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.
Especially with the bursting of the housing bubble it would appear that "Bigger" isn't necessarily better and "Smaller" is smarter. Smaller houses cost less to build, take fewer furnishings and cost less to heat and cool. They're also easier to maintain and keep clean. They leave a smaller footprint.
The average American now has close to 1,000 square feet of home - that's per individual living in it. That makes for large homes compared to the 50s. Back in those primitive times people managed with about 260 sq. ft. each. Thinking back to the homes my family and I lived in during those times that sounds about right.
In the 1950s about 80% of new homes were smaller than 1,200 feet. By the 1970s it was down to about 35% and that dropped to perhaps 2.5% by 2004. Quite a change, isn't it?
Since the 50s the trend has been larger homes with fewer people living in them although since the recession, new houses have gone down in size a bit, but only a bit - from about 2,500 sq. ft. to about 2,400. Banks were complicit in the sizing-up of homes as they were more reluctant to provide mortgages on smaller ones - less bang for their bucks and we all know how that's turned out.*
* Source: National Assoc. of Home Builders, 2010 Census, Pew research Center
When my wife and I were looking for our retirement home we wanted a single story home of modest size. We figured that stairs would not be our friend as we aged and we didn't want to have to do a lot of cleaning and upkeep as we aged either. At the same time we wanted a kitchen large enough for both of us to cook together without running into one another and enough space elsewhere to not be tripping over each other.
We found precisely what we sought in a home built in 1989. It's 1480 sq. ft. but 200 of those are a sun/all weather room that we've given over to the cats and planting starts. That leaves us with 640 sq. ft. each which over the past three years has been just right. Modest but handy. That's what we wanted. That's what we have.
I personally prefer smaller for retirement. Or, I think I would. My thinking is that a smaller space is easier to maintain, and utility bills would be lower.
On the other hand, when we toured Williamsburg we looked at a 55+ community that was about 75% built and was still under construction in one section. The realtor told us that the community initially built several small townhomes that were 1100-1400, but they hadn't been selling well in the last few years. As a result they had stopped building the smaller homes and the newer neighborhoods were 2400-4000 sf.
She said that since seniors spend a significant portion of the day at their homes, they end up wanting more space for the various activities they do inside their home. Also, some of the square footage is a nicely finished basement--something I've come to appreciate and definitely want as a senior. If you can spend the hot summer afternoons in a nice basement area you will save a fortune on AC bills. Yet I also want enough living space on the upper (first) floor that I don't need to go down to the basement if stairs become a problem.
Although I still think I'd prefer a smaller home, the realtor made a valid point and after I've tried retirement a few years I might just end up agreeing with it.
Our current home is 2300sf. We're targeting 1300 (me) to 1700 sf (DW) for our next and hopefully last retirement home. In addition to 'lower initial cost, fewer furnishings, lower utilities, easier to maintain and keep clean and smaller footprint' - lower property taxes, lower maintenance & repair costs and where applicable maybe lower HOA fees.
I don't know if the mainstream population is really over McMansions yet, but I'm convinced the long term trend will be toward smaller houses for a variety of reasons. Time will tell...
Regardless of specific size many expenses and tasks will still have a "floor" you have to commit to or afford. The water heater, and stove and even the furnace don't cost appreciably if any less for a 1300sf house vs an 1800sf and once you pull out the mower or leaf rakes the increment of time to do a somewhat larger yard vs a small one is marginal (and may even be less with less fussiness and detail).
If you're healthy and strong enough to do the work yourself or just have interests that need space to spread out in or to leave projects half done for a week at a time... that extra bed room or a basement or a detached garage will come in real handy.
My current residence is a little over 2500 sf and at this point in my life it is difficult to maintain both energy wise and also to keep it all clean. With upgrades and remodeling needs it feels like a money pit. Not something I am really into anymore. I have built a partially finished new home in Maine that is 1600 sf with a master bedroom on the first floor. I think it will be a big difference once we move in with regards to all of the above reasons. It seems like the times are dictating that smaller is better all around.
Regardless of specific size many expenses and tasks will still have a "floor" you have to commit to or afford. The water heater, and stove and even the furnace don't cost appreciably if any less for a 1300sf house vs an 1800sf and once you pull out the mower or leaf rakes the increment of time to do a somewhat larger yard vs a small one is marginal (and may even be less with less fussiness and detail).
If you're healthy and strong enough to do the work yourself or just have interests that need space to spread out in or to leave projects half done for a week at a time... that extra bed room or a basement or a detached garage will come in real handy.
We manage to have three bedrooms, 1¾ baths and an over-sized, two-car, finished garage with additional storage space as well as a large tool/utility shed. All the comforts of home, plus the lake at our doorstep.
Plenty of room for two people without getting underfoot and space enough for each of us to have our own and provision for guests (temporary only, thank you).
From 1951 to 1958 my family (two parents, two kids) lived in a two-bedroom, one bath house with a single-car garage and a basement. I don't know what the square footage was, but the rooms were on the small side. This was considered within normal parameters - we were not considered deprived or destitute or disadvantaged. Up until 2007 or 2008 the pendulum swung absurdly in the opposite direction with the McMansions, so a correction in the direction of reasonableness is in order and welcome. However, I don't think people would accept a return to the childhood home I described; lining up for the single bathroom was routine at the time and we didn't give it much thought, but now that we are not used to that anymore, we wouldn't consider it acceptable.
One problem is that reasonable-sized houses are in rather short supply in many areas. When I was looking for a place to buy almost eleven years ago, I settled on a 1600 sq. ft. two-bedroom with loft, two and a half-bath townhouse with a two-car garage. This is a bit more space than I really need as a single individual (divorced and living alone), but this size or larger is simply what was out there for sale at the time. And I do appreciate having the guest bedroom with its own separate full bath. I haven't had overnight guests all that often, but I have had them and I appreciate being able to.
Hopefully the demand for smaller places will create its own supply, as builders are hurting and they can't afford to be choosy.
My wife grew up in a 960 sf single family home. 3 bedroom/1 bath/1 car garage w unfinished basement. There were 5 kids and her Mom & Dad. I have no idea how that's even possible, but she survived. Her Mom still lives in that house, now alone...
or just have interests that need space to spread out in or to leave projects half done for a week at a time...
Yes, I can relate to the above. I really understand the appeal of having the space to work on a project for weeks at a time. Also, the thread about getting along with a spouse after retirement are making me wonder if one value of having a few extra rooms is that you aren't in each other's face all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
I don't know if the mainstream population is really over McMansions yet,
Sure hope not--or at least I hope it waits until I sell mine.
We had a ranch home built for retirement (2200 sq. ft) not including a screened in porch which is about 250 sq. ft., a separate workshop (440 sq. ft.), in ground pool, and two sheds. For us it is very comfortable and not too much to take care of at this point.
We also have an RV (about 500 sq. ft) which we live in 3+ months a year. Now THAT is cozy!
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.
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.
