Tag Archives: single-family homes

What builders say the homes of 2015 will look like

Posted on by

If you are looking for big changes in the homes of 2015, you probably won’t find them. But here is what builders say they do expect to change for the new homes of 2015:

According to the results of the study, surveyed home builders expect new single-family homes to check in at an average of 2,150 square feet. Current single family homes measure around 2,400 square feet, which is already a decrease from the peak home size in 2007 of 2,521…

Other things that make up the home of 2015? No more living room. According to the survey, 52 percent of builders expect the living room to merge with other spaces and 30 percent believe that it will vanish completely to save on square footage. Instead, expect to see great rooms — a space that combines the family and living room and flows into the kitchen.

Expect to see more:

  • spacious laundry rooms
  • master suite walk-in closets
  • porches
  • eat-in kitchens
  • two-car garages
  • ceiling fans

Expect to see less:

  • mudrooms
  • formal dining rooms
  • four bedrooms or more
  • media or hobby rooms
  • skylights

Many of these changes reflect a desire for builders and consumers going green. Smaller space means more efficient heating and cooling. Ceiling fans distribute heat evenly while skylights, on the other hand, release heat.

The two big changes proposed here aren’t revolutionary. Particularly if the economy remains in the doldrums, homes will decrease in size. The real question is what would happen if the economy really picked up again – would builders go back to larger homes? Also, 2,150 square feet is still pretty large and perhaps is more of a reflection of the smaller number of people per home these days. The formal living room hasn’t been too popular for a while and this could also be behind the drop in home sizes. Of course, compared to the sweep of American homes over the last sixty years, these are changes.

The rest seem like pretty small adjustments. I suppose I was hoping for something a little more revolutionary but I’ll have to settle for bigger laundry rooms and a few other things. The picture attached to the story of a more slanted Hawaii home that can take advantage of “Photovoltaics” looks  a lot more interesting than the rest of the story. Would Americans buy a home that looked like that just to save on energy?

Also: where do builders get their ideas about these things? From surveys and marketing they conduct or industry-wide figures and trends? What if we could ask what builders themselves would like to see change? Perhaps they simply want to go with what the public wants.

And what about those granite countertops and stainless steel appliances?

Drop in US homeownership rate the greatest since the Great Depression

Posted on by

The title of this post is what the headline for this AP story should say – instead, the AP headline is “Census: Housing bust worst since Great Depression.” The problem with the headline is this: do people know what a “housing bust” is? Does this mean that the American housing market is in the worst shape that it has been since the Great Depression? Is the homeownership rate or are housing values at the same level as the Great Depression? Not necessarily. Here is what the story really is:

The American dream of homeownership has felt its biggest drop since the Great Depression, according to new 2010 census figures released Thursday.

The analysis by the Census Bureau found the homeownership rate fell to 65.1 percent last year. While that level remains the second highest decennial rate, analysts say the U.S. may never return to its mid-decade housing boom peak in which nearly 70 percent of occupied households were owned by their residents…

Nationwide, the homeownership rate fell to 65.1 percent – or 76 million occupied housing units that were owned by their residents – from 66.2 percent in 2000. That drop-off of 1.1 percentage points is the largest since 1940, when homeownership plummeted 4.2 percentage points during the Great Depression to a low of 43.6 percent.

So the percentage drop is what is important here: it fell from nearly 70 percent in the mid-2000s to 65.1 percent today. This is similar to the 4.2% drop during the Great Depression. But notice: the homeownership rate in 1940 was 43.6 percent while it is still above 65% today. Overall, we are ahead of the 1940 figures even though the homeownership drop suggests that this recent period has had a similar effect on homeownership as the Great Depression.

Another interesting piece of news from this Census data on homeownership:

Measured by race, the homeownership gap between whites and blacks is now at its widest since 1960, wiping out more than 40 years of gains.

This is not good. The homeownership rate for blacks and Latinos increased small amounts from 2000 to 2010 but the gap has widened. Perhaps the American Dream, at least the homeownership part, has never truly really been available to everyone.

The Wall Street Journal on turning McMansions into affordable housing

Posted on by

Others have already suggested this idea but the Wall Street Journal reports on another call for turning McMansions into affordable housing:

McMansions, a type of home became popular with affluent boomers during better times, have fallen out of favor as more consumers seek smaller, more affordable homes that cost less to operate. They also want to trim the gas tab by living closer to their jobs and public transportation – the opposite of McMansion developments deep in suburbia filled with gas-guzzling SUVs. (There’s no precise definition of a McMansion, but it’s often a case of you know it when you see it.)

Such changes in taste — and, of course, the foreclosure crisis — has left America saddled with about 30 million more homes on large lots than the market needs, The Atlantic Cities writes. But rather than let them languish on the market indefinitely, Mr. Nelson suggests converting these excess homes into affordable housing or housing for multi-generational or multi-family households. (Developments called Mr. Nelson for comment, but he was not available.)

Such homes, he points out, can have more bathrooms than bedrooms, allowing for residential space that could be divided into private units, with a common kitchen and living room. Some already have or could be outfitted with second or third kitchens. Plus, there’s plenty of room for several cars and, usually, enough of a backyard for a swing set or two.

“When you add up the spaces and how they’re distributed, the typical McMansion can be occupied by three-to-five households with their own splendid privacy, their own large space,” Mr. Nelson is quoted as saying.

Just because there may be these larger housing units available does not mean that it would be easy to make them into affordable units and/or rentals. Here are some obstacles:

1. Whoever owns these houses would have to agree to this. Would the owners want this or is this an idea from critics who don’t like these homes that want this to happen? If the homes are in foreclosure, do the banks want to jettison them quickly and do the new buyers want to convert them into more units?

2. One can’t go into many neighborhoods where McMansions are located and simply subdivide the houses into five or six units. This would require zoning changes or special exemptions from a community. If the neighbors found out about this, I imagine many would not be happy. How many would want several houses in a large neighborhood to start being effectively apartments/condos? There would be questions about traffic, safety, and perhaps under the surface, who exactly would be moving into these affordable housing units.

3. The locations of many of these homes could still lead to affordability issues. If the McMansions are in exurbs, it would require a lot of driving to get to jobs, schools, and other places. The houses may be more affordable but the other costs of sprawl would still show up.

These are not insurmountable issues but it is not necessarily an easy or quick path from McMansion to source of affordable housing.

British architects say British homes are too small

Posted on by

While new American homes have gotten slightly smaller in the last few years and a number of commentators see this as a good thing, the Royal Institute of British Architects says British homes are too small:

The RIBA, which looked at 3,418 three-bedroom homes across 71 sites in England, said the squeeze is depriving thousands of families of space needed for children to do homework, for adults to relax and for guests to stay.

The findings were based on building regulations introduced in London in July which set the minimum space benchmark of 96 sq metres (1,033 sq ft) for an average three-bed home…

But research found the average floor area of new homes is 88 sq metres (947 sq ft). And the most common size is 74 sq metres (797 sq ft)…

In 2009, a report by the Government’s former design watchdog, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, found new homes in Britain were the smallest in Europe.

It revealed homes in Greece and Denmark had almost twice the floor space of UK homes.

The argument here is that these “cramped houses” are “depriving households of the space they need to live comfortably and cohesively.” This is an interesting argument: the smaller house is harming residents, affecting their comfort (physical) and cohesion (social). Can there really be a case made that these homes are causing long-term harm to residents and families? If so, it is the homes themselves causing the trouble or the expectations about how much space the family should have and for whatever reason, can’t have?

Could there be some financial self-interest here on the part of these architects? Does the small average size of British homes necessarily mean that citizens openly desire bigger homes and are not getting their wish?

Are these smaller homes part of a larger effort to reduce the effects of suburbs and sprawl?

Tracing the McMansion Palladian window back to 16th-century Italy

Posted on by

A common design feature of the American McMansion is the Palladian window, often over the front doorway and showing off the expansive, two-story foyer. One writer suggests Palladian design features can be found throughout the Pittsburgh region:

Want to see more? OK, let’s take a walk in any local area. Aspinwall or Avalon? Highland Park or Shadyside? You’ll wear yourself out counting Palladian features on houses and apartments, occasionally a grand facade in one place, sometimes just a simple Palladian window ornamenting the attic of a modest home in another.

And then, before you’re totally exhausted, take a drive through Upper St. Clair or Peters and take in all of the Palladian windows you will find on what seems like every fifth McMansion built in those towns in the past 30 years.

Continuing, the same writer gives us some insights into how Antonio Palladio’s designs became popular and part of the American architectural vocabulary:

Palladio designed about 45 villas and palazzos (country houses and town houses) for wealthy clients in and around his adopted home town of Vicenza and nearby Venice, which is about 40 miles away. He also designed significant public buildings in both towns, including major churches in Venice — the best known being the church of San Giorgio Maggiore — which is directly across the water from the Piazza San Marco and the subject of thousands of picture postcards over the years.

But, what really brought him fame is his published work “I Quattro Libri dell’ Architettura” or “The Four Books of Architecture.” These books, when translated into English at the beginning of the 18th century, captivated English architects, who eagerly copied his works and his style. Palladianism coursed like a river through the architectural styles of the Georgian Period — the approximately 120-year reign of the Kings George I through IV. As the prevailing styles in England at the time of the flowering of the American colonies, they were copied here in public buildings, churches and houses.

Thomas Jefferson, as a gentleman architect, was infatuated, and based his designs for Monticello on Palladian ideals. He even proposed a near-copy of a famous Palladian villa as his unsuccessful bid for the design of a presidential mansion in Washington. (Today’s White House is a somewhat more Anglicized version of Palladianism.)

What makes the Palladian features of McMansions problematic for critics (an example here) is that it is not seen as being “authentic.” For example, the Palladian window might sit beneath a French gable roof. Thomas Jefferson may have popularized the style but he did so in a more “true” structure that incorporates a number of a Palladian elements rather than simply picking one part out and slapping it up on the facade because it looks nice.

Even though I have heard about Palladian features many times, I was unaware about its roots in 16th century Italy. Is there anywhere in the general American education (grade school through college) where more modern architectural features comes up? I know students learn about Greek columns and temples but what about more modern buildings, like the steel skeletons of skyscrapers, the balloon-framed house, roof styles, and more. Is this a deficit in general knowledge that encourages architectural pastiche like McMansions? Is this generally left to history and art classes? What if all college graduates had the knowledge of a basic architectural field guide that they then could mentally carry around for the rest of their lives?

The Atlantic declares “The Beginning of the End for Suburban America”

Posted on by

While this is not the only recent claim that the suburban era in America is coming to an end, this piece still has a bold headline and claim:

In the years following World War II, the United States experienced an unprecedented consumption boom. Anything you could measure was growing. A Rhode Island-sized chunk of land was bulldozed to make new suburbs every single year for decades. America rounded into its present-day shape.

Along the way, there were three inexorable trends at the base of the societal pyramid. First, we plowed more energy into our homes each and every year. We cooled and heated our houses more (sometimes wastefully, sometimes not), brought in more and more appliances, added televisions and computers and phones. Per capita electricity shot up from about 4,000 kilowatt-hours per US resident to over 13,000 kilowatt-hours by the 2000s. Second, we needed more electricity because our houses got huge. The median home size shot up from about 1,500 square feet in the early 1970s to more than 2,200 square feet in the mid-200s. Third, we drove more and more miles every year to get around and between our sprawled-out cities. Back in 1960, Americans drove 0.72 trillion miles. By 2000, that number had reached 2.75 trillion miles. In 2007, vehicle miles traveled hit 3.02 trillion…

Taken together, the end of growth in residential electricity consumption and vehicle miles traveled form a momentous signal. The United States we all grew up with is changing, or rather, it’s changed and the numbers are beginning to reflect that. The growth in housing size, electricity demand and miles traveled were the hallmarks of the suburban/exurban era. They were the statistics of sprawl — but also of economic growth. Now that their relentless upward march has stopped, what happens? We need a new model for American prosperity that doesn’t require ever greater injections of fossil energy. That’s a generational challenge that hasn’t been captured by the pro- or anti-green jobs rhetoric here in Washington.

Two quick thoughts come to mind:

1. I wonder if these are symptoms regarding sprawl and don’t really tell the full story of what is happening. None of these factors alone makes sprawl happen. Many would argue that certain government policies, stretching back to the New Deal and decisions made to spend government money on interstates and roads and make mortgages more affordable. Such policies are still in place: more money is spent on roads than mass transit, there is much talk about how to boost home sales and write off mortgage debt, and how to lower the price of gasoline. Could these figures cited in this article simply be reactions to certain market factors and not reflect deeper cultural and political shifts?

2. We’ve heard this story about the end of sprawl before. I was reminded of this when my American Suburbanization class recently finished Kenneth Jackson’s 1987 classic Crabgrass Frontier. In the final chapter, Jackson also suggests that American suburban growth will eventually slow, probably due to energy problems. This article in The Atlantic and Jackson are not the only people predicting this: many more have said that the suburbs are unsustainable and eventually Americans will have to pursue other development forms. But harkening back to my first point, whatever crisis may arise still has to be big enough to overcome an established cultural and political ideology that supports suburbs. In terms of miles driven, what if electric cars make driving cheaper (or, “Is a Car Battery Subsidy Just a Sprawl Subsidy?”)? What if new technology can ensure that McMansions are energy efficient? Who wants to be the first politician to tell voters that the suburban dream of a single-family home on at least a little yard in a good neighborhood is no longer attainable? What if the economy picks up again and homes get larger again?

In the end, how do we know that this is really the point where we have turned a corner and the American suburbs are now on the decline? Could the future suburbs be more dense, a la New Urbanist developments, and more energy efficient while retaining their key suburban traits? These three statistics do suggest something has changed – but there is a long way to go before we can write off the American suburbs.

New American homes might be smaller but are still bigger and nicer than the past

Posted on by

Some commentators have taken the US Census data that says new American homes are smaller than they were at the 2007 peak as evidence that the McMansion era is over and Americans will live in smaller homes in the future. While it may be difficult to make predictions about the future (and Americans still have large homes compared to world standards), there is another way to look at the data: the new houses of 2010 are much bigger and nicer than new homes several decades ago.

According to the data, the average new, single-family home built in 2010 was 2,392 square feet. That’s down somewhat from a McMansion-inflated high of 2,521 square feet in 2007, but still up significantly from three decades ago.

In 1980, the average new home was just 1,740 square feet, according to the Census.

Our homes also have gotten a lot more comfortable. For example, in 1980, 63 percent of new homes had central air conditioning. Last year, 88 percent of them did.

In 1980, more than one-quarter of all homes built had 1.5 bathrooms or less. Last year, just 8 percent of houses had such a small number of bathrooms.

This is quite a change from 1980, suggesting that homes have changed quite a bit in the span or just one or two generations.

Questions that come to mind when considering this historical change:

1. Would those who suggest American homes will get smaller in the future suspect that homes will go back to 1980 sizes by 2040?

2. Does anyone expect that Americans will give up amenities, such as multiple bathrooms, on the way to having smaller homes?

3. If the answer to the first two questions is no, what might the new home of 2040 look like? A little bit smaller, say 2,000 square feet, but packed with features?

International Furnishings and Design Association survey also suggests McMansions are on the way out

Posted on by

A number of commentators have suggested the era of McMansions is over. A new survey of the American members of the International Furnishings and Design Association agrees with this prediction. Here are some of the findings:

-Americans will be living in smaller spaces with fewer rooms by the year 2020, say more than 76% of IFDA members. Eleven years ago, only 49% foresaw less living space in our future…

-Separate rooms are disappearing; they are blending into spaces that serve many different purposes, believe 91.5% of the design experts – which is exactly what they foresaw back in 2000.

-Furniture also is going multipurpose, say 67.5% of the the IFDA forecasters. They see modular, moveable, and smaller-scaled furniture overtaking built-ins and big pieces. There will be more interest in ergonomic designs – designed to fit the human body – but almost none in furniture designed to be disposable…

-Everyone’s working at home. A home office is a given, say more than three-quarters of the respondents, but here’s the news: Nearly 40% of the forecasters see more than one home office under every roof…

In summary: leaders in the furnishings and design field think that Americans will be living in smaller, more multipurpose spaces.

Several questions regarding these survey findings:
1. How much do those surveyed get to set and sell these product changes in the years to come?
2. If the economy improves dramatically in the next few years, are all these predictions moot?
3. How long before these predictions and ideas become the norm set before average Americans in places like furniture showrooms or on HGTV?
4. What do you do with previous findings of the survey?
a. For example, in 2000, roughly half surveyed thought Americans would be living in smaller spaces. The actual Census numbers about new single-family homes: on average, they were 2,266 square feet, 2,438 square feet in 2009, and 2,392 square feet in 2010. This is still a net gain over most of the decade with a dip between 2008 and 2010. So half of those surveyed in 2000 were wrong?
b. The predictions about the drop in separate rooms were the same now as in 2000. Were they right?
c. If those surveyed can be wrong, what does it mean? Do their companies/firms lose money because they mispredicted the future? Is it really difficult to predict the directions in this particular field and anticipate what the American consumer wants?

Big home builders in trouble during market downturn, adopting new strategies

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal reports on the financial troubles of several big builders and the new strategies others are adopting to push forward:

“The market is not deep enough or big enough to support all the builders,” said Alex Barron, a founder and analyst with the Housing Research Center, an independent research firm in El Paso, Texas. “There needs to be some consolidation. I don’t think that means [mergers or acquisitions]. I just think that means there has to be a shakeout.”

Mr. Barron declined to speculate about any specific companies. But two operators that other analysts are watching closely are Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. and Beazer Homes USA Inc. Some analysts believe both companies are running low on cash. Both companies have seen their stock prices decline nearly 60% so far this year—making them the sector’s biggest decliners—and both have traded below $2 a share…

Both Lennar Corp. and Toll Brothers, for example, are working out distressed real-estate loans, a move that is being cheered by many industry analysts. Toll, long known as the builder of suburban McMansions, has expanded into urban areas building condominiums, which continue to be some of its strongest performers.

Hovnanian’s strategy is to keep acquiring land lots and keep building a broad variety of homes. In the second quarter, it spent some $125 million of cash to purchase about 1,440 lots and to develop land.

I’ve wondered before if these new strategies might change the image of some of these builders who built many large suburban homes in recent years.

It would be interesting to consider what the housing industry would look like if a prolonged downturn forced these big builders out of business. Are there some regional builders who could then step into the gap? Would we have a return to smaller builders a la the pre-Levittown days?

How a 6,000 square foot Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton escapes being called a McMansion

Posted on by

A basic component of the term McMansion is a large house. But this defense of a large Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton shows that this isn’t a necessary component of the term McMansion:

Looking past the seven bedrooms, this Brown Harris Stevens listing on Lee Avenue in East Hampton seems to be an antidote to the McMansion trend currently occurring in the ‘Gauche-ing over’ of the East End, making a seemingly cozy use of its 6,000 square feet…

From the language in the listing, the fully screened-in porch is the work of Robert A.M. Stern (the listing says “Robert Stern” but we’re going to assume that they’ve left the A.M. off for those ‘in the know”), making it a nice, neighboring companion piece to the library and town hall that Yale’s dean of architecture has designed for East Hampton over the last 20 years.

So, while the deck—and attached house—will run you $6.5 million, you will be getting an adorable piece of early 20th century living with a late 20th century porch on roughly an acre of land in the tony Georgica section of East Hampton.

Perhaps I am just being cynical but it sounds like this home is not a McMansion simply because it was designed by a well-known architect. Because of this, it is better quality and more aesthetically pleasing.

If you look at the slideshow pictures, the home does seem to avoid some McMansion design features: no pretentious columns or two-story foyers; the rooms have some traditional features; and the kitchen is not full of granite countertops, a Viking stove, or a Sub-Zero refrigerator (at least as far as we can see).

Still, it is a 6,000 square foot home. Can that much space really be cozy? Only in places like the Hamptons could this size home seem restrained. What about arguments that all big homes are bad (large homes don’t fit with other green products) or need to be regulated (see this recent discussion in Australia)?