3 ms·

People get much larger houses today because they can afford much larger houses. This comes from both increased prosperity and having fewer kids. 1950s: The ave

by Retric 2y ago

People get much larger houses today because they can afford much larger houses. This comes from both increased prosperity and having fewer kids. 1950s: The average new home sold for $82,098. It had 983 square feet of floor space and a household size of 3.37 people, or 292 square feet per person. 2010s: The average new home ($292,700) offers 924 square feet per person (2.59 people per household, 2,392 total square feet) — three times the space afforded in the 1950s. https://compasscaliforniablog.com/have-american-homes-changed-much-over-the-years-take-a-look/ https://compasscaliforniablog.com/have-american-homes-change...

PostOnce 2y ago
Around here, they're building bigger houses, but also on much smaller plots without gardens or dogs or tree-houses or places for kids to play outdoors. I suspect it's the same in a lot of places. Maybe these square-foot-per-person calculations should also include square feet of land.
- travisb 2y ago
  If you are going to do that, other play grounds should also be counted: the forests and fields which used to be nearby, the per-child space in nearby parks, etc. All these are places children used to go unsupervised, but now mostly don't.
- Retric 2y ago
  Most people today don’t want a large back yard. It’s like an outdoor pool, there’s definitely a market but adding a pool can lower your property’s value. Land doesn’t decrease the value of a property, but it can dramatically lower the number of buyers.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    If this is true, it is so insanely contrary to the opinion of literally every single person I have ever met. Everyone wants a yard. Most people want a sizeable yard for their dogs or kids, or to drink beer and have campfires. I grew up in rural midwest USA. maybe opinions are different elsewhere, but your comment is a bit baffling. Ive never in my life heard someone say "that house would be perfect if it just came with less land"
    - Retric 2y ago
      I know several people who decided to get smaller yards or were happy to move into apartment complexes without them. We both are dealing with biased samples. A childhood friend who is very into the outdoors moved to a rural area and got 14 acres, everyone else moved to an apartment or a house with under an acre. This stuff shows up on migration patterns, and well there’s a reason the Rural Midwest USA is a small percentage of the US population. So, I agree many people do want a large yard, but revealed preferences suggest it’s a minority opinion.
      - qazxcvbnm 2y ago
        Revealed preferences are only as revealing as the market is competitive. In monopolies, is it not revealed that the populace prefers to be price-gouged? In a market as regulated as housing and with deep ties to policy (and industrial structures that I have heard about which I do not understand), it's difficult to not be sceptical of revealed preferences as a sole convincing explanation.
        Retric 2y ago
        What you’re describing may impact housing developments etc, but I don’t think many markets are more competitive than used homes. Despite its rarity a 3 acre lot is rarely worth 3x what a 1 acre lot would be, unless it can be subdivided.
martincmartin 2y ago
$82,098 in 1955, adjusted for inflation, was worth $727,502.05[1]. So homes were actually much more expensive back then. [1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=82098&year1=195501&year2=201504 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=82098&year1=19...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ffsm8 2y ago
  I wish I new how that article got to 80k for a house in 1955.. I couldn't find a link to trust "interactive visualisation" they're citing and Google didn't help me either. I wasn't born then, so no personal experience and everything I could find pointed more towards 5-10k, i.e. this advertisement https://i.redd.it/75sc90f58qsa1.jpg https://i.redd.it/75sc90f58qsa1.jpg That'd be safely below 100k, inflation adjusted... Actually, maybe that 80k is already inflation adjusted? The number is pretty close
- acchow 2y ago
  No, they already adjusted for inflation. In nominal dollars, a home in 1955 would be under $10k https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  That can't be right, it must already be an inflation-adjusted number. My parents bought their most recent house in ~1970 for $30K, and that was a bit above the median for the area.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by Retric 2y ago

PostOnce 2y ago

Around here, they're building bigger houses, but also on much smaller plots without gardens or dogs or tree-houses or places for kids to play outdoors. I suspect it's the same in a lot of places. Maybe these square-foot-per-person calculations should also include square feet of land.

travisb 2y ago
If you are going to do that, other play grounds should also be counted: the forests and fields which used to be nearby, the per-child space in nearby parks, etc. All these are places children used to go unsupervised, but now mostly don't.
Retric 2y ago
Most people today don’t want a large back yard. It’s like an outdoor pool, there’s definitely a market but adding a pool can lower your property’s value. Land doesn’t decrease the value of a property, but it can dramatically lower the number of buyers.
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  If this is true, it is so insanely contrary to the opinion of literally every single person I have ever met. Everyone wants a yard. Most people want a sizeable yard for their dogs or kids, or to drink beer and have campfires. I grew up in rural midwest USA. maybe opinions are different elsewhere, but your comment is a bit baffling. Ive never in my life heard someone say "that house would be perfect if it just came with less land"
  - Retric 2y ago
    I know several people who decided to get smaller yards or were happy to move into apartment complexes without them. We both are dealing with biased samples. A childhood friend who is very into the outdoors moved to a rural area and got 14 acres, everyone else moved to an apartment or a house with under an acre. This stuff shows up on migration patterns, and well there’s a reason the Rural Midwest USA is a small percentage of the US population. So, I agree many people do want a large yard, but revealed preferences suggest it’s a minority opinion.
    - qazxcvbnm 2y ago
      Revealed preferences are only as revealing as the market is competitive. In monopolies, is it not revealed that the populace prefers to be price-gouged? In a market as regulated as housing and with deep ties to policy (and industrial structures that I have heard about which I do not understand), it's difficult to not be sceptical of revealed preferences as a sole convincing explanation.
      - Retric 2y ago
        What you’re describing may impact housing developments etc, but I don’t think many markets are more competitive than used homes. Despite its rarity a 3 acre lot is rarely worth 3x what a 1 acre lot would be, unless it can be subdivided.

martincmartin 2y ago

$82,098 in 1955, adjusted for inflation, was worth $727,502.05[1]. So homes were actually much more expensive back then. [1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=82098&year1=195501&year2=201504 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=82098&year1=19...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ffsm8 2y ago
I wish I new how that article got to 80k for a house in 1955.. I couldn't find a link to trust "interactive visualisation" they're citing and Google didn't help me either. I wasn't born then, so no personal experience and everything I could find pointed more towards 5-10k, i.e. this advertisement https://i.redd.it/75sc90f58qsa1.jpg https://i.redd.it/75sc90f58qsa1.jpg That'd be safely below 100k, inflation adjusted... Actually, maybe that 80k is already inflation adjusted? The number is pretty close
acchow 2y ago
No, they already adjusted for inflation. In nominal dollars, a home in 1955 would be under $10k https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
rootusrootus 2y ago
That can't be right, it must already be an inflation-adjusted number. My parents bought their most recent house in ~1970 for $30K, and that was a bit above the median for the area.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]