I realize from maximum investment by the developer, bigger seems to be better anymore. However from my standpoint, I don't see how the majority of people need 5000-6000 sf McMansions, so it seems like the options are limited on new housing anymore. My single family is 1600sf and is more than plenty for 2 people and it's easy to clean, maintain etc.

I think 1100 sf in in a condo is good, however when I read your description my thought was "strange layout". I wouldn't buy a small condo that I had to deal with 2 flights of stairs to live in. I would rather have wider, than tall and skinny.

I think once you're used to space , it's difficult to move down to a smaller house. We're currently in a 2900 sq ft home and we're downsizing on our next move because all the kids are gone. But downsizing to us means a 2000 sq ft ranch because we still want the large master suite, still want the formal dining room as well as eat in kitchen, and it's difficult to get decent room sizes and all those rooms in anything smaller than 2000 sq ft.

Our first home was 1200 sq feet and at the time seemed large to us, that was 30 years ago. Now we'd think of it as tiny, but we've just become accustomed to space.

Well this hit a bit of a nerve. I built a house a couple of years ago and spent a lot of time in the Building a Home forum. It is quite apparent that home sizes have been increasing rapidly for awhile as builders managed to keep the overall prices down. The subject would come up because these people on there are ROUTINELY building 4,000' houses - that was the most common size! And it seemed to me that people know they can do with less, that less would be smarter because then they wouldn't spend so much money on more decorating junk or that their kids really didn't need every toy on the market, and that it was environmentally unfriendly on many levels - but they still wanted it and would get very defensive - if I can afford it I can have it and I'm not going to feel bad. Very American. If I can afford it screw everything else. Even if it makes me unhappy. The concern about never seeing your kids got kicked around as a potential donwside to really big. I mean how do you keep track of what your teenager is doing in a 6,000' house?
People want so much STUFF, and they need a place to put it.
Go to the small homes forum - people on there are talking about 1800 sq ft homes, their on the small homes forum because 1800' is small. Blows my mind. I built a 1470' with a really nice, dry full walkout basement, currently not finished but easily could be, oversize 2 car garage, plenty of room on the acreage for barns and tool sheds and the comments I'm getting are - its too small. I put the money I could have gotten in more size into insulation and geo-thermal. Who cares.
The only thing that will stop this trend is inflation, recession, cost of energy going up because people are just to stupid and lack the self-will to stop themselves. What's going to happen when you can't keep these behomeths heated? What's going to happen when no one will buy them? We'll all pay. Ok, done ranting.
I think 1100 square feet is fine. But I'm not surprised your getting your comments.
One thing though - you may not be getting the commens from Condo type people - i.e. high cost of living city/urban types who have the expectations that your designing for. In NYC that would probably seem huge. For upper middle class surbanites 1100' feet is....shocking! :) You might as well be asking them to move to a cell at Gitmo.

In my defense, I actually posted to the forum before (some time back) with a similar size layout but without the multiple floors (I recently changed the building design). The response was still negative regarding the intended unit size of about 1,100 sq ft. I just wanted a little insight regarding unit/house size this time around. The size thing always interested me.

My concern with a big home is maintenance cost is usually relative to size. And then there is the cleaning (who can possibly clean a 5,000 sq ft home properly without hiring a maid?). And finally there is the energy factor. I wouldn't even want to know what it costs to heat/cool a 5,000 sq ft home.

I said this last week and I'll say it again, I don't care how many square feet a house is; if it is not set up right, who wants it?

I walked a rancher on 3 acres of property 2 weeks ago. When walking in, it was obvious a man designed the layout or changes. It looked like the 2 car garage was taken for 2 rooms, the kitchen was not user friendly (oven on left, cook top on right with an island in the middle of the floor. The fridge was on the back wall. It also had steep steps.

I started typing out a post to your other one but didn't have time to finish it. I went to realtor.com to look at what is being offered in Hawaii. From what I saw there were a lot of high rises. I also didn't see any without a full size fridge. I don't think you mentioned the price you're thinking of listing at, so it's hard to compare.

I did some measuring this morning. The size of the floors are much smaller then the front of my L shaped ranch. I'm not so sure I'd like to live on 3 floors that size.

I really dislike the spiral stairs and wonder if that will eventually kill you as a builder. Maybe people do things different in Hawaii, I don't know. You may be better off finding a city forum to get feedback from people that will actually live in it.

"I find it strange that people think 1,100 sq ft is small for a two bedroom condo."

It isn't too small if it is all one floor. Your condos are four floors, right? (Parking level plus the three floors of living space.)

Splitting 1100 sq ft into three levels----and adding a spiral staircase as the only access to one of those levels... you lost me as a buyer.

The spiral staircase is a deal breaker on its own. But cutting up the floor space like that (even without the spiral).... well, we could not live there.

My family (5 of us) live in a 1700sf house, and it's just the right size. Before buying this house we looked at a lot of larger new construction. Everything had too much wasted space for me, and awkward floorplans. I would think 1100sf is fine for a two bedroom condo, but the floorplan makes a big difference.

By the way, I grew up in a 3500sf house. There were six kids, and the house seemed plenty big to us (six bedrooms, three full baths). When my parents sold the house, the new owners doubled the square footage. They needed more space for their one child.

Well, this is opportune for me. Just yesterday, my DH was attending an all-day new branch grand opening. They had various guest speakers throughout the day including REALTORS & builders. DH was telling me last night that all the talk from builders was about zero lot-line, smaller homes with high-end finishes. Land costs on both coasts has become so expensive that they can't continue to build McMansions (even on the postage stamp size lots of 2001-2005). They said that people are still wanting high-end finishes but not the square footage for all of the reasons noted above; but, mostly the energy costs. So, the builder's planners are now engaged in designing 1,400-2,000 s.f. "patio style" homes to hit the market when the current over supply of homes is exhausted.

The REALTORS said that the very large homes (3,500 s.f. & above) are hard to sell even now. It's smaller homes that are representing whatever sales are occuring. It's a combination of factors: high initial price, fear of even higher energy costs, maintenance, furnishing expense, landscape expense, & taxes. (not in any order...just as I remember DH from last night) So, I expect to see dramatically different new homes in about five years...maybe sooner if the glut moves out sooner.

The builders said that they've allowed many of their land option contracts to expire. When they start opening new subdivisions again there's going to be a lot of zero lot line projects to hold down costs. Oh, also...in CA, apparently, there's a large push towards smaller homes because of electricity requirements. The builders spoke of having to build with solar & noted that already many CA homes are converting & selling excess power to the grid. Going "Green" is going to be the next big push in what we see happening in new homes & McMansions are decidedly not "Green". The "Green" movement is really gathering steam due to the "Global Warming" issue. Builders are trying to get ahead of the curve & not wanting to get stuck with a bunch of 4,000 s.f. homes when it becomes not PC to own them.

The country moves in waves & at least according to this particular set of national home builders & REALTORS a sea change is on the horizon.

Oh, DH also mentioned that finishes like bamboo & cork flooring will be the new "hardwood"...again, the "Green" thing.

Tricia

Oh good grief, not this again. Why are so many interested in what others can or can't afford and / or how they choose to live their lives?

We have a 5500 sq. ft. custom built home and there are just the three of us. We actually use all of our space (gasp!). My husband and I each own our own businesses which require a considerable amount of home office space. Since all of our family is from out of town we have extended stay houseguests quite frequently. We also entertain quite a bit. We designed this home based around our lifestyle and honestly, I wouldn't mind more space.

As for the expense. Our heating / cooling bills are not that far off from the condo that we lived in when building. We have a high efficiency system. We do have a cleaning service and a landscaper / gardener since between our careers and our son we are always busy. As for affording it, our house is mortgage free. The house is not our only asset (nor is it our largest one) and we are completely debt free in all other regards. As for the enviornmental impact, my husband and I contribute to society in many ways. Not the least of which is that our businesses provide employment and we contribute to charities. I fail to see why on this and the building board I constantly have to defend my lifestyle.

C

Size is all about perception.. My guess is those luxury 1100sf condos are priced $1000 or more per sf. Higher prices mean less sf. Areas where land is scarce have smaller houses on average. I'd think Honolulu is an extremely expensive place to build/buy. You're designing a condo which is larger than average for Hono, but smaller than average nearly every place else.
You'd be hard pressed to find a new home with less than 3000sf in my area where home cost about $125 per sf including land. You could build smaller, but resale can be a problem.
Funny thing is, those smaller Susan Susanka influenced houses often cost so much per sf that they're more expensive than the behemoths mentioned.

We will never reach consensus on this board on the subject... doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. Most of the people on BAH can afford their large houses. Does that mean we all agree they are a good idea? Of course not. It is silly to insist that big-house owners are overextended and shallow, just as it is silly to insist that concerns over building quality, energy use and use of resources are irrelevant.

I like my roomy (to me) house at 2900 sf for 5. Doesn't mean I don't worry about resale (terrifies me) or the effort to keep it up (just hired somebody to clean floors and bathrooms for me 2X a month). Because of improvements in insulation/windows/etc energy use is comparable to our 1900, 35 year old house. I personally applaud the trend toward smaller houses-- there will always be wealthy people who can afford to build showplaces, but I'm glad that "normal" seems to shrinking back after expanding for a couple of decades.

Oh good grief, not this again. Why are so many interested in what others can or can't afford and / or how they choose to live their lives?

Because everybodies choices affect everybody else. If some element of society can afford the electric to keep a 10,000 sq foot house lit 24/7 - is it right that everyone else has to suffer through brown outs? I don't care what someone can afford. If someone wants to spend a million on a piece of modern art when it seems to me that it could be used to better affect - fine, I don't complain. But I do care about people having some modicum of personal and environmental consideration in a big picture sort of way. And this huge bubble of huge houses will have negative impacts on me and my family.

carolineb,

You don't need to defend anything. I was just relaying what a group of national builders & REALTORS were telling a bunch of bankers at a grand opening yesterday. They were not custom home builders. The speakers represented large, NYSE home builders who build for the "masses". They spoke for 3 hours, taking Q&A's, about what they see on the horizon in shifting attitudes across the country with reference to home styles. These corporations plan many years in advance of actual building & it is hard to turn the bus quickly. They are constantly conducting surveys, etc. in an attempt to stay well ahead of trends. At the seminar yesterday, all were in agreement that building "Green" will be leading the way with the next generation of home styles in the country. Smaller, energy efficient (including solar), much less land, multi-purpose convertible rooms, & lots of storage. DH said that one speaker noted that they were even conferring with large yacht builders to design multi-purpose, efficiency, & storage solutions into the smaller homes. That comment caught DH's ear because we are boat owners.

Could they be wrong? Of course, but I imagine their CEO's are hoping they are not.

Tricia

I'm glad to read what you say, Tricia, about the change on the horizon for new home styles. It was incredibly frustrating for me to look for homes this last time because the new construction was just awful - oversized, poor layout, cheap materials. We had sold our house and didn't want to rent for a year while working with an architect to design our own.

What you say about consulting Yacht builders - that's so right on. I saw a Cape Cod style house up in Buzzard's Bay a few years ago that had the best details inside, and a very efficient layout. The storage in the children's rooms was fantastic. The house was built by a boat builder.

There are many sides to this. We have 6 children, 3 grown (1 married with child) and 3 at home. We lived quite comfortably in a 3000 sq. ft. home in New York's Hudson Valley. This past year we moved into a 4300 square foot home in NC. Do I have extra space? NO! With the move came job changes-my husband and I both require office space. We choose to keep this at home so that we can spend any spare minute with our kids. Therefore we do not rent space or use and pay for utilities elsewhere. We also don't use extra gas commuting and we both drive older model vehicles. My parents decided to retire and move here to be closer to the kids- they moved in with us. That's another home saved and not using energy. We have 5 bedrooms (us, my parents, my DD, my 2 boys share, and 1 guest room also used by my father as a computer room). We have frequent visits from my inlaws and our older children and grandchild. We have a very efficiently designed kitchen, living room, dining room (which is used very frequently), family room and children's den/ homework room/ toy room/ library. Our 3 car garage is divided into 2 spaces-a workshop for my carpenter hubby and a gym for me to train my clients (I'm a trainer and work with post-rehab patients). We can't even PUT a car in the garage. I can easily use more space and I do not apologize for our choice. I feel blessed that our family can be together and comfortable. I absolutely agree that our environment is a valuable asset that needs protection, but I think taking a hardline stance is wrong. My DH and I work VERY hard to support and maintain this home and we made a conscious decision to live here (our first choice would have been elsewhere) in order to give our children the best education available in the area. Everyone has the right to their choices and their reasoning- maybe our efforts should go into educating people so that when they make the choices, they will be as environmentally responsible as they can for their situation.

If you're in Hawaii, I think your situation will be very different from that on the mainland. For one thing, land there is in very short supply. Then, there are the very different lifestyles -- more relaxed, certainly more outdoor living. Bottom line, whatever's happening in my market (Texas) probably has nothing to do with what's happening in yours.

Houses have to stop geting bigger at some point. I would think that would be obvious. The cost of construction is rising rapidly because of increased world demand for such building essentials as concrete, umber and steel. And we all know energy prices are rising.

When will new housing sizes actually turn the corner and start getting smaller? Sounds like the industry is banking on it happening sooner rather than later.

But the one reason that the public may resist this trend was pointed out by one of the other posters. People simply have much more stuff than they used to and need more space to store it. Of course, it's possible to build a lot of storage space into a smaler house. The large houses I have toured in the last few years strike me as very inefficiently designed, with much less storage space than one would expect in houses that are 5000 sq ft plus.

I think the new smaller houses will include such features as fitted closets and garages, built-in cabinets and cubbies, stack laudries, and kitchen pantries as standard features. Built-ins really do save a lot of space. I also expect that they'll cost more to build per square foot than your typical suburban big-box.

Well said, marys1000.

"Oh good grief, not this again. Why are so many interested in what others can or can't afford and / or how they choose to live their lives?

We have a 5500 sq. ft. custom built home and there are just the three of us."

-----

The OP is not interested (or critical) in your choice of housing!

He just wanted to know if smaller is the new trend as he is selling 1100 sq ft condos.....

(Funny you had to mention your square footage, though....)

None of you are really answering his question on size.

Sure there are valid reasons for needing a 5000sf home. The only point I was trying to make is not ALL have to be 5000sf homes though. If you want to buy new in a new development, there ought to be more choice in sizing than is currently available anymore.

There are just as many valid reasons to having a small home, it's just preference nothing more.

For TCJohnson's condos, though I still wonder how many will want 1100sf spread through 3 floors. It is a definite "no sale" to me, but then I'm not familiar with what is normal in Hawaii either.

I think size is also relative to the market.

I live in NYC, and my 1,100-sq-ft co-op w/ 2 bedrooms is considered relatively large. It is, however, small compared to 2BR condos in OTHER cities. And perhaps only large-ISH in comparison to other neighborhoods; you can get larger 2BRs (though of course their layouts often waste space on weird hallways, etc.), but you can also find smaller ones.

Honolulu is its own market. It's crowded, like NYC--it's not like you can buy a lot of land to build new stuff on.

So the standards of your own locale are what matters. The comments you should pay attention to are the ones that spring from your market.

(though I do think those spiral staircases are a bad idea, and the multiple floors aren't so great either. I saw an apartment building layout once in which each apartment had most of one floor and only a little of the other floor. This gave each of them a larger main area, and a smaller secondary area. One had their secondary upstairs; the other had it downstairs.
(of course, you have an odd number of apartments)

sort of like this:
OOOOO/XX
XXXXX/OO

Oh, darn it! We were in the "wrong place, wrong time" again! Eight years ago when we searched for a nicer quality, smaller, single-story home...there weren't any.

One realtor even told us we were nuts to think of paying X dollars for a smaller house on a larger lot when the same dollars would buy a house twice that size. "You'll never get your money back on a house that small," she cried!

We never did find that existing small house. We ended up building (after a teardown) and we hedged our bet by building that nicer, smaller, single-story house, but with a full size attic that can become additional BRs and baths. Our 2900 sq ft can become the 5-6000 sq ft permitted on our one acre lot.

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the eventual buyer of our house will be just like us -- want 2900 sq ft of nice quality on a nice private lot. I know we would prefer our house to one of the newly built four-level townhomes on offer here that are about the same sq ft and quality, but overlook train tracks and a Burger King.

I would LOVE to take advantage of our big, south-facing roof for some solar power. Sadly, it isn't economically feasible in this backward nation and state.

As for "stuff", why not rent storage? After a year when you don't miss it and haven't used it, you can sell it! I realize this is heresy, given that the American consumer is the mainstay of the economy, but how about not buying every gizmo advertised? It's worth nil once you've bought it, and you have to pay to store it.

>>None of you are really answering his question on size.

I thought I did in my first post, but was probably not clear. Small square footage is not a problem as long as the space is used efficiently and there is plenty of storage. For a two bedroom condo, 1100 sf seems reasonable.

I hadn't understood that one of the levels was reached by a spiral staircase. That would be a problem for me.

"And regarding single family homes, do you see a trend of downsizing?"

I thought I'd answered the question also.

Here's my answer more bluntly...

Yes, I see smaller homes on the horizon within the next five years.

Tricia

I can only say that my own response was in regard to it being 3 floors. I grew up in Brooklyn, and of course am used to apartments (tho now I have a house).

We downsized from 3300 sqft to 2500sqft. I tried going with less sqft. around 2200sqft. I couldn't do it. We are empty nesters.
We still have certain needs in the house.
I need a pantry, his/her walk-in closets...ect.

We have a little over 2000sqft on the first floor, which is AWESOME! The master & a den are on the first floor. I eliminated the formal Dining & Living rooms. Two bedrooms are on the second floor.
It's just DH & I. However, a family could live here very comfortably. Later on, we don't have to use the upstairs at all.
I designed this "in between" size house for an eventuality that the homes will shrink. I judged from my own experience. For me,large homes are overrated. I'm glad that we simplified our lives & LOVE IT!

"We do have a cleaning service and a landscaper / gardener since between our careers and our son we are always busy. As for affording it, our house is mortgage free. The house is not our only asset (nor is it our largest one) and we are completely debt free in all other regards. As for the enviornmental impact, my husband and I contribute to society in many ways. Not the least of which is that our businesses provide employment and we contribute to charities. I fail to see why on this and the building board I constantly have to defend my lifestyle."

Who said you "have to defend" your lifestyle? Obviously, you feel the need or the desire to do so, as the above statements certainly come across as defensive. You undoubtedly enjoy your lifestyle, so why not just leave it at that, without expecting others to embrace, understand, or agree with it?

'Tis all relative, isn't it? Like Talley_Sue, I have a 2BR NYC coop that's maybe 1150 square feet. For myself and my husband, it's plenty big enough but the smaller second bedroom which is our home office space is a tight fit when it has to do double duty for overnight guests. Non-urban dwellers find our apartment small; anyone who's lived in a big city says it's relatively spacious.

We hope to move to a house that's 2400 square feet on three floors. To us the space seems huge and we'll be like two peas rattling around in the can. Factoring in nationwide averages on house size, that may still be a small house.

As an attempt to answer the OPs questions:

I live in an apartment right outside of Boston that is a large brick building, with a good sized number of units it, ours is a 2bdr, about 1,000 square feet. There's two of us (boyfriend and I) and we find it more than large enough but the layout is very unusual compared to the many other places I've seen, which I think contributes to the large feeling. I actually think our living room is too big. Everyone who has come over has commented on how large our apt is. We even had a third person living with us for a while and the apartment still felt spacious.

Down the street a bit from us a builder built 4 townhouses on a small lot that he is now trying to sell that are about 1,600 -2,000 square feet but the space in each townhome is spread out over 3-4 floors (garage and laundry room usually being on the bottom floor). I went in to look at them during their open house and the realtor showed me each one, and I left thinking the layouts are awful. The homes had double the square footage of my apt but I didn't get the feeling of there actually being more space.
My parents have a single family home in MA. Over the last 5 years, a good portion of the small ranch homes in their area have had whole second floor additions built on to them (don't think they were flips as there was never a for sale sign)that have doubled or tripeled the size of the original home so the trend up there seems to be bigger. Of course, the original size of the ranches are I think 1200 - 1500 sq ft. so they might just be bringing up the size of the homes to a more average/modern size.

I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here, I usually just lurk a lot : )

My DH and I are moving from a 1200 SF house (800 on ground floor, 400 upstairs finished attic room) with three bedrooms and one bath to a 2600 SF house (1900 on ground floor, 700 on lower level) with four bedrooms and three baths. DH's two teenage boys are with us every weekend and even more in the summers and possibly may be even more during the school year next year. We find that we're always "on top" of each other in the current house. We really need room to breathe! If the boys are watching TV in the living room, which they often are, I have to go to our bedroom to escape. The new house fits our needs perfectly: it has two bedrooms up and two down, plus a living room up and one down. The boys will "take over" the lower level. Plus, if you've ever shared a bathroom with teenage boys, you know how gross they can be. I look forward to having a bathroom they won't ever use! We'll use the fourth bedroom as a guest room, which we also need. I see nothing wrong with buying the house you need and can afford. Some people like a lot space, some don't.

I don't see houses shrinking in our area (coastal NH) and we're getting nailed on the other end of this... Our house, which we bought with an eye to resale, is just about 2000sf. Seems huge to me, and we rattle around in it. Yet the most common complaint is that it's TOO SMALL! It's going to be significantly harder to unload this house, even though there are 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and it's relatively new at only 14 years old, than it would be if there were another thousand square feet like in the monster-sized new construction houses on the other end of town (of course they are also $100k+ more but hey, who's counting?). We're finding that lot of people won't even LOOK at anything less than 2500sf. (I'm not that old but the typical size of home I was raised in - we moved a lot - was under 1000sf, some of them quite a lot under, for two adults and one kid. Most of the people we knew were in the same size houses. So the idea that you have to have such large houses just because there are a couple of kids in the picture doesn't make any sense to me.)

We have rarely used a good portion of our house and it just accumulated stuff to fill it, so we're looking to downsize by 30-50%. The largest house on our "shopping list" is 1350sf AG (one totals almost 1600sf if you include the semi-finished basement). Most of the small houses are just sitting there stagnant, especially if they don't have master suites, big family rooms where you can fit that 50" TV, and multiple baths. Only one bath is especially the "kiss of death". Yes, that does reduce the desirability for us, too - two people getting food poisoning in a one bath condo cured me of the single toilet household forever - so the 1.5 bath houses are getting priority. We're looking at some small 4/1s with a plan of scavenging space from one bedroom for an additional bath, since a 3/2 is likely to have more appeal down the road than a 4/1 anyway, but I'd rather not have to do any remodeling right off.

I guess it's all in what you're used to though, and if you've gotten spoiled you're usually not willing to get unspoiled. I've never had multiple (or even one!) walk-in closets so I just chuckle at the idea of multiple walk-in closets being an absolutely-must-have. Alien concept to me.

Okay, these condos. 1100 sf is not outrageously small to me, our 2/1 condo was a tad under 800. 1100 would have been a lot nicer. ;-) DH and I have shared everything from 2000sf to 330sf, and 1000-1200sf is the most comfortable for us. Layout is extremely important though, and like others have said, the deal-killer for me would be the narrow townhouse styling rather than the size - if one story is parking, that puts the other three stories at only about 350sf each. With the space wasted on stairs, it just seems so incredibly inconvenient as a layout, and a little bit gimmicky. Spiral staircases are very cute in theory but often fail in the execution; for one thing they're far easier to fall on than conventional stairs.

I was going to stay out of this thread, until I saw this article about a 60-story house being built by a rich Indian, for just his own family ... and 600 servants!

India's richest man, Mukesh Ambani, is planning a palace in the heart of Mumbai with helipad, health club, hanging gardens and six floors of car parking. This 60-storey house is for just one family. His wife, mother and three children will live there with him, looked after by 600 live-in staff.

In some areas, there is a trend toward smaller. Some towns in Northern NJ, in an effort to retain character and charm, are passing ordinances to slow the tide of bash & build...and requiring that the homes built be in proportion to lot size and the area.

In our area of central NJ, "clustering" is becoming more and more common...smaller lot sizesŅsmaller homes...more open space. This is for environmental reasons...as the flooding is out of control (talk about closing the barn door after the horse leaves) but also for aesthetics in terms of keeping the character and charm of the area as intact as possible with regard to new construction.

Our town actively works with builders to discourage the typical McMansion appearance; the most recent development approved for about 10 homes are about 2500 SF........farmhouse colonialŅwrap around porchesŅgarages but facing the side but off to the back of the home, etc...on .75 acre lots...and they blend well wit the existing surrounding homesŅsome of which are in excess of 200 years old...

The two major McMansion builders in the area...Toll and Hovnanian have both had steady losses over the last couple of quarters...IMO the RE market...combined with the high energy costs and the increasingly strict environmental regs in NJ will have us all seeing far fewer McMansions built in the foreseeable future....in NJ anywayŅif not in other states.

Roselvr said, "I said this last week and I'll say it again, I don't care how many square feet a house is; if it is not set up right, who wants it?".

I couldn't agree more. There's a house for sale down the street from me which has something like 3400 square feet finished, and it's been on the market for over two years. Reason? It's built like a rabbit warren... a lot of teeny tiny little rooms connected by hallways (case in point, the living room is 9 x 12).

I'd rather live in half that square footage, if it meant better proportioned rooms. My current home is larger than "half that" but it's not the size so much as the way it's laid out.

IMO, the trend depends on energy prices and climate.
Here in Dallas, I pity those people who are not loaded but qualify for a mortgage and buy one of the new 4000-5000sf houses in the new subdivisions without mature trees and no shade.

Hello $600+/month AC bills. Been there done that and decided to downsize.

Of course, this isn't a factor for people who can own 5500sf houses free and clear and have other assets exceeding the value of the house, but we are talking about trends and not what well-off people do (who should enjoy their fortunes and stop worrying about what the wage slaves are doing with their houses and money).

As has already been said, 1100 sq ft isn't remarkable it is putting that small footage on three floors. I live in the beach area, small houses on small lots are common, three story homes are very common. My three story house is just over 3000 sq ft, the large interior stairwell takes up a lot of space. I looked a a three story 2200 sq ft, it was very small because of the three floors. You can make a very small stairwell (uncomfortable) or make a nice big one, making the rooms too small. I also looked at another house with only an elevator to the first floor garage, I didn't buy that, I didn't want to take an elevator every time I ran to the garage.
Is it possible to make the unit one per floor?
Oh, I've got to say, having a large house doesn't need to use a lot of power. I don't have AC, only turned on the heater one day this year. Our temperature is constant, so it isn't a problem.

The Indian Billionaire is employing 600 people plus housing them. I have no problem with that. It's like a little company. If anything you could argue he's doing a good thing.

I think house size is relative. I haven't seen any trend in smaller homes where I am, but then I'm in the suburbs where there is room for larger homes.

In our family, it's just myself and my husband. However, we frequently have guests come visit in the winter to escape frigid temps since we live in AZ.

Our home is 1750 sq. ft and it's too small for us. We each need our own office space plus a guest room. We don't want someone staying in a room with our personal computer and we want access to it whenever we want.

Plus, basements in AZ are few and far between. We have an open floorplan, but absolutely no storage. My first house was 1350 sq. ft, with a full basement. I had more room in that house than I do in this bigger home solely b/c of the lack of storage space.

I had to get rid of alot of things because they just didn't fit in this bigger home. When we move to MN, we're looking at minimum size of 2200 sq. ft. If that includes a fully developed basement, then smaller may work for us.

I plan to work from home when we move. I need a dedicated office for tax purposes. We still want to have room to entertain, have visiting guests and my dh wants his own space too. Nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with the lifestyle people choose based on the size of their home. Besides, a 5000 sq. ft house could be far more energy efficient than a 1700 sq. ft house that is 20 years old with original furnace and AC.

Believe me, I hear it everyday from people in newer homes here in AZ. We pay an arm and a leg for AC in the summer, yet much larger, newer houses are half the cost because of more energy efficient systems.

I wonder if those living in older, smaller homes think of the environmental effect of their old systems when criticizing those with the larger homes with up to date energy efficiency.

Caroline and Pattie - don't you worry about your chosen lifestyle. Those who criticize for your large size homes are most likely jealous.

House hunters was in Hawaii last night, anyone see it?

I was flipping back between Dr Phil & HH, so I didn't catch the whole thing.

"Who said you "have to defend" your lifestyle?"

I feel the need to defend because time and time again I see on these threads the same theme: "How can anyone need more than 2000 sq. ft. (insert arbitrary smaller square footage here). All those people are ruining the envirornment with their selfish choices and they must be mortgaged up to their eyeballs."

Without getting into our personal situation too much, we do make many eco friendly choices. We don't eat meat. I don't lease extra office space since it's in the house. We provide employment and benefits for 20 - 25 people. We contribute to charities and to our church. So basically the above types of blanket statements are unfair.

I don't judge those who live in smaller homes or make assumptions about their personal choices based on their house size. That's ridiculous.

Oh and for the person who asked, I mentioned the sq. footage of our house because many others did to explain why their home was the perfect size for them.

C

C, I really don't think that "bashing" of the large houses applies to your situation at all. They were talking about inefficiently designed large houses that are all "spacious" and not user-friendly. A home that serves as an office, plus a studio, plus guest quarters, plus an in-law suite is not at all what was being railed against.

I guess I agree that people should be able to buy what they like, but I also hear that house hunters are frustrated by homes where "spaciousness" counts more than common sense. These tract homes do not normally come with super-efficient HVAC systems, 6 inch outer walls and extra insulation.

The amount of storage needed will also vary by region. Places with four full seasons with 60 degree differences between summer and winter require not only space for at least two complete wardrobes, but seasonal tools (snowblowers and mowers), seasonal toys (sleds and skidoos as well as trucks and canoes), and even seasonal furnishings (heavy drapes and rugs vs lightweight curtains and outdoor furniture that should not sit out and rust all winter).

So in Hawaii, with temperate weather, less storage may mean that a smaller space is fine. I also find the three-floor layout less desirable. TC, think about who you are going to market these to. Are you aiming for baby boomers, or younger folks? A huge bubble of we boomers are aging and will not like the stairs. We are fatter than our elders, too, so a lot of us are not in shape. If your market is younger, you may be okay. I guess you have to look at what styles of condo sell now. Do multiple floor places sell?

I have to laugh when you cite the sizes of what you think are "large" homes - 2500 sq ft is NOT large in most of the country. Hang out in the small houses forum and you will see that all the sizes you cite as your idea of a large house is really considered a small house in most areas.

As C showed us above, some people have need of space that others don't. Today I came across the listing for a home we almost bought a year and a half ago. It was 1800 sq ft. We bought a house 1675 sq ft and it is more usable than the house we did not get. In the other house, DH's music studio and computer (it is part of his studio) would have been in the finished basement. Maybe our library would have been in the greatroom, but it may have also been in the basement. That house did not have a living room. In the smaller house we bought, the music, computer, and library are all in the living room at the front of the house, and we live in the family room behind the kitchen. I can go see DH when he is writing a blog or composing a piece, or practicing his trombone. I can get to my books (I am not allowed to take the stairs), too. So this smaller house works better for us, but it does not have the spacious feel that great room had. We have a bigger bedroom here, and so does Dad. So the smaller square footage was a better choice for us. We have one less bathroom, but since we have a powder room, it feels like a great improvement over our one bathroom we had before. You cannot miss what you never had!

Oh my! I apologize for creating a stir. My intention was not to bash those that live in larger than average size homes. I think that we can all agree that some people just dont need as much space as others but itÂs not right for those people to discount other peopleÂs lifestyles. However living in a larger, less efficient home definitely has a negative impact on our environment and the new building trend is definitely leaning towards sustainability. This should be acknowledged and accepted by all. The purpose of the posting was to see whether or not 1,100 sq ft for a two bedroom unit is acceptable for most people. I think more accurately, my posting should be asking if 750 sq ft for a one bedroom loft is acceptable, as well as 350 sq ft for a studio. And yes, I realize that in Honolulu everything is much smaller. That was another purpose of my posting, to see if other parts of the mainland US are starting to shift towards smaller more efficient home design, something that Honolulu has been doing since the beginning of time. Condos and single family homes did increase in size since 1940. For example, a two bedroom condo or duplex in 1940 had an average size of about 500 sq ft. Today, the average size is about 850 sq ft. Single family homes increased from an average 3 bedroom home of about 1000 sq ft in 1940 to about 1700 sq ft today. So the increase is not quite as dramatic as that in the US mainland. We are seeing a slight shift in home size in todayÂs new buildings but I donÂt think itÂs as dramatic from what IÂve seen in the US mainland. But thatÂs probably because we didnÂt experience a "size run-up" like the mainland did.

And for the record, I wanted to copy and paste a follow up I created on another category on the GardenWeb forums about a week ago. It describes how the 3 levels were actually split up to accommodate multi-person living. You will see that my design was not intended for ONE person , ONE couple, or ONE family to live on all three floors. The design is such that the home can be shared by extended family (for example grandma on the fourth floor, children on the second and third). But they have their own kitchens, bathroom and living area. I completely agree that a 1,100 sq ft home spread across three floors makes no sense. But if you NEVER had to access the spiral stair case at all, would it still be an issue? Hopefully the follow up I created below will lead to clarification.

Original post follows (sorry, itÂs quite long)Â

The units are being built and sold OR rented (I may end up renting the property instead of selling) as "hybrids". Meaning that the unit originally built as a 2 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath can be converted into a one bedroom loft AND separate studio with completely separate living spaces. Let me explain how this works and then maybe the elevator concept will make more sense.

Imagine 5 units in a single row configuration, just like a typical townhouse layout in San Francisco for example. Each unit is tall and skinny (3 stories of living space, garage at basement) and butt up to each other. From the outside you will see units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in a row from left to right with shared common walls.

Each unit has an identical floor plan that consists of:

First floor is a parking garage
Second floor consists of a kitchen, living area and powder room
Third floor consists of a one bedroom loft (you can see down to the living room below) and full bath.
Fourth floor consists of a one bedroom, full bath and wet bar (essentially a full kitchen without a full size range).

There are two staircases  one staircase is an average size if maybe on the smaller size spiral staircase that runs from the parking garage level to the top floor (fourth). There is access via the spiral staircase by door at the parking level, as well as a door at the second floor entry (kitchen and living) and another door at the fourth floor (one bedroom, full bath and wet bar). The spiral staircase, however, bypasses the third floor (it spirals past the third floor but does not allow access) and therefore does not allow entry to the third floor (one bedroom full bath loft). This is where the second SEPARATE staircase comes in which allows access from the kitchen/living area to the loft bedroom above (access from the second floor to the third floor). This second staircase is on the opposite side of the condo. If you wanted to get to the fourth floor from the living/kitchen area you would have to take the spiral staircase and bypass the second floor bedroom loft. The spiral staircase is essentially converted to a common area if the units were split up. If kept as a two bedroom condo, the spiral staircase is a private stairway much like any stairway in a house.

The elevator would be of three-stop design. It would start at the parking level (first stop), then stop at the second floor (second stop) and the last stop would be at the fourth floor (third stop). Like the spiral staircase, the elevator would bypass the third floor altogether. Again, the third floor is ONLY accessible by the separate staircase (non-spiral) on the opposite side of the condo that is accessible from the living area (second floor). Confused yet? I apologize if you are. IÂm trying my best to outline my design via words.

So the 4-story property can essentially be split into two separate living spaces  a one bedroom loft and studio. The elevator would allow easy access to the studio unit (if converted to two separate units) and I felt it was necessary. Who wants to walk up 4 stories to get into their unit? I figured that if the property was converted into two units, the resident of the studio would always use the elevator to access his/her unit, while the resident occupying the one bedroom loft would simply traverse the spiral staircase one floor to get to his/her unit. He/she living in the one bedroom loft could still use the elevator (all entries to each floor via elevator are keyed) in the case furniture, groceries or other large heavy items need to be transported. The elevator is large enough to fit a wheelchair and can fit most appliances and furniture. Large furniture may not fit.

Reason for this design is that many people in Hawaii buy a home and rent out a portion of it to help cover the mortgage. Cost of living here is ridiculous, and housing is the biggest expense. Extended family living is also very popular here so the ability to separate one unit into two becomes very attractive.

Keep in mind this place is being built in dense urban Honolulu, in downtown. The average one bedroom is about 600 sq ft, studio about 375 sq ft and 2 bedroom about 900 sq ft (we have to be much more efficient with space here). Without splitting the unit into two, the two bedroom is about 1,100 sq ft. If the property was split into a one bedroom and studio, the size would be 750 and 350 sq ft respectively, well within the acceptable size range for the area.

I used to live in Hawaii. I can assure you that anyone who isn't a local expert(to Hawaii) isn't going to be able to answer your question.

When we lived there we were in a huge 1900 square foot home. When we left Hawaii and moved to Illinois, it was to a small 2200 square foot home. Now I'm in a miniture 1650 square foot home in texas (where, flying in the face of common sense, local code requires that a home be 1200 square feet to be legally habitable). But I've never been one to care (much) about what people think of the size of my home. I could afford one twice as big, I'd rather have one twice as nice.

My point is, peoples' perception of the size will vary according to what they are used to in their area.

I can't say if that's a trend or not, but i've always liked the garden homes. Reason being, i'm a woman living alone and wouldn't want the high maintenance of a large yard.

I'm currently living in what would be considered a four-level condo at 1684 sq ft~era, 1984. It's two master suites, 2 1/2 baths, kitchen/breakfast area, sitting room or small family room(off kitchen), formal LR and DR, two car garage, and large *indoor* utility room(not in the garage). There is plenty of storage and closet space, and my only gripe has been the lighted kitchen ceiling with the plastic grids. I'm in San Diego, CA, and a year ago, a huge complex was built next to my small complex, with units priced between $350/$375, with sq ft being 1,000 for the largest. I know they all have individual utility rooms, but parking is the 'scary' underground decks. I've heard they have granite counertops/SS appliaces.

I'll be listing mine at about $429K. I have new granite in the kitchen, new appliances, and about 1,000 sq ft of the flooring is newly installed wood. Isn't sq ft what we're really supposed to be paying for, and not tring to make an old place new?

patty_cakes