Tag Archives: square feet

Successful people want to own tiny cabins

Posted on by

The oversized house may be less appealing to the wealthy compared to owning a small cabin:

McMansions used to be one supersize symbol of the American dream, but these days many of our country’s most celebrated businesspeople see success more diminutively: in the form of a cabin. Preferably one on the smaller side, made of recycled wood, as technology-free as possible. Ironically, many of the cabin’s great champions are tech giants.

One such champion is Zach Klein, co-founder of Vimeo, whose Cabin Porn Tumblr blog garnered enough followers to warrant a book of the same name, one The New York Times has been musing over.

“The cabin and the shack are ideal launchpads for remarkable lives but lately they’ve become homes to aspire to—particularly for overburdened types whose acquisitive binging has made them want to purge,” the Times noted.

Think of these simple spaces as an architectural panacea. “Driven mad by status anxiety? Addled by technology? Bankrupted by consumerism? Then shrink your footprint. Go minimalist. Get free,” the Times said.

Sounds like trading one status symbol for another: moving from the image of wealth and grandiosity with the large McMansion to an interest in getting away from it all. Of course, the small cabin is simply another luxury for the wealthy who can escape to it when they please and then return to their other expensive housing. Instead of spending money to show that one can afford the wasteful use (conspicuous consumption), now it is more desirable to forgo the luxuries of a house for a short time to show that one can. And we could ask: what kind of world do we live in where people have to regularly spend large amounts of money to escape from their everyday lives?

New homes shrink 40 sq ft; industry not sure what it means

Posted on by

The median size of new American homes shrunk during the second quarter – but barely:

Of the 206,000 homes that went under construction in the second quarter, the median size was 2,479 square feet, according to Commerce Department data released Tuesday. That was 40 square feet smaller—or about the size of a walk-in closet—than the high set in the first quarter.

What exactly this means is unclear.

Entry-level buyers tend to purchase smaller homes. In recent years, many younger people who otherwise would buy a home have opted to rent due to stringent mortgage-qualification standards, relatively sluggish job and wage growth, mounting student debt and preferences for living near city centers, where land and homes are more pricey…

Several economists and builders foresee a gradual leveling off or decline of the median size of newly built homes. Builders such as D.R. Horton Inc., KB Home, Meritage Homes Corp., PulteGroup Inc. and Century Communities Inc. have reported early signs of first-time buyers returning to the housing market in the past year…

David Crowe, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, foresees a “moderation” of the median size of newly built homes as more first-time buyers come into the market. But he added that it will take a long time for the shift to be reflected in the national median-size figure, because the factors buoying first-time buyers—a loosening of mortgage-qualification standards and growth in jobs and wages—are progressing slowly…

“If anything, we’re seeing people trying to get into the largest home they can afford,” said Marcie DePlaza, a division president at GL Homes, a Florida builder that anticipates selling 1,000 homes this year at prices ranging from about $200,000 to $2 million. “With interest rates as low as they are, people can push to buy the biggest [home] in the group” that they are considering.

In other words, the data could be taken as pointing in multiple directions. A number of builders and others are at least preparing themselves for the possibility that more Americans, particularly entry-level buyers, want smaller homes. Yet, the big homes make a lot of money and wealthier buyers are a known quantity.

In situations like this, I imagine the housing industry would try to hedge its bets both ways. Playing it conservatively might work better in the long run though it might mean that some opportunities are lost. Some of these trends – such as Americans eventually wanting smaller homes – have been discussed for decades. Still, it takes time for some of these factors to work themselves out such as the behavior of younger homebuyers or the overall state of the economy or whether homeownership is promoted by politicians.

Only 8% of new American homes under 1,400 square feet

Posted on by

Even with the rise of tiny houses (with a new push by HGTV), most American new homes are nowhere near this small. According to Census data, only 8% of new homes constructed in 2014 were under 1,400 square feet. And the median square footage for new homes was 2,453 and the average was 2,657.

As noted in earlier posts, the size of the tiny house movement is unclear. They may be popular in particular situations such as cities with affordability issues (like San Francisco or New York City) or dealing with homelessness. This is the case even with a sluggish housing market for starter homes and the burst housing bubble of the late 2000s.

What is the future for tiny houses? I suspect it will continue as a niche movement. Many Americans still like larger homes and their stuff and have a hard time imagining paring down their life that much. Perhaps semi-tiny houses will become popular: the 100-200 square foot homes ask for a big sacrifice but housing units of 700-1,000 square feet are doable (and not already uncommon in denser cities). It might take the efforts of a major city or developer really getting behind smaller homes to convince a larger group of people that this is the way to go. But, outside of specialized uses, it would take a big shift to get many to build and/or buy such small houses.

“Jennifer Aniston leads fight against giga-mansions” in Beverly Hills

Posted on by

Even the wealthy don’t want “giga-mansions” in their neighborhood:

Her own $21 million (£13 million) Bel Air mansion covers a rather more modest 8500 square feet.

But it has been rapidly overtaken by a new trend for the giga-mansions. The ultra-wealthy are buying and bulldozing some of the area’s biggest villas, to build even bigger homes, filled with fountains, swimming pools and space for entertaining.

Opponents say they bring months of construction noise, threaten existing homes by destabilising the ground and that their huge size represents an invasion of privacy as they tower over neighbours.

Prince Abdul Aziz, a Saudi Arabian prince and deputy foreign minister of his country, is among the buyers to have angered neighbours. He bought a Spanish colonial residence from Jon Peters, the film producer behind Superman Returns and Man of steel, before promptly tearing it down and lodging plans for an 85,000-square-foot estate.

But the real fury is reserved for the 30,000-square-foot creation of Mohamed Hadid, a real estate developer and father of Gigi Hadid, the model.

Two quick thoughts:

1. These really are some large homes. They might work on larger pieces of property but not so well when neighbors are relatively close by. A 103 foot tall home is more like a 10 story skyscraper in a small size city than a welcomed member of a residential neighborhood.

2. This does invite questions about how large of a home is too large. A $21 million 8,500 square foot home in Beverly Hills is expensive and large by all measures. Presumably, the Los Angeles regulations allow for this size. But, how exactly does a municipality decide on the cut-off? The way around this in many communities that address teardowns is to insist on certain guidelines and styles that effectively limit the square footage.

Avoiding McMansion sized furniture

Posted on by

With new American homes increasing in size over time, it may be hard to find smaller new furniture:

I need help finding a sofa/sleeper that is not “McMansion sized”…

Have added a TV room on my house & would like to put a sofa/sleeper there so it can be used as overflow guest bedroom space. The stores all seem to sell HUGE sofas. Where do I find a (hopefully full size) sofa/sleeper that will not become “The Elephant In The Room”?

In addition to the larger new homes in the United States, might the larger furniture also be due to the growing size of Americans and the increase in obesity rates?

There must be some room in the market for smaller furniture, particularly if tiny houses or micro apartments are gaining in popularity. I know Macy’s has a small furniture line because we purchased a  bed in this line a few years ago – though the furniture isn’t really small but rather simply isn’t oversized. Here is how Macy’s describes this line:

If you’re desperate for more room around your bed, check out small spaces furniture for bedrooms. The Tahoe set has a headboard that’s full of storage space, or opt for a Hawthorne bed with matching leather storage at the foot of the bed. There’s every style from luxury leather to contemporary wooden and padded beds, ready to be dressed up with a striking duvet set.

Transform your space with a great selection of small spaces furniture at Macy’s.

If Americans must fill their larger spaces, they can go with larger furniture or more furniture. Either could fulfill the consumerist ethos…

Seeing the return of McMansions as a statistical blip

Posted on by

New American homes were bigger than ever in early 2015 but some see this as an anomaly:

The median size of a home built in the U.S. in the first quarter registered 2,521 square feet, up 76 square feet, or 3%, from the fourth quarter, according to Commerce Department data released Tuesday. It was the first increase for that measure after three consecutive quarters of decline.

Robert Dietz, an economist with the National Association of Home Builders, suggests that last quarter’s increase is due more to a smaller amount of housing construction in the first quarter relative to previous quarters than to a return to a market focused on megahomes…

The market has slowly shifted in the past year to allow for the gradual return of entry-level buyers, who tend to buy smaller, less expensive homes. Hiring and wages have improved, and federal regulators have moved to slightly loosen mortgage-qualification standards and reduce some costs of Federal Housing Administration-backed loans.

That contributed to a 7.6% increase in the number of construction starts for single-family homes in the first four months of this year in comparison to the same period a year earlier. It is likely that expanded volume included an increasing number of smaller, less-pricey homes.

It will take some time to sort this out. There is nothing that says smaller homes have to become a bigger slice of the market – but it is also not inevitable that the average home will get larger. Homes were bigger than ever starting in 2013 and a number of commentators, including developers themselves, have noted the lagging lower/smaller end of the new housing market. Unless the broader economy does significantly better in coming quarters, I suspect big homes (and luxury housing units) will continue to drive the housing market.

American problem and solution: too much stuff? Just buy a bigger house

Posted on by

Episode 11 of Season 88 of House Hunters opens with this claim from a Jacksonville, Florida couple:

We have a very American problem. We have too much stuff. And we’re going to do the very American solution. Instead of getting rid of some of our stuff, we’re going to just get a bigger house.

This is indeed a very American problem. I’m not sure whether this couple should be applauded for recognizing the issue at hand (how many Americans really recognize they have lots of stuff?) or we should sadly shake our heads at their decision of how to move on. We have a consumer driven economy where Americans own enough stuff to fill lots of self-storage facilities. And the size of new homes have risen over 50% in the last four decades, even as household sizes have decreased. Perhaps the interest in McMansions isn’t about having private space or impressing the neighbors or showing off the owner’s status; perhaps they are about having so many square feet of space that the owner can keep consuming.

As an aside, it might be fascinating to see how many McMansion owners rent self-storage units…

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.

Contrasting living in a McMansion and a micro-unit

Posted on by

Real-life tales of living in a McMansion and a micro-unit! First, the residents of the 7,500 square foot McMansion and then the 344 square foot micro-unit dweller:

The McColls lived in Arlington for years before deciding last fall that it had become too dense. “The straw that broke the camel’s back,” Kim says, “was when I saw my kids playing in the back yard and I had to shush them because it was too loud for the neighbors.” Their five-bedroom in Loudoun County’s Willowsford development has two offices—key because they often work from home—and abundant entertaining space. Also: More than 20 miles of nearby trails means the kids have room to shriek all they want.

Williams sold most of her furniture and sacrificed proximity to family when she left her 1,100-square-foot condo in Olney for a micro-unit in a building on DC’s 14th Street, Northwest. And she has no regrets. Because she isn’t much of a cook, the sliver of a kitchen is no big deal, and she didn’t have to give up her one must-have, a bathtub. (It’s off the hallway.) Before, her closer-in friends didn’t like driving out to Olney; now she can socialize without leaving her floor. “When Scandal comes on, the neighbors down the hall cook and have people over. They have a junior one-bedroom—they have room for a couch.”

Quite the difference in housing units. This is fairly obvious from the floor plans. But, I suspect this goes deeper and Bourdieu’s theories about social class may provide some explanatory leverage. Would these two sets of residents ever cross paths? Or do their housing choices suggest such different tastes and lifestyle choices that they might never interact and if they did know each other, not spend time in the home of the other? One life revolves around work and friends close by while the other involves children and space. I would guess the decorating is different as are the leisure activities pursued by each group.

In other words, these housing choices may just be the tip of the iceberg of deeply-rooted social clusters. Would the micro-apartment dweller ever live in a McMansion, let alone even imagine it?

Not quite a McMansion but “bigger than they should be for the lots” and “faintly ridiculous”

Posted on by

I applaud this effort to not label every home you dislike a McMansion but this discussion of zoning in New Jersey suggests there is not a readily accessible term for disliked homes smaller than McMansions:

An association does run the new neighborhood, but the houses are not small. While they may not qualify as actual McMansions, they are bigger than they should be for the lots they are on and look faintly ridiculous. The project isn’t finished. Let’s see how well landscaping mitigates the problem…

Much of the objection is aesthetic. The Park Avenue and Whippany Road intersection is the gateway to Hanover Township coming west from Morristown and visitors should not be presented with an eyesore as their first impression of the township, residents say.

While McMansions are assumed to be larger than normal, what are the negative terms for smaller than normal homes? For homes with less square footage, the terms tend to refer to specific kinds of homes but without necessarily carrying the same connotations as McMansions. Condos. Townhomes. Starter homes. Split levels. Tiny houses. Perhaps the closest one is “double-wide” or “trailer home” but these are less common in many areas and/or are restricted to specific clusters or more rural areas.

At the same time, the small size of a new home or set of smaller units doesn’t necessarily mean that the size and design escapes scrutiny. The homes here are considered an “eyesore.” Elsewhere, others argue that multi-family units or smaller homes compared to everyone else may just actually lower property values through offering cheaper housing units or destroying the community’s character.