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.
I just read this article and thought I'd ask how the triangle rates. It's interesting that nationally we are moving to smaller homes Death of the 'McMansion': Era of Huge Homes Is Over - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Death-of-the-McMansion-Era-of-cnbc-1051033821.html?x=0 - broken link)
I know we haven't had a lot of building going on because of the recession but, is anyone seeing our area's builders moving from large to more conservative sized homes?
In the Knightdale area I'm not seeing much building action. The subdivisions here that have larger homes don't appear to adding any new large homes. What about your area?
I thought the most interesting part of the article was this:
Quote:
For a little historical context, 1,200 square feet was the average home size in America in the 1960s. That grew to 1,710 square feet in the 1980s and 2,330 square feet in the 2000s.
I know of one subdivision that seems to focus on the 1600 to 2000 sq. foot newly built homes, sunset oaks in Holly Springs. They have very small lots though. When we went home shopping it was hard to find newer homes under 2500 square feet.
It would be nice if they moved towards building new homes that are small and loaded with quality features.
We lived in a 1200 square foot home at one time and while we never felt cramped, but storage was an issue. We had a pull down attic and even then, you can't store everything in an attic due to no temp control up there. Since we don't have basements like up north, I think it's good to add a little more square feet to compensate for that. I think it would be great if they built 1500 to 1700 square feet homes with a large walk up attic rather than pull down. That would help solve that problem. I will still never understand why you would need 3,000 square feet or more. I've seen people who have over 3,000 square feet and still can't park in there garage because they have so much stuff in their garage.
With the rapid increase we see in people who work from home, the need for good home office space continues to support more rooms and more square footage than a home might require otherwise.
Whether that is a "McMansion" is a subjective determination.
Lord, I hope so. Our family calls those huge houses "houses for families that don't like each other" since people can live in them and never have to be together. I certainly like enough room, but that whole idea of a separate room for every possible use (gift wrapping rooms?) and every house with a wine cellar? I am with Sarah Susanka...bigger is not always better.
Lord, I hope so. Our family calls those huge houses "houses for families that don't like each other" since people can live in them and never have to be together. I certainly like enough room, but that whole idea of a separate room for every possible use (gift wrapping rooms?) and every house with a wine cellar? I am with Sarah Susanka...bigger is not always better.
Truer words have never been spoken Death to the wasteful, ugly McMansions
I'm with mjohnson185, I'd love to see smaller homes (1500 sq. ft. to 2000 sq. ft.) with all the upgrades! I would love to downsize when daughter goes to college. I have clients that would love to downsize now and to get the "bells and whistles" they want, we have to get more square footage, which defeats the whole idea of downsizing!
When anyone talks about McMansions...I think $1 million and over. I guess to answer the question is to determine what you think is a McMansion!
This area has never really supported a n'hood like Hasentree; however, in years past, the $1 million homes didn't do so well either but that changed in the last few years.
Does anyone really "need" a wine cellar, a media room, walk-in closets, master bathrooms that are larger than most bedrooms??? I know a few people who would argue that they DO NEED THOSE THINGS!
I'd rather see newer houses built on lots bigger than a postage stamp. I guess the builders like to maximize their profit by squeezing a maximum number of houses but I'm not a big fan of being able to reach over and touch my neighbor's home.
One possiblity for the shift is the changing age demographics. As kids leave home & people get older they want less, not more.
Think about how you hear so much about the baby boomers retiring. Those folks aren't going to the nursing home, but they probably do want smaller homes that are easier to clean/maintain.
I have clients that would love to downsize now and to get the "bells and whistles" they want, we have to get more square footage, which defeats the whole idea of downsizing!
This is the issue. Many would love to downsize, but in this area, the smaller homes, especially new construction, typically are not built with the same level of fit and finsish as larger homes. In the few custom home neighborhoods that allow you to work with your own builder or a select group of custom builders in their network, there are often minimum requirements of 2500 sq. ft. or so. This is ludicrous. I live in a 2900 sq. ft. custom home in such a neighborhood (don't judge - we have 2 kids, in-home childcare, frequent overnight visitors and I work exclusively from home, so we use every room...and yes, we park both cars in the garage ). I would personally be fine with a well-built 1800 sq. ft. custom home beside me assuming it was built with a fit and finish which is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
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.