7 ms·

I wonder how the average amount of free space per dwelling has changed over the last 50 or so years... Perhaps this trend could be explained to some extent by

I wonder how the average amount of free space per dwelling has changed over the last 50 or so years... Perhaps this trend could be explained to some extent by the fact(?) that mommy & daddy have a lot more space at home nowadays than daddy's parents did when he turned 18, making living with the parents more attractive to today's young adults than it was to prior generations. Not at all suggesting this would be the only likely factor, of course.

slg 10y ago
Houses today are much bigger. This is one of those things that people often forget when comparing current economic markers or generations to the past. Our standard of living is simply much higher today. The average house had approximately 500 sqft per person in 1973 but had increased by roughly 65% by 2010. Sources: - https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf - http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-ho...
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  You probably need to look at the median house size as well as the average house size. Also, I strong suspect this varies by region and suburb versus city.
  - derekp7 10y ago
    I would also add in the usable space (number of usable rooms). Many houses come with a formal dining room combined with a formal living room (often called the great room); they then have a family room that flows into the kitchen. Add in an oversized master bedroom, and you have quite a bit of square footage but not really anything you can do with it that you couldn't do with smaller houses.
  - slg 10y ago
    The census data linked does break it down by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) and by city versus rural (Inside MSA and Outside MSA). It also lists both average and median. The exact rate of increase obviously varies depending on these facts, but the pattern is the same, American houses today are just bigger.
    - joe_the_user 10y ago
      OK, Actually looking at your data, it's the size of newly built houses. So definitely the houses themselves are getting bigger. But with the occupants of all the houses, old and new, getting on average poorer, I'd be most interested in the average and median square footage that Americans live in and I don't think your data really gives data on that.
- nostromo 10y ago
  > Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New Single-Family Houses Completed by Location There are some caveats there: these data are for new, single-family houses only. In many urban job centers, people tend not to live in new housing, or in single-family homes -- particularly not people between 18 and 35.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The number of households has roughly doubled since 1970. http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/HH-3.pdf http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/HH-3.pdf So lots of people are living in newer homes.
    - nostromo 10y ago
      That may be true, but that's not a good data set to use either way. The graph only accounts for 45 million houses in the US, including only the houses owned by the young and the old. But that is a small fraction of US homes. (If those were all homes, the average household size would be 7 people.)
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Sorry, I hadn't read it carefully. This should be for all households and shows the same pattern, albeit with a less useful display: http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-househol...
- lkrubner 10y ago
  The article strongly refutes your assertion that "Our standard of living is simply much higher today." Obviously the standard of living is in decline. An article such as this provides some evidence, as does the well known fact that the male median wage has been in decline since 1973.
  - hiram112 10y ago
    Spot on. Every time I mention the high price of homes and how hard it is for non-boomers to enjoy such things as their own home, possibility of kids, family, stable jobs, there's never a shortage of defenders telling me that I'm out of line: they didn't live in a McMansion and get a new iPhone every year; younger folk have it easy and complain too much. Well sorry, the exact same 1200 ft^2 brick home built in the 50s, that you bought for 2 year's salary (with a high school education) in the 70's, NOW costs 6 times my salary (or 12 times the median salary for the area). The $600 iPhone which I absolutely need for any modern job (thanks to BYOD) isn't gonna make a dent in the cost of housing, health care, and college these days.
    - adevine 10y ago
      > The $600 iPhone which I absolutely need for any modern job (thanks to BYOD) I agree with your overall point that things like housing, healthcare, and education are much more expensive today and are much more difficult to acquire, securely, on a median income. However, when you say things like "I absolutely need a $600 iPhone for any modern job", it comes across like out-of-touch whining. No, you do not need the latest iPhone for any modern job. You want the latest iPhone. You can get a very capable, brand new Android phone for around $100 bucks.
      - mjmahone17 10y ago
        In the same way that client-facing bankers don't need to wear suits. If part of your job is conveying status, bringing an Android to work conveys a completely different kind of status than an iPhone. It may not feel good, but that doesn't mean $600 for an iPhone, even when you can barely afford food/rent, is poorly spent.
- nilkn 10y ago
  Those exact same houses from the 70s (even from the 50s, in fact) are selling for seven figures near me. That's about 20x the median household income in my city.
  - refurb 10y ago
    That's what blows me away about San Francisco. Not only are you paying 10x ($1.5M) what most people in the US pay for a house ($150K), you're getting a lot less house at the same time. We're talking going from ~2000 sq. ft. to ~1100 sq. ft., old construction, no insulation, etc. If you really wanted to make a comparison between equal houses, the difference is more like 20x ($3M for a similar house in the Bay Area).
    - dionidium 10y ago
      This is exactly right and it works both ways. If you're comparing NYC to St. Louis and desire a 60th floor apartment in a high rise, then the COL difference is infinity or mu or NAN or something. You simply can't make the comparison. The same is true when comparing the average detached home in the Midwest to San Francisco. For most people, the answer to, "how much more would I have to make to buy the same house out there?" is "it doesn't matter, because you'll never make that much."
chadgeidel 10y ago
This is an excellent point. Why is "living in mom and dad's basement" wrong and "living in <someone else's> basement" acceptable? Why do we need 2 people (mom and dad) taking up an entire 4k-6k sq ft "single family" dwelling sitting on 1/4-1/2 acre of land? This country has a housing problem and this is the root of it.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Living in Mom and Dad's basement is fundamentally different than living with your peers. It's typically very socially limiting, and a sign of stagnating development. I say this as someone who lived with his parents for two years during college, and would gladly pay the $12k/year it would have cost me to get those two years back, so maybe I'm biased, but nearly everyone I've talked to who's been living with their parents has had negative ramifications from it. Some romantic, some social development, some just general annoyance re: dealing with their parents quirks. And I mean as a parent, my goal is helping my child develop into a fully autonomous adult. Fully autonomous does not mean 'depends on me for housing.'
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    I appreciate what you are saying here, but IMHO it's a relationship problem, not a housing one. Just as you would have gladly lived away from your parents, I gladly lived with mine (and did so in college).
- whichfawkes 10y ago
  My landlord doesn't think he has a right or obligation to control my behavior. If I'm not making too much noise or destroying the apartment I can do whatever I want. I will never have to ask permission to throw a party, never have to explain where I'm going when I leave, and never have to introduce my guests to him. I never even have to talk to him. I very much prefer a simple "check-in-mailbox" relationship with the person who owns my dwelling. I actually like my parents, but I sure don't want them as landlords!
  - yardie 10y ago

slg 10y ago

Houses today are much bigger. This is one of those things that people often forget when comparing current economic markers or generations to the past. Our standard of living is simply much higher today. The average house had approximately 500 sqft per person in 1973 but had increased by roughly 65% by 2010. Sources: - https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf - http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-ho...

joe_the_user 10y ago
You probably need to look at the median house size as well as the average house size. Also, I strong suspect this varies by region and suburb versus city.
- derekp7 10y ago
  I would also add in the usable space (number of usable rooms). Many houses come with a formal dining room combined with a formal living room (often called the great room); they then have a family room that flows into the kitchen. Add in an oversized master bedroom, and you have quite a bit of square footage but not really anything you can do with it that you couldn't do with smaller houses.
- slg 10y ago
  The census data linked does break it down by region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) and by city versus rural (Inside MSA and Outside MSA). It also lists both average and median. The exact rate of increase obviously varies depending on these facts, but the pattern is the same, American houses today are just bigger.
  - joe_the_user 10y ago
    OK, Actually looking at your data, it's the size of newly built houses. So definitely the houses themselves are getting bigger. But with the occupants of all the houses, old and new, getting on average poorer, I'd be most interested in the average and median square footage that Americans live in and I don't think your data really gives data on that.
nostromo 10y ago
> Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New Single-Family Houses Completed by Location There are some caveats there: these data are for new, single-family houses only. In many urban job centers, people tend not to live in new housing, or in single-family homes -- particularly not people between 18 and 35.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The number of households has roughly doubled since 1970. http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/HH-3.pdf http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/HH-3.pdf So lots of people are living in newer homes.
  - nostromo 10y ago
    That may be true, but that's not a good data set to use either way. The graph only accounts for 45 million houses in the US, including only the houses owned by the young and the old. But that is a small fraction of US homes. (If those were all homes, the average household size would be 7 people.)
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Sorry, I hadn't read it carefully. This should be for all households and shows the same pattern, albeit with a less useful display: http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-househol...
lkrubner 10y ago
The article strongly refutes your assertion that "Our standard of living is simply much higher today." Obviously the standard of living is in decline. An article such as this provides some evidence, as does the well known fact that the male median wage has been in decline since 1973.
- hiram112 10y ago
  Spot on. Every time I mention the high price of homes and how hard it is for non-boomers to enjoy such things as their own home, possibility of kids, family, stable jobs, there's never a shortage of defenders telling me that I'm out of line: they didn't live in a McMansion and get a new iPhone every year; younger folk have it easy and complain too much. Well sorry, the exact same 1200 ft^2 brick home built in the 50s, that you bought for 2 year's salary (with a high school education) in the 70's, NOW costs 6 times my salary (or 12 times the median salary for the area). The $600 iPhone which I absolutely need for any modern job (thanks to BYOD) isn't gonna make a dent in the cost of housing, health care, and college these days.
  - adevine 10y ago
    > The $600 iPhone which I absolutely need for any modern job (thanks to BYOD) I agree with your overall point that things like housing, healthcare, and education are much more expensive today and are much more difficult to acquire, securely, on a median income. However, when you say things like "I absolutely need a $600 iPhone for any modern job", it comes across like out-of-touch whining. No, you do not need the latest iPhone for any modern job. You want the latest iPhone. You can get a very capable, brand new Android phone for around $100 bucks.
    - mjmahone17 10y ago
      In the same way that client-facing bankers don't need to wear suits. If part of your job is conveying status, bringing an Android to work conveys a completely different kind of status than an iPhone. It may not feel good, but that doesn't mean $600 for an iPhone, even when you can barely afford food/rent, is poorly spent.
nilkn 10y ago
Those exact same houses from the 70s (even from the 50s, in fact) are selling for seven figures near me. That's about 20x the median household income in my city.
- refurb 10y ago
  That's what blows me away about San Francisco. Not only are you paying 10x ($1.5M) what most people in the US pay for a house ($150K), you're getting a lot less house at the same time. We're talking going from ~2000 sq. ft. to ~1100 sq. ft., old construction, no insulation, etc. If you really wanted to make a comparison between equal houses, the difference is more like 20x ($3M for a similar house in the Bay Area).
  - dionidium 10y ago
    This is exactly right and it works both ways. If you're comparing NYC to St. Louis and desire a 60th floor apartment in a high rise, then the COL difference is infinity or mu or NAN or something. You simply can't make the comparison. The same is true when comparing the average detached home in the Midwest to San Francisco. For most people, the answer to, "how much more would I have to make to buy the same house out there?" is "it doesn't matter, because you'll never make that much."

chadgeidel 10y ago

This is an excellent point. Why is "living in mom and dad's basement" wrong and "living in <someone else's> basement" acceptable? Why do we need 2 people (mom and dad) taking up an entire 4k-6k sq ft "single family" dwelling sitting on 1/4-1/2 acre of land? This country has a housing problem and this is the root of it.

nostrebored 10y ago
Living in Mom and Dad's basement is fundamentally different than living with your peers. It's typically very socially limiting, and a sign of stagnating development. I say this as someone who lived with his parents for two years during college, and would gladly pay the $12k/year it would have cost me to get those two years back, so maybe I'm biased, but nearly everyone I've talked to who's been living with their parents has had negative ramifications from it. Some romantic, some social development, some just general annoyance re: dealing with their parents quirks. And I mean as a parent, my goal is helping my child develop into a fully autonomous adult. Fully autonomous does not mean 'depends on me for housing.'
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  I appreciate what you are saying here, but IMHO it's a relationship problem, not a housing one. Just as you would have gladly lived away from your parents, I gladly lived with mine (and did so in college).
whichfawkes 10y ago
My landlord doesn't think he has a right or obligation to control my behavior. If I'm not making too much noise or destroying the apartment I can do whatever I want. I will never have to ask permission to throw a party, never have to explain where I'm going when I leave, and never have to introduce my guests to him. I never even have to talk to him. I very much prefer a simple "check-in-mailbox" relationship with the person who owns my dwelling. I actually like my parents, but I sure don't want them as landlords!
- yardie 10y ago