Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recently I've seen reports that current buyers apparently prefer smaller houses. Or maybe it's that they can only afford the smaller houses. Same result, either way.
I've also read (and noticed) that very little new construction includes such houses. Apparently builders continue to build mostly 3,000-5,00 sf McMansions. What do you make of this?
I realize that builders make more money when they build big, but if nobody is buying them you'd think they'd start building smaller. Then again, I'm not in the construction biz so what do I know?
Thoughts?
In my area, builders are doing both. They are building 5K sf houses on 1+ acre lots for $800K and 2,200 sf houses on .2 acre lots for $350K.
The main difference is that the size of the developments (# of houses). It may be 20-30 $800K houses and 200-300 $350K houses (phased, over a 5+ year period).
I perused the net on this. Where did the McMansion paranoia come from? The alternative campaign seems to be for tiny houses. Isn't there an attractive and functional, in-between alternative for the US?
Size isn't the defining characteristic of McMansion. The defining characteristic is its poor architecture. Examples include secondary masses competing with primary masses, too many voids (windows, doors) in the wrong places so they almost resemble swiss cheese, unbalanced symmetry, incorrect proportions, etc.
These bad design implementations show up in houses of all sizes.
Here is a typical suburban house with a well-designed facade.
Here is a typical suburban house with a poorly designed facade (a McMansion):
Again, it isn't about size per se - it is bad design.
I live in a 50's cape post war development. Luckily most of the houses are modified and have old growth trees around so it's less obvious but I would prefer it to look as thou houses were placed there instead of bulldozed and a neighborhood built. Unfortunately at the lower end of the market that's hard. But I think some of the modern mc mansions are worse. Around here they bull doze 20 acres put up 25 4,500 sqft houses built as cheaply as possible while still having interiors with the right trends. It all comes off looking a bit fake (the acres of off white and yellow vinyl siding doesn't help).
True custom homes are rare, most may be built for an owner but really are very similar to the other houses in a neighbor hood. There are a couple neighbor hoods in my town with true custom homes on them but most were built pre 1990. The the next town over has a few newer ones but they are huge around 6,000 sqft.
We are now seeing some infill going in with some attractive houses around 2,000 sq ft.
I grew up in a custom built house from the 1920's around 3,300 sqft it was nice and none of the other houses in the neighbor hood were similar in design at all.
These were kind of common new builds here in the 90's. During the bubble they moved up to over 3,000 sqft, there now seems to be more smaller houses being built again.
Recently I've seen reports that current buyers apparently prefer smaller houses. Or maybe it's that they can only afford the smaller houses. Same result, either way.
I've also read (and noticed) that very little new construction includes such houses. Apparently builders continue to build mostly 3,000-5,00 sf McMansions. What do you make of this?
I realize that builders make more money when they build big, but if nobody is buying them you'd think they'd start building smaller. Then again, I'm not in the construction biz so what do I know?
Thoughts?
I think it's gotten to the point that people with a single income often simply can't buy a house in the city because they are simply bloated and expensive. The median salary for a full-time employee is only $40k. The suburban, commuting-addicted lifestyle is really not designed with childless, petless singles in mind. I find it bizarre when people think everybody should buy a house. Do they not realize that some people DO NOT have families, DO NOT make a lot of money, and DO NOT have a reason to take on such ridiculous commutes? Oh yes, and not every renter rents a whole house for themselves, especially childless, petless singles. Many of us are just fine with a small apartment or, for many of us, roommates. So don't even try to pull the whole "You can buy for less than rent!" argument.
My opinion is that if houses were designed better, then they could be smaller. Rooms should be designed for the way people really live, with no non essential junk stuck in them, or on them. Stupid stuff, like a huge window over a bathtub, or a useless cathedral ceiling, or a formal living room that no one ever sets foot in, are the types of things I mean.
Again, it isn't about size per se - it is bad design.
Not in my world. A McMansion is a large house built with cheap materials and poor finish. Everything builder grade. Lots of corners cut. They also tend to be inappropriately large for the neighborhood.
My opinion is that if houses were designed better, then they could be smaller. Rooms should be designed for the way people really live, with no non essential junk stuck in them, or on them. Stupid stuff, like a huge window over a bathtub, or a useless cathedral ceiling, or a formal living room that no one ever sets foot in, are the types of things I mean.
Don't forget hallways. Biggest waste of space in a house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.