Major homebuilders are prioritizing narrower houses with fewer doors, windows and cabinets. Median homes sizes are at a 13-year low.
The new American home is shrinking.
After years of prioritizing large homes, the nation’s biggest and most powerful home builders are finally building more smaller ones, driving a shift toward more affordable housing.
The boom in smaller construction has cut median new-home sizes by 4 percent in the past year, to 2,179 square feet, census data shows, the lowest reading since 2010. That’s helped bring down overall costs and contributed to a 6 percent dip in new-home prices in the same period.
Townhouses, in particular, are increasingly popular, accounting for 1 in 5 new homes under construction at the end of 2023, a record high, according to an analysis of census data by the National Association of Home Builders. To cut costs, companies are building smaller and taller, with fewer windows, cabinets and doors.
Truth! I am comfortable in a 400 square foot apartment with a live-in partner and (until recently) a small dog.
Sure, I’d love to have a little more space. Might be nice to have 800 square feet. Even that feels larger than we need.
The idea that houses need to be that big is just so absurd. No reasonable person who isn’t rich is entertaining guests at home anymore, nobody needs this excess.
The problem is that more square metres doesn’t mean more useful functionality. I recall going into a model home and it had no less than three dining tables set up. You could entertain an inaugural ball, but the bedrooms were still chintzy 3m x 3m boxes, no dedicated office/library/etc, tiny pantry and laundry room.
I feel like an ideal home design would offer two more bedroom-size rooms than residents:
One as a dedicated office so you can remote work without having to appropriate the dining table, and one semi-finished for hobby room for activities that are space intensive, require special equipment, ventilation, etc. Think “woodworking or 3D printing shop”, “LAN party/gaming/home theatre room”, “model railway setup permanently built in room.”
OTOH, some of this could be compromised if similar facilities were provided in a community centre instead. I want to see the retirement neighbourhood built around a maker space and library instead of golf courses and pickleball courts.
My wife and I (and our cat) are in a just over 900 sq. ft. apartment. The two things I’d like are a larger pantry and more closet space. Otherwise it’s perfect.
We’re not rich, and we have people over for Cities without Numbers, but 6 people fit around a table.
You can entertain at a sane level without needing a living room, a sitting room, a dining room, an eat-in kitchen, a rec room, and 3 spare guest bedrooms.
Paying $3000 a month for a 1 bed converted to two. No dining space as a 2 bed, and a galley kitchen. My 2 very big but young children eat off a coffee table. Wheeeeeeeee.
Well, the article is about how sane-sized housing options are leading to more affording living spaces, and builders are beginning to prioritize affordability over McMansions. So hopefully this will lead to you being able to improve your living situation if you can’t move to an affordable city, since more options should reduce demand, which should reduce prices.
Wages and housing will not catch up from 40 years of stagnation. Buying power will likely never be the same, even for something smaller, before climate change wrecks the economy.