Tag Archives: single-family homes

The size and price of new American homes have increased quite a bit in 40 years

Posted on by

A short video shows how new American homes have changed in the last four decades. Here is a quick summary of the differences:

Americans may occasionally complain about sprawl and the growth of the suburbs, but part of the expansion of homes over the last few decades has actually been due to the expansion of the home. Animator Bård Edlund’s project for CNN Money, 40 Years of the American Home, visualizes changes in features and layout and the slow but steady increase in size and price for the average house, which starts at 1,525 square feet in 1973 and slowly balloons to 2,384 square feet by 2013, a 56% increase. Price, not surprisingly, follows a similar trajectory, rising from $64,600 in 1980 to $268,900 by 2013. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that’s a 32% increase.

I’m not quite sure why the history begins 40 years ago because you would find a similar trajectory going back into the early 1950s when the average new home was around 1,000 square feet.

The Curbed headline is interesting: “Today’s Average Home is a McMansion Compared to 40 Years Ago.” If we are just talking about square feet, this makes sense with a 56% increase. This is a pretty neutral – and therefore unusual – use of the term McMansion. But, if it is suggesting that homes are too big or luxurious today, that is another story.

American homes are bigger again but now more energy efficient

Posted on by

A new government report shows American homes are more energy efficient than in the past:

Efficiency gains are offsetting more than 70 percent of the growth in energy use that would result from the increasing size and number of U.S. households, reports the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In fact, energy intensity—energy used per square foot—was 37 percent lower (or better) in 2009 than in 1980. It meant a reduced use of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel.

Why this progress? The EIA cites factors that include energy prices, shifts in fuel sources and stricter building codes. It also notes the broader use of more efficient technologies—from appliances and lighting to heating/cooling units, some of which were promoted via energy labeling programs such as the voluntary Energy Star.

That’s the good news. The EIA also gives the bad: “The gains from energy intensity improvements would have been even larger if it were not for consumer preferences for larger homes and increased adoption of home appliances and electronics.”

Two competing interests: trying to reduce energy usage but Americans, when they have the money, tending to purchase larger homes. Progress is being made on the efficiency front but the real gains would come if Americans had smaller and more energy-efficient homes. There are two possible courses of action:

1. Continue to try to convince Americans they don’t need such big homes. This might be done with psychological arguments (smaller homes will fit you better, feel more cozy), shame arguments (that size of space is unnecessary), environmental arguments (you are wasting energy), cost arguments (smaller homes could be cheaper both in purchase price and upkeep), or peer pressure (a smaller home may grant higher status or you don’t want to be the one who sticks out with your extra-large home).

2. Continue to keep improving energy efficiency so that the bigger homes aren’t as problematic. More passive houses? More net zero energy homes? Offer tax credits to improve energy efficiency?

In the short term, I imagine #2 is the most likely path with a small group continuing to work on the arguments of#1.

2.

Designing homes in “Disaster Chic”

Posted on by

Looking for a home that will help you survive the coming apocalypse? Look no further than printable homes, prefabricated small homes, and shipping containers.

You peer warily out of the single window in your zombie-proof steel box. The street seems deserted—except for a lone figure who is staring at you from a distance. Is it 2079, in the years after the Great Drought Plague!? No, it’s 2015 in Royal Oaks, Michigan, and that zombie is a curious local Fox reporter.

Royal Oaks is just the latest American town to get a house made from shipping containers, which offer something unique to consumers with a taste for apocalyptic adventures. While designers are developing smarter ways to build temporary housing and disaster shelters, developers and real estate agents are using the same technology to sell trendy and high-end homes. What results is a bizarre kind of hybrid style that pairs our worst fears with our biggest hopes for the future—utopia and dystopia overlap. Call it disaster chic…

Of course, it’s not surprising to see interesting ideas cross-pollinate—3D printing, containerization, and pop-up dwellings are all really cool concepts, and there’s no reason they should be shrouded in break-in-case-of-emergency glass. What’s interesting is how similar our ideas about crisis engineering and future chic really are. In the city of the future, everything is instant, whether for a good reason or a bad one. The cities of our dreams have a lot in common with those of our nightmares.

These homes don’t seem all that well equipped to help keep you safe. If anything, their primary feature in relation to disasters is that they can be quickly produced and moved. Those are important features in recovering from disasters but I imagine some might want more solid homes to survive the disaster in the first place.

But, it is interesting that such homes that do well at addressing disaster recovery might become more popular with a broader audience. Do such designs simply offer something different in a housing market where the typical home or housing unit isn’t really that exciting or different? Is this a way to offer ironic commentary about one’s home – homes in the United States are often intended to imply permanence but these structures hint at catastrophic change and adaptability? Or is this primarily driven by younger adults looking for cheaper housing options in cities that seem pretty determined to not provide much in the way of affordable housing?

Can townhouses look like McMansions?

Posted on by

One resident claims units in a proposed townhouse development “look like a bit like the stereotypical “McMansions.” Here is a description of the proposed units as well as an artistic rendering:

“The idea is to capture the transient market of people coming from urban areas to work at the colleges,” Buhl said.  “They would ultimately buy a house, but don’t know where to locate.  We’re looking for young, two-worker families.  It’s an in-between type of rental of higher-end people that we’re looking for.”

Cayuga Farms has gone through several changes over the past recent years.  Originally it was conceived as a 144 unit townhouse condominium community.  Today it is being packaged as a 102 rental two and three bedroom townhouses with one or two-car garages in a total of 21 buildings.  Buhl characterized it as a high-end development targeted at young families who may have moved to town to work here, renting for a while before purchasing a house.  He said rents will range between about $1,800 and 2,200 per month…

cayugafarms elevation
An artist’s elevation of the proposed design for the townhouse buildings

These do seem to be aimed at a wealthier renter. So, could these be McMansions? These townhouses do appear to have some of the features tied to McMansions. A multi-gabled roof. Big emphasis on garages. A mish-mash of styles on the facade. Possibly two-story entryways (the windows right above the door do suggest this). Odd dormers on the third story. Windows of all sorts of sizes. Porticos at the front door. Height and width that seems to dwarf the green space between the driveways.

Yet, I think not being single-family homes is a big barrier as McMansions are viewed by critics as cartoonish versions of the single-family house. The design of townhouses seems not to be as much of an issue. Perhaps this is because there are fewer design options for townhouses or because they tend to be located within their own developments (avoids teardown situations) or density is a bigger issue for opponents compared to design.

My verdict: these look like McMansions but can’t quite be labeled McMansions.

$1 million plus homes continue to sell well

Posted on by

The top end of the real estate market is still going strong:

Across the map, the strongest growth in the residential real estate market lately is in high-end homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. In October, sales of homes at $1 million and above surged by 16.2 percent from the year before, while overall sales of homes were up by just 4.7 percent, the trade group said…

In the Chicago area, home sales in the million-and-up category were up 8 percent from January through September, with a median price (in that bracket) of $1.35 million, according to Re/Max Northern Illinois.

In Manatee and Sarasota counties in Florida (one of the leaders of the Bubble Country pack during the boom), 485 homes in the $1 million-plus category sold from January to the end of November, according to the Bradenton Herald…

His theory, apparently, is that the surging Dow has inspired confidence in average investors and has made them comfortable about putting their (other) money in real estate again, given that their savings are growing only incrementally within traditional investments.

The wealthy are still doing well in the real estate market while the rest of the market is still sluggish. How long can this trend last? In other words, could the top end of the market do well for years or longer while the bottom and middle struggle along?

Building for and selling real estate to more diverse suburbs

Posted on by

Builders and real estate agents are trying new approaches to match Houston’s diversifying suburbs:

Houston homebuilders, developers and Realtors are now trying to cater to this changing suburban demographic.

Realtors are taking classes in feng shui to appeal to Asian homebuyers. Local homebuilders are adding “mother-in-law” suites and casitas to their floor plans to attract Latin American buyers accustomed to multigenerational living.

Last month, Partners in Building, a Houston-based builder, announced plans to construct Mediterranean-style homes with domed roofs, Arabic-style arches and optional prayer rooms in a Sugar Land community.

“The suburbs are going to have to adapt,” Klineberg said. “These big McMansions are going to be less attractive. We need to provide more choices for people.”

Some interesting changes are likely underfoot in suburban real estate. Yet, the proposed changes may not be that large. For example, the sociologist cited at the end suggests McMansions won’t be such hot items. Maybe. McMansions could continue to thrive if they can incorporate some new styles (Mediterranean architecture) as well as new home features (prayer rooms, in-law suites). I’m guessing Klineberg means housing that is more flexible and cheaper to better suit working-class to middle-class residents who can’t afford the big suburban home yet need to be somewhat close to their suburban jobs. Again, that could go different directions: does that automatically mean more apartments and rental units or does it mean more affordable small houses, condos, and townhomes in denser neighborhoods? All together, will such changes be spread evenly throughout suburbs or will they be centered by class and race? I would guess a strong yes given the residential and class segregation present across suburban communities.

“Identical twins find identical houses”

Posted on by

While the full story is hidden behind a paywall, the picture you can see says it all: two identical twins found identical houses right next to each other.

I know very little about the twin literature but I wonder if anyone has made any connections regarding the housing choices of twins. The American Dream tends to promote individualism in consumption – even among mass market items – and a house that you buy is supposed to say something about you or be your face to your neighbors and the rest of the world. Do twins buck this trend?

“The 12 Most Annoying Things People Say on House Hunters”

Posted on by

While this isn’t a scientific study of the hundreds of episodes, this list rings true from my watching experience. Here are a few of the 12:

3. “We Love Entertaining!”
How many dinner parties are these people throwing? Kid & Play didn’t have as many house parties as those couples. You aren’t hosting the Presidential Ball, so I’m sure your terrible friends are OK hanging out in the living room and the kitchen…

6. The Walk-In Closet Joke
I didn’t realize I was watching comedy hour! You gotta love that same, stupid joke where the lady walks into the closet and she says, “Well, this should be enough room … FOR MY CLOTHES! LOL!” Sometimes the guy will say it and sort of nudge his wife in a way where you can literally see the unhappiness in her eyes…

10. “We’ve Just Outgrown Our Old Place”
There are two of you and you lived in a three-bedroom house. Mathematically, you could not be more wrong. You could remedy this by selling some of the boxes of garbage piling up all over your hoarder-y house, or just admitting you want a bigger place for no other reason than you feel like it. Or just say the old place is haunted…

12. Crown Molding
Please shut up about crown molding. No one sits in their living room and thinks “Wow, look at that crown molding. If that wasn’t here this house would be a toilet.”

There could be several good reasons for these common concerns:

1. Participants are coached to talk bout these topics. Perhaps producers are feeding them these lines. Perhaps these are the lines the producers think people want to hear about.

2. Perhaps participants have seen enough of the show that they are imitating what they have heard. When they don’t quite know how to respond (watch their microexpressions as they react and then what they say), they fall back on these “scripts.”

3. As sad as it might be, maybe this represents what a lot of Americans think when they look at new housing: they often focus on a few details (closets, crown molding, etc.) without talking much about the big picture (do we really need this house?).

All that said, House Hunters certainly follows a certain “formula” for each episode that is fairly predictable. And while viewers may scoff at the comments of the participants, it wouldn’t be the same show if you took the people out and simply showed three homes as a comparison.

Poorer suburbs the result of fewer two-parent families?

Posted on by

One writer argues poorer suburbs ended up in this position because the suburbs were built for two-parent families in single-family homes and poorer communities have less of these families:

Before we can understand what makes some suburbs so miserable, we first have to understand what makes others succeed. The most successful suburban neighborhoods fall into two categories. First, there are the dense and walkable ones that, like the most successful urban neighborhoods, have town centers that give local residents easy access to retail and employment opportunities. These neighborhoods generally include a mix of single-family homes and apartment buildings, which allows for different kinds of families and adults at different stages of life to share in the same local amenities. The problem with these urban suburbs, as Christopher Leinberger recounts in his 2009 book The Option of Urbanism, is that there are so few of them, and this scarcity fuels the same kind of gentrification that is driving poor people out of successful cities.

The other model for success can be found in sprawling suburban neighborhoods dominated by households with either the time or the resources to maintain single-family homes and to engage in civic life. As a general rule, the neighborhoods in this latter category don’t allow for apartment buildings or townhomes on small lots. They implement stringent local land-use regulations that keep them exclusive, and they attract families that tenaciously defend the character of their neighborhoods.

There are many differences between these two models. But the most important one is that denser suburbs can accommodate family diversity relatively well while sprawling suburbs simply can’t. Living the low-density lifestyle requires that you either be rich in money or rich in time and skill.

Think about it this way. The typical postwar suburb was built to meet the needs of two-parent, single-breadwinner families. They were full of single-family homes that were rarely built to last, and their chief amenity was privacy, which generally meant a decent-sized lawn. Maintaining these houses was a heroic endeavor, but the division of labor implied by two-parent, single-breadwinner families meant that it was not an impossible one. Indeed, the very fact that maintaining these homes was such a chore made them precious to their owners, for whom they were a store of wealth as well as a place to live.

There is little doubt that the family structure in the United States has changed from the early days of the post-World War II suburban boom to today. And, numerous suburbs have going to have to respond to these changing demographics as they think about providing housing for older residents with no kids, single-parent families, and single households which are now the most common household type in the United States.

Yet, this argument seems too reductionistic. Similar to Rodney Balko’s argument about odd government dealings in St. Louis County, Missouri, I think this article ignores other important factors in the construction of suburbs, particularly policies and zoning and behaviors motivated by race and keeping non-whites out of wealthier suburban communities.

Thinking about “The Language of Houses”

Posted on by

A review of the new book The Language of Houses summarizes what American houses have to say:

Lurie serves as able guide on an opening overview of basic architectural themes: style, scale, materials. Concepts such as formal and informal, open and shut, darkness and light, as well as the influences of foreign and regional idioms, become the building blocks on which she proceeds into her discussion of dwellings. We learn that the simple, unadorned, home intended to convey “green” values, often uses “old bricks and boards that in fact cost more than new ones,” while a suburban McMansion’s pricey entrance is coupled with cheap siding and exposed ductwork out back. She chronicles the evolution of the Colonial meeting house into Gothic worship sites that are mini-theaters with their raised altars, lavish pipe organs, and stage lighting. Gender differences abound: In homes and offices, men prefer what she calls “prospects”; women, “refuge.”

Lurie’s most interesting material limns trends and their policy implications. “The average new home size in the United States was 2,673 square feet in 2011, up from 1,400 square feet in 1970 and a mere 983 square feet in 1950,” she writes. “Meanwhile, though the average size of the American family has been shrinking, the size of individuals has increased.” Has modern architecture contributed to obesity with its elevators and elevated temperatures, she asks? Or this: Second homes often depart in style, décor, and locale from first homes, suggesting an inner void in our everyday lives for which we seek restitution on the weekends.

“[U]nattractive, cheap, badly designed buildings appear to have a negative effect on both mood and morals,” Lurie writes. Rundown and crowded dwellings communicate danger and neglect. Despite these seemingly obvious truths, Lurie informs us, many public buildings are designed intentionally to resist what one sociologist calls “human imprint.” These — prisons, public housing projects, factories and some offices — have few windows or doors, uniform design, and high security. To the list one might add: big-box stores, public schools, fast-food chain restaurants, airports, and low-budget subway stations. As a category, these instances of “hard architecture” occasion “anxiety, irritation and the (sometimes unconscious) wish to leave. Eventually, those who cannot get out will become restless and angry, or passive, withdrawn, and numb.”

Lurie maintains a light touch with such damning observations. But if we take them seriously, it would seem that the funding and design awards for spaces where large percentages of the population spend most of their waking hours demand greater vigilance on the part of urban planners.

Sounds like it has potential: built environments have the ability to influence social behavior. At the same time, the review suggests there isn’t much data to back up these observations and linking the direct effects of environments to behaviors is more difficult.

Perhaps the bigger issue overall is an American culture that tends to privilege efficiency, leading to clunky houses and buildings that function just fine but don’t offer as much in the way of customization and beauty. If the goal is to get a house that offers value and more space for the money, then considerations like quality materials and creating a good fit between the owners and the house matter less.