Another Chart: Home Size Bubble
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Sunday, August 07, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Charts of the Day
- Map of the Government War on Lemonade Stands
- Monster Employment Index Increases 4.4% in July
- Lemonade Freedom Day: August 20
- Big Eight Computer Reported Huge Profits in Q2
- July Employment Report
- Markets in Everything: Cutting Cars in Half
- Amid All of the Bad News, a Few Positive Items
- June Seattle Existing Home Sales Highest in 4 Years
- The Brokers with Hands on Their Faces Blog
8 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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
<< Home