Recession Should Change Housing Tastes: So long McMansions?

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Recession Should Change Tastes
By Elizabeth Razzi
Sunday, December 28, 2008; F01

What will new homes look like after this recession, which has brought construction nearly to a halt? Consumers who have learned the bitter lessons about declining home values, burdensome debts and ephemeral retirement savings values may well demand different houses than the ones that dot our recently built neighborhoods.

History hints that this downturn could change our tastes. Homes built in the 1940s and '50s, for example, were usually smaller and simpler than large, frilly Victorians that had been in style before the Great Depression and World War II. Materials remained scarce for years after the war, and returning veterans, boosted by mortgage assistance provided under the GI Bill of Rights of 1944, bought Levittowns full of simple new houses as quickly as they could be made.

I asked Virginia McAlester, author of the classic (and soon to be updated) book, "A Field Guide to American Houses," to speculate on what type of new homes we may see after this recession. She expects smaller ones, built closer together, but with more attention to their positioning on the lot to better preserve privacy and the occupants' access to a little spot of nature. She pointed out that at the turn of the last century, the wealthy lived in elaborate houses with 20 to even 40 rooms, which required a tremendous income just to keep them going. "You just had such overbuilding of size," she said. "Now you have a lot of cul-de-sacs of great big, overbuilt houses way outside the city," she said.

Already we've started to see new homes being simplified compared with those built during the go-go years. Some sprawling new houses needed a dozen or more roof gables to cover all the floor plan's nooks and crannies, McAlester said. "You're losing that two-story entry that was such a feature of McMansions. It may be replaced with a tower, but for 15 years you had to have it," she said. "We are going to have far more small houses and attached houses," she predicted. The cost of building the roads, sewers and utility lines to serve compact neighborhoods is lower. And soundproofing will become more important to buyers when they're living closer to their neighbors -- and possibly closer to retail and commercial properties....

Tomorrow's buyers may be more conscious of the amount of income -- and the work required to produce that income -- associated with maintaining a large-house lifestyle. "When you see people who have a whole room for a closet, or two-room closets, I mean, that reflects an incredible amount of discretionary income and wealth," she said. "If you have half as much discretionary wealth, that would probably translate to half as many clothes and cars."

If owners find them unsustainable, some large suburban houses might get turned into multi-family homes, just as many of the large homes of the late 1880s and early 1900s were converted into duplexes once lifestyles grew more spare....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/27/AR2008122700088_pf.html

[DebJ]

I hope so. On a very small lot next to my house, this guy built a

7000 square foot monster of a home for him and his wife, no kids, no plans for kids, no pets, just the two of them, sucking up energy to heat homes this winter so all of us can pay higher fuel bills and wreck the atmosphere faster.

[patrice]

1. This is happening now for those needing Elder and Long-Term Care . . .

http://www.ncbcapitalimpact.org/default.aspx?id=146

[DeepModem Mom]

2. That sounds like a great project -- thanks for the link, patrice! nt

[patrice]

3. The Senate Finance Committee has been demonstrating some interest in this care model.

One of the interesting things about it is that the person-centered culture change that this type of housing is designed for elevates the role of those who provide the direct services to resident, i.e. certitified nursing assistants and medical aides are incorporated into running Greenhouses. It could also be an equity based business model.

[PDJane]

4. Houses are merely boxes to put our stuff in.

As we learn to gather less junk, we will need smaller homes, and those 7,000 foot monsters will meet the fate of so many examples of conspicuous consumption before them. They will be subdivided into flats, or they will become home for extended families, or they will be carted away, one brick or board at a time, for other building.

We will learn to live with less, or we won't survive, and it's as simple as that.

[IDemo]

5. I'd be perfectly content in one of these (if it were just me)

http://www.tinyhouses.net/

[Missy Vixen]

6. Just curious: How big is "too much"?

Would some of those responding to this thread please let me know what the acceptable square footage is for a house nowadays?

We moved from a 1200 square foot townhouse eight years ago to a 2100 square foot house. We could not take the lack of privacy, the noise, the lack of a DRIVEWAY (when people came to visit, we prayed there'd be parking available close by, for instance,) any longer. I'm sure this will be seen as Wasteful and Extravagant.

Again, I'm just curious: How big is "too big"? I want to make sure we're living in an acceptable space.

Julie

[silverojo]

7. What does square footage have to do with having a driveway?

The square footage of a house measures the INTERIOR, not the exterior. Even a tiny bungalow can have plenty of room for a driveway and plenty of privacy. Privacy is determined by the amount of land AROUND the house, not by the square footage. Townhouses are glorified apartments, so did you honestly think you'd have any privacy, let alone a driveway, in a townhouse? :eyes:

How to tell if your house is too big: Do you have more than one spare bedroom? Unless your family looks like The Brady Bunch, a 3BR 2BR ranch-style house is big enough. If it's just a couple and their pets living in 2100 square foot home, that's not just extravagant, but asinine.

BTW, I didn't answer your question because I didn't get your sarcasm. I answered it because I don't give a fuck about your sarcasm. And it's also fun to point out the stupidity of someone who doesn't even know what the hell square footage is.

[Missy Vixen]

18. Yawn

I'm sure it felt good for you to let that out, didn't it? :eyes:

First of all: The townhouse development we lived in had garages and driveways. We didn't choose the model with the driveway. It loomed large for us later. We chose to buy a detached house at that point because we were tired of dealing with the neighbors. I know this is unbelievable, but people buy what they can afford, and perhaps find a better situation later on.

>If it's just a couple and their pets living in 2100 square foot home, that's not just extravagant, but asinine.

Thanks for letting me know. I wouldn't dream of upsetting you with our lifestyle. I fail to understand why it's any of your business in the first place. Then again, this website is loaded with those who believe they are the arbiters of correct living, isn't it?

Maybe I should give you the neighbors up the street's phone number. They're a couple with pets living in 3700 square feet. I'm sure they'd welcome your comments.

>I answered it because I don't give a fuck about your sarcasm.

Ooooh. I'm cowering.

BTW, did you have something to say to Barack Obama about his large home in Chicago, or do you just bitch out for "excess" those who aren't your chosen candidate?

Julie

[patrice]

10. Just curious: Why are you trying to create enmity where there is none? nt

[Missy Vixen]

17. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of those who

tell the rest of us how to live.

It's really none of anyone's business how much square footage any of us live in. I've also find that those here who rail against "McMansions" have no idea what they're talking about. They can't name exactly what they think is so wasteful, so anything above 1000 square feet is a "McMansion".

If people enjoy living on top of their neighbors or don't mind having their privacy infringed on, that's their right. We don't care for it. As a result, we bought a house with a very small amount of acreage.

Julie

[eowyn_of_rohan]

19. Interesting- most of the McMansion neighborhoods have puny lots

People who buy into that scene ARE all living on top of each other

[alarimer]

25. That's one of the reason I don't like them.

The other reason is that they are all garage. No sidewalks in these neighborhoods; no porches or places to sit in the front yard, like back in the "good old days" when people actually spoke to their neighbors instead of hiding in their own backyards. I rent an apartment, which is entirely too close to neighbors for me but I feel like at least I don't have to worry about foreclosure.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

20. McMansions, as defined, have more like 3000-5000 sq feet

mobody would call a 1000 sq ' house a McMansion

[Manifestor_of_Light]

21. Some people use more space than other people.

For example, I have moved and gotten rid of probably two or three truckloads of stuff in both houses.

And yet I still have many bookcases full of books, and I have musical instruments, including a piano and an organ. I could use a sewing room/art studio as well. It depends on what you do and what your hobbies are. Some people have workshops.

I guess your average person who can afford a McMansion probably doesn't know how to do anything with their hands --at least the ones I have seen don't. So they wouldn't need to collect books, records, musical instruments, or tools for any kind of art or craft.

In my old hood they are still tearing down 1950s-60s ranch style houses and building yuppie castles. They really are monstrosities.

[happyslug]

8. Victorian homes? The American Four Square was the Dominate model pre-WWII

And the American Four-Square developed out of and in reaction to the Victorian styles and became the dominate style from about 1900 till about 1940. It was Square, which is the second most efficient way to enclose an area (Circles are the best, but leave to much dead space given most people use of their homes, thus the Four Square gave the most usable amount of space with the minimal amount of outside wall).


http://architecture.about.com/od/periodsstyles/ig/House-Styles/Foursquare.htm
http://www.oldhouseweb.com/architecture-and-design/american-foursquare-1890-1930.shtml
http://www.antiquehome.org/Architectural-Style/four-square.htm
http://www.realviews.com/homes/forsq.html

Most Four Squares were built prior to 1930, the depression caused an eight year drop in construction that did not re-start till after the 1938 recession (and then the growth was slow, then came to another stop do to WWII, so effective construction did not re-start till after WWII). Four squares were built as late as 1944, but the push for housing after WWII lead to its demise, even simpler houses, this time without large porches, took hold.

Typical post WWII home:

http://www.fullertonheritage.org/Resources/archstyles/postww2.htm

Notice the Foursquare were replaced by much smaller homes, design for one family who owned an automobile (garages exist with four Squares but not as integrated as you get into the post WWII era). For example this house has a Garage in the same style as the home, an exception during the period of the Four Square but common today (Yes, the following picture is of a Four Square but I point it out do to its Garage which is NOT typical of the Four Square period but is typical today):


http://www.realtor.com/realestate/windber-pa-15963-1103993066/

Compare that to this 1950 home:

http://www.realtor.com/search/listingdetail.aspx?lid=1104059183&fhadv=34359&fhv=1

Notice the post-WWII home is smaller, no front poach, is rectangle in shape as opposed to Square, designed for ease of building with minimal amount of labor even at the cost of higher operating costs (The Four Square had less wall area so less lost of heat).

Just a comment that the writer knows almost nothing about American Housing architectural. The Four Square is a post-Victorian house, replaced by smaller and simpler housing, but housing that cost more to live in. More a reflection of the loss of income to buy a home in the installment basis then anything else.

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. McMansions have ruined a nearby beautiful neighborhood of cottages

it's a shame.

[Phentex]

14. Same here. I'm still not sure why this was allowed to happen...

money I guess. I'm no real estate expert but 2 years ago I was asking "Who is buying these homes?"

Well, it's clear now: no one.

They sit empty. Some have bank owned signs. Some are going to auction. But most are just sitting in the dark.

[Liberal_in_LA]

15. same here. Those finished right as the market tanked, sit empty. The others are

back on the market. I'm guessing the new owners realize they can't make that $4000 mortgage payment.

These are little bitty lots with 1,000 square feet 1950s homes on them. The small home was torn down and 5 bedroom houses WITH COURTYARDS were built. The new two story home dwarfs the smaller homes next door. The size differential is like a small apartment building next to a shack. Really awful.

[wartrace]

11. I live in a 680sqft house and have no need for more.

Just me & my six dogs (plus two cats). I have all the privacy I need, it sits on 15 acres with no neighbors. The thing I like about it is it is easy to keep clean, cheap to heat & cool and inexpensive to insure. I bought it back in 2002. Back then housing prices in subdivisions were near 100 dollars a square foot for homes on eighth acre lots. I didn't want to live like a rat in a zoo, packed in to some hokey sounding community like "Morning wood" or "Percy Pointe" (YOU CAN'T SPELL POINT WITHOUT the extra "e" on the end you know), or my "Favorite" - "Blackman Farm" which WAS a farm until then squeezed in thousands of houses- they should have named it "People farm".

My utility bills are 1/3 of my co-workers homes. I have five acres of trees that help to at least offset a little of my carbon footprint, I allow the farmer across the road to hay the field to feed his cows but it also creates a place for deer & rabbits to live and feed. I have no need to use ANY chemicals on my yard to appease the homeowners association, it can grow naturally without someone being offended. I have no need to burn "security lights" all night as I have dogs that are free to bark at intruders without neighbors complaining.

I only paid 54,000 for the entire place when a home in the subdivision was selling for 175,000. I was able to pay it off in less than five years. Life is good.

[Progressive_In_NC]

12. You are so lucky

15 acres in Raleigh, NC within 10 miles of the city would be a minumum of 400K.

We have a 2100 sqaure foot house on 1/3 of an acre for 5 of us, we don't have an extra bedroom. The only really extra room is the dining room.

But I have to say I am completely envious of all that land.

[wartrace]

13. If I had to be close to a city I would probably look into a condo.

Seriously, luck had little to do with it. I decided NOT to pursue a career that required me to live near a big city. I also decided I didn't need a "show house", just a place to keep my stuff dry. I have had to endure some silly comments from some people who don't understand the concept of living below your means. One guy called it a "cabin" when he delivered an appliance. One old geezer called it "that tiny house", others assume I am living in poverty.

I guess people are conditioned to believe you MUST buy as much house as you can "afford" with a thirty year mortgage and payments that leave NO ROOM TO BREATHE. It may not be a monument to my success but it sleeps better in here not having to worry about making a monthly payment, not worrying about a job that might not be there next month. Nobody can throw me out on the street and that peace of mind is worth millions to me!

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Yes, and no. The size may shrink but expect the shoddy quality to continue. People

will mainly buy what the can afford, which will be not much.

[Mari333]

22. oh hell yes

there is nothing uglier then


destroying an entire forest near you!

[Statistical]

23. I don't think it is done .... either that or they have a crappy architect (n/t)

[Mari333]

24. half the homes that are on the outskirts of my once quaint town

look like this. unfinished, ugly,faux houses, sitting in bankruptcy as the developers have fled or are in jail or hiding.one guy even changed his last name so the creditors wouldnt find him.

[Neshanic]

26. There will always be large homes on large lots, but there will not be the in betweens.

Here in the land of walls Arizona, the typical master planned community has various lot sizes that are predetermined for maximizing home and profit. There would be say four lot sizes in a given master plan. The side lots are typically 10'. Again generally speaking, the influx of the Californians that are accustomed to "zero" lot line homes, and "Z" lot homes made the last building spree quite profitable for the developers as this was not popular in the mid 90's and before, but land prices and the willingness of people to accept homes very close together was more common in the last years of the boom.

There will always be larger homes on big lots, but not many. The "McMansions" will go the way of the Dodo. Houses are already being downsized considerably judging from the product that is on the boards now, waiting for the economy to pick up. Which in my estimation will be 2012. The developers know that the land will be cheap after all the dust settles, and then build tight and close. The cities will allow it to to gain density. The rub is that developers, a craven and nasty gang of freaks, always will do things on the cheap, so you will get close and tight and low quality space. The big homes will be just that. Big homes on huge lots. The McMansions will not exist any longer.

You will be sharing lot lines, common walls in some cases, and subjected to exotic and new lotting that will cram as many homes as possible on the smallest chunk of land.

Now this is Arizona, and is quite different from say suburban New Jersey, where McMansions took over cornfields, and have no block fences in between. This would be horrifying to the average Phoenician, as everything no matter how big or small must be walled in. Even the largest lots here are generally walled in.