The size of the bathrooms is also growing in addition to the number. That was what drove me crazy about newer homes when we were looking a few years ago. These giant master baths with jacuzzi and large shower and all the rest. Please put that space to better use elsewhere!
100% agree. I also suspect that so much of this is not necessarily what people want, but essentially baked in with the way that zoning and building codes steer developers towards buildings ever bigger single-family homes in the exurbs. There is a huge demand from family's for 1200-1600 sq foot townhomes with modest amenities in the inner ring suburbs, where you can be close to your community, grocery store, coffee shop, and parks. These would probably be cheaper than the mcMansions in the suburbs, but are illegal to build in most cities. Houston legalized them around 2000, and has seen almst 100k built since, which indicates to me that people would really love to live in them if they were legal in more places: https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/learning-houstons-townhouse-reforms
Yes, that's definitely part of it, building codes especially. It's absolutely an "in for a penny, in for a pound" dynamic with the proliferation of bathrooms, at least. The Houston townhouses are such a great example, especially since they are in a cultural space (Texas) we think of as so in love with sprawl. I continue to be surprised they aren't more widely imitated.
I'm hopeful that Houston's townhomes are starting to get more broader awareness as some of the other missing-middle reforms are not driving the supply that was hoped for. Montana and Spokane recently included Houston style lots splits in their housing reforms packages (both of which were excellent). Here in CA there was a bill to try to help facilitate lot splits, but it was watered down to exclude single-family zones (which is where they would have the most impact). But there is hope that there would be more efforts to legalize going forward
Huh! How strict is the definition of living room? My first studio was about 400 sq ft total -- all one big room except for a tiny dressing room and bathroom. My second was an attic conversion in a big, old house, consisting of an eat-in kitchen connected by a hall to a living/bedroom. Undoubtedly neither would be built today, but they were very useful and cheap.
I'm not sure - I my knowledge of the International bulidng code is pretty limited. But I believe the article said that rule was a relatively recent (1970s) "innovation", part of the urban renewal movement that included cracking down on SRO buildings that were considered blighted, but also were the most reliable form of unsubsidized deeply affordable housing
Regarding the AMA, I would love to hear what factors impacted your current worldview/opinions/approach to events. I'm probably not clearly wording that, but I'm a new reader of yours (mainly from your recent article on The Dispatch and your CT material) and really like/appreciate your opinions. And I am curious what has formed those opinions of yours. Thanks!
The size of the bathrooms is also growing in addition to the number. That was what drove me crazy about newer homes when we were looking a few years ago. These giant master baths with jacuzzi and large shower and all the rest. Please put that space to better use elsewhere!
Also true! It's wild to me to see bathrooms with the same square footage as our bedrooms--just vast expanses of tile strewn with hair.
100% agree. I also suspect that so much of this is not necessarily what people want, but essentially baked in with the way that zoning and building codes steer developers towards buildings ever bigger single-family homes in the exurbs. There is a huge demand from family's for 1200-1600 sq foot townhomes with modest amenities in the inner ring suburbs, where you can be close to your community, grocery store, coffee shop, and parks. These would probably be cheaper than the mcMansions in the suburbs, but are illegal to build in most cities. Houston legalized them around 2000, and has seen almst 100k built since, which indicates to me that people would really love to live in them if they were legal in more places: https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/learning-houstons-townhouse-reforms
Yes, that's definitely part of it, building codes especially. It's absolutely an "in for a penny, in for a pound" dynamic with the proliferation of bathrooms, at least. The Houston townhouses are such a great example, especially since they are in a cultural space (Texas) we think of as so in love with sprawl. I continue to be surprised they aren't more widely imitated.
I'm hopeful that Houston's townhomes are starting to get more broader awareness as some of the other missing-middle reforms are not driving the supply that was hoped for. Montana and Spokane recently included Houston style lots splits in their housing reforms packages (both of which were excellent). Here in CA there was a bill to try to help facilitate lot splits, but it was watered down to exclude single-family zones (which is where they would have the most impact). But there is hope that there would be more efforts to legalize going forward
Also related - I happened upon this today - apparently there is a literal requirement in the IBC building code that living rooms have to be 190 square feet - in a STUDIO apartament! We mandate dead space in what is supposed to be the most affordable form of housing! https://www.sightline.org/2023/11/02/micro-housing-its-not-about-the-size-but-how-you-use-it/
Huh! How strict is the definition of living room? My first studio was about 400 sq ft total -- all one big room except for a tiny dressing room and bathroom. My second was an attic conversion in a big, old house, consisting of an eat-in kitchen connected by a hall to a living/bedroom. Undoubtedly neither would be built today, but they were very useful and cheap.
I'm not sure - I my knowledge of the International bulidng code is pretty limited. But I believe the article said that rule was a relatively recent (1970s) "innovation", part of the urban renewal movement that included cracking down on SRO buildings that were considered blighted, but also were the most reliable form of unsubsidized deeply affordable housing
Regarding the AMA, I would love to hear what factors impacted your current worldview/opinions/approach to events. I'm probably not clearly wording that, but I'm a new reader of yours (mainly from your recent article on The Dispatch and your CT material) and really like/appreciate your opinions. And I am curious what has formed those opinions of yours. Thanks!
thanks, Kelvin!
For a silly AMA, do you prefer a Primanti's sandwich or Juicy-Lucy burger?