I just finished reading (it wasn't hard - lots of pictures :) ) Sarah Susanka's book "The Not So Big House" which emphasizes quailty over quantity.
In Land of Giants, Smallest Houses Larger Than Ever
Home Buyers Redefine Concept of Starter Home
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 9, 2006; Page A01
The virtual disappearance of smaller new homes -- which has occurred even as the average size of households has declined -- has implications for the region, planners and builders agree. It worsens sprawl, they say, because some residents end up living farther out, where smaller new homes are easier to find because land costs less.
...
"We're only designing for 20 percent of the population right now. That can't last forever," he said. "As a society, we'll have a problem because eventually no one's going to be able to afford this other stuff."
...
North Carolina architect Sarah Susanka said the popularity of her best-selling book, "The Not So Big House," suggests a growing appreciation that, with design, "you can have a house that lives much larger than its square footage." But it's still common to determine a house's quality by its size, she said.
This is particularly unfortunate at the lower end of the market, she said, since it means that buyers often end up with homes that are quite large but otherwise poorly made. Such buyers are shortchanged by not having the option of smaller but better-made homes.
Roody
07-09-06, 11:12 AM
The first rule of good design is proportion and scale. A big McMansion looks just as obscene as the SUVs parked in the driveway. And actually, the house may be even more wasteful and polluting than the vehicles. So many beautiful vistas are spoiled by both the SUVs and the houses.
This is particularly unfortunate at the lower end of the market, she said, since it means that buyers often end up with homes that are quite large but otherwise poorly made. Such buyers are shortchanged by not having the option of smaller but better-made homes.
Even the high end houses look pretty substandard as they're being built. These modern houses are basically just a shell of rigid insulation tacked onto a lightweight wooden skeleton. Any "brick" or "shingle" siding is just stapled onto that. I guess they're alleged to be as strong as tradiionally built houses, but I find that hard to believe. The ironic thing is that they have replaced sustainable building materials (wood, cement and brick) with unsustainable materials manufactured from petrochemicals (like the rigid sheathing).
KnhoJ
07-09-06, 02:15 PM
Even the high end houses look pretty substandard as they're being built. These modern houses are basically just a shell of rigid insulation tacked onto a lightweight wooden skeleton. Any "brick" or "shingle" siding is just stapled onto that. I guess they're alleged to be as strong as tradiionally built houses, but I find that hard to believe. The ironic thing is that they have replaced sustainable building materials (wood, cement and brick) with unsustainable materials manufactured from petrochemicals (like the rigid sheathing).
And out here in the Northwest, they're susceptible to mold and fungus due to all the plastic trapping moisture. I've met quite a few people who have sold houses only a few years old after the mold climbed right through the walls behind any large furniture. And that only cut the resale value by a few percent! No wonder houses are being built so cheap, you can sell anything right now.
That's why we rent. We're in some higher end apartments, and the owner seems to have paid attention to future maintenance costs during construction. Much better construction than any of the new houses I've been in. And smaller than anything we could find to buy that wasn't on the brink of condemnation. Only 1000 square feet! Our friends can't imagine how a married couple could possibly get by in such a tiny space.
wahoonc
07-09-06, 02:53 PM
Only 1000 square feet! Our friends can't imagine how a married couple could possibly get by in such a tiny space.
Glad to hear it! I still don't understand why 2 people need 3000+ sf to live. We made a conscious decision when we got married to not get more space than we really needed. We currently live in a bit over 900sf, before that it was 768 sf. Both are well designed with excellent use of space. The first one had a lot of builtins that kept the necessary furniture to a minimum. I can't find the link to the stats right now, but in the last 50 years the amount of square footage per person has almost doubled. My favorite house of all the ones I have lived in was built in the early 50's and was a whopping 864 sf, built like a tank and dead simple to maintain. IMHO the main reason they build the houses they do is $$$ There isn't as much profit in the smaller houses.
Aaron:)
oilfreeandhappy
07-09-06, 03:23 PM
I'm hoping to build a small-sized Earthship in a few years.
http://www.earthship.org/
Many of these homes are totally isolated from the grid.
atman
07-09-06, 03:45 PM
Someday we hope to build a cob home, built up out of the earth. The vision is of building a few hundred square feet a year of indoor or outdoor space until all our desires are met, following a process like that articulated so well by Christopher Alexander in his Timeless Way of Building. The prospect of living inside a sculpture of our own devising is profoundly satisfying, and a kitchen, open hearth area, bathroom and loft can be built reasonably in a single year. Add a master suite and proper bathing the next year, maybe a library or a child's cottage, a greenhouse...
Modern building methods are appalling on so many levels. Wind, for one thing. The square corner creates stresses that allow delamination of the sheathing, and then all that fiberglass is useless to retain heat. I've been in year-old stick-and-fiber houses where in a gale you could feel it when the wind changed direction. There are many more natural options, nearly all of them better choices than the de facto standard. For that matter, without getting hippy about it, switching to urethane insulation and installing a heat pump below the foundation pour will make a profound difference in the heating and cooling efficiency of a modern home.
HardyWeinberg
07-09-06, 04:22 PM
My understanding of the not-so-big-house books is that the houses are still scratch-built, which, if you don't DIY, is even pricier than McMansions. When we were in (much) greater DC, custom-built, non-subdivision houses started at around 3000 sf, builders just didn't do smaller. In our town, building lots were a 6th of an acre, so if someone was building (not DIY), they needed 2 or more (adjacent) lots to do the job (as it was priced out to them, anyway). Crazy stuff.
Our house there was nearly perfect for us, 1400 sf, good for us + Thing 1 + guest room. Out here, similar price range gets <1000 sf, much trickier w/ the addition of Thing 2, so we went the other way, 1800 sf. House is old (>100 yrs, as before), so has the most economical use of space kind of built in anyway.
I guess that's been our solution, actually, buy old so the building dates back to when there was no choice but efficient use of space/material. Might not be great insulation-wise, but at least we're not using much in the way of new raw materials or land that hadn't already been developed for a long time.
wahoonc
07-09-06, 05:29 PM
I'm hoping to build a small-sized Earthship in a few years.
http://www.earthship.org/
Many of these homes are totally isolated from the grid.
Thats pretty cool. I have been toying with the idea of earth sheltered. I have to calculate out the solar gain but I have a couple of nice spots on my property that would be ideal.
Aaron:)
8bit
07-09-06, 05:41 PM
BF and I love our cozy 743 sq. ft. where we have two kitties, 7 bikes, and a tandem all kept inside. If we're at the dinner table and need something from the fridge, we only have to tip a chair back to get it. However, in our city places like this are disappearing as people buy multiple units in the same building and punch through the walls to make one huge unit. It drives average people out of the housing market and out into the sprawl.
I think people have gotten used to the home decorating magazine sense of space. In all of those magazines, there's a significant amount of space in order to highlight items of furniture and nobody in the pictures has any of their stuff out. What a way to live! Do people really love cleaning that much? Is there really a need for both a dine-in kitchen and a dining room, or a family room, living room and one of those goofy 'great rooms'? And how do people heat/cool those 2-story open spaces with so many massive windows?
If I wasn't in this city, I'd probably have a tumbleweed tiny house (http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/) . They're everything I could ever want in a standalone house.
chennai
07-09-06, 05:49 PM
I heard an interesting chat on the radio this weekend about how larger houses affect personalities and "family life." One of the key points was that family members now often have their own space to a great degree - their own rooms, computers, tvs, etc. This, according to the speaker, eliminates experience "negotiating" with other family members.
Interesting ideas. Another thing to add to my list of ways our modern environment shapes who we are and how we think.
Slow Train
07-09-06, 06:29 PM
My understanding of the not-so-big-house books is that the houses are still scratch-built, which, if you don't DIY, is even pricier than McMansions. When we were in (much) greater DC, custom-built, non-subdivision houses started at around 3000 sf, builders just didn't do smaller.
Yes - she argues for smaller well-designed custom houses with quality finishes versus large plain vanilla McMansions. The cost would be about the same and both too much for the general housing market. But her hope is that consumer demand would turn from focusing on just square footage and specific purpose rooms toward wanting better designed spaces. Then, perhaps, the tract builders would start providing these to the masses at affordable prices.
You hear so much about the "free market" and how it is just providing what the consumer wants. But sometimes I think what we are offered is what makes the most economical sense for the producer and they just spend a little extra convincing us that its what we should want.
If you have never lived in a well-designed space that fit your needs then how are you going to know one when you see it?
Roody
07-10-06, 11:13 AM
I think we've avoided one thing that really makes this issue relevant to a bicycle forum--maybe just because the issue is so obvious it doesn't need stating.
Large houses on large lots are one contributor to sprawl. When houses are further apart, as when there are 10 housing units per mile of frontage in an upscale exurban subdivision, as opposed to hundreds of units per mile in a moderately dense urban area, all destinations are much further apart. This is very inconvenient for bicyclists as well as pedestrians and bus route planners.
Platy
07-10-06, 02:01 PM
I think we've avoided one thing that really makes this issue relevant to a bicycle forum--maybe just because the issue is so obvious it doesn't need stating.
Large houses on large lots are one contributor to sprawl. When houses are further apart, as when there are 10 housing units per mile of frontage in an upscale exurban subdivision, as opposed to hundreds of units per mile in a moderately dense urban area, all destinations are much further apart. This is very inconvenient for bicyclists as well as pedestrians and bus route planners.
Urban densification has lots of potential efficiencies and advantages. At some point it becomes economically attractive to go from small house / small lot neighborhoods to high rise buildings.
There is actually one form of public transit in North America that is widely accepted, free, and works very well. It's the elevator.
eofelis
07-10-06, 02:40 PM
BF and I love our cozy 743 sq. ft. where we have two kitties, 7 bikes, and a tandem all kept inside. If we're at the dinner table and need something from the fridge, we only have to tip a chair back to get it. However, in our city places like this are disappearing as people buy multiple units in the same building and punch through the walls to make one huge unit. It drives average people out of the housing market and out into the sprawl.
I think people have gotten used to the home decorating magazine sense of space. In all of those magazines, there's a significant amount of space in order to highlight items of furniture and nobody in the pictures has any of their stuff out. What a way to live! Do people really love cleaning that much? Is there really a need for both a dine-in kitchen and a dining room, or a family room, living room and one of those goofy 'great rooms'? And how do people heat/cool those 2-story open spaces with so many massive windows?
We have a small space too, about 800 sq. ft. (it's over a 4 car garage). We rent. We have the means to buy right now, but we really like renting. We don't like yard work or working on the house type stuff. Apartment living keep things simple for us. We also have 2 kitties, and 10 bikes! The bikes are all inside (one in the garage). It's like the bedouins living with their horses.
Since our place is on the second floor, we can keep windows open during warm weather without worrying about having any "unauthorized visitors." This place is also a great location, we can walk to PO, bank, grocery store, hardware store and the college I'm taking classes at. All other things are biking distance. We are not car free at all, but car-lite (and trying to be car-wise: 12 yo Toyota truck & 15 yo Subaru).
If we did buy a house, we'd look first in this neighborhood.
It's hard enough to keep up with cleaning this place, I can't imagine having a big house to clean. Having less space encourages us to have less stuff also. (Well, less stuff that's not bike stuff....:)
jimmuter
07-10-06, 02:51 PM
Only 1000 square feet! Our friends can't imagine how a married couple could possibly get by in such a tiny space.
Ha! We live in an 1,100 sq. ft. home with one bathroom. I have a wife and 2 boys (and a big dog). The home was built in 1939 and I'd say it will outlast much of today's new construction. It's sturdy and solid.
KrisA
07-11-06, 11:46 AM
Cool discussion. I've always felt that modern homes, for the most part, are cheap garbage, like most consumer products in North America. I've also wondered why everyone needs all that space, do you hate your family that much that you never want to see them? Besides that all the modern glues, carpets, paint fumes in new home are PROVEN to make people sick.
All that said, my wife and I LOVE our 950sf, 1929, 2 bedroom house. It's built like a tank (although I feel for the old growth trees that were cut to make the old place! :)), cool in the summer (thanks to the 80 year old trees encircling it), OK to heat in the winter, looks great, has "character" that you can't buy anymore, etc. We have two kids (2.5 and 1, boy, girl) who currently are sharing a room, if we can afford it we would like to convert part of the attic into a loft for our bedroom so kids can have their own rooms on the main floor (basement too dank to live it, great for storing bikes though!). I'd also love to put in a geothermal heating/cooling system one day with in floor heat.
HardyWeinberg
07-11-06, 11:58 AM
There was a NYT article like 15 yrs ago looking at construction quality on Long Island, and it found that basically under $1 million (at that time, probably, what, 5X that now), all houses were built the same. Increase in expenditure might get you more parts or shinier parts but not parts that would make the house stand any longer, or any more amenable to upgrading. I wish I'd saved that article.
Nightshade
07-11-06, 12:43 PM
Ha! We live in an 1,100 sq. ft. home with one bathroom. I have a wife and 2 boys (and a big dog). The home was built in 1939 and I'd say it will outlast much of today's new construction. It's sturdy and solid.
'Tis very true, mate. Up until the 1990's most new houses were "right sized" to the human scale.
Then....ta-da....some real estate genius decided to foist off Mac Mansions as the better way to
live today. What a seriously dumb idea!! :mad:
I really feel sorry for all the people who have been sucked into the Mac Mansion lifestyle because
if oil prices cause the economy to tank like I think it will these suburban Mac Mansion tract houses
will be a new slum when they all wind up in the street.
Folk's used to know how to build, and live in,right sized homes and property. My old house is a monster
at 1700 sq ft!!!
C Law
07-11-06, 02:19 PM
the wife and I decided to go the timberframe route our new house. I would agree that most of the houses that we looked at being built around us with traditional stick frames were poorly built and thrown up hastily with the idea of putting the largest possible footprint on the existing lot to obtain the greatest square footage.
Not that appealling for us.
I will say that we are starting a family and we will be building a 2500 sqft house though (including home offices) flame me if you must for building a house that is too large, but according to the town planning and zoning, our house will be the smallest residential structure built around us within recent memory( save additions). The next largest? Pool houses and garages. no joke.
chicbicyclist
07-12-06, 01:56 AM
McMansions are just EWWWWWWWWWW aesthetically. The Abercrombie and Fitch of archtecture. They are a prepackaged lifestyle. Tacky to boot, too. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Nightshade
07-12-06, 06:33 AM
I will say that we are starting a family and we will be building a 2500 sqft house though (including home offices) flame me if you must for building a house that is too large, but according to the town planning and zoning, our house will be the smallest residential structure built around us within recent memory( save additions).
Build what you will , mate. However, consider using a old building method empolyed in older homes
that allow you to close off parts of the house when not needed. If you look at older homes there are
few hallways and many doors to allow "flexing" of the house to match the need. I can close off all but
one room of my old house or chose to leave it all open as there is no hallway at all in my house as
all the doors open into a core room. Modern house plans waste much space on hallways so design the
house to elimnate them as much as possible.
oilfreeandhappy
07-16-06, 02:39 PM
For our first home, my wife and I bought an old farmhouse built in 1867. It had a massive stone foundation with 3-wide brick walls atop that, and true 2x12 beams in the basement. It had brick interior firewalls for structural loading. Back then, they didn't have concrete, so all the mortar was a lime/sand mixture. I did a lot of tuckpointing and rehabbing to that house, but in the end it was a fortress. Unfortunately, my work took me to a different city, and we sold the place. The new owners were a young couple with whom we kept in contact for a few years. They talked about the desire to grow old in that house.
They definitely don't make them like that anymore!
maddyfish
07-20-06, 09:07 PM
I used to live in a 1400s.f. box. I now live in a 100 year old 3400s.f. house. I love it. I don't mind driving less, combining trips, so forth. But stay away from my house. I love my big house. Alot.