Size of Avg. US home over time

[NotCranky]

[quote=briansd1]Interesting articles on McMansions.

In his column on Monday, David Brooks said that when the economy tanked, the “great age of headroom” — supersized houses being the main example — came to an end. “The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous,” he writes, and “social norms have since changed.”
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/07/redefining-home-in-a-depressed-market?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/07/redefining-home-in-a-depressed-market/downsizing-and-retrofitting-the-housing-market

I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)

[UCGal]

[quote=briansd1]I wished that we had neighborhoods of row houses with one-car garages in San Diego.[/quote]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.[/quote]

I hope so. I would like to see those old, functionally obsolete, houses in Normal Heights torn down so that row houses could be built. Why not let homeowners split their lots and build to the property lines thus creating organic growth rather the ugly “master planned” developments?

In my opinion, requiring certain numbers of parking spaces per development extends our reliance on cars and prevents public transport options from taking hold.

Russell, I could see small entrepreneurs/builders like you buying a lot and putting up several row houses for sale, if the zoning would permit.

[quote=UCGal]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)[/quote]

Funny that you should mention Philadelphia. I’ve been spending time there and I love it. I like to be able to walk around and occasionally use the car. Of course, San Diego weather would be best for walking around the city.

We do have townhouses/rowhouses in San Diego but they are master-planned communities. I like the ones that front the street. Unfortunately without city life and public transport, San Diego townhouses are boring.

Not saying anything about location and prices, but these are, in my opinion, examples of houses that are suitable to an urban environment.

http://www.movoto.com/pa/225-race-st-philadelphia/441_5682370.htm
http://www.movoto.com/pa/1357-n-mascher-st-philadelphia/441_5768486.htm

That’s a cool McMansion in the city:
http://www.movoto.com/pa/953-n-american-st-philadelphia/441_5764465.htm

But I understand that most families prefer the suburbs, and that’s how it will remain for a while (maybe because they don’t know any different). Families want clean nice new houses to raise their families. I also hate old, decrepit houses. I believe that cities have not done enough to encourage people to restore their houses.

The David Brooks piece is interesting. However, I believe that he rarely leaves Manhattan; so he has not idea what the average American wants. He definitely missed the peak of the McMansion phenomenon by one whole decade. Houses did not reach their largest sizes until 2006. I don’t think that values have changed much, despite the recession.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.[/quote]

I hope so. I would like to see those old, functionally obsolete, houses in Normal Heights torn down so that row houses could be built. Why not let homeowners split their lots and build to the property lines thus creating organic growth rather the ugly “master planned” developments?

In my opinion, requiring certain numbers of parking spaces per development extends our reliance on cars and prevents public transport options from taking hold.

Russell, I could see small entrepreneurs/builders like you buying a lot and putting up several row houses for sale, if the zoning would permit.

[quote=UCGal]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)[/quote]

Funny that you should mention Philadelphia. I’ve been spending time there and I love it. I like to be able to walk around and occasionally use the car. Of course, San Diego weather would be best for walking around the city.

We do have townhouses/rowhouses in San Diego but they are master-planned communities. I like the ones that front the street. Unfortunately without city life and public transport, San Diego townhouses are boring.

Not saying anything about location and prices, but these are, in my opinion, examples of houses that are suitable to an urban environment.

http://www.movoto.com/pa/225-race-st-philadelphia/441_5682370.htm
http://www.movoto.com/pa/1357-n-mascher-st-philadelphia/441_5768486.htm

That’s a cool McMansion in the city:
http://www.movoto.com/pa/953-n-american-st-philadelphia/441_5764465.htm

But I understand that most families prefer the suburbs, and that’s how it will remain for a while (maybe because they don’t know any different). Families want clean nice new houses to raise their families. I also hate old, decrepit houses. I believe that cities have not done enough to encourage people to restore their houses.

The David Brooks piece is interesting. However, I believe that he rarely leaves Manhattan; so he has not idea what the average American wants. He definitely missed the peak of the McMansion phenomenon by one whole decade. Houses did not reach their largest sizes until 2006. I don’t think that values have changed much, despite the recession.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.[/quote]

I hope so. I would like to see those old, functionally obsolete, houses in Normal Heights torn down so that row houses could be built. Why not let homeowners split their lots and build to the property lines thus creating organic growth rather the ugly “master planned” developments?

In my opinion, requiring certain numbers of parking spaces per development extends our reliance on cars and prevents public transport options from taking hold.

Russell, I could see small entrepreneurs/builders like you buying a lot and putting up several row houses for sale, if the zoning would permit.

[quote=UCGal]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)[/quote]

Funny that you should mention Philadelphia. I’ve been spending time there and I love it. I like to be able to walk around and occasionally use the car. Of course, San Diego weather would be best for walking around the city.

We do have townhouses/rowhouses in San Diego but they are master-planned communities. I like the ones that front the street. Unfortunately without city life and public transport, San Diego townhouses are boring.

Not saying anything about location and prices, but these are, in my opinion, examples of houses that are suitable to an urban environment.

http://www.movoto.com/pa/225-race-st-philadelphia/441_5682370.htm
http://www.movoto.com/pa/1357-n-mascher-st-philadelphia/441_5768486.htm

That’s a cool McMansion in the city:
http://www.movoto.com/pa/953-n-american-st-philadelphia/441_5764465.htm

But I understand that most families prefer the suburbs, and that’s how it will remain for a while (maybe because they don’t know any different). Families want clean nice new houses to raise their families. I also hate old, decrepit houses. I believe that cities have not done enough to encourage people to restore their houses.

The David Brooks piece is interesting. However, I believe that he rarely leaves Manhattan; so he has not idea what the average American wants. He definitely missed the peak of the McMansion phenomenon by one whole decade. Houses did not reach their largest sizes until 2006. I don’t think that values have changed much, despite the recession.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.[/quote]

I hope so. I would like to see those old, functionally obsolete, houses in Normal Heights torn down so that row houses could be built. Why not let homeowners split their lots and build to the property lines thus creating organic growth rather the ugly “master planned” developments?

In my opinion, requiring certain numbers of parking spaces per development extends our reliance on cars and prevents public transport options from taking hold.

Russell, I could see small entrepreneurs/builders like you buying a lot and putting up several row houses for sale, if the zoning would permit.

[quote=UCGal]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)[/quote]

Funny that you should mention Philadelphia. I’ve been spending time there and I love it. I like to be able to walk around and occasionally use the car. Of course, San Diego weather would be best for walking around the city.

We do have townhouses/rowhouses in San Diego but they are master-planned communities. I like the ones that front the street. Unfortunately without city life and public transport, San Diego townhouses are boring.

Not saying anything about location and prices, but these are, in my opinion, examples of houses that are suitable to an urban environment.

http://www.movoto.com/pa/225-race-st-philadelphia/441_5682370.htm
http://www.movoto.com/pa/1357-n-mascher-st-philadelphia/441_5768486.htm

That’s a cool McMansion in the city:
http://www.movoto.com/pa/953-n-american-st-philadelphia/441_5764465.htm

But I understand that most families prefer the suburbs, and that’s how it will remain for a while (maybe because they don’t know any different). Families want clean nice new houses to raise their families. I also hate old, decrepit houses. I believe that cities have not done enough to encourage people to restore their houses.

The David Brooks piece is interesting. However, I believe that he rarely leaves Manhattan; so he has not idea what the average American wants. He definitely missed the peak of the McMansion phenomenon by one whole decade. Houses did not reach their largest sizes until 2006. I don’t think that values have changed much, despite the recession.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

[briansd1]

[quote=Russell]
About 10 years ago when I was doing a feasibility study for a large addition, I learned the planning had slotted areas of Normal Heights, that are now single families and Huffman box apartments, for row houses. The planner said at the time, that changes were so far out in the future that I should not let it impact my decision. You might get your wish.[/quote]

I hope so. I would like to see those old, functionally obsolete, houses in Normal Heights torn down so that row houses could be built. Why not let homeowners split their lots and build to the property lines thus creating organic growth rather the ugly “master planned” developments?

In my opinion, requiring certain numbers of parking spaces per development extends our reliance on cars and prevents public transport options from taking hold.

Russell, I could see small entrepreneurs/builders like you buying a lot and putting up several row houses for sale, if the zoning would permit.

[quote=UCGal]
We do – Mission Valley has lots of townhouse communities with garages. UTC has some. They call them townhouses – but they’re rowhouses… Just newer than the east coast stuff.

I think I’ve mentioned this before – my husband grew up in a 3 bedroom rowhouse with 4 brothers and a sister. (Yes, 6 boys shared a room!) It was about 1200sf total. They didn’t feel deprived – because everyone else in the neighborhood had similar sized families. (Good Catholic neighborhood in North East Philly.)[/quote]

Funny that you should mention Philadelphia. I’ve been spending time there and I love it. I like to be able to walk around and occasionally use the car. Of course, San Diego weather would be best for walking around the city.

We do have townhouses/rowhouses in San Diego but they are master-planned communities. I like the ones that front the street. Unfortunately without city life and public transport, San Diego townhouses are boring.

Not saying anything about location and prices, but these are, in my opinion, examples of houses that are suitable to an urban environment.

http://www.movoto.com/pa/225-race-st-philadelphia/441_5682370.htm
http://www.movoto.com/pa/1357-n-mascher-st-philadelphia/441_5768486.htm

That’s a cool McMansion in the city:
http://www.movoto.com/pa/953-n-american-st-philadelphia/441_5764465.htm

But I understand that most families prefer the suburbs, and that’s how it will remain for a while (maybe because they don’t know any different). Families want clean nice new houses to raise their families. I also hate old, decrepit houses. I believe that cities have not done enough to encourage people to restore their houses.

The David Brooks piece is interesting. However, I believe that he rarely leaves Manhattan; so he has not idea what the average American wants. He definitely missed the peak of the McMansion phenomenon by one whole decade. Houses did not reach their largest sizes until 2006. I don’t think that values have changed much, despite the recession.

When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief.

But that economy went poof, and social norms have since changed. The oversized now looks slightly ridiculous. Values have changed as well.

[NotCranky]

Brian, I am small potatoes. While there are my sized opportunities to drum up in the urban areas,I think the projects like I mentioned will go the eminent domain or public gift, then development corp route… or some combination.

BTW,Other than the corrupt deal making that will come with it, I think your vision for development is proper…except that I am somewhat attached to the quaint, quasi-ghettos of which we speak…. and I’ll keep thinking about it from my 20 acre suburban mess of a homestead, thank you.

[NotCranky]

Brian, I am small potatoes. While there are my sized opportunities to drum up in the urban areas,I think the projects like I mentioned will go the eminent domain or public gift, then development corp route… or some combination.

BTW,Other than the corrupt deal making that will come with it, I think your vision for development is proper…except that I am somewhat attached to the quaint, quasi-ghettos of which we speak…. and I’ll keep thinking about it from my 20 acre suburban mess of a homestead, thank you.

[NotCranky]

Brian, I am small potatoes. While there are my sized opportunities to drum up in the urban areas,I think the projects like I mentioned will go the eminent domain or public gift, then development corp route… or some combination.

BTW,Other than the corrupt deal making that will come with it, I think your vision for development is proper…except that I am somewhat attached to the quaint, quasi-ghettos of which we speak…. and I’ll keep thinking about it from my 20 acre suburban mess of a homestead, thank you.

[NotCranky]

Brian, I am small potatoes. While there are my sized opportunities to drum up in the urban areas,I think the projects like I mentioned will go the eminent domain or public gift, then development corp route… or some combination.

BTW,Other than the corrupt deal making that will come with it, I think your vision for development is proper…except that I am somewhat attached to the quaint, quasi-ghettos of which we speak…. and I’ll keep thinking about it from my 20 acre suburban mess of a homestead, thank you.

[Author]

Posts