Truth is, we love ‘em. While part of the population endorses the “small is beautiful” approach, huge numbers of folks adore elephantine houses.

Like our meals, today’s homes have been super-sized. The Census Bureau reports that the typical house in 1950 had 983 sq. ft. while in 2007 the National Association of Home Builders says that the average finished area was 2,479 sq. ft.

Compare today’s dreadnoughts with past homes and the differences are quickly apparent. There are now more bedrooms, higher ceilings, grander baths, smaller living rooms, bigger kitchens, more garages — but fewer people per house.

The Census Bureau says that in 1950 the average household had 3.37 people while in 2007 that same household typically had 2.56 residents.

Here’s what the math says: In 1950 we had 291.69 sq. ft. of household space per resident, an average which rose to 968.36 sq. ft, in 2007.

Real estate leviathans are being created in response to several factors.

First, there is a public preference for larger homes, the idea that when it comes to square footage more is inherently better.

Second, zoning restrictions in major metro areas have made residential land more expensive to acquire and develop — factors which virtually require the construction of larger homes. Snobby zoning rules have also created minimum lot and home sizes to assure that small houses are not erected.

Third, today’s homes have a different feature set than in the past — more stuff equals a higher price — and more stuff needs more space.

Those who want less expensive homes are often out of luck. To overcome this problem, some jurisdictions are requiring builders to set aside some land for “affordable” housing.

Such rules are good news for the few who get the cheaper units. However, if a builder has 100 units and 10 must be townhouses or condos set aside as affordable housing, the cost for the remaining 90 single-family homes will increase if only because there are fewer market-rate units available.

There is now something of a revolt against larger homes, at least in the sense of replacement houses, an insurrection that seeks to ban McMansions from established communities where barn-like structures often loom over existing — and smaller — homes.

The claim is that such big houses are an “eyesore,” something which owners obviously dispute. Happily, efforts to limit home size on the basis of aesthetics are doomed because real estate beauty, like beauty generally, is solely in the eye of the beholder.

But there is something about larger homes which is not debatable: Big houses — especially those with 9 ft. and 10 ft. ceilings, two- and three-story open spaces and cathedral ceilings — have vastly-more interior cubic volume than traditional homes and thus require more energy to heat and cool. The result is that larger homes disproportionately increase demand for natural gas and electrical energy — and that excess demand raises utility costs even for those with the most-modest of homes.

It’s not enough to say that the marketplace will impact the owners of large homes with bigger monthly utility costs. It must also be recognized that given limited supplies of energy, utility bills for everyone increase as a result of larger homes.

The idea of limiting home construction on the basis of mere size is repulsive because that should be a matter of individual choice. But the idea of taxing homes on the basis of energy consumption would do much to show the real cost of neighborhood whales; homes that like SUVs hurt an essential national interest, the need for energy independence.

While an SUV will be dumped in a decade or so, big houses will be with us for generations. Mega-homes are obsolete structures from the moment of construction and costly to us all in the search for reduced energy consumption. We already have a gas guzzler tax, so why not a “furnace guzzler” tax for homes? The purpose would be not just to collect money but also to make the point that we all pay for excess fuel consumption.

With a furnace guzzler tax every housing unit would be allotted so many calories of energy per year per resident. Use more energy than allowed and there would be an additional tax. The tax would be graduated so that the more excess energy used, the greater the penalty.

You can bet that with a furnace guzzler tax energy-efficient appliances would be trendy, insulation would be a big topic at parties and ultimately energy use would decline — much to the benefit of everyone. You can also bet that a lot of people would find work upgrading the nation’s housing stock — and that too is a benefit to everyone.

————————
Published originally by Realty Times on October 25, 2005 and posted with permission.

Should There Be a “Furnace Guzzler” Tax? is a post from: OurBroker.com -- Refinance, Home Mortgage Loans & Rates, Home Equity Loan

Technorati Tags: consumption, energy, feet, foot, furnace, guzzler, home, mortgage, real estate, square, tax

Bigger homes, of course, require more dollars to buy, finance, refinance, insure, heat, air condition, and carpet. The equation is bigger homes = bigger mortgages — and we all know how bigger mortgages impact monthly payments.

It’s not just that we have more interior area, we have also packed more features into today’s houses including, says the NAHB, whirlpool bathtubs, gas fireplaces, gourmet kitchen appliances, state-of-the-art home security systems and low-maintenance exterior materials, make new homes more comfortable and livable than ever. Also, homes built today are also more energy efficient. In fact, new homes are about twice as energy efficient as new homes were just 20 years ago.”

In most communities you can almost date the housing stock by the size of local palaces. The trend seems to be massive footprints on small lots — an approach which creates a lot of interior square footage with little exterior space to maintain.

At a time when there is a strong need for affordable housing, huge and expensive homes are virtually required by the economics of land acquisition. You can’t build small and cheap in most metro areas because the cost to acquire and develop property is so great. In addition, zoning ordinances and minimum lot sizes assure an effective housing shortage in many areas — thus a major reason for rising prices.

People with large holdings and big incomes have choices while those on the cusp of subsistence do not. The failure of our housing market is that we are very good at plans, restrictions and zoning — and not so good at affordable housing. We’ve taken the reward motive out of affordable housing because builders in many communities cannot profitably-construct cheap homes and still meet zoning requirements.

But less expensive homes are possible, sensible and necessary. Smaller lots combined with smaller homes can certainly be built — if allowed. And such homes can easily work for many households: Just look at the typical home sizes from five decades ago — and then look at the number of occupants per house. According to the Census Bureau, the average household had 3.37 people in 1950 — and 2.56 people in 2007.

What we have now are fewer people per household and cavernous, echo-filled structures in which they are housed. This makes little sense in terms of land usage, energy consumption, environmental issues or cost.

Today we increase home values by limiting supply, a better approach would be to increase home prices by enlarging the pool of qualified buyers. We’d have more buyers if we had more affordable housing, homes that can appreciate in value and allow owners to build equity, increase household wealth over-time and re-enter the marketplace as move-up buyers.

As an owner it’s in your self-interest to want the largest possible pool of move-up buyers, a group that represents some 60 percent of the existing home marketplace. Increase the number of move-up buyers and your home is likely to sell faster and for more money. The catch is that you can’t have move up-buyers unless they have properties to replace — thus the need for affordable housing.

Community planning today favors the upwardly mobile, the already settled, growing congestion and a numbing architectural sameness. We are using land regulation to limit affordable housing at the very same time we claim that affordable housing is an attractive and desirable goal — except where we live.

————————
Published originally by Realty Times on October 24, 2003 and posted with permission.

Mega Homes Versus Real Estate Sanity is a post from: OurBroker.com -- Refinance, Home Mortgage Loans & Rates, Home Equity Loan

Technorati Tags: 1950, 2007, family size, feet, footage, home, monthly, mortgage, payment, real estate, size, square

Some folks measure inside wall to inside wall, others measure to a point halfway into the wall. Some count garages, balconies, and patios, others do not. Some owners and builders count basements, others only count “finished” living space. Another way to measure space is to look at the outside dimensions of a house.

When someone says a home has a given number of square feet, it’s useful to ask how such calculations were made.

Here’s why:

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) establishes "the procedures to be followed in measuring and calculating the square footage of detached and attached single-family dwellings, including townhouses, row houses, and other side-by-side houses in the United States." The standard they use is called Protocol Z765-2003. The problem? It’s not a standard because it’s voluntary.

What’s The Right Way To Measure Square Footage? is a post from: OurBroker.com -- Refinance, Home Mortgage Loans & Rates, Home Equity Loan

Technorati Tags: ANSI, feet, foot, square, standard

If you have a small unit, you probably prefer the one-unit, one-vote approach. If you have a large unit, you probably want proportional voting.

For details, see property incorporation papers, declarations, by-laws, rules, regulations, and related paperwork.

How Does Condo Voting Work? is a post from: OurBroker.com -- Refinance, Home Mortgage Loans & Rates, Home Equity Loan

Technorati Tags: condo, feet, unit, voting