Housing - Why are smaller houses not being built?

[Cujet]

Having traveled the entire globe multiple times, I can say that Americans and Australians are unique with both larger cars and larger homes.

It may have to do with a perception of space to roam, or prosperity.

My personal feelings on the subject are that I prefer larger rooms, with higher ceilings, and don't like small cars unless they are sports cars.

1) The living space thing is just a personal preference thing. I'm not a small guy and don't like feeling crammed.
2) The large car thing is practical. Can't take a family trip or the dog in a Smart Car or carry anything more than token groceries.

 

[Donald]

When you have a growing family I can understand the need for many bedrooms and bathrooms. But when they are out of the house then its time to downsize. Except for garage size, supersize that.

Our retirement home we own has everything we need on first floor. Unless I want an office I do not need to go to 2nd floor. The 2nd floor is mainly for guests with 3 bedrooms and a bath. The dining room will fit 6 people which is what will be eating there 99.9% of the time (6 people or less). Wife thinks we need dining room for 10 or 12 in case family comes down. I say we will figure something out but do not want to get a home with a huge dining room for just Thanksgiving every year or two.

 

[JLTD]

Agreed it's ridiculous. Solution:

1) Buy land where you want to live, which includes the building code.

2) Have your house built.

That's the way it was done for years, before the big construction companies started building neighborhoods.

 

[doitmyself]

I'm with you tony1679. Maybe my father from Lithuania instilled my minimalist tendencies (frugal cheapskate?). I'm not a worldly traveler, but I know how other countries live and I appreciate the standard of living we can have here. I grew up in a modest 3 bedroom home with one bathroom and we raised our family in a similar home. I wouldn't buy a large home even if I could afford it, just like I have no desire for a lavish vehicle. I subscribed to Mother Earth News back in the day and I definitely chose the road less traveled regarding career, lifestyle, and personal goals. Yah, my opinion will not be the norm.

I believe the opulent lifestyle has become the American way compared to most other countries. "We" want everything big and we want our conveniences as described by Fawteen. Everyone here preaches about fiscal responsibility and living within our means. But look at all the extravagances we have accepted as normal cost of living. People pay out thousands a year to have cell phones, cable/dish television, frequent restaurant meals, impractical vehicles, multiple vehicles, etc.. To maintain this lifestyle both spouses must work....kids go to expensive daycare.....minimal quality time...the cycle continues. The proverbial rat race that I promised myself at age 18 to never join. We are one of the most wasteful countries on the planet. We express concern about climate change, but our lifestyles don't "walk the talk". Most of our conservation and efficiency gains are due to government intervention, not personal choice.

tony1670, you and I are probably cut from a different cloth. That's o.k.. Thank goodness there are still modest homes available in Michigan.

 

[Alfred_B]

Tiny container homes can be built inexpensively but they are not widely accepted and can be difficult to sell.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted by tony1679


In my area (and probably everwhere else) there are endless cookie-cutter, crammed like sardines, abysmally built, entirely overpriced subdivisions being built anywhere they possibly can. It's crazy how quickly. And they all have price tags of $250k+ (I'm in Oklahoma, ...


A 30 or 40 or 50 acre tract of land is worth a lot more money when it is platted and subdivided. If you just subdivide it, you'll sit on the lots forever without selling them off.

So you slap down cheaply built cookie cutter homes on the lots. Buyers think they are buying the house. The reality is the land owner is selling the lots. If you make a bit on the house, terrific, it's extra profit, but the money is in the lots.

They don't slap small houses on them because on one wants to buy a small house.

 

[Mr Nice]

All I need is a 3-2-2 ranch style, single story home.

I do understand some folks want a McMansion that's an eyesore to many in the neighborhood.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I've noticed that too. A lot of the newer houses are pretty big. Granted, they are probably a bit nicer than what multi-child families had when I was growing up.

We're getting a lot of new developments where I am. So far they fill up immediately after they are built. I find it completely crazy that people are paying $300K for a large house on a small plot of land with no privacy. To each their own. The quality of these newer homes and mcmansions is really dropping, though. Cracking walls (they're all built in swamps ...) , siding that blows off in the wind, nonstandard plumbing ... It's probably not ideal.

My house is 1200SF. I find it reasonable for two or three people. If I had my way, I would have bought a plot of land and built a single story 1000 SF house on a slab with 2x6 walls and called it a day!

 

[sasilverbullet]

Size, most folks want a house with the space to feel comfortable. Builders will build whatever folks will buy...

 

[John_K]

Originally Posted by Fawteen
It's what the market will bear in that area, and it's what the majority of people want. Personally I would not want to be shoehorned into a 1000 square foot bungalow.
And newer houses being poorly constructed? That may be true in your area, but it's not true in a lot of other areas. I rather like high energy efficiency, well designed kitchens, fairly spacious bathrooms, master bathrooms with double sinks and a separate walk in shower, walk in closets, backyard with a pool, amenities like that which you won't get unless you buy a flipped home or something newer. 40s and 50s vintage homes were very rarely built with any of those features.
.


I think he means quality, not features. Quality of construction,. Columbus is booming and time and time again I see people with 11 or 12 year old homes (Just after the 10 year warranty runs out) having all these issues with them. There was an article in the paper here recently about a Columbus company that specializes in fixing issues with people's newer homes. Slapped together junk is what I see.

 

[PimTac]

The quality of building materials has changed from the good old days when studs were straight grain fir. Today you will see mostly hemlock studs that bend and twist over time as that is the tendency of that wood. MDF with cheap resin replaced good plywood. Add to all this the "I don't care about my work" attitude of cheap labor and there you go.

An ideal small house would be around 1200sf with a basement. Unfortunately, nobody builds houses with basements anymore.

 

[E365]

Originally Posted by PimTac
The quality of building materials has changed from the good old days when studs were straight grain fir. Today you will see mostly hemlock studs that bend and twist over time as that is the tendency of that wood. MDF with cheap resin replaced good plywood. Add to all this the "I don't care about my work" attitude of cheap labor and there you go.

An ideal small house would be around 1200sf with a basement. Unfortunately, nobody builds houses with basements anymore.


Basements are regional. In Minnesota I bet 99.5% houses have basements.

 

[PimTac]

Likely so. Older houses had them to store wood or coal for heat. Maybe some areas have them for storm protection?

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Alfred_B
Tiny container homes can be built inexpensively but they are not widely accepted and can be difficult to sell.


In this area they are illegal, hard to sell if the town fines you for locating one

 

[PimTac]

That could be a regional thing as well.

Around here RVs are popular. Thousands of people live in them. With stores closing due to internet commerce you will see the parking lots filled with these things.

 

[Wolf359]

I guess it's kinda obvious to me because I'm in real estate. Basically it costs about $200-$250 a square foot for construction, at least in this area. Maybe cheaper in other parts of the country. But the cost is probably higher on a smaller square footage home as the cost to run plumbing/electrical to a kitchen/bathroom is the same, but the profits are higher on a higher square footage home. Plus you need those profits to carry you through some uncertainty. Takes time to get permits, loans and to do construction. So between the time you decide as a builder to build and when it's ready, could be 6 months to a year. Still have to pay financing costs, maybe the market will move against you so you need a cushion. There's no cushion with a smaller house. It's sorta like asking why can't car makers build new cars priced like used cars? They basically can't, the numbers just aren't there. If they could, they would. An individual who wants a smaller home would probably have to take on the risks themselves. Get financing, get permits, find builders, shoulder carrying costs (taxes and insurance still accrue during construction).

 

[JLTD]

Originally Posted by E365

The quality of building materials has changed from the good old days....

Basements are regional. In Minnesota I bet 99.5% houses have basements.



PimTac, agree that materials and workmanship are not what they once were.

E365 you are right also - in many places the soil will not support a basement. One case in point - shrink/swell soils.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by John_K
Originally Posted by Fawteen
It's what the market will bear in that area, and it's what the majority of people want. Personally I would not want to be shoehorned into a 1000 square foot bungalow.
And newer houses being poorly constructed? That may be true in your area, but it's not true in a lot of other areas. I rather like high energy efficiency, well designed kitchens, fairly spacious bathrooms, master bathrooms with double sinks and a separate walk in shower, walk in closets, backyard with a pool, amenities like that which you won't get unless you buy a flipped home or something newer. 40s and 50s vintage homes were very rarely built with any of those features.
.


I think he means quality, not features. Quality of construction,. Columbus is booming and time and time again I see people with 11 or 12 year old homes (Just after the 10 year warranty runs out) having all these issues with them. There was an article in the paper here recently about a Columbus company that specializes in fixing issues with people's newer homes. Slapped together junk is what I see.



The problem is that residential building codes get watered down by special interests and/or existing code isn't properly enforced. That issue presents itself regardless of whether one us using a custom builder or buying a tract house. If you want to build better than code minimum you always run the risk of running off your contractor over disagreements or shoddy work.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by E365

The quality of building materials has changed from the good old days....

Basements are regional. In Minnesota I bet 99.5% houses have basements.



PimTac, agree that materials and workmanship are not what they once were.

E365 you are right also - in many places the soil will not support a basement. One case in point - shrink/swell soils.


This gets tossed around a lot and I'll have to disagree as I've probably seen several thousand homes at this point in my career as a real estate broker. You can have quality materials and construction in any age, just like you can have old well built cars and badly built old cars. In every age there's good stuff being built and bad stuff being built. Over time in general it tends to get better but sometimes new methods come out that make things cheaper. While horsehair and plaster is more expensive than sheet rock these days, i don't miss it, it's much harder to repairs on horsehair and plaster vs sheet rock. Some old houses tend to settle with age, there are some well built ones where the house may be over 100+ years old, but the floors are still level other homes only 50 years old have crooked floors. Probably all goes back to what I mentioned earlier, cost per square foot to build. Costs a lot more per square foot to build a smaller home vs a larger one and if you want higher quality homes, it costs more per square foot.

 

[Urshurak776]

If it was just my wife and I, we could definitely do a smaller house, but I want a shop...so...need a two car garage at minimum. We have three kids, two are teenage boys. I couldn't imagine being in a house that is 1,000 square feet with them....lol

Each to his own. Our house is 3,045 square feet. Wish it was bigger.