Right-sizing the house
Size matters when it comes to the cost of housing. More space means forking over more money, both for energy and for the rent or mortgage.
The constraints imposed by the housing bust/financial crisis/recession trifecta put downward pressure on the ever-expanding size of new houses. After increasing in floor area by more than 40 percent between 1980 and 2007, the typical newly built single-family house in the U.S. shrunk 6 percent over the next two recessionary years, according to the most recent Census Bureau data.
But that's a minor change, not a major one. At 2,135 square feet, the typical single-family home built in 2009 was still substantially larger than the 1,595-square-foot new homes people were buying a generation earlier.
It's not just homes for sale. Apartment units have also gotten bigger over the years. Thirty-four percent of U.S. units built in 2007 were 1,200 square feet or larger, compared with 21 percent in 1999. (Those were the most recent and oldest years available from this Census Bureau report.)
Do we really need that extra space?
Extra amenities inside homes and outside, in the development or apartment complex, drive up costs, too. When I wrote about high-end rental amenities in the region earlier this year, Wonk reader BB noted that average complexes have felt the need to spruce up -- and then raised the rents.
"Many of the $650-750 apartments are now asking $800-900+. They ALL were boasting 'new' kitchens, and a free LCD wall mount tv in the living room," BB wrote. "There was nothing wrong with the old kitchens, and I do not need a TV - Can I go back to paying $700 a month please? To me this is a major disincentive that is just driving up the cost."
I'm curious whether the new (or newly renovated) homes and apartments in the region fit your idea of the right balance between quantity, quality and affordability. Would you do something entirely different if you were in charge? Or is everything peachy?
Categories: Affordable housing, Homebuilding, Renting
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
Do we really need that extra space?
No. But HOW that "extra" space is gets used often means that we do (up to a point of course). Design and layout is far more important than the specific square feet in total.
The home I recently purchased is a 1960 era 1200SF rancher (+ 1200SF full basement). The overall footage is adequate but a poor layout for modern usage with far too much space given to the living room as was so common in the 1960 era rather than having the larger bedrooms, baths, kitchens and hallways that objectively work better.
But in order to give that space to these other rooms... I'd then need additional SF. It's like squeezing a balloon but one made of brick.
---
Good thing I got it cheap enough to "rationalize" some remodeling... huh? ;)
Posted by: MrRational | May 31, 2011 11:42 AM
I have a friend who said she would not settle for less than two bathrooms for her and her mate. I kinda wish I had at least a half bath for those moments when husband and I both have to go.
Posted by: hmm | June 1, 2011 6:42 AM
Agree on the 1960s styles being inadequate. Need bedrooms where you don't have to slither past the bed to get around. Not sure I like the new style with huge family room and thimble sized living room. Need a study for hubby to keep his mess in. Boils down to a decent bedroom per person, plus study, one and a half to 2 and a half baths, depending on family size, and one of my preferences that's rare these days, SEPARATE living and dining rooms, AND I like WALLS! I'm convinced the builders were/are selling people on the "open space" concept as the latest rage, simply to save money on building costs. What a scam.
Posted by: lisa | June 2, 2011 7:41 AM