Tag Archives: square footage

No agreed-upon standard on how to measure a house’s square footage

Posted on by

You might think this would have been settled some time ago but apparently not: builders, real estate agents, and assessors do not have a common standard by which to determine the square footage of a house.

Many shoppers blindly trust that the size of a new home featured in an ad or brochure is accurate. But the reality is that no official industry standard exists for calculating residential square footage, nor is there widespread consensus on the correct measuring methodology.

Some builders and agents, for example, tally a home’s total footprint, including uninhabitable space (such as areas between walls), while others round off calculations to the next highest number…

Steve Carr, president of Naperville-based Carr Building and Development LLC, said in new construction the builder or architect usually determines square footage calculations.

For resale homes, square footage is typically determined by the seller’s real estate agent (who will measure the dimensions or obtain predetermined measurements from the county assessor’s office) or by an appraiser, who is enlisted by the seller or, if an appraisal is ordered, the buyer’s lender, Wittman said.

So it sounds like the square footage is determined by whoever has a financial interest in the number. It would be interesting to do a study and look at a sample of homes and see whether the square footage fluctuates depending who is doing the measuring (a buyer, seller, or assessor).

There is some interesting discussion later in the article about how homes cannot strictly be compared on the price per square foot as there are other factors involved. This is true but I think this is misleading: there are few figures that people start with when looking for a home and square footage is one of them (perhaps alongside how many bedrooms the home has). I have thought in the past that people who buy homes for their square footage are different kinds of people (social class, taste) compared to those who buy for the architecture of the home or perhaps the neighborhood.

All together, square footage matters for everyone involved in the building, buying and selling, and taxing of homes and I’m surprised that there is no single standard. Who would lose the most by doing this?

Wired: “Living Large in a 130-Square-Foot Apartment”

Posted on by

Tiny houses are getting their share of attention these days and I find it hard to resist seeing how people design and live in small spaces (in a country where new homes are roughly 2,500 square feet). Check out this gallery and description of  “Living Large in a 130-Square Foot Apartment“:

The apartment was once the master bedroom of a larger apartment, which should give you a pretty good idea of its postage-stamp size. The idea was to separate the room to create a small studio that could create rental income…

The smartest design trick was to create a split-level floorplan. Baillargeon and Nabucet divided the studio into two levels by building a platform for the kitchen and bathroom, which creates the illusion of separate spaces without using any walls or dividers. The only true partition between living and dining is a long, bar-height shelf that doubles as a functional table for eating. A smart take on the traditionally depressing breakfast nook…

The bed is always a challenge in a studio space. You don’t really want a mess of comforters and pillows in the middle of your living space, and no grown person should really be sleeping on a futon. Baillargeon and Nabucet brilliantly bucked the Murphy bed concept with a bed on wheels that slides elegantly beneath the kitchen platform. The bed can also do double duty, sliding halfway underneath to create the illusion of a couch, thanks to the addition of decorative pillows.

A coffee table, stored along the wall while the bed is in use, slides elegantly out in front of the couch. The convertible bed/couch is Ménard’s favorite feature, as it allows for maximum square-footage for socializing. “It’s a multi-faceted space which can be adapted for watching a movie, working, inviting friends over or cooking.”

Looking at the pictures, the split-level plan seems to make a big difference. So when can Ikea sell all of this as a package? I wonder how much an architect or designer can make for putting together a space like this…

Another thought: can tiny dwellings only really work in communities that emphasize or at least allow socializing in public/private spaces? How much time does the average tiny house dweller spend in their unit compared to people with bigger homes? I could see this as a marketing pitch for tiny houses: you’ll be forced to be more social in public!

Recent uptick in sales of McMansions?

Posted on by

Here is an argument that new home sales of recent months might be driven in part by larger homes, sometimes known as McMansions:

Data released on Wednesday shows that sales of newly built homes rose 3.3% in April from a month prior and 9.9% from a year ago. While the figures do not disclose the size of these new homes, home builders credited the McMansion side of the spectrum. That’s a reversal from recent trends: During the recession the size of homes got smaller, shrinking 3.4% to 2,382 square feet, according to the US Census. But last year that size jumped 5.2% to 2,505 – the largest in at least four years. In many regions of the country, homes are even larger.

Home builders say the trend toward larger new homes picked up more this year. Michael Villane, president of Lead Dog Builders, a custom home builder in Rumson, N.J., says he’s currently building homes with sticker prices of $1.5 to $4 million, up from the $1.3  to $1.5 million his clients were commissioning a year ago. While the average size of homes in the region is 3,500 to 5,500 square feet, he says the orders he’s received this year are for 7,000 plus-square feet homes. Though there’s no official definition of the word, many define McMansions as new homes larger than 3,000 square feet.

In some cases, home builders are enlarging homes even if clients don’t ask for it. Michael Dubb, CEO and president of The Beechwood Organization, a New York-based home building company, says his firm is building houses with larger kitchens, higher ceilings, and overall more spacious rooms in an attempt to appeal to buyers who might be on the fence about buying a new home. By building bigger without raising the price, he says, the company is hoping to increase its sales. (He says they’re not downgrading quality, but rather cutting into their profits in order to make more sales.)…

Requests for large new homes come at a challenging time for the overall new home market. New home sales hit a 51-year low of 307,000 last year, according to the NAHB. That figure is expected to jump 18% this year, but it would still be way off its peak of 1.3 million homes in 2005.

If I had to guess at what is behind this, here is what I would say: there is a bifurcation in the current housing market. On one hand, you have a large group of potential homebuyers who are looking for smaller homes. One recent book I reviewed calls this the “demographic inversion” as young adults and retiring Baby Boomers look to downsize and purchase in denser areas. Proponents of these trends argue that the Americans of the future are looking for a different kind of homeowning experience in the future. On the other hand, you still have a decent number of wealthy homebuyers who are now moving out of a hibernation stage brought on the economic/housing crisis several years ago. They are looking to buy homes similar to what they would have bought ten years ago but now feel financially stable enough to pursue this.

The article doesn’t mention this but I wonder if this is also at play: new home sales are at the lowest stage in 51 years so this new push for larger homes among the wealthy is really raising the average in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. When those at the lower economic spectrum get back into buying homes (though some would argue that they won’t – perhaps we’re moving to a rental society), the average figures for the whole country might come down or stabilize a bit.

Michael Jackson didn’t die in a McMansion; he died in a mansion

Posted on by

Perhaps this is a very minor point about the life of Michael Jackson but as a researcher of McMansions, I think there are better ways to describe the house in which Michael Jackson died which is now for sale:

“McMansion” doesn’t even begin to describe the grandly ostentatious home, which sits on a massive 17,000-square-foot chateau-style property.

It boasts seven bedrooms and 13 bathrooms, with an elevator to zip you where you want to go.

Oh my, did you happen to get a little lost there? Must be because you took a wrong turn while passing the theater, the spa, the gym and the wine cellar, which has its own tasting room.

Feeling chilly? Pick a fireplace—there are 14 of them.

Feeling hot? Then won’t you take a dip in the pool? You can practice your Olympic laps there.

Oh, we almost forgot: the asking price. The digs will set you back a cool $23.9 million.

As I’ve argued before, this is not a McMansion because of its size. Yes, the home may be ostentatious but this is not your typical large, mass produced suburban home. Rather, this house is 17,000 square feet, far behind the reach of most homebuyers. Perhaps this home is lacking in architectural quality but it is far too big to be a McMansion.

I think this use of the term McMansion is meant to convey the idea of tacky or kitschy. I’m not quite sure how that applies here: isn’t it pretty normal for the uber-wealthy or uber-famous to live in a huge house? Is the idea that Jackson had poor decorating taste? Or is the term applicable because the person who buys this home would be doing a strange thing since Jackson died here?

Housing design judge on homes getting smaller, greener

Posted on by

Housing design judge Heather McCune recently talked about two trends in the housing industry: smaller and greener homes.

The exteriors of the homes are getting far simpler, with far fewer gables and dormers.

There are a couple of reasons for this, we think: One is that this is a change that’s driven by cost. Every time you add a bump-out or change a roofline, it adds to the cost of the house. Builders and architects seem to be consistently asking themselves, does a change like this add value, does it add to the cost? So, the appearances are becoming more streamlined.

The other thing is a generational shift. The entry-level buyer is demanding a home designed for their aesthetic, not for their parents’ aesthetic. They seem to prefer a far cleaner presentation than what had been popular among their parents. I don’t think it would be out of line to characterize it as an anti-McMansion attitude…

Honestly, [“green” is] an evolutionary term in our industry. The definition of green is as different as each and every builder in each and every category. But we didn’t see a single entry that didn’t discuss its “greenness” in its entry statement. The industry is figuring out that green, in some form, isn’t an option anymore — now it’s simply mandatory.

But they each approach it their own way, and a lot of the builders and designers are participating in the many green-building rating systems, such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which may emphasize different systems and concepts. Generally, though, what we’re seeing is that reducing energy usage is becoming an aspect of home maintenance, from the homeowners’ point of view. We saw less emphasis on sustainably produced building products than on energy management.

Housing going relatively smaller and greener. These trends seem to be picking up momentum and shouldn’t be a surprise (see a recent headline that suggests that here) to readers of this blog. For example, this housing judge was part of the most recent International Builders Show where a Gen Y home combined a smaller size with outdoor living.

It seems like cost is a big factor here: a larger home or a home with more “unnecessary” features means a higher purchase price while some want to lower home energy costs (some going so far as to have net-zero-energy homes). So perhaps we can infer that if the economy remains in the doldrums, these two features will continue to gain steam as homebuyers think more economically.

Comparing the size of new American homes to those in France, Spain, and Britain

Posted on by

As the size of the average new American home dropped in recent years and then increased again in 2011, it is helpful to keep in mind how American homes compare to those in Europe:

By the way, even if American homes do shrink slightly, they’ll still be much bigger than homes abroad. A 2009 survey from Britain’s Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment found that the average new home built in the United States has twice the floor space of those built in France and Spain and is three times as large as the average new British home.Am

To put this in perspective, this means that the average new home in Britain is roughly 800 square feet and new homes in France and Spain are about 1,200 square feet. Is this what American exceptionalism looks like these days?

This reminds me of watching House Hunters International on HGTV. When you have an American looking to purchase a home in Europe, they often say they need space though the square footage or acreage is rarely quantified. In contrast, Europeans on the show seem to expect that European homes will be smaller and are willing to deal with it. You can often see quite a difference in expectations: Americans expect more personal space and distance between them and neighbors. This is not necessarily because Americans are unfriendly; one recent survey put the United States at the fifth most friendly country. Perhaps it could be tied to how much stuff Americans expect to have. Regardless, more Americans appear to relish the idea of having private space within the home in ways that is not possible or not wanted in other cultures.

 

New homes getting bigger, greener

Posted on by

Buried underneath a story about a Generation Y home was some interesting information about the new homes of 2011: they are getting bigger and greener.

“Homes are getting bigger,” said Rose Quint, the NAHB’s assistant vice president for survey research. She said the average home completed in 2011 had 2,522 square feet, up from 2,381 the year before. “On average, new homes have more square footage and are getting more expensive,” Quint said.

It’s a seeming anomaly, considering the economy. But the key to the size resurgence lies in who built new homes last year: The economy favored those with wherewithal and who were moving up the housing food chain…

And about that environmental awareness that’s supposed to be at the heart of consumer demand these days (I heard variations on the phrase “green is the new granite countertop” no less than five times in three days here): It depends on who’s asking the questions, apparently.

McGraw-Hill Construction, a trade publisher and researcher, released a survey during the conference that painted the green share of residential construction as booming, having increased from 2 percent in 2005 to 17 percent in 2011. Further, it should reach 29 to 38 percent of the market by 2017, representing $87 billion to $214 billion in business, the report said. Driving this demand, McGraw-Hill said, is consumers’ desire to reduce their energy bills…

Grail Research, a Cambridge, Mass., firm that studies green-related issues, contends green may be less of a revolution than an evolution, if even that. The researchers found that the number of consumers with preferences for green products is decreasing as the recession continues, and that significant numbers of green consumers have switched back to conventional products.

These might be viewed as competing trends but I have argued that I think these could actually go together: Americans want space as well as greener (and perhaps greener as normal) features.

The new figures about housing size from 2011 are fascinating because the downward trend in recent years has been hailed by many as a sign that Americans have gotten their spending under control, lowered their expectations, and are moving away from sprawl and McMansions. But the 2011 figures suggest that there are still people who want (and can pay for) large houses. I’ve suggested before that housing sizes will go up when the economy improves and perhaps this is some evidence for that.

I wonder if we can reconcile different reports about consumers and green products by suggesting that green is simply becoming more normal. It is one thing to add the latest or expensive green features such as solar panels or rainwater retrieval systems. It is another thing for all new homes to have very insulated windows or an efficient furnace, improving features that all homes have to have anyway. What this would mean is that it would be more difficult to market a home as green and ask a premium price as opposed to having some expected or more basic green features. The phrase “green is the new granite countertop” fits with this idea: if you want your home to sell, you will need to have some basic green features.

Overview of housing size data for the United States

Posted on by

Atlantic Cities has a collection of data sources regarding housing size in the United States. A few quick thoughts after seeing this data again:

1. I’m not quite sure why the title of the article references McMansions when it is really about the average size of the new home. Is a home bigger than the average automatically a McMansion? Or is the demand for truly big homes lower? Why isn’t there data about the actual number of large homes being built?

2. I still wonder whether this drop is the beginning of a long plateau or slow drop or more of a reaction to a down housing market. Since the housing market may not recover for years, perhaps it is a bit of both but I wonder what would happen if the economy really improved. What would stop people with the resources to build big, green homes?

3. As long as most of the new housing starts in the United States are in the suburbs, will the average home size drop much at all? Or would we have to see a large population shift toward the cities or denser areas near the cities for this to happen?

What you lose by having a 3-4,000 square foot home compared to a 5-6,000 square foot home

Posted on by

If you are going to move into or build a 3-4,000 square foot home instead of a 5-6,000 square foot home, what do you lose? A game room, among other things:

Customers increasingly are opting for alternate uses for the room that used to house the pool table and bar. Real estate agents and builders cite a number of reasons, from people’s tastes changing, a sign of the economic times or a baby boomer generation growing older, as reasons.

Going without a game room is not necessarily a sign that people are entertaining less, but more an indicator that custom homebuyers are making more practical decisions about what they want their living space to contain, says A. Faye Scoller, of the Scholler Group Prudential PenFed Realty…

“Additionally, we are seeing a lot less of the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ in terms of the total square footage,” Booth notes. “Where we used to build 5,000- to 6,000-square-foot McMansions, now customers are reducing their space requirements, and now custom homes, with the same high-end amenities and extras, are in the 3,000- to 4,000-square-foot range.”

A smaller footprint comes from eliminating the game room and dining room and making one large and airy great room that can serve multiple uses, Booth said.

Both home sizes are large but you would have to make changes if you lose several thousand square feet.

The most interesting part of this to me is that although these houses may be smaller, this one builder suggests the smaller homes still have the “same high-end amenities and extras.” People may not want space but they still want the luxury items associated with a big home. At the same time, does this mean that a pool table and a bar are no longer desirable status symbols?

How do we know if there is a small house trend?

Posted on by

One summary of 2011 makes a provocative claim: “How Small Spaces Trumped McMansions.” The problem: the review has little to no evidence to back up this claim.

Here are ways we could know that small spaces really trumped McMansions:

1. Look at the average size of the new American home. This has indeed dropped. But this doesn’t necessarily mean Americans are buying small or tiny houses, just smaller new homes. And McMansions have been on the decline for the last few years, not just in 2011.

2. Look at how many small or tiny homes are sold. I haven’t seen any statistics on this nor do I know if anyone is actually compiling this data.

3. Look at whether there is an increase in media coverage of small or tiny homes. I wouldn’t be surprised if this did happen in 2011 but this means a change in media coverage, not necessarily a shift in people’s actions.

4. Look at what builders say they will be building in the near future. Builders seem to think the trend is downward but again, I don’t think most of them are really building small houses, just smaller.

5. Look at whether small or tiny homes are drawing the attention of our best thinkers about homes (architects, designers, others) and government officials. Perhaps this has happened but some data would be nice.

Overall, we need some more data about this possible trend. I think there is evidence that McMansions have been on the decline but we need more data about small houses.