Tag Archives: square feet

Making a clear contrast: “Micro-apartments: The anti-McMansions”

Posted on by

CNN profiles micro-apartments and frames them as the opposite of McMansions:

Move over McMansions: These days, pint-sized, micro-apartments are all the rage.

Typically ranging between 180 and 300 square-feet, these tiny apartments are becoming increasingly popular among the young-and-single set and even some retirees, seeking affordable places to live in the nation’s costliest cities.

Nowhere is the micro trend hotter than in Seattle. More than 40 micro-apartment developments have been built in the city in the past three years, according to Jim Potter, chairman of Kauri Group, a Seattle-based developer. Many of these apartment buildings offer shared patios, roof decks and even communal kitchens. (Zoning laws in Seattle allow up to eight apartments to share one kitchen)…

The key selling point is affordability. In Seattle, 250-square-foot apartments rent for under $800 a month, almost half the average $1,400 people pay for newly built studios of 400 square feet or more in the city, according to Potter.

The first comparison is not surprising: as McMansions came to be the symbol of large houses, micro-apartments are just the opposite. The whole unit is the size of perhaps a smaller owner’s suite in a McMansion and often features space-saving designs.

The second comparison is less common: micro-apartments are also cheap compared to McMansions. Particularly in the cities cited in this article, places like Seattle or San Francisco, affordable housing is in short supply. Micro-apartments may be small but more importantly, they give people an opportunity to live closer to work and in or near places they couldn’t afford otherwise. McMansions were also known for their price, or at least for the mortgages that owners had to take on. The comparison is not perfect since McMansions are assumed to be in the suburbs and less of an issue in the big city.

It will be interesting to see how this comparison plays out down the road. McMansions are a powerful symbol while micro-apartments are on the rise and still could change quite a bit as they grow in number and spread to more places. The article hints at one change: the micro-apartments might be popular with retirees. Such a development could set up some interesting stories of

Reminder: a 14,000 square foot home is not a McMansion

Posted on by

I argue that Avery Johnson’s 14,396 square foot home is way beyond a McMansion – it is clearly in mansion territory. What pushes it into the mansion category?

1. The square footage seems beyond mass produced and is only really available to the wealthy. Johnson certainly is wealthy – he was fired as coach of the New Jersey Nets in December 2012 in the midst of a 3 year $12 million contract. Also, the home is listed for $9 million. While the home is located in The Woodlands which has a median household income around $85,000, this home is way past this median income.

2. The home is beyond large. It has seven bedrooms and eight bathrooms.

3. The luxury features go beyond a typical McMansion. Check out the pool that looks it belongs in a resort, the bathroom with a giant tub and three central columns, and the fully appointed game room.

In my mind, the best argument for why this home is a McMansion has less to do with the house itself and more to do with the community in which it is located. The Woodlands is a master-plan suburb outside of sprawling Houston and fits the image of the newer kind of wealthier suburb with bigger homes and office parks.

Average new US house over 2,500 square feet; average new Chicago area house 2,650 square feet

Posted on by

Here is an update on the average (not the median) new house size in the United States and in the Chicago region:

As a result, the average new home completed last year was 2,505 square feet. That represents the third annual increase in square feet and puts the average home size on par with where it was in 2008. Average home size peaked in 2007 at 2,521 square feet…

In the Chicago area, the average size of homes being built today is about 2,650 square feet, down from the 2,800 to 3,000 square feet constructed during the housing boom, according to Chris Huecksteadt, director of the Chicago region for Metrostudy, a housing research firm.

The US average is not surprising but it is rarer to see see figures for specific metropolitan regions. The higher than average new housing size in the Chicago area is likely related to the wealth of the metropolitan area but its lack of recovery compared to the national average suggests the region hasn’t bounced back as much as some other regions.

Assessing “The Return of McMansions” in the NYT

Posted on by

Following up on the same data behind the CNN story on the McMansion comeback, the NYT looks more closely at the characteristics of new houses in 2012. Here is my summary:

-Housing starts were still down in 2012. Looking at the graph with housing start data since 1973 shows that the last few years have been quite different.

-The homes built in 2012 were bigger: the highest median square footage ever of 2,306 square feet, 41% of the houses were four or more bedrooms (a new record), and 30% of new houses had 3 or more bathrooms (also a new record).

My thoughts on this data:

1. This is not a big surprise. While housing starts are way down, wealthier Americans and others have still been able to buy large new homes. Again, Toll Brothers is doing just fine. On the other hand, the lower ends of the housing market are not doing well.

2. It is interesting again for people to pick up on the highest-ever median square footage for new houses. For years, journalists and others have looked at the average square footage which is bit down from its high several years ago. Perhaps the median is now alluring because it is at its highest point and therefore can be linked to McMansions and American excess?

3. More houses have more bedrooms and yet the average family size in the United States has decreased in recent decades and more Americans are now living alone. So what are these bedrooms being used for?

 

Claim: America has 40 million McMansions?

Posted on by

Here is an interesting claim: America has 40 million McMansions.

Americans, especially generations X and Y, want shorter commutes, walkability and a car-free existence. Which means that around 40 million large-lot exurban McMansions, built primarily during the housing boom, might never find occupants.

My guess is that this application of the term McMansion is quite misguided. Look at the original news story about these figures:

America has too many big houses — 40 million, to be exact — because consumers are shifting preferences to condos, apartments and small homes, experts told the New Partners for Smart Growth Thursday, holding its 11th annual conference in San Diego through Sunday.

Relying on developers’ surveys, Chris Nelson, who heads the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah, said 43 percent of Americans prefer traditional big, suburban homes but the rest don’t…

He estimated that this demand suggests a need for 10 million more attached homes and 30 million more small homes on 4,000-square-foot lots or less. By contrast, demand for large-lot homes is 40 million less than currently available.

There is no explicit mention of McMansions in this original story. There can’t really be 40 million McMansions. In 2000, there were just under 70 million total detached housing units. So roughly half of all American houses are McMansions? Also, there are 40 million houses in the exurbs? (You may have to define all suburbs as exurbs to get close to this.) At the same time, one could argue that the average new home, around 2,400 square feet is still too big for what many Americans want. But, a home at the average or even slightly over is not automatically a McMansion.

Average new house size expected to drop to 2,150 square feet by 2015

Posted on by

A short report on McMansions links to a National Association of Home Builders survey that suggests building professionals believe the square footage of the average new American house will fall by 2015:

Respondents expect the average, new single-family detached home in 2015 to be about 2,152 square feet, 10 percent smaller than the average size of single-family homes started in the first three quarters of 2010. Overall, 63 percent of respondents expect the average size of new homes in 2015 to be somewhere between 2,000 square feet and 2,399 square feet, 22 percent expect it to be between 2,400 square feet and 2,999 square feet, while 13 percent expect it to only be 1,600 square feet to 1,999 square feet (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Average Home Size in 2015

Data from the Census Bureau indicates that the average size of single-family homes completed peaked in 2007, at 2,521 square feet, was virtually unchanged in 2008, and then declined in 2009 to 2,438 square feet. Preliminary data for 2010 shows a further decline, down to 2,377 square feet. Although part of the recent drop in average home size may indeed be temporary due to hard economic times, a number of factors lead building professionals to expect home size declines in the long-run: consumers are focused on lowering the cost of heating and cooling their homes; they no longer have sizeable equity in their current homes to finance a much larger one; diminished expectations for house price appreciation has reduced demand for extra square footage in order to achieve appreciation on a larger base; demographics, 29 percent of the US population will be 55+ in the year 2020, demanding smaller homes; and strict mortgage underwriting for the foreseeable future. Combined, these factors will weigh on the consumer to purchase homes based on need more than want.

My interpretation of this is that a majority of builders think new homes in 2015 will be slightly smaller than new homes of today. Additionally, 23% still believe new homes will be larger than 2,400 square feet. Interestingly, there is not reported evidence of whether building professionals think these smaller new homes of the future will be cheaper.

And here is where square footage will be dropped from these future houses:

To save on square footage, the living room is high on the endangered list – 52 percent of builders expect it to be merged with other spaces in the home by 2015 and 30 percent said it will vanish entirely.

“As an overall share of total floor space, 54 percent of builders said the family room is likely to increase,” said Rose Quint, NAHB’s assistant vice president for survey research. “That makes it the only area of the home likely to get bigger.”

In addition, the relative size of the entry foyer and dining room are likely to be diminished by 2015. However, opinions were fairly evenly divided on the fate of the kitchen, master bedroom and bath and mudroom, she said.

The survey methodology is also worth noting – it was sent to a lot of interested parties but the response rate was under 10%:

NAHB’s The New Home in 2015 survey was sent electronically to 3,019 builders, designers, architects, manufacturers, and marketing specialists. The sample was stratified by region of the country (to be proportional to housing starts in each of the four Census regions) and, among builders, by their number of units started.

A total of 238 responses were received, of which 30 percent came from single-family builders, 19 percent from architects, 26 percent from designers, 7 percent from manufacturers, and 18 percent from “other” building industry professionals.

At first glance, this suggests to me that the findings are quite untrustworthy.

Uptick in bigger homes but with some twists: more infill, multigenerational, and upsized homes

Posted on by

Some recent evidence suggests big homes might be making a comeback in America but with a few twists:

The average size of a newly built home increased 3.7 percent in 2011 from 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That was the first annual increase since 2007 and indicates that home builders are seeing demand for larger spaces. The demand, however, is not where it used to be. Home buyers are less willing to head out to the so-called “ex-urbs” to get their larger space,” according to the latest findings from the American Institute of Architects.

“In many areas, we are seeing more interest in urban infill locations than in remote exurbs, which is having a pronounced shift in neighborhood design elements,” said AIA Chief Economist, Kermit Baker. “And regardless of city or suburban dwellers, people are asking more from their communities in terms of access to public transit, walkable areas and close proximity to job centers, retail options and open space.”

Half of residential architecture firms highlight demand for multi-generational housing, up from 44 percent in 2011. Fifty-nine percent said access to public transportation is key, up from 47 percent a year ago.

More homeowners are also upsizing what they have, with 58 percent of architects reporting improvement in additions and alterations, up from just 35 percent a year ago; kitchen and bath, as usual, top the must-have list.

These factors may make new McMansions more appealing. Infill locations might lead into teardown situations but this could be preferable to sprawl. Multigenerational housing makes better use of the large houses and they appear less wasteful. Upsizing helps people build value in their home and not contribute to sprawl. While these are still big homes, they don’t sound like the exurban cookie-cutter McMansions critics love to attack.

Another note from this article: it suggests in the final paragraph that McMansions are usually thought to have between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet. This seems somewhat right to me though this could be on the conservative end. I’ve seen plenty of instances where a home over 5,000 square feet is called a McMansion and sometimes it seems like the upper end, moving into mansion territory, might be more like 8-10,000 square feet.

Converting a Salt Lake City McMansion into condos

Posted on by

Check out how one Salt Lake City McMansion was converted into condos:

In 2005, construction started on the monster house at 678 North H Street in the Avenues. Over the next year, and against the wishes of many neighbors, the home grew and grew. In 2006 construction stopped, and the partially-finished home went on the market. For the next four years the exterior shell of the 16,000 sf structure was the blight of H Street.

Eventually, however, Allen Millo did a conversion on the building. This picture shows what the building looked like as fairly bland McMansion during construction.

Looks pretty good now. Of course, McMansions aren’t the first big houses to be converted into multi-unit housing:

In most cases, those units have been carved from historic homes, are rented to students, and are hated by longer-term residents.

But the H Street project offers a more pleasing take on that classic approach, proving that multi-unit conversions can be beautiful and even appealing to upscale buyers. In other words, it shows how this can be awesome rather than awful.

This isn’t the first appeal I’ve seen for converting McMansions into multi-unit housing. I do wonder about a couple of things that could stall this momentum for this:

1. How likely are neighbors to approve of this kind of conversion? McMansions tend to be built in neighborhoods with other McMansions where wealthier property owners are worried about property values and having a certain kind of neighborhood. This might be more doable if the McMansion was originally constructed in an older neighborhood, possibly as a teardown, but these situations tend to lead to their own problems.

2. Does a conversion like this this make the construction of a McMansion morally good? McMansions are often criticized for not being good examples of architecture or design, taking up too many resources, and contributing to sprawl. This example from Salt Lake City started with a 16,000 square foot home which means that each of the condos are still of a decent size, probably well-appointed, and probably not cheap. The structure is still built on a more suburban-like lot. At the same time, this conversion leads to denser housing and more efficient use of resources.

With Toll Brothers profits up, are McMansions on the comeback?

Posted on by

Marketplace suggests McMansions may make a comeback. Here is some of the evidence:

This hour, the luxury home-builder Toll Brothers said profits in the latest quarter jumped 46 percent over last year. The CEO says he sees recovery across most of the country…

The [New Hampshire] builder says there’s a real difference between what his clients want pre- and post-recession. Before it was family homes — three-, four-car garages…

Spain: And I think today people are more or less getting back to basics. They are just looking to downsize. Single-floor living. And then have moderate finishes to fit their budgets.

It may be back to basics for Spain’s customers, but Fred Cooper with Toll Brothers, one of the nation’s top builders, says that’s not what their clients want.

Fred Cooper: While initial buyers came in thinking maybe they wanted the lower-priced home, they ended up predominately buying the larger one. That’s what they want.

So we may see more McMansions, but Los Angeles architect Buzz Yudell says the funny thing is we won’t see as much of them.

It doesn’t appear clear-cut here. Toll Brothers may have more profits but perhaps this means they have effectively reached certain segments of the housing market. At the same time, the majority of builders might be scaling back a bit and building units for those who have smaller budgets.

This raises an interesting question: at what point could we truly say that McMansions have or haven’t officially made a comeback? Who gets to decide this? We’ve heard this before – see these two examples from earlier this year. A few signs we could look at:

1. Like this article does, the fate of luxury builders like Toll Brothers might be the deciding factor. Presumably, a majority of them would see profits. However, these factors could be the result of other factors like builders being more efficient.

2. The square footage of the average new home goes up. This figure did increase this year. However, Australia just passed us again.

3. Perhaps all it takes is public perception. If more people feel like McMansions are being built, this is enough.

3a. A problem with this: perceptions of what constitutes a McMansion could change in the future. In a recession, is a 2,500 square foot home, the size of an average new home now seen as bigger than ten years ago? Or perhaps bigger homes could be more green, thus reducing the stigma of being a McMansion.

Regardless of the options I laid out, I suspect the media will have a fun time debating the comeback and/or death of McMansions for a while now as the term is such a loaded time.

Australia retakes the lead for largest new homes in the world

Posted on by

In recent years, Australia and the United States have alternated having the largest new homes. New data suggests Australia has retaken the lead:

In any case, that Australian homes should be costly is not so surprising given the peculiarities of the domestic market.

The Australian dream requires you to own a detached house with a large garden, a land-hungry type of accommodation that makes up no less than 76 percent of all homes.

Three-quarters of all homes have three or more bedrooms, and almost a third have four or more. The average newly built home is now the largest of any country at 243 square meters (2,615 square feet), taking the McMansion mantle from the United States.

And, while it is one of the emptiest countries on the planet, it is also one of the most urbanized, with most of the population crowding the coast in just eight sprawling cities.

I wonder how much this has to do with something I suspect is at play in the United States: housing starts may be down but those that are being built are primarily aimed at the upper ends of the market toward people who haven’t been hit as hard by the recession.

It is interesting that this is buried in the final paragraphs of a story about the Australian housing market. The overall piece suggests that a country can have large homes without necessarily having an overextended housing market like we see in the United States. One complaint about McMansions in the United States is that they have ruined the housing market, pushing buyers and lenders to have bloated mortgages and generally corresponding with American habits of overspending and incurring debt. But it doesn’t have to be this way: the article tells of different mortgage patterns in Australia such as homeowners paying them off quicker and having a small amount of subprime loans. In other words, having a large home doesn’t have to be tied to the ideas of profligate spending if the system is set up in a different way.