Tag Archives: square feet

The two basic floor plans in the original Levittown

Posted on by

One important aspect of the influential Levittowns were the houses: simple, cheap for buyers, and could be efficiently built.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/53b.asp

The Levitts mass-produced these homes in a way that would become fairly standard among large builders. The process involved manufacturing a number of the pieces off-site and having different crews tackle each home site at different points of the home’s construction. This process differed quite a bit from the rest of the housing industry which was largely comprised of small builders who took more time with each home. While this mass process led to more uniformity (and suburban critics jumped on the architectural similarity as a metaphor for all of suburbanization), it also dramatically reduced the cost of houses. A number of initial buyers noted that they could purchase a new home in a Levittown with a cheaper monthly cost than they could rent accommodations elsewhere.

Two additional thoughts about these floor plans:

1. A fascinating aspect of these basic house models is the number of modifications made to the homes over the decades.

2. The square footage of these new homes, roughly 1,000 square feet, is unthinkable today in new homes as the average new American home is now over 2,500 square feet.

“We must kill the McMansion!”

Posted on by

Henry Grabar argues Americans should focus on getting rid of the embarrassing McMansion:

This surfeit of space is a potent symbol of the American way of life; it speaks to our priorities, our prosperity and our tendency to take more than we need. But the superlative size of our houses isn’t just a foam finger America can hold up to the world. It’s correlated with land use patterns and population density, which in turn determine the environmental impact and personal health of communities, and whether they can support a diverse range of businesses, facilities and transportation choices. It’s no coincidence that a modern American suburb like Weston, Florida, has just one-third the population density of Levittown…

But American homes dwarf those in nearly every other country on Earth. Our new houses are twice the size of those in Germany, and you could fit three new U.K. houses inside one of ours. (For what it’s worth, the houses in the U.K. are rather cramped.) Even in spacious Canada, our neighbors are building homes three-quarters the size of their U.S. equivalents. Only Australia, which has the lowest population density in the world after Mongolia and Namibia, can rival the U.S.A. for big houses.

As it turns out, though, the U.S. housing puzzle is more complex than many critics perceive. For the past few decades, single-family homes have dominated new construction. During most of the early-aughts housing boom, too, more than four of five new units were single-family homes. But that huge discrepancy has been vanquished by a surge in apartment construction. These days, the rate of new starts in multi-family buildings has been hovering, nationwide, near 40 percent — a level not seen in decades…

That raises a number of questions. Are these new residents trading the space of suburbia for the vibrancy of a city? Are they downsizing their living quarters to spend money on other things? Or can they simply not afford to rent a bigger apartment or purchase a house?

Provocative headlines involving McMansions are popular these days – “Kill the McMansions” is a pretty strong statement. Yet, the article doesn’t talk as much about the negative impacts of McMansions. The gist of the article goes more this direction: even as new American homes have grown larger in recent years, apartment construction is up, and it is unclear what direction housing will trend in the coming years. Answering this open question could go a long way in determining not just what the American landscape looks like in coming decades but, more importantly, what underlies American social life.

Should your office cubicle be smaller than your suburban home’s bathroom?

Posted on by

A short passage from Cubedhighlights the increasing size of suburban bathrooms compared to the size of cubicles:

To add insult to injury, [cubicles] shrank. According to a BusinessWeek editorial from 1996, between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s the average size of a cubicle decreased between 25 and 50 percent. Ironically, the editorial was spurred by BusinessWeek‘s editorial staff being “informed that most of us will lose our private offices in a year or two. This prompted a closer look at cubicles,” they wrote, “which are occupied by some 35 million of the 45 million white-collar workers in this country.” BW forecast only half humorously that at those rates the average cubicle in 2097 would be eight square feet. By 2006, when the average cubicle was seventy-five square feet, half of Americans would report that they believed that their bathroom was larger than their cubicle; one wonders to what extend the extravagant growth of the American bathroom, and of the suburban home in general, is partly a reaction against the shrinking of cubicles, where the owners of those bathrooms spend so much of their time. (p.243)

Interesting contrast. American homes are indeed larger today and have more bathrooms than in the past. Cubicles are often meant to be practical, places for business and yet suburbanites tend to desire more opulent bathrooms. Watch HGTV for a while and lots of homebuyers want bathrooms that are more like spas, have the latest features like granite and rain showerheads, and have plenty of space. For all these niceties, how much time do people spend in bathrooms compared to cubicles? The numbers wouldn’t even be close for the average cubicle dweller. But, bathrooms, particularly connected to the master’s bedroom, are showpieces, status symbols , and catch buyers’ eyes and cubicles are definitely not those things.

Nearly 50% drop in first-time buyers leads to bigger American homes

Posted on by

New American homes are now over 2,600 square feet and this is partly because there has been a big drop in first-time buyers:

The economist says first-time buyers accounted for only some 16% of last year’s new-home sales, or about half of their usual roughly 30% market share.

At the same time, he says, builders are finding bank loans, developable land and experienced construction workers in short supply. “You had a well-oiled construction industry [during the early 2000s housing boom], but when there was a downturn, many people left,” Melman says.

The expert says a shift to high-end homes has historically happened after every U.S. recession or housing bust and lasted for a few years.

So he expects newly built homes to keep getting larger, fancier and costlier for a while — albeit at a slower pace over time.

More evidence that the numbers about the increasing size of American homes is misleading. On one hand, it looks like the American appetite for more square feet continues unabated; household sizes shrink over time but homes keep getting bigger. Have to have room to spread out or to store all our stuff. Yet, the housing market has changed quite a bit since the early 2000s where the above story might have been more accurate. Today, home sizes are driven by a market with fewer first-time buyers, builders who are looking for higher-end profits, and lenders who have pulled back a bit and restricted lending to people with plenty of wealth.

A big uptick in large homes constructed in recent years? Maybe

Posted on by

With the average size of new American homes at record levels, just how many big homes have been built in recent years?

As a result, the market for smaller homes, of 1,400 square-feet and less, has shrunk to just 4% of homes built. That compares with 9% in 2005…

Meanwhile, extremely large houses — 4,000 square feet and up — have been making up a much larger slice of the new homes built.

Last year, these mega homes accounted for more than 9% of new homes. In 2005, they represented 6.6% of homes built.

Houses that are a little smaller but still verging on mansion territory, those between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet, made up 21.7% of new homes in 2013, up from 15.6% in 2005.

So these are changes in the housing market: more large homes built in recent years, fewer small houses constructed. But, are they big changes? The decrease in homes under 1,400 square feet is 5%, the rise in homes over 4,000 square feet is just over 3%, and the increase in homes three to four-thousand square feet is somewhat bigger at 6%. Does this mean McMansions are back? The data is up for interpretation with figures that could likely support either side: there are shifts taking place versus the percentage changes are limited.

New American homes bigger than ever in 2013

Posted on by

Census data shows new American homes grew in 2013 to nearly 2,600 square feet:

According to just released data, both the median and average size of a new single-family home built in 2013 hit new all time highs of 2,384 and 2,598 square feet respectively.

And while it is known that in absolute number terms the total number of new home sales is still a fraction of what it was before the crisis, the one strata of new home sales which appears to not only not have been impacted but is openly flourishing once more, are the same McMansions which cater to the New Normal uberwealthy (which incidentally are the same as the Old Normal uberwealthy, only wealthier) and which for many symbolize America’s unbridled greed for mega housing no matter the cost.

…

Of the 569,000 single-family homes completed in 2013:

  • 518,000 had air-conditioning.
  • 59,000 had two or fewer bedrooms and 251,000 had four bedrooms or more.
  • 27,000 had one and one-half bathrooms or less, whereas 188,000 homes had three or more bathrooms.
  • 166,000 had a full or partial basement, while 91,000 had a crawl space, and 312,000 had a slab or other type of foundation.
  • 305,000 had two or more stories.
  • 333,000 had a forced-air furnace and 216,000 had a heat pump as the primary heating system.
  • 347,000 had a heating system powered by gas and 214,000 had a heating system powered by electricity.

The headline reads “McMansions Are Back and Are Bigger Than Ever.” The data would seem to support such an argument as square footage continues to increase and homes have more amenities. Additionally, this is more evidence that the higher ends of the housing market are more robust these days compared to the lower end where smaller homes aren’t moving as quickly.

South Barrington has the “Ultimate McMansion”

Posted on by

Curbed Chicago highlights a 21,000 square foot South Barrington home as the “Ultimate McMansion”:

If you looked up the word McMansion in the dictionary, a photo of this house would appear next to the definition. And no doubt, South Barrington is a place where folks like to live large. The suburb is known for being the home of the fourth largest church in the country, for having a movie theater that’s the size of most small airports, and a plethora of McMansions that were built in the last couple of decades. And of all the McMansions for sale in South Barrington right now, this 21,000 square foot home may just take the cake. The manse sports a six car garage, four master suites, a 3,000 square foot rec room and a private beach. The huge seven bedroom home also has some pretty interesting interior design going on as well, complete with clouds painted on the ceiling in some rooms and a basement that looks like something you’d find in Vegas from the 90s. For $3.87M, this ultimate McMansion could be all yours.

Quite the interior and exterior. But, this is a classic case of an expensive home that is way past McMansion with its square footage. What would the average McMansion owner do with 21,000 square feet? Most of the photos show rooms that are simply much too large for even a good amount of furniture. I would argue that once you get past nine or ten thousand feet

The connection of the big home to other big features of South Barrington is also intriguing. Do people who live in McMansions tend to like to live in places in large churches or movie theaters? Perhaps the connection is the level of wealth in the community but having a lot of big houses is not necessarily related to having one of the biggest churches nearby

Guide to finding and maintaining love in a tiny house

Posted on by

Living in a tiny house may just require approaching a relationship in some new ways:

Tip #2: Consider dating exclusively within the tiny house community…

Tip #3: You’re going to need to talk about your stuff…

Tip #7: Let go of any previously held notions of privacy…

Tip #9: Decide how important those precious “child-free” moments really are to you…

Tip #12: There will need to be some indoctrination involved.

Given the propensity of more Americans to live alone plus other indicators (like social media) that suggest Americans prefer relationships on their own terms, living together in such a small space may be asking too much. Tip #8 does provide an out by suggesting two tiny houses can be parked side by side but the larger issue remains: how many Americans want to be that close? Isn’t physical space often viewed as something that is good for modern relationships, something that gives those involved room to be independent and be fulfilled outside of their close relationships?

The tiny house movement is still really small at this point so it would be difficult to look at how relationships in these settings fare compared to relationships lived in larger homes. Additionally, just because one lives in a tiny house doesn’t mean that those involved can’t be elsewhere – this all assumes private home space is the most important space in life (a common American assumption) but people in other countries and societies have some different ideas about how this can work.

“8 Dream Homes That Aren’t McMansions”

Posted on by

Not all desirable homes have to be expensive McMansions:

When one’s job is to write about incredible homes, one quickly finds out that most of the really incredible pictures are from…really, really, really expensive homes. As in: Homes that have more infinity pools than they have bedrooms; couches that cost the equivalent of a down payment on an actual house; houses with pantries that are bigger than a studio apartment — that sort of thing. But we believe that a “dream home” doesn’t have to be outrageously expensive — or even that big. Here are 8 houses that prove just that.

Two quick points:

1. Most big “dream homes” are far beyond McMansions. If you have an infinity pool, this is usually beyond a McMansion. If you are featured in an architectural magazine because of your interior design, it is usually beyond a McMansion. These homes are usually just plain mansions.

2. The eight homes featured in this story have some commonalities: they tend to be relatively small, green, and well-designed (meaning put together by an architect or adhering to local design). These traits are more often anti-McMansion rather than looking at the number of infinity pools a home has.

Rise of the granny flat in Portland

Posted on by

Here is another version of the smaller house movement: changes to regulations in recent years have led to more “accessory dwelling units” in Portland.

And additional living spaces are springing up everywhere, providing affordable housing without changing the feeling or texture of established neighborhoods the way high-rise developments can…

Eric Engstrom, a principal city planner, has seen these small structures become increasingly popular during his 16 years working for the city. And as he put it, “Given the low vacancy rate, when they’re done, you can rent them out in about an hour.” Which means that adding an accessory dwelling unit, or A.D.U., increases the value of a piece of property.

Since the 1990s, Mr. Engstrom said, zoning laws in Portland have been slowly changing to accommodate the buildings. “There’s been a lot of pressure on us to allow them,” he said.

But it was in 2010 when the biggest changes took place. That was when the city relaxed the limitations on size and began offering the equivalent of a cash incentive by waiving the hefty fees usually levied on new development. Other cities in the Northwest have been moving in this direction, but Portland is the first to offer a significant financial benefit and one of the few that does not require owners to live on the site, provide additional off-street parking or secure the approval of their neighbors — all of which have proved to be obstacles elsewhere. Apart from Santa Cruz, Calif., and Austin, Tex., where secondary dwellings have long been allowed, Portland is alone in this country in its aggressive advocacy of the units.

Seems like this approach could be a reasonable solution in many communities: allow small dwellings that can be used for multigenerational family space, generate a little extra income, provide more affordable housing opportunities, and/or expand the inhabitable space for the household. Yet, the article says little about why this has moved forward in Portland and a few other places but hasn’t caught on elsewhere. Is it seen more favorably in cities with limited space and relatively high real estate prices? Does it require more progressive politics?