Building Association, the average house size has dropped in the past decade from a mid 2000 peak of 2,300 square feet, down to 1,900 square feet, a decrease that is expected to continue.

Catalysts for the change in residential housing are varied – a choice of location over space or a move away from home-oriented leisure activities serving as but two examples – but for the most part, it comes down to the simple factor of the economics of sustainable living…

McMansions simply aren’t environmentally or monetarily sustainable.

It would be interesting to look more into why Canadian home sizes have dropped so much while American home sizes dropped a little but then picked up again. Is there a stronger cultural stigma attached to larger homes? Is there simply not enough demand in the market for the larger homes or are builders leading the way here?

I would also note that 1,900 square feet is still a decent sized home.

 

Richard Florida: homeownership not related to economic growth and development

Posted on by

Richard Florida looks at some data and argues that homeownership is not related to several dimensions of economic growth and development:

The economic growth and development of cities and regions is generally thought to be driven by three key factors: innovation, human capital, and productivity. Homeownership, it turns out, is not related to any of them.

Take innovation and high-tech industry. Homeownership bears little relation to either, being weakly negatively associated with the concentration of high-tech industry (-.20) and not associated at all with innovation (measured as the rate of patenting).

Or consider the percentage of college graduates or share of highly-skilled knowledge/creative jobs. Again, nothing. The arrow in fact points in the wrong direction. Homeownership is weakly negatively correlated with both the share of college grads (-.27), and with the creative class share of the labor force (-.30).

What about productivity? Once again, no connection to homeownership. Homeownership is weakly negatively associated with economic output per capita (-.19)…

It used to be that homeownership signaled and led to economic growth. But that relationship was tied to the industrial era, when building and buying more homes primed the pump of America’s great assembly-lines, increasing demand for cars, appliances, televisions, and all manner of consumer durables. Those days are gone. The United States is a now knowledge and service economy; less than ten percent of Americans work in some form of manufacturing and just 6.5 percent are engaged in actually producing things. The stuff Americans buy is largely made offshore.

I wonder how this relates to the recent campaign from the National Association of Realtors regarding how building homes would lead to more jobs. While having more construction might lead to some good short-term outcomes, Florida is arguing here that homeownership doesn’t have a large influence on the economy.

Going beyond the economic impact of homeownership and building homes, these statistics don’t quite capture the cultural influence of homeownership in American culture. At the same time, the numbers might suggest that policymakers shouldn’t go all in for promoting homeownership for its economic benefits. Selling homeownership can be done by linking it to values of individualism or the American Dream but the larger economic angle doesn’t hold up.

I wonder what the story would be utilizing data that allow analysis beyond correlations…

Most people buy greener houses for the cost savings

Posted on by

At the end of a larger discussion about builders constructing more green houses, an industry insider talks about why people buy green homes:

Q: Over the years, industry studies have shown that consumers’ interest in green building has tended to focus on energy conservation; they want to reduce their heating, cooling and appliance costs.

Do they still see green building through that lens of energy efficiency? Are they more motivated to build green for the sake of being green?

A: They’re still energy-oriented. In the most recent study, about two-thirds of consumers who requested green features in their homes said they wanted either to lower energy use or to save money.

In addition, consumer health concerns related to indoor air quality have moved up rapidly among the reasons for requesting green. But concern for the environment was a major issue for only about one-fourth of consumers requesting green.

While it will be interesting to see what green features the new homes of the next few years have, I think this hints at a larger issue with green products: people are more willing to invest in them upfront (in the case of a house) or buy them if they offer savings in the long run. Even with houses, this insider suggests that 30% of people wouldn’t pay extra for green features. The motivation here is not necessarily the earth or all of humanity but rather costs for individuals. This is a very different ideology and seems rooted in a consumeristic mindset.

But what happens when going green requires higher prices – like gasoline or other energy prices – without obvious cost savings for individual consumers? This is a much harder sell.

Builders constructing denser, more urban developments in the suburbs

Posted on by

USA Today reports that more builders are constructing denser suburban subdivisions:

The nation’s development patterns may be at a historic juncture as builders begin to reverse 60-year-old trends. They’re shifting from giant communities on wide-open “greenfields” to compact “infill” housing in already-developed urban settings…

“It’s the kids (ages 18 to 32), the empty nesters (Baby Boomers with no kids at home),” says Chris Leinberger, president of Smart Growth America’s LOCUS (Latin for “place”), a national coalition of real estate developers and investors who support urban developments that encourage walking over driving. “These two generations combined are more than half of the American population.”…

Most major builders have created “urban” divisions in the past five years to scout for available land in already-developed parts of cities and closer suburbs — even if it means former industrial and commercial sites or land that may require environmental cleanup…

Even traditional communities built on greenfields are transforming. In Southern California’s Inland Empire, an area where housing prices are lower and appeal to first-time buyers, Brookfield is building Edenglen in Ontario. The homes are built on smaller lots — 4,500 square feet instead of the more conventional 7,200 square feet — and priced from $200,000 to $300,000.

This phenomenon has been noted by a number of commentators in recent years though I wonder if it will last.

A few other consequences of this for suburbs:

1. How will existing suburban residents respond to dense, infill projects? I would guess that a good number of suburbanites would object to these dense projects being built near them, spoiling their neighborhoods.

2. Related to the first question about NIMBYism, how will these new developments change the character of existing suburbs? If a community is used to wide suburban streets and big lots, narrow lots and denser housing could change things.

3. This article hints at this but this could also be a product of the age of many American suburbs. Outside of the suburban fringe or exurbs, many suburbs not have at least a few decades of history and perhaps little to no open land (reaching build-out). If these suburbs want to continue to grow (boosting revenues and fees as well as prestige), infill development might be the only choice.

4. This article makes a common claim: certain generations (emerging adults and baby boomers) desire more urban kinds of housing. However, I wonder if it less about generational differences and more about the changing structure of American households. Is the increasing number of single households (which might be located more in these generations) really driving this? If so, this would be have bigger effects as the American suburbs have traditionally been communities build around family life and child-rearing.

What’s in a name? Certain subdivision names lead to higher housing values

Posted on by

A study suggests homebuyers are willing to pay extra in subdivisions with certain words in their name:

According to a study by two researchers at the University of Georgia, homebuyers pay an average of 4.2 percent more when the development has the word “country” in the name. And if it has the term “country club” as part of its name, buyers will pay 5.2 percent on top of that.

That’s a total of almost 10 percent more that people are willing to pay for the prestige associated with the term “country club.”

A joke? Hardly. The study, the results of which were published last year in the Journal of Real Estate Research, is a serious investigation of sales in the Baton Rouge, La., area over 15 years. It carefully controlled for such variables as location, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and days on the market, among others.

“This is the first study to find through empirical research that buyers are willing to pay more for certain property names, with all other attributes of a house being equal,” the paper said. “In fact, buyers of more expensive houses may be willing to pay more for a name that conveys prestige than they are willing to pay for a good school for their children.”

No wonder, then, that the naming process is often a psychodrama, with builders and their marketing teams becoming more hung up over what they will call their communities than they are over the copy for a $10,000, full-page ad in the local newspaper.

There is no tried-and-true naming method. Some builders resort to the old standards — station, park, commons, woods, village, farms, hunt, square and gardens. Some look to history for a name, while others use location or a characteristic of the property. A few pick a name that immortalizes themselves or their loved ones.

It sounds to me like this is all about status. Living in a subdivision with a certain word in its title conveys status and wealth, important considerations for homeowners, particularly when selling a home.

Several thoughts come to mind:

1. I assume that this effect only works at certain income levels. For example, could you build a run-of-the-mill townhouse development, slap the “country club” label on it, and expect a price premium? I would guess not. To some degree, I would guess there is a relationship between the price of the properties (which then limits who can live there in the first place) and the names. Additionally, builders don’t want to dilute their products by suggesting that “normal” homes are upscale in name alone. (It is unclear to me whether the researchers were able to control for all the factors that would separate an upscale suburban subdivision from a typical subdivision.)

2. Beyond “country” or “country club,” do other words or names not matter? If not, then you simply get a muddled mess of subdivision names that don’t really signal much of anything except general references to tranquility, pastoralism, and perhaps some local landmarks or figures.

2a. Are there names that have a negative effect on price?

3. I wonder how much the generally bland subdivision names feed into the critique that suburbia is a homogeneous place. With many subdivision names not anchored to any particular place, you could be in a “Thousand Oaks” in Ohio just as well as Texas. Is this simply another piece that suggests that Americans aren’t anchored to any particular places?

Smaller luxury homes: “I’d rather have a 3,500-square-foot house and have it make sense.”

Posted on by

Two home builders in Tennessee explain that they are building smaller luxury homes:

The luxury homes being built by Castle Homes are smaller than just a few years ago, Looney said.

“Not 8,000 square feet. Now the average is 4,500 square feet,” he said.

The custom home Colclasure is completing in Green Hills has about 3,700 square feet, and the open design almost eliminates hallways.

“The days of the McMansion with 6,000 square feet and you live in 2,000, the days of people wanting those houses, are long gone,” Colclasure said. “I’d rather have a 3,500-square-foot house and have it make sense.”

This is a decent reduction in size: moving from 8,000 to 4,500 square feet is a 44% drop while going from 6,000 to 3,500 square feet is a 42% drop. At the same time, these are still large homes. Most new houses do not have 4,500 square feet and even 3,500 square foot homes are 1,100 square feet above the 2010 average. Is this enough of a size reduction to not have these homes labeled as environmentally unfriendly or McMansions?

I really want Colclasure to explain what he means by this final statement: what does it mean for a large house to “make sense”? Does that mean that the large houses of ten years ago don’t “make sense” even if today’s builders built those same homes? Does this mean that luxury homes now come with more features rather than just size? Does it mean that builders have grabbed onto the idea that they can’t just sell impressive size?

Who is going to pay for those architect-designed plans for the suburbs?

Posted on by

In reviewing the “Foreclosed” exhibit at MoMA, Felix Salmon raises an interesting question: who is going to pay for these projects to be built?

Anybody who visits the exhibit can see that nothing remotely along the lines of the buildings being proposed is ever going to be realized — Orange, New Jersey, for instance, is not going to replace its roads with long strips of narrow housing. But what’s less obvious is the way in which all of these projects are also a huge financial stretch. They were charged with coming up with innovative forms of home finance, but all those innovative solutions tend to boil down to the same basic idea: get the local municipal government to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars and then spend that money on a massive housing development which will, somehow, generate the income needed to service the debt.

Such ideas have a tendency to work much better in theory than they do in practice; they’re fragile things, at risk from dozens of different directions at the same time, and if I were a local bank, I’d stay well away from funding them. And I certainly would never advise small and unsophisticated suburbs like these ones to get into bed with the sharks peddling municipal bonds and associated interest-rate derivatives.

Michael Bell, in the video above, makes the very good point that architecture and architects are largely absent from the suburbs. But I guess that I was really looking for something much lower-cost than the mega projects that the teams in the MoMA show came up with. Certainly lower in up-front cost, anyway. The foreclosure crisis was caused by people borrowing enormous sums of money and then finding themselves unable to pay it back. The last thing we want to do is risk repeating that all over again.

The reality is that few houses in the United States are designed by architects; I remember seeing a statistic a few years ago that suggested it was roughly 5-10%. There are plenty of other people who think they can design them, such as builders or engineers or Menards. A couple of issues could be present here. Adding an architect to the homebuilding process includes another person that needs to be paid. If you are a builder who is hoping to  Some designs might be considered “too modern” for many suburban neighborhoods that tend to celebrate bland or known styles. This is the  reason you can get stucco houses across the country – people know these but are more skeptical of modernist homes.

The funding is another matter. Salmon suggests that few municipalities should enter into such deals in good or bad economic times. However, where else could people get money to build innovative projects? If government isn’t going to front the money, would private lenders (either well-off banks or wealthy individuals or foundations who want to get into real estate or put their stamp on the physical landscape. Without funding, how much more likely are we to get “normal” or “tried and true” projects and how then do we push things forward in architecture or urban design?

Builders and Home Depot prepared to offer more multigenerational homes

Posted on by

As part of a larger argument that millennials still will prefer homes but perhaps in a different form, Joel Kotkin suggests several builders and Home Depot are prepared to offer more multigenerational homes:

Some companies, such as Pulte Homes and Lennar, are betting that the multi-generational home — not the rental apartment — may well be the next big thing in housing. These firms report that demand for this kind of product is particularly strong among immigrants and their children.

Lennar  has already developed models — complete with separate entrances and kitchens for kids or grandparents — in Phoenix, Bakersfield, the Inland Empire area east of Los Angeles and San Diego, and is planning to extend the concept to other markets. “This kind of housing solves a lot of problems,” suggests Jeff Roos, Lennar’s regional president for the western U.S. “People are looking at ways to pool their resources, provide independent living for seniors and keeping the family together.”

But much of the growth for multigeneration homes will come from an already aging base of over 130 million existing homes. An increasing number of these appear to being expanded to accommodate additional family members as well as home offices. Home improvement companies like Lowe’s and Home Depot already report a surge of sales servicing this market.

A top Home Depot manager in California traced the rising sales in part to the decision of people to invest their money in an asset that at least they and their family members can live in. “We are having a great year ,” said the executive, who didn’t have permission to speak for attribution. “ I think people have decided that they cannot move so let’s fix up what we have.”

Perhaps multigenerational housing is the future though I wonder if this housing would prove so popular in better economic times.

How much extra can a builder charge for a multigeneration house and how much space does this new house have compared to a new home built for a nuclear family?

Here is one of the Lennar multigeneration home that features “The Home Within a Home”! Looking at this floor plan, it looks like it features just three extra rooms: a “next gen bedroom,” a bathroom, and a “next gen living space” with kitchenette located at the front of the home and that can be close doff from the rest of the house. The home is 2,250 square feet, smaller than the average new home, and is priced at $273,000. Here is how Lennar describes the house:

“We have created this plan to allow for dual living situations without sacrificing comfort – it’s literally a home within a home,” stated Dale Billy, Division President.

The economy has dramatically contributed to the decision to build this type of product. Many aging parents have seen their retirement investments diminish during recent years and many college-age children are finding it necessary to move back home. With housing typically being the largest part of the monthly budget, moving in together is an option many are embracing. “The opportunity for families to share a mortgage makes a lot of economic sense for many families,” added Billy. “Lennar’s Next Gen – The home within a home, is essentially two homes with one payment, making living together affordable, comfortable and flexible to your needs.”

Each NEXT GEN? suite includes a separate entrance, living room, kitchenette, laundry and private bedroom and bath. Lennar designed this unique floorplan to be incorporated into the main home floorplan in a way that allows it to be a separate space but also offers direct access from the main house, depending upon the family’s needs.

I’ll be watching for these in the Chicago area. Does Home Depot sell a prefab or easy to construct addition to attach to an existing home to make it a multigeneration home?

Toll Brothers still moving forward

Posted on by

While some may claim that the McMansion era is over, one of the prominent builders of some of these homes is still moving forward. Here is an update on Toll Brothers:

Luxury-home builder Toll Brothers has rebounded impressively since the start of October, along with its industry. The stock has risen by two-thirds and now trades at 71 times forward earnings estimates.

This is the case even with a reported quarterly loss announced Monday:

Toll Brothers Inc. swung to a fiscal-first-quarter loss as fewer deliveries and increased cancellations weakened revenue for the luxury-home builder.

But the company, known for its sprawling suburban homes and high-end urban condos, said it was optimistic because contracts were the highest for any first quarter in five years. It also sees recovery along Florida’s east coast and in Phoenix, markets hard hit by the housing crash…

Revenue dipped 3.6% to $322 million. Analysts expected a per-share profit of two cents on $361 million in revenue, according to a survey conducted by Thomson Reuters.

It sounds like some are optimistic that the housing market is turning a corner or has already reached its bottom. On the other hand, it sounds like there is still a lot of potential volatility. Here is a mixed report:

Homebuilders have struggled to compete as foreclosed properties sell at a discount and the U.S. unemployment rate remains above 8 percent. Toll Brothers depends on people selling their homes and buying its more expensive residences.

Sales of previously owned U.S. homes rose in January to an annual pace of 4.57 million, the highest level since May 2010, the National Association of Realtors reported today from Washington. The results were below the median forecast of 4.66 million by 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg…

Toll Brothers’ earnings miss wasn’t “significant,” because it was caused by the longer period needed to complete high-rise condos in New York, which accounted for its most profitable sales, Chief Executive Officer Douglas Yearley Jr. said on Bloomberg Television today.

“This is the best we’ve felt in about five years,” he said on “Street Smart” with Trish Regan. “For the first three weeks of February, our orders are up significantly. We’re seeing deposits up. We’re seeing traffic up.”

My translation: we are still far from clearly positive results in the housing market.

I don’t know how many houses the biggest builders build but the figures from Toll Brothers are intriguing. Toll Brothers attracts a lot of attention but they “delivered 564 homes in the latest quarter, down slightly from 570 homes a year earlier.” This is not a lot of homes. I assume Toll Brothers gets more attention then because they tend to build high-end homes?

Still building some big houses in a down housing market

Posted on by

Builders are still building some big houses even in a down housing market:

It may be politically incorrect, but some builders are putting up larger houses, not smaller ones, according to Builder, a trade journal.

Spurred by inexpensive land costs, builders in many markets are able to erect McMansions for only a small percentage of what they cost before the housing market implosion…

These places are largely big boxes, so they aren’t likely to win any design awards, says the magazine’s editorial director, Boyce Thompson. But they’re decked out with enough sizzle that they are hard to resist, whether or not you need the space.

“Even as average new-home sizes have fallen slightly across the country,” the magazine reports, “builders in some markets are finding a profitable and underserved niche of buyers who need or want a house as big as a mansion with the price tag of a cottage.”

Four quick thoughts based on this:

1. The comment that it is “politically incorrect” to have a big box house is fascinating. This has happened in a relatively short amount of time, roughly 5-6 years.

2. The comment that these houses “are hard to resist” is also interesting. Americans do like their housing deals. Even if people shouldn’t buy these homes, who can pass up a great deal?

3. There is still some money to be made in new houses in the right circumstances.

4. What is the quality of these homes? McMansions have that term partly because people argue they are mass-produced and made of cheaper materials meant to impress rather than to last.