Downsizing may be the trend in the corporate realm, but when it comes to the home front, Americans’ love affair with excess is alive and well.
In 1998, the average new single-family house measured 2,195 square feet, according to Census Bureau projections. That’s a record high since the bureau has been tracking new construction and up nearly 50 percent from 1,520 square feet in 1971.
OK, so 2,195 square feet may not seem all that superfluous, especially when Bill Gates’ new home measures in at a whopping 40,000 square feet. Yet what’s intriguing is how new homes continue to swell even as the household size shrinks: Census reports show there are currently an average of 2.62 persons per household, down from 3.11 in 1971. Which means owners of new houses are getting exponentially more elbow room.
The demand for larger digs is not relegated to a particular market niche or geographic region, observes Gopal Ahluwalia, research director at the National Association of Home Builders in Washington, D.C.: “Everybody wants more and more space, all across the country, at all different price levels.”
So what perpetuates this race for space? Experts say it’s a mixed grill of demographic, economic and sociological factors.
For starters, we’re buying bigger homes because we can. Continued low interest rates, low unemployment and the long run of the bulls on Wall Street have translated into greater prosperity for many folks. Enhancing these economic enablers are certain demographic trends: more dual-income households and Baby Boomers in their peak earning years. It all adds up to more money that can be poured into real estate.
Then there’s pressure from the supply side. Faced with rising land costs, builders have two ways to recoup those costs: Build homes with more custom features or build out more space.
“Most builders have selected option 2,” says Ed Fitch, executive vice president of marketing for Town & Country Homes in Westchester.
Because expensive foundation or infrastructure is not required, adding square footage on the same footprint produces minimal cost for builders–and maximum appeal for consumers.
The “meat and potatoes” of the market is buying value, which translates into price per square foot, observes Jim Bloomling, vice president of marketing and product development for Pulte Homes in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
“The more house they can get for the dollar is going to win out,” explains Bloomling. At Pulte, the average-size house increases by 150 to 200 square feet every few years.
Lifestyle changes have also whetted consumer appetite for square footage.
“The idea of needing more space is not because there are more people but because we’re doing more things at home,” says Bernard Beck, sociology professor at Northwestern University.
Americans are transforming homes into “full-service institutions,” says Beck, pointing to home offices, exercise rooms and home entertainment centers. “It’s a sort of upscale survivalism. The home becomes a place (where) you could close the shutters and survive inside.”
Demographer Cheryl Russell chalks much up to Boomers feeling pressured for time.
“Life is so hectic that you want to segment it by having separate rooms for separate activities,” says Russell, author of “Americans and Their Homes” (New Strategist, 1998). “It’s a way of organizing your life without having to do anything. All you have to do is pay for it.”
We also have more possessions to stow.
“Americans have become a society of collectors,” says Barry Berkus, a principal at B3 Architects + Planners in Santa Barbara, Calif. Our acquiring tendencies run the gamut from recreational equipment to memorabilia, he says: “As we get older, we have more stuff. It’s hard to downscale. We keep talking about it, but we don’t throw things away.”
Linked closely with all of this, of course, is ego. Historically, space has been a sign of affluence, almost as important as location.
The wealthy maintain mansions on the posh side of town whereas the poor struggle on in cramped quarters on the wrong side of the tracks.
“It’s sort of the territorial imperative. It’s every householder’s fantasy to own as much house as you can,” says Marcia Mogelonsky, a demographic trend consultant in Princeton, N.J. “It shows they’ve attained a certain level of status and wealth.”
And homes seem to be one of the few areas left to flaunt our good fortune. With the proliferation of outlet malls, consumers are enamored with discount shopping, and a designer label is no longer a coup–unless you snagged it at half price.
“Cars have become a lot more egalitarian,” adds Mogelonsky, pointing to lenient credit terms. “Cars are no longer the way of showing your status . . . it’s your house that’s taken over.”
Certainly, the desire for space is a natural human aspiration. Yet experts agree that Americans have taken spacemongering to a new level–a product of both our expansive resources and pioneer heritage.
The U.S. has long had a greater tradition of homeownership than other countries. Government has subsidized it, from actually giving acreage away during the Western movement to providing the freeways and utilities that have enabled suburbia to flourish. And, there are the ample tax deductions for mortgage interest.
With homeownership almost taken for granted, the only way to one-up your neighbor is the size of your property.
“Blame it on John Wayne,” says Beck. The way we value homes today is much the way space was valued on the frontier: How big is your ranch?”
Yet today’s homesteading is confined within walls rather than fences. In pioneer days, people spent more time outside, so their actual shelter didn’t have to be as large, explains Joy Sperling, associate professor of art history at Denison University in Granville, Ohio:
“Today, our outer spaces have become so car-dominated that people don’t feel comfortable walking outside. Inside your home is where you have control.”
So where is all that new square footage showing up? Kitchens and foyers continue to grow, though bedrooms and bathrooms are also gaining ground.
More private space is natural fallout of the great room trend, says Mogelonsky: “There’s all this togetherness . . . where do you go when you want to be alone?”
Although new homes have been expanding steadily over the last two decades, today there’s a new twist–instant gratification.
“Some things thought of as luxury a few years ago are now thought of as necessity,” says Nina Gruen, principal sociologist at Gruen + Gruen, a real estate consulting firm in San Francisco.
She points to lavish kitchens with granite counters and commercial-grade appliances. Never mind that most of our meals are spooned out of take-out containers; we crave a kitchen worthy of Martha Stewart.
“Everybody wants everything,” agrees NAHB’s Ahluwalia, observing that fireplaces, whirlpools, and vaulted foyers have practically become standard features. Today’s new home must be chock full of amenities.
Of course, not everyone is out snapping up mini-mansions. City dwellers in major metro areas like Chicago and New York have long had their spatial appetites suppressed by high prices and a tight supply of square footage. The race for space is primarily played out beyond the urban core.
While home buyers seek more space to fulfill fantasies and accommodate lifestyle changes, they refuse to surrender territory, even if it goes unused. Living rooms and dining rooms have become virtually extinct; still, consumers cling to them.
Part of the reluctance can be traced to resale jitters. Without token living and dining rooms, consumers fear that a “for sale” sign might linger on their lawns indefinitely.
There also seems to be a certain “surveying-of-the-estate” satisfaction, explains J. Carson Looney, principal at Looney Ricks Kiss Architects in Memphis.
He recalls one client who flatly admitted to never using the living room, but said he liked ” `to walk by and look at it.’ “
This troubles Looney: “Houses need to be ergonomically designed for people and lifestyle versus pride of ownership,” says the architect, dubbing the trend toward larger homes as “houses on steroids.”
Demographers predict that new homes will eventually stop gaining square footage, most likely when Baby Boomers become empty-nesters. But that won’t happen overnight. Like Looney, many real estate players would like to see the trend reverse sooner, deeming it a waste of resources.
Certainly, a large home is eye-catching and imposing.
“Unfortunately the design quality seems to be declining with these houses,” says Lauren Bricker, an architectural historian at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, Calif. Today’s crop of larger homes often appear “bloated” and “look institutional rather than domestic,” she says.
If surrounding land were increased proportionately, homes might not look so out-of-scale, say experts. However, lot size is the one area where consumers are willing to make do with less: They’d rather have a large house than a large lot.
This may not matter in new developments where all builders are playing by the same rules. Yet it can stir up considerable controversy in more established communities.
When a smaller home is torn down and replaced by a “McMansion,” the new house becomes the dominant presence on the block, an architectural bully of sorts. Understandably, surrounding homeowners become resentful that the scale of their community has been disrupted.
At the macro level, the yen for roomier residences has only encouraged sprawl. Particularly in metropolitan areas like Atlanta and Dallas, where there are no natural boundaries, development keeps moving outward. Given the choice of being 10 miles closer to work or having an extra room, Americans will pick the extra room, says Michael Beyard, vice president of strategic development at Urban Land Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.
Even builders have misgivings. The trend to big boxes has created a dearth of product for first-time buyers, says Fitch.
In 1992, Town & Country’s largest home was in the mid-2,000-square-foot range; today its houses run as high as 3,800 square feet.
“We’re grappling with this issue . . . we haven’t necessarily wanted to go there,” says Fitch. Yet economics of the business “continue to push the big house.”
Ironically, once they have attained more space, many homeowners are clueless what to do with it.
“Square footage is not tied to enjoyability or livability. Bigger isn’t just better–better is better,” says Looney.
Indeed, people fall into the trap of erecting a castle only to find their dream house doesn’t reflect their personalities or accommodate their lifestyles. The result is “square footage without soul,” says Minneapolis architect Sarah Susanka.
Author of “The Not So Big House” (Taunton Press, 1998), Susanka advocates building smaller homes of higher quality. And focusing on form following function so that “people use their homes rather than feel lost in their space.
“We’re all searching for home,” says Susanka. “Unfortunately the only tool we have for ourselves (in the search) is square footage; we’ve come from a very quantifying culture.”
Yet square footage alone isn’t satisfying. It’s like stuffing ourselves with junk food, she says. Sure, we’re getting plenty of calories, but we’re short on nutrients.
Spaciousness may look good in pages of shelter magazines, but it isn’t “conducive to comfort,” says Susanka. Or endurance, for that matter. In the long run, many big box houses are going to be falling apart because building more with less guarantees poor quality.
“Builders are really victims of the system,” Susanka believes. “They have to keep cutting corners to stay competitive. The unfairness is they can’t get to practice their craft the way they want to.
“The house is just one part of what’s going on. We’re moving into a time where there’s a rebalancing going on,” says Susanka, who believes consumers are beginning to realize the value of quality rather than quantity.
Looney is also optimistic that similar to what happened in the automobile industry, a change of attitudes is under way in home building.
Although it will take time, he warns: “Americans had a hard time giving up the big fin. The shift is happening. But it’s like turning around the Queen Mary. It’s a big ship to turn.”
