Home ownership has long been a central aspiration for Americans, but the shape, size, amenities, and general style of houses have changed considerably over the years. One thing is clear, though — we like our space.
While the desire for a single-family home on its own plot of land is not uniquely American, most of the homes we've built are. Over the years, tastes and perceived needs have changed, and we've gone from farms to cities to suburbs and, in some cases, to downright sprawl.
Today, it's enlightening to look at an old farmhouse, a weathered rambler, or an 80s McMansion and know that in 1940, when the Census started including the housing schedule, barely half of the homes in United States had hot water, a toilet, and a bathtub. In 1960, just more than one in five homes did not have access to a phone.
In addition to gaining amenities, one outstanding fact is that American homes steadily have become larger and larger — to see it, just look at that 800-square-foot 1949 Levittown house (Image 6). According to the Census Bureau, in 1973 the average new single-family house measured 1,660 square feet. By 2007, the average had more than doubled, peaking at 2,521.
"When you understand how central the single-family home is to the American dream and American mythology you can understand why a bigger version of the home is better," says Howard Decker, a former chief curator at the National Building Museum.
Things started smaller. Before World War II, two popular home styles were craftsman and bungalows. In a rejection of recent industrialism, craftsman-style homes emphasized artistry and natural materials. Bungalows have one or one and a half stories, sloping roofs and eaves with visible rafters, and a gable over the main portion of the house. During this time, Frank Lloyd Wright was especially interested in building affordable homes. He succeeded in building beautiful ones, of course, such as the Jacobs House, which cost just $5,000, but he did not do it on a large scale as we'd see later in Levittown.
That Levittown house played an important role in spurring homeownership, suburbs, and by extension, house growth. With Levittown, New York, which was created on devalued farm land in response to a booming demand for housing for families of GIs returning from World War II, the suburbs were born. Initially modeled for rent and then made for sale, the Levitt's houses were low-cost, mass-produced 32' by 25' boxes that varied from one another only in exterior. For many of us, this type of development has come to represent unsightly growth and monotonous sprawl, but for the people living in Levittown it was an affordable way to have a home and community. Considering that as late as 1940 less than half of American households were homeowners, with Levittown you could have a post-war shot at the American dream for $90 down and $58 a month.
As people could commute to work from outside the city thanks to cars, they continued leaving to claim their own plot of grass. A variety of houses sprung up, including ranches, Cape Cods (which the Levittown home was based on), and two-story Colonials. "It is the ranch house — whether architect-designed, prefabricated, or stick-built — that has come to define mid-twentieth century American," the National Trust for Historic Preservation says. Ranches' open layout was more casual than earlier homes, and the exteriors were simplified and more contemporary. In 1950, they accounted for nine of ten houses.
Since then, houses have in many cases become amalgamations combining various styles, and even the old Levittown homes have been remodeled and expanded. Now, in 2011, the McMansions that sprung up in a climate of economic prosperity in the 80s and 90s seem to be a thing of the past. Since the country hit major economic trouble in 2008, new home starts hit a 26-year low, and the average square footage for new single-family houses declined to 2,392 as of last year. Buyers are scooping up older, less expansive and less expensive properties, proving that smaller really can be cooler.
Images: 2. Wikimedia Commons 3. and 4. Anderson Architecture Center 5. Celeste Sunderland for Re-Nest 6. James Steakley via Wikimedia Commons 7. Bernard Hoffmann for Life magazine 8. Midwest Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 9. Maldre/Chicago Architecture Foundation via Old House Journal 10. Witold Rybczynski










Comments (49)
Thanks for the overview! My husband's always wanted a house that can sink underground at night so he can sleep in a very dark room. I showed him the AT post of some outback Australians who live in tunnels to avoid the heat and so save energy. Maybe that will be the next architectural wave.
Very interesting read. Seems like many people are downsizing these days. "Living large" has lost some of its former appeal.
It's interesting to me that the family standing in front of the Levittown House is a family of 5. Living in an 800 sq ft home. Most of today's families couldn't comprehend squeezing into a home that small [as a family of 5].
I rent a 1,068 sq ft home [3 bedrooms/1 bath] built in 1951; I also have 5 children who live with me two weekends a month. When I was house hunting, everyone I knew said I *HAD* to have a 2,000+ sq ft/5 bedroom house or we wouldn't "fit". No one could believe that a "large family" could fit into a modest home. I refused to look at anything over 1,000 sq ft, or built after 1955. LOL
It actually works just fine - the house has good bones, good traffic flow, enough space when the kids are here, and I'm not wasting resources heating/cooling an extra 1,000 sq ft when they aren't. :-)
it is dramatic seeing the differences in my neighborhood. My house is from 1906, and its 1500 sq feet. I dont know what its original floorplan was because sometime in the 50's it was converted to a duplex, only to be converted back to a single family in the early 2000's, right before we bought it. Its rather spacious, 12' ceilings, but narrow doorways. generous bedrooms, kitchen, dining.
Compare that with the brick single family homes further up the hillside, built in the 40's-50's that have standard ceilings (feels so small!) and max out at 900 sq feet for a 3bd 1ba, and you can see a trend in the housing. We have mansions built around 1900 on our block that are 4,000-10,000 sq feet!!!
Funny thing is, in our town at least, construction is almost exclusively condos/high rises above retail, which I’m kinda fond of. People are buying these beautiful old homes for under 100,000k (most are under 60,000 if they need some improvements) instead of buying new. Its refreshing, and I rather enjoy not seeing acres and acres of sprawling McMansions popping up. Now, 20 miles away is another story.
My husband and I just bought a craftsman a year and a half ago and we love it and find it to be more than enough space. I think Americans have lost something with these huge mcmansions. I hope the trend away from them continues.
Oh yah, and one interesting thing about bungalows in Chicago is that there are major tax breaks for people who purchase these homes here because they are considered historic homes :)
our family fits nicely in our 1300 sq ft home, we just donate frequently. we're more likely to interact with one another as we share space, have 1 tv, ect. wonder if there's any correlation between divorce rates in the last 50 years and increased square footage
THREE CHEERS FOR THE DEATH OF THE McMANSION! The current vogue for "green" choices and conservation is expressed in it's fullest form in the purchase of an EXISTING HOME. New homes are so incredibly wasteful....contributing to waste and sprawl. New home contractors would be smart in becoming existing home rehabilitation experts.....why can't developers buy existing homes and rehab them to sell? They'll still make money.
wow! great post!! The writing is really great! I have noticed the houses are getting larger. I actually like the smaller houses...with a lot of character.
The surviving older houses also often are more sturdily built than the newer houses around here. I got a discount on wind storm coverage for my small 1954 house due to its excellent masonry and roof attachments. Besides, the two-story mcmansions destroy their one-story neighbors' privacy.
My husband and I searched for an entire year straight before we bought our current home last year. We saw close to 75 homes. A very obvious trend was that homes built in the 70's tended to be enourmous (to us), over 2000 square feet bi-levels with 2 living rooms, etc.
The space was nice but a bit overwhelming, and typically only 3 bedrooms. The houses we loved, and ended up with were 50's/60's ranchers with 3 bedrooms and typically 1300-1700 sqft. It was really enlightening to see how effecient use of space can easily make up for 500 sqft on paper. Homes built in the 80's and newer had zero craftsmanship or character, and seemed...papery after looking at the older homes. You definitely missed the solid feeling.
this was a very interesting post!
"why can't developers buy existing homes and rehab them to sell? They'll still make money."
Because they won't make as much money.
Their business model is based on assembling houses like cars: A few models with a few options, all in a row down the street starting at one end of an empty lot and finishing at the other with a complete row of houses.
Rehabbing houses is a one-at-a-time process - No easily replicated processes, and different financing structures in purchasing and reselling every house.
Those huge houses are so vulgar to me; the one with the family in front is so much more appealing - and still seems big compared with what I know. I grew up in a terraced house of a kitchen, sitting room, one small bathroom and three bedrooms - all quite small! My parents shared beds and used outdoor toilets. The last thing this poor earth needs is another over-sized and overpriced mansion!
I purchased and am in the process of rehabbing an inner-city home in a historic district of Niagara Falls, NY. The home is a ten minute walk to NIAGARA FALLS STATE PARK and the Niagara River gorge trails, as well as the bridge to Canada. I feel good about my decisions as I have repurposed as much material as possible and I have restored an older home rather than buying all new. I now live in a spectacular home that I can easily afford and I was able to do all the work to my tastes. My home was custom built in 1949 and has a one-of-a-kind floorplan, and it was built during the "golden era" of postwar home construction......the home is built like a tank!
I personally love ranch houses and bungalows. The FL Wright above is great too. Unfortunately, most of the older homes in Hawaii aren't that great, don't have that kind of character or materials. McMansions just don't appeal to me. I prefer a small home but with a nice sized yard to dine outside.
I felt like it hurt my marriage (now divorced) when we moved from our 700 square foot condo into a 2000 square foot house. Looking back I can now see although we did things together on the weekend, we stopped connecting on a daily basis, lived separate lives in different rooms when we got home from work.
Very interesting post, but just fyi, the census was established by the Constitution and the first one was in 1790. Perhaps 1940 was when they started including home size on the questionnaire.
pyrexmaniac is it a safe area that you live in? I grew up right across the border in the Niaraga region and Niagara Falls NY always felt unsafe to me? Though give me an old house in an affordable range and I would take that anyday.
Thank you ZoeCat! I was astounded that was nto fact checked.
*not... wow I need to spell check (:
@ZoeCat - Thanks for your comment. I've edited that line above to clarify my point.
I'd think median house size could be a little more useful (or mean house size excluding upper-boundary "outliers"....)
I live in a 1200 sf farm house built in 1937 that I absolutely love. It has so many charming and quirky features, like the shed that used to be a chicken coop (with the date 1938 stamped in the floor), an old but very large (and productive) grapevine in the backyard, a garage with an original gravel floor, and wonderful "attics" built in to the bedrooms upstairs (you enter through a little door, and they run the length of the house—what wonderful storage!). It is a sturdy little house, and suits our needs just fine, even with a second baby in the planning. Our house was here long before our neighbors' homes, but their homes are all different and unique too, which is one thing I like about our town. There are so many different architectural styles to see, and they all look fairly cheerful and well maintained. We do have some foreclosures, but they seem to be smaller, older homes. It's sad to see them sitting empty, the families gone, and signs out in the front yard.
My sister lives in a bungalow near Chicago, and it's also a neat and very historic little house, with even more storage than ours!
I do hate McMansions too. I think it's because they're built like fortresses, with hardly any greenspace left on the land, and they always look hulking and imposing next to the much smaller homes they're built next to. On their own they're not so horrible, but I still don't like them.
There are a few McMansions here and there that oddly (or perhaps not) also sit empty, either newly built and unsold or foreclosures. There is a gigantic one a few blocks away that (I swear) looks like an oversized Medieval Times castle. It is just awful. That, too, sits unsold.
And I just saw a garishly decorated and landscaped McMansion near my mother's house (hers is a 1961 split-level ranch) that seems to be abandoned (probably a foreclosure), with overgrown weeds and such. I remember them building it less than two years ago, thinking it was hideous, and seeing the big flashy cars parked in the driveway. I wonder what happened to the family.
Next door to it is a gorgeous old farmhouse (much bigger and fancier than my humble abode), and it just looks that much nicer compared to the McMansion. But I wouldn't want to live next door to one.
I wish I could say I think they're on the decline, but I still see them popping up all over the place (Chicago area), and I am baffled. It seems the bigger the better around here sometimes.
The McMansions of today are vulgar and soulless, I agree, but I'd say that the impulse to excessively large houses like that is not a new thing. My neighborhood was built from about the 1890s-1910s, mostly lovely brick victorians with a few gothic looking stone houses and prim colonials in the mix--with gorgeous carved woodwork and stained glass windows, etc. throughout, where they've survived. Our house is about 2400sf, and is one of the smaller models in the neighborhood--more than a few are probably over 10,000sf. These homes were built for middle and upper middle management for the steel companies at the turn of the century--the same general sorts of people who'd buy McMansions these days.
I agree times have gotten worse--at least the construction and details are nice in the older houses, and they are mostly built on about 1/8 acre or less instead of 1/2 acre or more, which keeps them in a less sprawl-y urban setting, and more accessible via public transport, etc., but they were the McMansions of their day. Nothing new under the sun.
I was so glad to get rid of our house and move to an apartment. I never understood the allure of owning a house.
I think the notion that the "American Dream" is somehow tied to owning a big house with a yard, white picket fence, etc is quite sad. I always thought it should be tied to being able to fulfill your dreams because you live in a country with freedom. We can't afford to live the way that we have been "told" to, meaning, we can't all have big houses in the suburbs with large grassy yards - we can't do it because obviously we can't afford it (think foreclosure crisis), because it's destroying the environment, and because frankly, most of those homes are built by subdivision developers, devoid of any soul.
The big house things drives me nuts, because the cost of homes has skyrocketed due to that, an in turn the price of condos. Now I can't dream to own a home here because all the new construction is 3000sq feet and cost 500k, making the small once affordable houses cost 350k. Why not get a condo? Because it is a scam. While a 600sq foot condo is more than enough space for me that 200k space comes with a 500 dollar a month due, suddenly making it almost as much as a much larger mortgage.
Housing here is nuts, I don't need 3k sq ft. I grew up in a 650 sq ft home and it was fine! I just need a home that isn't 6+ times my income.
wow...can size really affect marriages/relationships...? (im with the 'agree' team btw) someone shld really start studying into these things and start pushin the cause for "good sq footage = better relations" before the smaller houses/too large houses swallow up relations..
Here are my thoughts on this: I would rather pay an inflated sum for a beautiful, older 1500 sq. ft. home than $750k for a mini-mansion (which is very cheap where I'm from). When it comes to maintenance, cleaning, decorating to make the house feel complete and homey, a lot of time, energy and money goes out the window and, yes, I believe there is strain on a relationship because of distance tacked on, too.
But mostly, I just hate excess and useless consumption.
Our home is a prime example of this. Our family of 6 lives in a 1200 s.f. 40's bungalow in a 300 year old town on the outskirts of Boston. The former owners of our home raised their family of 7 inside this modest place. Down the street are some late 19th century farmhouses (gorgeous!). But, during the past 5 or so years, they have built giagantic 7 bathroom, 2 million $ homes all around us. Sometimes the kids ask why their friends are living in "mansions" and we're not. We love our home, though. But we like to joke that we're just living in the servants' quarters. I wouldn't trade it for those brand new monstrosities...really.
You NEVER have to keep up with the Joneses. Sometimes it takes great courage, just to live simply or remain in a modest house -- like living in small apartment. People make assumptions like you're poorer or not a professional, but if you're happier, financially sound, and carefree so what. In the end, you win.
@hyzen, I agree that the turn-of-the-century homes were yesterday's McMansions but not just because of who owned them. After returning from an extended stay in Europe, the architecture on those homes, which once looked so beautiful to me, screamed "New Gaudy Money". Obvious McMansions of it's day.
In defense of today's McMansions, at least they are an attempt to get away from the boxy ranch that is *everywhere* in my city and to add some detail back.
Also, anyone watch Colonial House on PBS, once upon a time? Two families made comments about how living in close quarters impacted their relationships for the better and worse, respectively.
Opps, should read: "After returning from an extended stay in Europe, the architecture on *American turn-of-the century* homes, which once looked so beautiful to me, screamed "New Gaudy Money".
My parents live in a "McMansion" in one of the most exclusive gated communities in the south and after all their years of working and dealing with the "joys" and surprises of old houses, they deserve low maintenance plumbing. It's amusing that there are people who spend $2000 a piece of designer furniture and have the cheek to sit in judgment of anyone else's choices. Either it's all crass consumption (which I think spendy designer home goods AND mcmansions are) or none of it is.
@ladyearl0803......regarding the "safety" of my city; I have lived in Columbus, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago and Toronto. Every city has it's problems and every city has people who are afraid of certain neighborhoods or areas that have a stigma attached to them. I feel as safe and comfortable in my home in NF as I did in any of the other places I've lived. A security system is a necessity no matter where you live nowadays.
As far as "protection" against "those types of people," all I can say is that as humans, we need to have open minds, open hearts and empathy to understand that we are all essentially alike. Quite often I get the "sour lemon face" from locals who hear that I live in NF, NY. I get a little irritated by people who don't want to live in close proximity to poverty or blight, especially since it was those who fled to the suburbs (like exclusive Lewiston and Youngstown) who are to blame for the condition of what was once their city.
The poverty and blight can be overcome with compassion, understanding, an open mind and a sincere smile. Treating EVERYONE with decency and respect rather than living in fear of "those types of people" is what makes for great neighborhoods.
I must say, too, that I am thoroughly impressed by what Niagara Falls, Ontario has become over the past fifty years. The city, provincial and national governments of your hometown must be lauded for an outstanding plan for development that has benefitted all citizens.
And by the way, when was the last time you actually visited Niagara Falls, USA?
"wow...can size really affect marriages/relationships...? (im with the 'agree' team btw) someone shld really start studying into these things and start pushin the cause for "good sq footage = better relations" before the smaller houses/too large houses swallow up relations.."
--
I am a single mom with two teenagers in an 1100 sq. ft. house and I can say for sure we are closer (not just literally) since we moved from the 2400 sq. ft. home we had before this one. We just interact more and spend more time in the single common space.
Girl & Lamp, you make a good point. My issue with McMansions, though, is more about craftsmanship (aside from the environmental issues). Expensive furniture tends to be made well of high-quality materials. McMansions are generally not. My biggest pet peeves are the plastic mullions on the windows and the cheap doors and woodwork. Obviously, even most McMansion buyers can't afford the kind of quality they could in a smaller house (or the builders don't make it available). It's all a compromise for excessive space.
Space comes in multiple forms: silence, physical area, visual plainness. Bigger doesn't mean better or peaceful, nah. I recalled this VERY old piece (11 years) and it's still good, particularly as you get to pages 4-5. Happy we're riding this trend out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/15/magazine/why-living-in-a-rich-society-makes-us-feel-poor.html?scp=159&sq=how%20much%20space%20do%20you%20need&st=nyt&pagewanted=3
#2.
#2.
#2.
Please please please architecture gods, bring back the primitive center hall salt box colonial.
I wish builders would simply copy and update the utilitarian designs of Wright and other Usonian architects, Case Study houses, or even Eichlers.
*Usonian, not Unsonian. LOVED the article.
As we age it is easier to have a smaller home all on one level to take care of, whether that is an apartment or a single family dwelling. Most of us do not have the luxury of outside staff--or even lots of children!-- to help us with the chores.
We have an 1800 sq ft house, all on one level (as a couple with one elderly parent living with us). It's fine, but I think perceptions of house size are really based on the house you lived in growing up. This is about the size I grew up in and anything smaller feels...smaller. Not because there isn't enough room on a practical level, but because I'm used to having a dining room and a kitchen table, instead of just one eating area, and two full baths, and a dedicated guest room. I was a suburban kid.
So I think it's really based on what you're used to as a baseline, versus actual need. We could get by with less space, technically.
@FengShuiByFishgirl: I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. I was just tellling someone that I am looking for a home that I myself can take care of.
It's so nice to read all these comments. I too find the McMansions vulgar, and I know that there are lots of people who can't believe that some of us would CHOOSE a small bungalow or ranch house rather than a huge mansion. Great article.
to me, nothing is more depressing, soul-killing and downright scary than suburbia - whether we're talking 'ticky tacky' cookie cutter homes or vulgar McMansions. Gimme the city or gimme the country. Nothing in between.
I just bought a 1400- sq. ft. home, 115 years old. It's been so well updated and maintained that it sailed through a very exhaustive home inspection; the inspector said, "The houses they're building today -- they won't look like this in 115 years." Every inch is designed for maximum utility of space; there are no wasteful cathedral ceilings, massive hallways or other dead space. I'd rather buy less, live more outside in the just-big-enough yard, and dwell in this space than have some energy-gobbling big-box home.
I think a good point was raised, though: Does conspicuous consumption of furnishings and art really represent a different mindset than conspicuous consumption of a large home? I'd argue that it might not, but it can. Buying expensive things to show off is not the same as mindfully creating an environment -- though there's probably some overlap.
I just bought a 110-year old farmhouse which is about 1200 sf. Someone remarked about how small it is, but compared to my former houses - a 600sf, 9.5 foot-wide, 130-year old dockworker's house, or my 800sf, 11.5-foot wide, 120 year old railroad worker's house, this one is palatial. And it's in much better shape at 110 years old than any new mcmansion will be - if it still even exists in 110 years, which is not bloody likely!
Last year my husband and I moved into a 3 bedroom, 2 bath dome and we just love it. It feels immensely spacious to me (1800 square feet), but our kids - even if we have just two - will likely share (because we'd like to keep the third as a guest/play/multipurpose room and because bunkbeds are awesome). We are surrounded by twice-as-large, twice-as-expensive, McMansions that were built after our home. Our house was NOT cheap, but I wonder whether our children will *feel* poor in comparison.
My father was a Baptist minister. We didn't move THAT often, but every time we did, we moved into a new, bigger, more modern parsonage. They started out in a one room apartment in a big, old farm house and literally moved up through almost every one of the houses featured above. Unfortunately, the bigger the homes got, the more unhappy they became. Like many, they pinned their happiness on the bigger-is-better post war economic boom based on credit. When that fantasy bubble began to crash, so did they.
It's so refreshing to see a community of people who appreciate the older, traditional homes and also people who see the value in living in small apartments and condos which make excellent use of existing infrastructure. The infrastructure systems in place for suburbs are awful and will prevent most suburbs from re-developing into something more efficient.
As an urban planner in Canada, I get so tired of meeting and working with residents and developers who wish to see one stucco mansion after another. Stucco isn't even a traditional or natural material here and it ages terribly in our climate. I look forward to a point in my career when the citizens I represent and work with no longer desire 3000 sq. ft. stucco homes or buy into the assembly line of cookie cutter homes. I hope that time comes in this lifetime.