Big enough? New homes may stop growing
The American hunger for ever-larger homes may be waning. The National Association of Home Builders predicts the average size of a new-built home will hold steady at about 2,500 square feet, maybe even shrink a little.
This is not, by the way, a Sun Belt issue. While there is relatively little construction in the Northeast, what does get built tends to be gargantuan. New homes in the Northeast averaged 2,612 square feet in 2006, by far the largest in the nation.
It's possible our homes are simply large enough. Maybe someone noticed the formal dining room is never used, the rec room door hasn't been cracked in three months, and the guest suite doesn't draw as many guests as expected.
A Palm Beach family moved into a new mansion and a week later decided it was simply too big: "There's a big difference between designing a place and living in it," said the Realtor now selling the home, according to the Palm Beach Post.
There are some demographic possibilities too: The number of people who live in the average home continues to decline. The cost of heating a mansion, or commuting to exurbia, continues to rise. And wealthy buyers increasingly are focused on construction quality and proximity to cultural attractions such as restaurants, museums and shopping.
Consider the lede from a recent AP story on the subject:
Mendy Fisher had a 3,000-square-foot house in the Cincinnati exurbs, where sprawling housing developments meet farmland. He had a screened-in porch, four bedrooms, ponds, geese, a clubhouse. He also had high heating costs and atrocious traffic. And he had to beg friends to visit Loveland, Ohio.Fisher, 62, and his wife, Ginny, 59, recently traded in that space for less than half the square footage in Deer Park, Ohio, a little closer to downtown Cincinnati. It's a neighborhood that feels like one, Fisher says, where people walk their dogs in the evenings and where Fisher's drive to the synagogue takes a few minutes.
One might add that the number of people who can afford the largest homes presumably is in decline. A recent blog post by Boston Realtor John Keith highlighted the growing backlog of homes for sale at prices above $1 million. Keith found 459 such homes on the market in 12 of Boston's wealthiest suburbs. About 42 such homes sold in the last 30 days. That's a supply backlog of almost 11 months, well above healthy levels.
Still, I'm not sure I believe this trend is going to take hold. The next time new homes don't increase in size will mark the first time since the early 1990s, when the numbers flatlined for a few years at around 1,950 square feet. That was also the last time we had a long slump in housing sales. Once the slump ended, so did the plateau. I wonder whether this time will really be different.
Comment
Permalink
Email
I hate that McMansions are so widely avaliable at the moment. I don't want more house than I need. We have 2 young children and are actually looking to downsize from our victorian but upgrade to a newer home. I don't need extra bathrooms, bedrooms, ect... to clean.
We are probably behind the times down here in Arkansas but new construction seems to be in the 2,300 to 2,600 range but not much of it going on. The strongest real estate segment in the Little Rock area based on observation seems to be downtown condos and the renovation of small older homes near the downtown area or the minor league ballpark.
I wonder if the cost of heating and cooling a large home helps explain why houses have stopped growing in size.
this is not Arkansas.com this is Boston.com..... You might as well be talking about real estate in Sierra Leone....
At the same time, there is something to be said for expecting people to live and raise a family in condo units that are not even 1000 feet, but being charged at premium market value....
JJ, your comment makes no sense. You may be content with surrouding yourself with nothing but people who look just like you, but many others don't share your narrow viewpoint. Nice job contributing to the stereotype that Bostonians are cold, parochial, and rude.
Mark Fergusson, thank you for your insights from Arkansas. You are welcome on Boston.com anytime.
Right on Friendly Boston! From what i have seen of Arkansas it looks like a beautiful place to live. People with your attitude JJ are why I moved out of Boston.
Friendly, Real Estate is LOCAL.... What is happening in Little Rock Helps No One on this blog because None of us plan on moving to Little Rock.
Thank you, Friendly Boston. People like JJ are the reason that people like me are tired of Boston and seriously considering moving to "Sierra Leone"-like places such as Arkansas where people treat eachother like people, rather than trying to drag everyone around you into a miserable, lonely pit of self-loathing. Anyways, I think an important aspect of this is the environmental issue...bigger homes simply require more energy to heat and run (and clean). Also, it is ironic that family sizes are growing ever smaller (especially among the white demographic that most often buys into exurban growth). So why the heck would smaller families need more space? This issue becomes apparent even in places like Wellesley...modest single-family homes are being replaced at break-neck speed with McMansions about 5 times too big for the lot. Offsetting this, however, is (like in Arkansas) the boom in condo construction in downtown Boston. It would be interesting if someone could find a sight that discusses the difference in environmental impact between single -family development and condo development. Keep posting, Mark ;)
People bought into the SUVS and they bought into the "McMansions" - serves them right, but we all pay the price for their self conscious, conspicuous,(ultimately insecure) ways.
I am always amazed that wealthy towns like Wayland and Weston and Welesley seem to be the worst offenders, allowing greedy developers to build these "Falconcrests" on 1/4 acre lots.
Let's hope that this "bigger is better trend" is over. I think it is.
Many people buy large homes solely for the status they seem to convey. There are few families that really need or use all this space. However, with mass building of large numbers of these homes (and they all look the same), they no longer carry an exclusive panache. Perhaps the status factor has been reduced by the number on the auction block. This appeal may be waning for many reasons (just as the large SUV seems be waning as the status automobile). Maybe like the automobile (where hybrids now convey status), the new status home will be an environmentally and user more friendly home.
First of all, unlike some my field is national and international. I may at some point in the future be drawn to move somewhere else. Thus, I appreciate hearing from those outside Boston. Second, real estate is not always local, especially given the context of the article. The article EXPLICITLY discussed comparisons between Boston and other areas of the country. Therefore, comments from people from outside Boston are relevant. Third, the Boston real estate market is directly affected by other markets. Perhaps you've read of the "brain drain" effect? Massachusetts is not retaining its college, masters, law, and medical graduates because cheaper markets draw them elsewhere. So, yet again non-Boston information is relevant.
So, JJ, you are wrong.
As a Realtor, I want to point out that much of this starts with the price of land. If a building lot in Concord MA, for example, sells for $350k-$600k, than the builder will not build a quaint, 1700 sq. ft. home. He will "have to" build a monstrosity because his land costs are higher.
I certainly recall more buyer clients being impressed by "quainter" / smaller homes especially if they had some extra trim, details, and quality touches on the outside.
I never had many buyer clients who said,Ļ"Dang, thatīs a nice looking, vapid 5000 sq. ft home!" Rather, the smaller homes pushed their buttons if they had some quality on the outside. A little trim and molding goes a long way! I think Arts and Crafts type style homes would sell well especialy in this downsizing environment. But donīt forget that neighborhoods without sewers also need larger lots to accomodate septic systems and this can affect what an architect builder decides to promote.
Bring on convenient composting, and use of grey water and I think builders can take the lead again.
I must admit, the deep hatred that city folks have for a suburbanite like myself who likes having a big yard, trees, no traffic noise, and space in his family's house - makes me glad that I dont live in the city. That hatred is clear as day posted here. Apparently, all city folk do on their weekends is gather in bistros and talk about how suburbanites and their cars and 4-bedroom homes are the root of all evil. I dont know what I ever did to deserve such a reaction, but that is apparently the way it is.
To the suburbanite,
I'm sorry that you feel victimized. It is a different way of living and I'm glad that I grew up in the Suburbs- it's the best for kids- to play and hang out out side. We just need to start living smaller. and smarter. Does that 5 foot woman really need a Lincoln Navigator and a two story "Great Room"?
It's not your fault you want these things... The media tells you that you need these things.
Suburbanite,
Actually, suburbs, built the right way, are not bad. Modest single family homes on properly sized lots are perfect for raising a family, especially when in walking/bike riding distance of parks, schools, and cultural attractions. I would not want to raise my children in Manhattan. On the other hand, I would not want to raise them in Lexington.
As a resident of a small city in Connecticut, I think my own town has the best of both worlds. As a small city, some would call it suburban, while others would call it more urban. I would say the answer lies somewhere in between.
Well, I thought i was soooo smart by thinking along these lines, but buying my 1200 square foot 2 bedroom house in the middle of nowhere was a really big mistake, at almost any price. Why? Despite the fact that it is very cheap to heat and maintain, no one wants it. It's just too small. I don't think I'd ever want or need more than 2500 square feet, especially after growing up in a house twice that size, but I don't fault anyone for wanting more space. Not my taste, and undoubtedly wasteful as heck, but I wouldn't mind a bonus room. Or another bedroom. Or 20 extra square feet. Please?
Dear city dwellers - I live in a 300 square foot condo in the city. You guys who live in your massive 1000 square foot condos are spewing toxic greenhouse gasses that are destroying the earth. Why does anybody need more than 300-400 square feet for a family of 6? And, gimme a break, using the train? Trains and buses are also bad for the planet. You have no excuse not to walk or ride a bike. Buying your food from the store is also bad for the environment, as that food doesnt just get to the store for nothing. Again, your carbon footprint is huge if you aint eating sewer rats and sucking the juice out of moss. You city guys really need to scale back on your war against the planet.
My wife and I (and two small kids) just moved out of a 1,500 SF cape and into a 2,000 SF 4-bedroom colonial. I gotta tell you, there is no way anybody needs a house bigger than 2,000 SF! If someone offered me a bigger house, quite frankly I don't think I'd take it. A living room, a family room, and a finished basement... how many rooms do I need with a couch in it?!? Seems like the optimal size for a family home is 1600-2000 SF from my experience. A 3,000 SF McMansion is just a worthless ego trip.
The problems I see in Greater Boston is that the towns that offer the balance you speak of (close to the city/restraunts/solid community/good schools) are very expensive and obviously sought after. Examples... Needham, Medfield, Westwood, Milton...
Who says they don't want a bigger house (2500-3000 sq.ft) if it is giving for free?
I grew up in a family of 7 in a small modest home (finally had my own bedroom when I was a freshman in high school). Why does anybody need more than 300-400 square feet for a family of 6? Are you kidding? How big of a family do you have or grew up with. At that ratio and your philosophy, my family should have lived in a 350-467 square foot house/condo. Believe me, half of us would have killed each other. 300-400 square feet wouldn't even allow all the members of the family to have 10 x 10 bedrooms (and that's not allowing for a kitchen, living room, or bathroom)!!
21. I say that! Space can be nice, but you have to heat it, clean it, and pay taxes on it. So, if you don't need it, it can be detrimental.
23, what house that you don't need to heat it, clean it, and pay property taxes? If it's free and you don't have the need for it, take it for granted and sell it for profit. There is no detrimental effect in that?
I grew up sleeping on sofa, larger space is god send ;)
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Recent Posts
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com