Tag Archives: single-family homes

US just a “great post World War II McMansion”

Posted on by

I’ve seen McMansions compared to many things but not the whole United States as James Howard Kunstler argues:

That is, first of all, a place of far less influence on everybody else, in a new era of desperate struggle to remain modern. That fading modern world is the house that America built, the great post World War II McMansion stuffed with dubious luxuries in a Las Vegas of the collective mind. History’s bank has foreclosed on it, and all the nations and people of the world have been told to make new arrangements for daily life. The U.S. wants everybody to stay put and act as if nothing has changed.

Therefore, change will be forced on the U.S. It will take the form of things breaking and not getting fixed. Unfortunately, America furnished its part of the house with stapled-together crap designed to look better than it really was. We like to keep the blinds drawn now so as not to see it all coming apart…

Even the idle chatter about American Dreaming has faded out lately, because too much has happened to families and individuals to demonstrate that people need more than dreams and wishes to make things happen. It’s kind of a relief to not have to listen to those inane exhortations anymore, especially the idiotic shrieking that, “We’re No. 1!”

Others have got our number now. They are going their own way whether we like it or not. The Russians and the Chinese. The voters in Europe. The moiling masses of Arabia and its outlands. The generals in Thailand. Too bad the people of Main Street U.S.A. don’t want to do anything but sit on their hands waiting for the rafters to tumble down. My guess is that nothing will bestir us until we wake up one morning surrounded by rubble and dust. By then, America will be a salvage operation.

This is a typical “America is in decline and should wake up piece” with an interesting metaphor: the country is like a badly made, falling-apart McMansion that once glittered but now is exposed as an inadequate dwelling. Such a comparison does not come as a surprise from Kunstler who has criticized suburban sprawl for decades and would likely agree with Thomas Frank’s recent piece on giving away the American farm for a limited number of McMansions.

But, Kunstler doesn’t go further and then give us the more positive comparison. Should America be more like a stately renovated Victorian with its ornamental charms? Should we be like the pragmatic ranch or split-level home with a can-do spirit? Should we prefer modernist homes with sleek lines and the notion of the future? Or, perhaps we should all be living in a grittier or refurbished (depending on your income) mixed-use block in a denser urban area. What kind of house do we want America to be moving forward?

Cutoff price for luxury home differs by region

Posted on by

A new survey suggests the point at which an expensive home becomes a luxury home differs by region:

But the starting point for making such a judgment, the price, seems to vary significantly by region. The price tag for a luxury home is perceived to start at $1 million in the Northeastern, Pacific and mountain states (Montana, Colorado, Utah, et al.). But in the Midwest and South, consumers’ notions of luxury begins at $500,000, according to a survey by Realtor.com.

By the way, sales of those million-dollar homes are doing rather well nationally, but a major player in homebuilding is taking an unexpected turn — one that speaks of the real estate world of long ago.

D.R. Horton Inc. is rolling out a new division that plans to appeal to the bare-bones, nothin’ fancy, first-time buyer. Its Express Homes line, to be built initially in Southern and Western states, will range from $120,000 to $150,000. And what you’ll see at these developments is what you’ll get — there won’t be any upgraded features, no optional finishes.

Horton CEO Donald Tomnitz told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that the company believes the next segment of the real estate market recovery will be led by entry-level buyers, presumably older ones.

The regional differences in price could be due to a variety of factors. It might be linked to relative income levels. It could be tied to housing inventory – less room might lead to higher prices overall. Or, there might be differences in home styles and expectations. The mountain states seem to stick out in amongst these regions as they often have plenty of space and prices aren’t as high as the Northeast or Pacific Coast. However, perhaps there are plenty of luxury mountain homes, whether they are vacation or resort homes.

It would be interesting to know exactly in which markets D.R. Horton intends to build these cheaper homes. Given the need for affordable housing in many areas of the United States plus the need for more good housing at the bottom end of the market, I imagine there could be a market for such homes. Yet, these homes probably can’t be built everywhere as neighbors in more expensive homes would view cheaper homes as threats to their property values.

The origins of the American split-level home

Posted on by

Where do all the American split-level homes come from?

Split-levels can be found in many regions, especially in neighborhoods developed after World War II.

The homes borrow a bit of the horizontal profile of a ranch – if the ranch was sliced down the middle, with the bedroom wing bumped skyward half a story to create space underneath for a garage and family room.

It’s not clear when they were invented, though a version of a split-level can be found in Sears, Roebuck & Co. home plan books from the 1930s, according to Minnesota architects Robert Gerloff and Jeremiah Battles, who wrote an online guide to renovating splits called “Split Visions.”

“Splits offered a unique separation of social space, with bedrooms perched a half-story above the formal living space and the informal living space found a half-story below,” the authors say. They shake up “the traditional American pattern of formal rooms on the main level with bedrooms upstairs and a full basement below.”

My interpretation: they are a pragmatic American solution in housing that might just rank up there with the ranch house and the McMansion. Such homes take a basic design and develop multiple living levels as well as spaces that can be connected to various degrees (depending on whether walls are fully intact between spaces or levels). They are relatively cheap to build. They are not necessarily aesthetically pleasing; they tend not to evoke traditional architectural styles (making them easy to plop down anywhere) though are usually not ostentatious.

Side note: I spent most of my years growing up in a split-level. I can attest to their advantages, particularly the multiple social spaces. At the same time, I’m not sure I would buy one myself in the future except for the fact that they seem to be cheaper than homes of a similar size.

Mansionization picks up again in Los Angeles

Posted on by

The construction of larger homes has picked up again in Los Angeles, drawing attention from a number of critics:

But as the housing market rebounds and construction picks up, many homeowners complain that “mansionization” has revved up — reigniting long-standing policy battles and sometimes bitter fence fights over the face and feel of L.A.’s neighborhoods…

But neighborhood groups have begun mobilizing, asserting that rules meant to control building sizes are still too porous. Critics argue that builders have exploited loopholes — bonuses that allow extra square footage — to erect homes too large for their lots. The recent surge of complaints prompted Michael LoGrande, director of the Department of City Planning, to tell lawmakers that more stringent controls might be needed…

For decades there was “kind of a consensus about what a Southern California house should look like” — low, rambling and open to the landscape, cultural historian D.J. Waldie said. That philosophy, along with requirements imposed by builders, gave rise to uniform neighborhoods lined with homes of similar sizes and styles, Waldie said.

But in a growing city with scant undeveloped land and changing tastes, some Angelenos see things differently. They look at older neighborhoods and think, “‘this is where the good life is lived,'” Waldie said. “‘But I don’t want to live in a 1,300-square-foot house.'”

Los Angeles isn’t the only major city that has dealt with this issue in recent years (see Austin, Texas) as ideas about housing as well as economic conditions change. And the battle lines in Los Angeles seem fairly similar to debates elsewhere: residents of existing communities do not like new behemoth houses (often labeled McMansions) that don’t match the architectural style of the community while proponents of the bigger houses argue they should be able to have modern features. Local ordinances tend to try to give some to each side, setting design guidelines or limits that don’t restrict the construction of new homes but limit how they might use their property or differ from nearby homes. It should be no surprise that individual homes, perhaps the seat of American individualism, should exemplify this classic issue – individual property rights versus the wishes of the community – that is one of the core issues running through the 235+ years of the United States.

In new homes, American homebuyers want quality, space, and to disconnect

Posted on by

A large online survey of homebuyers reveal several big things they are looking for in a new home:

Again and again, they told us they were looking for quality more than quantity, and they said that, even when they were looking for a larger home than the one they currently have. One major attitude that was apparent was this huge desire to disconnect when they come home.

This seemed to show up in their interest in a house with an indoor-outdoor connection, where they could entertain and move easily from kitchen to the outdoors. Another way it showed up is, well, I’m not saying that anyone should disconnect their wireless (service), but this expressed need to disconnect suggests a huge trend for making the master bath feel more like a spa. Builders have to ask themselves, how do we help them disconnect from stress every day? Consumers told us they love a big shower but don’t lose the tub. We asked, “But will you use the tub?” and they said, “Um, maybe not much.” But they want it to be there — 65 percent said they still want a tub in the master bath.

Q: Isn’t that also sort of the way they feel about the dining room — that room that builders have said for years that nobody wants or needs any more?

A: They still want a formal dining room. They want their holiday dinners where they can expand out to 10 or 12 people. A lot of builders have been building houses with just a great room (that could accommodate a large dining table), but 59 percent want a great room and one or two more formal spaces.

The quality and space concerns are not too surprising: they likely want lasting homes that will retain their value and are looking to upgrade to a bigger home. More interesting to me was this desire to disconnect, to feel like their home offers a respite from the outside world. This was one of the impulses behind the separation of work and home life in the modern era: as the world industrialized and cities grew, people started viewing homes as refuges. This put more emphasis on the single-family home as well as on the nuclear family, promoting more private lives. While these private lives have been criticized from a range of people who don’t like the drop-off in community life or the lack of civic engagement (ranging from Bowling Alone to New Urbanists), this desire for private retreats still appears to hold true. What the retreat might look like could take multiple forms – from the room centered on the giant TV to a spa-like bathroom to a backyard oasis to a man-cave – but the money goes toward making sure residents can put off the outside world just a little longer.

Americans had biggest new houses ever in 2013

Posted on by

The National Association of Home Builders suggests Census data for 2013 shows Americans had the biggest new homes ever at over 2,600 square feet:

Preliminary data provided to NAHB by the Census Bureau on the characteristics of homes started in 2013 show the trend toward larger homes continued unabated last year, as did the share of new homes with 4+ bedrooms, 3+ full baths, 2-stories, or 3-car garages.  The average size of new homes started in 2013 was 2,679 square feet, about 150 square feet larger than in 2012 and the fourth consecutive annual increase since bottoming out at 2,362 square feet in 2009.

This is amazing. Housing, particularly bigger homes and McMansions, was fingered as a key reason the economy crashed in the late 2000s as too many residents and banks conspired to produce untenable mortgages. The housing market has struggled since. Yet, several years later, Americans now have even bigger than ever new houses. Why?

To get an answer, just take a look at WHO is buying new homes?  The typical new home buyer in recent years has been someone with strong credit scores and high levels of income.  To the first point, the graph below shows how the average credit rating of all US consumers has remained rather flat over the last few years (blue line), while the average credit rating of mortgage borrowers (red line) took a dramatic jump after 2007.  By 2013, the gap between the two measures was 58 points, compared to 33 points in the early 2000s.

To the second point, the graph below shows the rising trend in new home buyers’ income in recent years.  In 2005, the median income of new home buyers was $91,768.  By 2011, it had increased by more than 17% to $107,607.  It is not too surprising, therefore, to see home size and features continuing to trend upward, given that those buying new homes are precisely the kind of buyers who generally purchase large, feature-loaded homes.

In other words, the bifurcated housing market continues. Those with resources, more income and higher credit scores, can take advantage of these new homes builders are constructing because there is more profit to be made. In the meantime, the construction of smaller homes, those that might be more affordable or reasonable given the moral outrage over big homes in the 2000s, continues to lag behind. If the housing market is going, it is going on the strength of more expensive homes.

We need another piece of data to make this post from the NAHB complete: how do the housing starts in 2013 compare to those for each year since the early 2000s?

Americans across social classes spend a lot on housing and transportation

Posted on by

Derek Thompson points out some interesting household expenditure data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Americans spend quite a bit on housing and transportation.

Families with radically different incomes—from lawyers and doctors down to high-school dropouts—all spend about half of it on homes and getting around, which suggests an historically tight relationship between marginal income growth and marginal spending growth on real estate and transportation. You get a raise, you shack up with roommates. You get another raise, you get nicer studio. A bigger raise and you move out to the suburbs and buy a house—commensurably increasing your spending on transportation (bigger car + gas).

This monopoly of housing/transit dominance is sticky for many reasons—America is big and has space for houses but zoning often limits development, leaving us with high relative housing prices and rents; suburban sprawl invites car ownership; infrastructure supports a car culture; our gas taxes are low and mortgage interest deductions are high; the list goes on—but it doesn’t have to be this way. Not every country spends half its income on homes and cars. They have other priorities, like the UK, where the typical family spends a walloping 20 percent of its income on the super-category of “fun stuff”: culture, entertainment, sports, alcohol, and tobacco. Or look at Japan, which spends more than twice as much as us on food consumed at home.

And where might this money go if it was not spent on these two areas?

Imagine what would happen if we didn’t spend $1 in $2 on houses and cars. It would be rocky for the real estate and auto industries who have come to rely on a steady stream of spending. But it would leave a lot of money left over other stuff—like smartphones, and dinners out with friends, and shoes whose fanciness belies our income level. This isn’t a vision of the future. It’s a description of the way a lot of young people live today, particularly educated twentysomethings who’ve moved to urban light areas (e.g.: newer subrubs within commuting distance of the city proper, like Arlington, Va.) where they can save on real estate, take public transit, and preserve enough of their lowish salaries to cobble together a connected and fairly social life outside work, if they have it. Maybe these trends are recession-era fads that will fade with the recovery. If not, it’ll be a big deal.

Owning a car and a home simply seem to be foundational features of modern America and the American Dream. The first offers independence and mobility. The second offers a private retreat from the harsh outside world and one’s own land to do as they please (though owners might choose to be part of homeowner’s associations that limit their options to enhance their property values). Being middle-class, a desired goal of many Americans, is tied to these two items. They also point to a person’s identity, representing one’s status and personal tastes.

All that said, Thompson hints at the possibilities if these foundational values (dating to roughly the 1910s and 1920s and then cemented in the prosperous post-World War II era when they became more attainable) fade and are replaced by others. It isn’t just an economic question of what happens to the auto industry or builders but rather a larger question about American social life: could be truly imagine an America without widespread praise and chasing after houses and cars?

McMansion Appreciation discussion thread

Posted on by

This is rare: check out reasons some people appreciate McMansions and newer (90s to today) big homes.

I actually like 2 story foyers and tall ceilings. Not sure what everyone else thinks…

Second floor laundry room
a real master bathroom with seperate tub, shower and toilet room…

Duct work in the proper places and not added on later.

Tall basement ceilings

And some snark sneaks in here and there:

I like that they make you appreciate how nicely folks built in the US in the 1930s.

There is clearly a market for such homes but it is difficult to find people who openly state the reasons why they like the features of McMansions that many critics dislike. Who probably the most of this information (that would be interesting to analyze)? Builders like Toll Brothers who have successfully sold big houses for years.

Is the US housing stock too old?

Posted on by

A recent article discusses an aging American housing stock:

According to a recent survey from research firm RealtyTrac, 71 percent of U.S. single-family homes were built before 1990. In some states, particularly in the Northeast, pre-1990 houses make up 80 percent of recent sales.

Experts say the new-home drought is mainly due to a hangover from the real estate bust. Homebuilding, which practically came to a halt five years ago, has been slow to restart as big developers have remained skittish. New-home construction this year is still 40 percent below normal long-term levels, says Jed Kolko, chief economist at real estate website Trulia.com.

Furthermore, builders have focused on multifamily homes, and individual buyers have not had access to all the new single-family houses coming to market.

“Wall Street-backed money has scooped up newer homes to use as rental properties,” said Daren Blomquist, vice president of RealtyTrac. “That’s pushed the already-low new-home inventory down to record levels.”

The article seems to suggest the housing stock is too old but then doesn’t provide much evidence that this is the case. Based on the figures presented here, it sounds like 29% of American homes have been built since 1990. Is this too high or too low? Here are a few ways we could approach this argument:

1. There is a certain percentage of the housing stock that should be from the last two decades in a healthy economy or housing market and the US has not met this.

2. Perhaps demand for newer homes has increased. It could be that more homebuyers want homes that require little work or homes with certain features. Thus, this is less about having a set amount of newer homes and rather about responding to what customers want. Theoretically, if more people wanted older homes, then fewer new homes would need to be built.

3. Citing these figures is more of an introduction for then talking about how homebuyers should approach purchasing an older home (As the rest of the article does).

4. The percent of new housing stock will differ quite a bit by metropolitan area and region. While the Sunbelt has been growing faster, Midwestern and Northeastern regions have been growing more slowly.

All together, the quick claim here that the American housing stock is too old needs some more explaining.

The important new styles in American homes in the last few decades: shed, split-level, millennium mansions

Posted on by

The recently updated A Field Guide to American Houses includes descriptions of three new home styles from recent decades:

Q: Is it harder to put new homes into defined categories? In other words, how do you determine what is a defined style and what isn’t?

A: When I first started the revision, I was almost overwhelmed by what seemed to be the fractured nature of new home design and wondered how I would ever figure out what I believed the defined categories were…

Q: We think of Italianate, Queen Anne or Craftsman, for example, as being classic, etched-in-stone styles. Do you think one day we’ll think in the same way of split-level, shed or millennium mansions, three of your new categories?

A: Yes, I do. Shed was a favorite style of architects in the ’60s and ’70s. It was taught in prominent architecture schools such as MIT and Yale and won a number of architecture awards, … and even appeared in house-pattern books for builders. Millennium mansions, on the other hand, dominated builders’ subdivisions in the 1990s and 2000s much in the way that ranch houses dominated builders’ subdivisions of the 1950s and ’60s.

Split-level was a brand new house shape, rather than style, and was most often used in the ranch, styled ranch or contemporary styles. It can be compared to American four-square, also a house shape, popular from about 1900 to 1920 that could be found in several different styles.

Whether critics like these new home styles or not, there were a lot of each of these three styles built. American homes aren’t quickly demolished so these homes are here to stay. This could lead to a few options:

1. A number of these homes could be significantly altered as homeowners add on, change the exterior and interior, redecorate, change the yards, and live full lives with lots of memories in these homes. I’m reminded of the homes of the Levittowns: while critics said they were “little boxes,” after several decades they had been altered quite a bit and the streetscapes included a variety of homes to look at. See the historical work Expanding the American Dream by Barbara Kelly.

2. Down the road, such styles will be revered and will eventually lead to preservation efforts. “We need to save that gaudy McMansion from the mid-1990s” – someone in 2030 might say.

3. Down the road, critics will still blast McMansions and these other new styles as unimaginative and wasteful. But, there may still be plenty of these homes.

4. Some new design will render these trends irrelevant or passe. McAlester looks forward in this interview to green homes but these homes doesn’t necessarily have to have a similar architectural design.