Sunday, August 07, 2011

Another Chart: Home Size Bubble

According to the Census Bureau, the average size of new single-family homes built in 2010 was 2,392 square feet, the lowest average new home size since 2004 (2,349 square feet).  Another housing bubble that is now deflating - the "home size bubble."

8 Comments:

At 8/07/2011 9:21 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Although, the U.S. is a developed country, there's still a lot of undeveloped land.

Many new cities were created and many small cities became much larger.

 
At 8/07/2011 7:07 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

The average 1950s home in Canada was around the same size as a three car garage today. Some would argue that a smaller household does not need a growing home size.

 
At 8/07/2011 7:08 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Although, the U.S. is a developed country, there's still a lot of undeveloped land.

That is likely to remain. Cities are much more efficient and offer far more opportunities and services to a population. As a result you will see more and more people live in cities and an emptier countryside.

 
At 8/08/2011 7:09 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"As a result you will see more and more people live in cities and an emptier countryside"...

Well vangeIV it sounds logical but just from my own personal experiences I've seen just the opposite happen over the last forty years...

In my hometown of Laredo, Tx there are subdivisions where I used to be able to go hunting...

In college I was in south most part of Austin, Tx and to go hunting and fishing for me back in the late sixties and early seventies it was just a relatively short drive (twenty to thirty miles) to go hunting and fishing deep into the sticks... Now its almost non-stop housing and industrial areas between Austin to San Antonio (about 80 miles)...

I've seen the samething in Chicago/Cook county area and in the St. Louis/St. Louis county area...

The expansion didn't really stop it seems (though it slowed up a bit) during the first gasoline crisis during the Carter administration...

So this sort of begs the question, 'just how far is it now to the countryside?"...

I'm curious as to what is your definition of distance to the countryside today...

 
At 8/08/2011 7:31 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Well vangeIV it sounds logical but just from my own personal experiences I've seen just the opposite happen over the last forty years...

In my hometown of Laredo, Tx there are subdivisions where I used to be able to go hunting...


The record is clear if you want to look at it. People moved from the countryside into cities. While some of your horrible policies have pushed some people out of inner cities into the surrounding suburbs they are still living an urban rather than a rural lifestyle.

In the case of your city it grew from 60,000 in 1960 to 240,000 people today. The numbers support my view, not yours.

I've seen the samething in Chicago/Cook county area and in the St. Louis/St. Louis county area...

As I wrote above, lousy city governments and terrible federal laws have caused many inner city areas to empty out into surrounding cities with smaller populations where the same laws do not have as negative an effect. But the numbers still say the same thing. There are less people living in rural areas today than used to several decades ago. People move to cities because they are more efficient. The problem is the loss of freedom in some cities due to overreaching regulations that cause people to move to other urban areas.

 
At 8/08/2011 8:20 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

vang-

i think one of the other key trends here is retiring boomers.

the urbanization trend you discuss has been going on for decades, but never showed up in the numbers until very recently.

you had you kids and stayed in the house while you worked.

then you retire and just want less space. you may have wanted 4000 ft or whatever when you hads 2 or 3 kids, but as a retired couple, 2000 might seem more manageable/cost effective.

 
At 8/08/2011 3:49 PM, Blogger Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

Based on my memory (which may be faulty), the average square footage of a new hoouse built in 1950 was around 1000 sq. ft. At this point, I don't see square footage as a bubble, but it is still a trend.

 
At 8/08/2011 9:50 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

then you retire and just want less space. you may have wanted 4000 ft or whatever when you hads 2 or 3 kids, but as a retired couple, 2000 might seem more manageable/cost effective.

Actually, I believe that Mark has been pointing out that household size has been shrinking since the 1970s so the size of houses should have been getting smaller. But thanks to loose money and misguided tax policies people chose larger homes than they otherwise would have.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home