Is it possible that homes cost more because they're too big?

[DonFrancisco]

I live in a 1 bedroom condo in Houston. As a man that's all i feel i need. I'm always shocked when single men get large homes in the suburbs. I feel like it isn't necessary and done because of old societal pressures for a single family home. We don't teach that large homes have a large maintenance cost especially when you hit the 15 year mark. My parents home will cost 2x the amount to update over my condo. Both my condo and parents home are roughly the same age. I think we should teach people budgeting because buying a home is the easiest part of homeownership.

Again a lot of home buyers look size and having a track of land over operational costs. Of course i support multi generational households where there is more cost sharing.

 

[acri1]

homes are def too big, you have people who make a decision on what to buy solely on how much house they can get for their dollar, regardless of needing that space or not. not sure how we evolved into thinking every kid needed their own room, plus an office and media room in addition to living/family room. people used to spend time outside of their bedroom and outside of the house, now every one expects space for an office, gym and movie room all at home. and it really makes no sense given families have gotten smaller.

i actually think we need more 2-3 family homes that sell each unit individually (not one person buying the building and renting out the other units), and no, i also don't mean condo style with extortionist HOA's and crazy restrictions etc.

People wanting bigger homes isn't the main reason for this though, it's not as if smaller homes don't sell.

It's that it's less profitable to build smaller homes, so fewer get built despite demand. It's more of a supply-side issue than a consumer issue.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

People wanting bigger homes isn't the main reason for this though, it's not as if smaller homes don't sell.

It's that it's less profitable to build smaller homes, so fewer get built despite demand. It's more of a supply-side issue than a consumer issue.

Because people have sprawled into the middle of no where chasing big homes. If I build a new triplex with three 1000 sq ft units in the boundaries of almost any city, guarantee it’s more profitable than 3 2000sq ft builder grade construction homes in the average suburb 20 miles outside the city.

 

[Pressure]

i actually think we need more 2-3 family homes that sell each unit individually (not one person buying the building and renting out the other units), and no, i also don't mean condo style with extortionist HOA's and crazy restrictions etc.

I remember an assessment fee of 5k due by Dec 31st

They immediately changed ownership the next year

 

[acri1]

Because people have sprawled into the middle of no where chasing big homes. If I build a new triplex with three 1000 sq ft units in the boundaries of almost any city, guarantee it’s more profitable than 3 2000sq ft builder grade construction homes in the average suburb 20 miles outside the city.

This is an oversimplification and just isn't true most of the time.

Whatever happened to the starter home? There's no profit in it

WASHINGTON – As recently as the 1990s, when Jason Nageli started off, the homebuilding industry was still constructing what real estate ads would brightly call the "starter home." In the

buffalonews.com

You're making the issue out to be "Americans are greedy and want big homes" when that's just not the main driver of this.

There literally aren't enough small homes for everyone who wants one so people are getting what's available.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

This is an oversimplification and just isn't true most of the time.

Whatever happened to the starter home? There's no profit in it

WASHINGTON – As recently as the 1990s, when Jason Nageli started off, the homebuilding industry was still constructing what real estate ads would brightly call the "starter home." In the

buffalonews.com

You're making the issue out to be "Americans are greedy and want big homes" when that's just not the main driver of this.

There literally aren't enough small homes for everyone who wants one so people are getting what's available.

there are multiple things at play as to why homes cost more, but america's thirst for bigger being better dating back to the 60's when homes started being built bigger than they were in the years before is part of it. it's that demand that has the burbs full of sprawling SFH's instead of the MFHs, row homes, townhouses that were built in cities.

another big issue with there being no starter homes is that more people, and investors, hang on to the homes they grow out of...where we're at is both a case of supply from builders and sellers

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My home is Hawaii sized...but I'm thinkin, unless all these 2k+ sq ft homes are 2-stories, they're taking up a big footprint. We could add a lot more homes if we cut it in half.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/American-Home-Size-Index_Avg-House-Size_States-1200.png

Traveling made me realize how big everything in America is.

• The Housing
• The Streets
• The Cars and Trucks
• The Plates of food
• The People.

In terms of the cost of housing - Demand + Constrained Supply + Developers only making "luxury" homes + money printing = high costs in most metro areas.

Housing is expensive because we don't build enough homes in th US. There is no shortage of land for housing; the roadblocks are navigating zoning laws, and dealing with NIMBYs.

Making homes/lots smaller won't do much. You need to build more housing period.

2800 is the average? woooow. that's crazy.

made me want to look up the numbers for up here in ontario. we're somewhere between 1500-1600, apparently.

Be surprised in hyper consumerist country houses are way to fukkin big brehs...shyt ain't the problem tho...just bad for environment

Something else not quite related we dont build enough apartments and townhouses because cities zone for single family homes

Its really bad in KC. All these suburbs just extending way out into the country. I bet a lot of it has to do with upper middle class people wanting a sellers market and no “poor people” across the street in apartments.

homes are def too big, you have people who make a decision on what to buy solely on how much house they can get for their dollar, regardless of needing that space or not. not sure how we evolved into thinking every kid needed their own room, plus an office and media room in addition to living/family room. people used to spend time outside of their bedroom and outside of the house, now every one expects space for an office, gym and movie room all at home. and it really makes no sense given families have gotten smaller.

i actually think we need more 2-3 family homes that sell each unit individually (not one person buying the building and renting out the other units), and no, i also don't mean condo style with extortionist HOA's and crazy restrictions etc.

Before the pandemic, I was of the opinion that a lot of the housing pressure in the big cities would go away if more people moved out to the boonies because they could work from home.

Well that actually happened - relatively well paid people with work from home jobs moved out to the burbs and beyond. All that did was make prices in small towns go up.

Its just the lack of new housing

thats it

The U.S. Needs More Housing Than Almost Anyone Can Imagine

For Americans to live a productive, prosperous, happy life, homes need to be truly abundant.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Housing is expensive because we don't build enough homes in th US. There is no shortage of land for housing; the roadblocks are navigating zoning laws, and dealing with NIMBYs.

Making homes/lots smaller won't do much. You need to build more housing period.

You contradicted yourself. If you made the homes smaller then you could build 2x to 3x as many homes on the same land zoned for residential, and you wouldn't need more sprawl.

Just demanding that more and more land be zoned for housing is an inefficient and ineffective way to build a city.


Average new home in the 1950s was 900 square feet. Average new home now is well over 2500 square feet. And families were twice as big back then too so we should need even less space - places have gotten WAY too big.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

homes are def too big, you have people who make a decision on what to buy solely on how much house they can get for their dollar, regardless of needing that space or not. not sure how we evolved into thinking every kid needed their own room, plus an office and media room in addition to living/family room. people used to spend time outside of their bedroom and outside of the house, now every one expects space for an office, gym and movie room all at home. and it really makes no sense given families have gotten smaller.

i actually think we need more 2-3 family homes that sell each unit individually (not one person buying the building and renting out the other units), and no, i also don't mean condo style with extortionist HOA's and crazy restrictions etc.

This, bolded. People have been conditioned to buy the biggest house they can afford, even if it's way more than they need. I've known Californians moving to other states who legit had trouble finding houses in their budget because they were used to paying so much and ended up buying fukking mansions even though they had been just fine in regular houses before.

 

[yesiambowling]

You contradicted yourself. If you made the homes smaller then you could build 2x to 3x as many homes on the same land zoned for residential, and you wouldn't need more sprawl.

Just demanding that more and more land be zoned for housing is an inefficient and ineffective way to build a city.


Average new home in the 1950s was 900 square feet. Average new home now is well over 2500 square feet. And families were twice as big back then too so we should need even less space - places have gotten WAY too big.

New homes are usually built by builders that buy up tracts of land to divide into lots. Costs the builder more to make 2 small houses than 1 that's double the size. This cost would be passed down to the consumer. You would be paying more per sqft for a smaller house than a larger one on the same tract, even if the overall cost is lower. A house is generally considered an investment by a buyer today; they want the most for their money, because as the value of their house grows, their own wealth grows as well.

Naturally, they end up aiming for the larger house; the per sqft price is lower after all.

But none of this has much to do with the cost of housing today. There simply aren't enough units being put up period due to having to navigate complicated zoning laws, having to obtain material to build, and potential buyers being squeezed by higher and higher interest rates.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

New homes are usually built by builders that buy up tracts of land to divide into lots. Costs the builder more to make 2 small houses than 1 that's double the size. This cost would be passed down to the consumer. You would be paying more per sqft for a smaller house than a larger one on the same tract, even if the overall cost is lower.

First off, I don't believe any of your claim without a clear citation, because subdividing parcels is usually considered more profitable than combining them into one big lot. The only time this isn't true is when there's no market for smaller parcels.

Second, you're claiming that big houses command a higher % profit than small houses, which I'd have to see citations for to believe.

Finally, your last claim that you'd be paying "more per sq. ft." is meaningless, because there's a rapidly diminishing marginal utility from additional square feet. If a bigger house brings no more happiness to the homeowner than a normal sized house, then ALL the money paid for that extra square footage is a waste, regardless of whether the "price per square foot" has gone down.

A house is generally considered an investment by a buyer today; they want the most for their money, because as the value of their house grows, their own wealth grows as well.

Naturally, they end up aiming for the larger house; the per sqft price is lower after all.

That's all based on the assumption that a larger house is a better investment, which you have no evidence for. A large house drains your finances much faster than a small house - you have higher costs to furnish, higher costs to heat, higher costs to cool, higher costs to clearn, higher insurance costs, higher property taxes, higher repair and maintenance costs. On top of that, you have to spend far more of your own valuable time maintaining a larger house/property than a smaller one. If you're incurring all those extra costs on a regular basis you could easily be losing money. And there's not guarantee that a large home's resale value is going to be better - look at all the McMansions whose prices crashed when McMansions went out of style. For all you know, 20-30 years from now smaller, more sustainable homes are going to be the rage and the market for big homes will be ass.

But none of this has much to do with the cost of housing today. There simply aren't enough units being put up period due to having to navigate complicated zoning laws

Breh, you just explicitly described a process that would result in 1/2 as many units being put up, then claim that it doesn't impact the cost of housing because the real problem is....not enough units being put up.

How the hell are these decisions resulting in half as many units not the cause of half as many units? If you built twice as many units on the same land then you wouldn't need to worry about zoning more land for housing, so your claims are inherently contradictory.

 

[yesiambowling]

First off, I don't believe any of your claim without a clear citation, because subdividing parcels is usually considered more profitable than combining them into one big lot. The only time this isn't true is when there's no market for smaller parcels.

Second, you're claiming that big houses command a higher % profit than small houses, which I'd have to see citations for to believe.

Finally, your last claim that you'd be paying "more per sq. ft." is meaningless, because there's a rapidly diminishing marginal utility from additional square feet. If a bigger house brings no more happiness to the homeowner than a normal sized house, then ALL the money paid for that extra square footage is a waste, regardless of whether the "price per square foot" has gone down.






That's all based on the assumption that a larger house is a better investment, which you have no evidence for. A large house drains your finances much faster than a small house - you have higher costs to furnish, higher costs to heat, higher costs to cool, higher costs to clearn, higher insurance costs, higher property taxes, higher repair and maintenance costs. On top of that, you have to spend far more of your own valuable time maintaining a larger house/property than a smaller one. If you're incurring all those extra costs on a regular basis you could easily be losing money. And there's not guarantee that a large home's resale value is going to be better - look at all the McMansions whose prices crashed when McMansions went out of style. For all you know, 20-30 years from now smaller, more sustainable homes are going to be the rage and the market for big homes will be ass.







Breh, you just explicitly described a process that would result in 1/2 as many units being put up, then claim that it doesn't impact the cost of housing because the real problem is....not enough units being put up.

How the hell are these decisions resulting in half as many units not the cause of half as many units? If you built twice as many units on the same land then you wouldn't need to worry about zoning more land for housing, so your claims are inherently contradictory.

Once again: it is more expensive to build 2 1000 sqft homes than 1 2000 sqft home. Subdividing the lot doesn't drive up much of the cost, it's the construction itself. This is why many housing activists push for multi-family units; it's just cheaper on the whole to build a few large units than to build many small units.

You can check the per sqft cost at any new community coming up in your area. The smaller ones are almost always more per sqft than the larger ones.

The zoning laws aren't prevent the tracts from being divided or subdivided, they're preventing the tracts from being bought up AT ALL. ZERO units in their area is the goal for most NIMBY's; they don't want you to build anything.

 

[OfTheCross]

 

[CrimsonTider]

there are multiple things at play as to why homes cost more, but america's thirst for bigger being better dating back to the 60's when homes started being built bigger than they were in the years before is part of it. it's that demand that has the burbs full of sprawling SFH's instead of the MFHs, row homes, townhouses that were built in cities.

another big issue with there being no starter homes is that more people, and investors, hang on to the homes they grow out of...where we're at is both a case of supply from builders and sellers

Big house long hallways… got 10 bathrooms

 

[EndDomination]

there needs to be vastly more multi-family housing built in the US

single family homes aren't worthwhile, are worse for the environment, make public transportation just a bit harder to develop, are more expensive, etc