It is no surprise that houses have been getting larger. The size of the average American home has risen from 938 square feet in the 1950's to 2,349 square feet today. In that same time frame the size of the American family has shrunk from 3.37 to 2.67. This growth is not necessarily a bad thing. An increase in the standard of living for the average American family is a sign of prosperity. Some may argue that it's also a sign of largesse or environmental irresponsibility. True, nothing can match the ecological performance of poverty. Since that is not a palatable solution to many then we need to adopt smarter patterns of growth. The house, as we move from 1950 through to today, (d)evolved into a simple box. With efficiencies in construction materials and methods a number of the driving factors pertaining to cost were reined in, especially time. With the post-war manufacturing and production mentality coupled with cul-de-sac subdivisions and a new modern architecture that stripped the detailing off the homes of yesteryear, it was possible to build larger and faster for the same price or less. It allowed the American dream of owning your own home to become a reality for millions. The early success of those subdivisions naturally encouraged other would-be developers to enter the fray. They needed to find a competitive edge in this new market and found it by understanding what they were really selling: The Dream. The Dream was more about lifestyle than architectural style. It wasn't about columns and cornices, it was about escaping the cramped quarters of the city for the open spaces of the country. It was freedom; a hard won freedom for those returning from WWII. The developers competed with each other by offering more freedom than the other guy. Room sizes started getting a little bigger. Then new must-have spaces were created for the home. More rooms were added to the list; like the den, then the family room, the breakfast nook, country kitchen, extra bedrooms, and so on until we reach where we are today. Nowadays a home must have a living room, family room, dining room, home office, sitting area off the master bedroom, and even a room for the home theater to complete The Dream. We also increased the number of bathrooms in the house, as well as the number of fixtures per bathroom. Other than the bathrooms, though, you'll notice the other extra rooms have something in common: no plumbing. The most expensive rooms in the house are the kitchen and the bathrooms because they are the only ones that have fixtures and cabinets. The rest is considered 'cheap space'. When you look at the average American house you'll notice that it has mostly grown by adding that cheap space. The more cheap space you add the more you can bring down the average cost of construction per square foot. This is the math that home builders competing with each other figured out way back when. So they made you drive a little further for a bigger house. More house = more freedom, or so they thought. In the next post we'll discuss how this thinking skewed the perceptions of the industry and how the attempt to provide more for less led to less livability.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Build Small, Live Large :: Morphology
It is no surprise that houses have been getting larger. The size of the average American home has risen from 938 square feet in the 1950's to 2,349 square feet today. In that same time frame the size of the American family has shrunk from 3.37 to 2.67. This growth is not necessarily a bad thing. An increase in the standard of living for the average American family is a sign of prosperity. Some may argue that it's also a sign of largesse or environmental irresponsibility. True, nothing can match the ecological performance of poverty. Since that is not a palatable solution to many then we need to adopt smarter patterns of growth. The house, as we move from 1950 through to today, (d)evolved into a simple box. With efficiencies in construction materials and methods a number of the driving factors pertaining to cost were reined in, especially time. With the post-war manufacturing and production mentality coupled with cul-de-sac subdivisions and a new modern architecture that stripped the detailing off the homes of yesteryear, it was possible to build larger and faster for the same price or less. It allowed the American dream of owning your own home to become a reality for millions. The early success of those subdivisions naturally encouraged other would-be developers to enter the fray. They needed to find a competitive edge in this new market and found it by understanding what they were really selling: The Dream. The Dream was more about lifestyle than architectural style. It wasn't about columns and cornices, it was about escaping the cramped quarters of the city for the open spaces of the country. It was freedom; a hard won freedom for those returning from WWII. The developers competed with each other by offering more freedom than the other guy. Room sizes started getting a little bigger. Then new must-have spaces were created for the home. More rooms were added to the list; like the den, then the family room, the breakfast nook, country kitchen, extra bedrooms, and so on until we reach where we are today. Nowadays a home must have a living room, family room, dining room, home office, sitting area off the master bedroom, and even a room for the home theater to complete The Dream. We also increased the number of bathrooms in the house, as well as the number of fixtures per bathroom. Other than the bathrooms, though, you'll notice the other extra rooms have something in common: no plumbing. The most expensive rooms in the house are the kitchen and the bathrooms because they are the only ones that have fixtures and cabinets. The rest is considered 'cheap space'. When you look at the average American house you'll notice that it has mostly grown by adding that cheap space. The more cheap space you add the more you can bring down the average cost of construction per square foot. This is the math that home builders competing with each other figured out way back when. So they made you drive a little further for a bigger house. More house = more freedom, or so they thought. In the next post we'll discuss how this thinking skewed the perceptions of the industry and how the attempt to provide more for less led to less livability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Plenty of developers want to be the first to be second. In other words they want somebody else to blaze the trail, and pay for all the res...
-
As someone who has been working in the planning profession for over a decade I can honestly say I had never heard of Agenda 21. The first...
No comments:
Post a Comment