U.S. Homes Are Finally Shrinking

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't see what's so great about a yard when in the city you can just go to your local park.

as i said before, we have a very good neighborhood park and playground right at the end of our block. we go there A LOT.

but our kids are still quite little, which means they can only go play outside when my wife and i have time to supervise them.

if we had a yard, we could simply let the rugrats run around out there while my wife and i got other shit done around the house.

[eschaton]

Once our second child was born, our old house - a two bedroom, one bath 1260 square foot rowhouse - started feeling a little bit cramped. I think we could have made it work if we tried. One of the two bedrooms was captive - you needed to walk through it to get to the bathroom. We had the other bedroom set up for our daughter, and lived in the attic with our son as a baby (with one half of the open space set up as a nursery). If we stayed there we would have moved downstairs and had our daughter move upstairs eventually. Honestly the bigger issue with the house is my wife has hoarding tendencies, and between that and all the stuff you just accumulate as a parent, it was physically just getting to be impossible to get around. Plus our "backyard" was subsided concrete.

We still live in the city, but in what's technically a 6 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2300 square foot detached house built around 1905. The former owners butchered one of the second floor bedrooms by putting in a wall-to-wall closet, so it's small and hard to furnish, and my wife mostly uses it for sewing. Then we have a computer room and playroom on the third floor. So it's not as if there is any space we don't use.

Still, I wish we went smaller, all things considered. I wanted to stay in a rowhouse and just upgrade to one which was a bit bigger - maybe in the 1,500-2,000 range. And I'd much prefer to have a brick patio or something to the patch of grass in the back I need to mow every two weeks.

[MonkeyRonin]

I'll never understand the obsessive compulsion for space for the sake of space.

I grew up with a family of 5 living in a 1,700 sqft house. In that space we had 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, living room, and family room above grade; with a basement apartment that could either be rented out or used for additional living or storage space.

There's no lack of personal space there, and never did it feel cramped (on the contrary, when I was young my friends would tease me for being the "rich kid" because my house was so huge) - yet still houses like mine are being torn down to be replaced with something twice the size for half the people.

Like what the hell does someone even do with 4,000 sqft of space? I've designed a few houses like that, invariably because the client "needs" three sitting rooms and 400 sqft walk-in closets, but ultimately they'll only actually use half that. You don't need to be a minimalist or an agoraphobe, but there's not much that just about any family wouldn't still be able to have in a well designed <2,000 sqft home.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I'll never understand the obsessive compulsion for space for the sake of space.

I grew up with a family of 5 living in a 1,700 sqft house. In that space we had 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, kitchen, dining room, living room, and family room above grade; with a basement apartment that could either be rented out or used for additional living or storage space.

space for the sake of space is dumb. quality of space > quantity of space ALL DAY LONG.

that said, our family of 4 currently lives in a 1,650 SF condo, but due to the configuration we only have 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, living room, dining room, kitchen, and an enclosed back porch (the rooms are all generously sized). we have enough space, but we don't have enough rooms. we don't necessarily need more raw sq. footage, but a 3rd (and 4th) bedroom and a 2nd bath would be really nice to have. and a yard!

hopefully by this time next year we'll be in our "forever" house.

[plinko]

Pretty happy in our 1951 1380sf 3/2. My wife complained not long after our 2nd was born that it was too small, but we are about to renovate and open up our whole living space to our small but really nice backyard. SoCal weather really extends living space.

If this house had only 1 bath like so many others in my neighborhood? We'd probably move. Happily we don't have to.

My wife's mom and sister live in 3000+sf monstrosities in Atlanta and Orlando areas. What a waste of space. No thanks.

[Shawn]

We have 1950 sq feet of indoor space and another 650 sq feet on the roof. And with two people this is more space than we could ever fully use.

How do people keep 3000+ sq feet of space clean? Assuming both partners work and assuming you're not paying someone else to clean for you. Half my Saturdays are taken up by toilet scrubbing, vacuuming, and bird shit removal duty (roof deck).

[Matthew]

I bought a house in suburban Atlanta, shortly after graduating from college. For a long time, only three rooms were furnished: living-room, breakfast nook, and master bedroom. I kept my bikes in the dining-room and several rooms just collected dust behind closed doors. I selected a house without a basement and without an additional upstairs living-room. Without the upstairs living-room, the house has a two-storey downstairs living-room with a big wall of windows.

When Lauren moved-in with me, she threw-out much of what I had and, in a few months, furnished the house! It now has an office, two guestrooms (we are both from out-of-state and have guestrooms for visiting family or when we entertain guests and the guests can't drive home) and actually looks like a home. Still, the house is too big for a young couple with no kids. It feels empty, unless we have guests over. I do wish I had a basement, but it was an extra $20,000-$25,000, back then. I can afford it now, but it wasn't in my budget back then. I took the smallest and cheapest house in the neighborhood. I was told the floor plan was called The Matthew, so I like to say it was built for me. I remember one-storey homes with three bedrooms, in suburban Atlanta, cost more per square foot than two-storey homes in the same neighborhood. A hard-to-find three bedroom / two bath house with a two car garage, all on one floor, cost the same as a five bedroom / four bath house on two floors with a four car garage. This was 2007, in the 400 corridor.

We don't think we'll have kids and I've tried to talk her into moving closer to the city in a smaller place. My wife still likes the big house and recent news stories have her questioning if she would ever live in a high-rise. The big house, purchased in 2007, was a good investment that has gone up in value. It's not a place for a young couple without kids.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by plinko

Pretty happy in our 1951 1380sf 3/2. My wife complained not long after our 2nd was born that it was too small, but we are about to renovate and open up our whole living space to our small but really nice backyard. SoCal weather really extends living space.

If this house had only 1 bath like so many others in my neighborhood? We'd probably move. Happily we don't have to.

My wife's mom and sister live in 3000+sf monstrosities in Atlanta and Orlando areas. What a waste of space. No thanks.

I grew up north of Atlanta. When I was young an 8,000 square foot home was deemed large. I now live about 15 miles NW of Washington, DC and my neighborhood is full of homes in the 10,000 to 20,000 square foot range. I guess size is relative.

Sometimes I do think it's too much. Many of the families in the neighborhood have at most three children.

There was a month that I did not go into the basement. The only way I realized the length of time was when I got a power bill that was out of the ordinary. Since it was winter, I knew it was not due to the pool. Apparently after a family event, we left all the lights on in the basement...for a whole month. Ooops!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PremierAtlanta

I grew up north of Atlanta. When I was young an 8,000 square foot home was deemed large. I now live about 15 miles NW of Washington, DC and my neighborhood is full of homes in the 10,000 to 20,000 square foot range. I guess size is relative.

8,000 square ft. is still considered quite large, even where you live (I assume Potomac or McLean). That's a big-ass house.

20,000 square foot homes aren't the norm anywhere. Not even the best streets in the Hamptons. That's a huge house.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

8,000 square ft. is still considered quite large, even where you live (I assume Potomac or McLean). That's a big-ass house.

20,000 square foot homes aren't the norm anywhere. Not even the best streets in the Hamptons. That's a huge house.

I thought the same thing. Maybe he's confusing lot size wit house size?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Shawn

We have 1950 sq feet of indoor space and another 650 sq feet on the roof. And with two people this is more space than we could ever fully use.

How do people keep 3000+ sq feet of space clean? Assuming both partners work and assuming you're not paying someone else to clean for you. Half my Saturdays are taken up by toilet scrubbing, vacuuming, and bird shit removal duty (roof deck).

Our house is about 3000 s/f. We just shut the doors of the rooms we don't use often (office/ guest rooms) to keep the cats out and have a house keeper come every couple of weeks to mop, vacuum furniture, dust, etc. while we do moderate house work Saturday mornings.

[drummer]

20,000 sq feet is a mansion, by my definition, haha.

Regarding the comments about a yard...I grew up on an acre lot in the country just outside of the Austin metro area. We had a huge dog and some giant oak trees in the back. I had a public dock on a lake just down the road as well...no parks to speak of beyond that. My wife grew up in the suburbs in DFW. They had the benefit of a big yard AND a huge public park just down the road. When we lived in Austin years ago, we went to Zilker, St. Edwards Park, Emma Long, the Greenbelt, and so many other parks. The Balcones Canyonland National Wildlife Refuge was also a great place to go hiking, etc., as well as a ton of state parks and other areas to add to the options. We never lacked opportunities to enjoy the outdoors even though we didn't have a yard of our own (we lived in an apartment at that time).

Here in China, we live in the foothills of the Himalayas and enjoy hiking, camping, etc., but it's not the same because it's difficult to go anywhere without villagers herding their goats, etc., nearby, haha. We live in a big city and have to go out of town to enjoy that sort of thing (not a huge deal). Inside the city, there is no park as we would define it in the West. There are concrete plazas with lots of trees and overdone landscaping. It's nice for what it is, and they are very well used by the local population. There isn't any open grass where you can kick a soccer ball or throw a frisbee...etc.

At times I want to have a single-family home. I don't see anything wrong with that so long as there's no wasted space. However, it's not for everyone. Our son doesn't know the difference, of course. Here in China we can walk five minutes to buy produce and groceries, go to restaurants, buy most things that we could need on a normal basis, etc. However, lacking a grassy area for our son to crawl (and soon walk) around is sad to me since I grew up in the country. Going back to the States to see our families is truly a blessing to us for that any many other reasons.

If I were to ever buy a house in the States, I would intentionally look for a house within walking distance of a great public park. I'd be more than happy with a small yard so long as we could grow some fruit and vegetables.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I thought the same thing. Maybe he's confusing lot size wit house size?

I'm a she

No, I was referring to house size. I live in McLean. Most of the houses in my neighborhood are between 10,000 - 20,000. There are exceptions however.

When I say neighborhood, I guess I should have clarified by saying in the development where I live...not the entire area. My apologies.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PremierAtlanta

I'm a she

No, I was referring to house size. I live in McLean. Most of the houses in my neighborhood are between 10,000 - 20,000. There are exceptions however.

When I say neighborhood, I guess I should have clarified by saying in the development where I live...not the entire area. My apologies.

Hrrm...looking on Realtor, there are 34 houses in McClean which are over 10,000 square feet, although with one exception they're all under 16,000 square feet. All $2.5 to $8 million. Looks like they all tend to be six bedrooms or more, with an even higher number of bathrooms (something I've never understood - every bedroom doesn't need to have its own bath). Most of them appear to be McMansions.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Hrrm...looking on Realtor, there are 34 houses in McClean which are over 10,000 square feet, although with one exception they're all under 16,000 square feet. All $2.5 to $8 million. Looks like they all tend to be six bedrooms or more, with an even higher number of bathrooms (something I've never understood - every bedroom doesn't need to have its own bath). Most of them appear to be McMansions.

Not every house in this area will be listed on Realtor. If you are not selling your house, it's not going to be on Realtor. And I do recall saying they were between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Hrrm...looking on Realtor, there are 34 houses in McClean which are over 10,000 square feet, although with one exception they're all under 16,000 square feet. All $2.5 to $8 million. Looks like they all tend to be six bedrooms or more, with an even higher number of bathrooms (something I've never understood - every bedroom doesn't need to have its own bath). Most of them appear to be McMansions.

That many bathrooms means they sµit money.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

+1

the longer i live with small children (ours are aged ~3 and ~1.5) in a city condo, the more convinced i become that the sole reason the burbs exist is for yards.

we live in a relatively generous 1,700 SF condo in a textbook chicago 6-flat, but our shared outdoor common space in the back of our building is 90% concrete with the most token 10'-0" x 10'-0" patch of grass that's just large enough to accommodate a small inflatable kiddie pool. we do have a great neighborhood park and playground at the end of our block that's great for letting the kids run around and burn-off energy, but it's not the same as having a backyard right outside the kitchen door that you can just send the kids out into.
...

Friends of mine have a average-sized 2-flat in Bucktown that has a yard in the back with actual grass. It's small but usable. The actual grass portion is probably about 18 feet by 25 feet, so like having an outdoor living room. The husband bought it about 15 years ago as a fixer-upper. He renovated the smaller, upstairs unit to live in. When he got married, they continued to live in the upstairs and renovated the larger, duplex-down lower unit. And once they had a kid, they switched to living in the larger unit and renting out the smaller one. I bet if they had more than one kid they'd seriously consider converting the building into a single-family home. Their kid is over 10 now, so any new kid would likely be an "accident" so it's unlikely they'll convert it. I'm not sure what their plans are when the kid turns high school aged if she doesn't get into a magnet school.

Anyway, it's a small yard, but usable, and with space for a small garden, which is why I'd want a yard. I've sometimes thought about building a garden box on my outdoor, River North parking space, although I don't know that the association would approve.

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't see what's so great about a yard when in the city you can just go to your local park, better open space and probably a lot nicer anyway and a great opportunity for you and your kids to actually make new friends. You also don't have to waste half your life to maintain it (time that could have been spent with your kiddos). I get wanting a space for gardening but having a yard actually big enough to play and run around is like a part-time job in itself.

It's never enough for Americans, they all want their own sprawling castle because it's what they think they need. If only we had more space, if only this or that, it's naive idealism. If you leave the city you might be getting a yard but you're giving up much more.

It's not only Americans who prefer single-family homes. Aussies are largely similar, as are Canadians. Swiss who can afford it also like houses, as do people in the UK and France. I'm not sure what mystical peoples you imagine as not preferring a single-family home, all things equal.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by emathias

It's not only Americans who prefer single-family homes. Aussies are largely similar, as are Canadians. Swiss who can afford it also like houses, as do people in the UK and France. I'm not sure what mystical peoples you imagine as not preferring a single-family home, all things equal.

While the norm in most of the UK is to live in a single-family home, a plurality live in semi-attached housing, which isn't much like generic U.S. suburbia.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't see what's so great about a yard when in the city you can just go to your local park, better open space and probably a lot nicer anyway and a great opportunity for you and your kids to actually make new friends. You also don't have to waste half your life to maintain it (time that could have been spent with your kiddos). I get wanting a space for gardening but having a yard actually big enough to play and run around is like a part-time job in itself.

It's never enough for Americans, they all want their own sprawling castle because it's what they think they need. If only we had more space, if only this or that, it's naive idealism. If you leave the city you might be getting a yard but you're giving up much more.

Parks are nice & all, we use them frequently, but for us they are no substitute for our own yard. We use our back yard extensively for recreating, having friends over, bbq'ing, and as gardening is a hobby of ours we don't consider the maintenance "work". In Edmonton though there are really no external pressures actually driving people to more compact living arrangements.. we have a suburban style home on a nice lot in a good neighbourhood, less than ten minutes from our jobs downtown. So here anyways the single family home reigns supreme as the housing preference of choice.


As for houses getting smaller, I could see that, moreso because the designs of houses have changed. Our 1961 3+2 ranch style is 1400 square feet on the main, but due to the construction it's fairly segmented, even after we renovated the main level and removed some walls. Brand new homes tend to be a lot more open, so the space feels a lot bigger, even with the same square footage. So houses are probably getting more efficient, rather than just smaller

[montréaliste]

The dawn of the monster house, Mc Mansion had a telling symptom with the dreadful Cathedral ceiling. That feature alone would garner a Nobel Prize in the Wastefulness category to its happy conceiver.

When you need a scaffold to paint an ogee in a suburban living room, you are trumped.