|
||
Do Big Homes Mean Bigger Happiness?
Nowadays, you can take a stroll through a suburban street and actually come across the White House. Well, not the actual residence of George W., but a scarily accurate, humongous replica. Yep, despite the woes of the housing market, Americans are still super-sizing their homes.
The funny thing is, while homes get bigger, and this McMansion trend swallows up neighborhoods and landmarks, families are actually getting smaller. According to the Census Bureau, the average house size has ballooned from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,434 square feet in 2005. Meanwhile, only 10 percent (down from 21 percent) of households have five or more people. In 1970, the average number of people per household was 3.14. Now, it is 2.6. Lots more space per person...
These big homes mean extra resources, extra acres of land, and increased energy consumption...that would be one super-sized footprint. Clearly, big houses are not green.
But do they mean extra happiness? Not according to many of the experts. University of California-Riverside professor of psychology Sonja Lyubomirsky, the author of "The How of Happiness" says, "Someone who feels elated after upgrading to a big house is likely to soon start yearning for more -- an extra bedroom, a pool, whatever it may be. But ultimately, whether we drive a battered truck or a Lexus to work; whether we have hypertension or asthma, our ability to be happy and get happier doesn't vary much."
Seems like we can live with less, and be just as happy.
What is it with our obsession with super-sized homes? Comment Below!
More from Graham Hill on Huffington Post
::Why I Don't Flush
::Would You Kill What You Eat?
::Europeans Happier than Americans yet Half the Footprint
::Phones as Fashion: Can You Resist the New Apple iPhone?
More From Huffington Post on Waste
::Three Things I Could Live Without: The Bath Mat, the Paper Towel, and the Cocktail Napkin
::Top 10 Most Useless Items of Crapola
More From TreeHugger on McMansions
::"Green" McMansions Torched in Seattle
::Big Houses Are Not Green: America's McMansion Problem
::Colorado "Credit" System Shot at McMansion Plague
::Dumb Question Dept : "Why is New Housing so Big and Lousy?"
Photo: Wharman via Flickr.
Follow Graham Hill on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ghill
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Graham Hill's Profile
Sorry about that, the 2006 census said the household size was 2.6, not 3.2 as previously written..corrected now.
A big house is simply a trophy... for everyone to see how "successful" you are.
You guys would hate 19th Century Buffalo, this city is litter with 2000, 3000 plus sq foot homes
Human nature as it stands today is to want more of anything. As though more of anything will bring more gratification now and into the future.
The truth is that happiness comes from within, period. It is knowing that you have good health, that you woke up today, that you have food, that you are not a slave or prisoner, that your family is safe. These are mental issues of the mind. To understand that happiness is derived mentally. That creature comforts will always come and go, but if you decide to be happy regardless of external physical needs. Happiness is there for anyone at any time, you just need to be aware of it. No mystery, no luck, no superstition, not GOD. Appreciate the moment and happiness is yours!
Hi Graham,
As to large houses . . . these are far more energy neutral than the article portrays. Insulation, radiant heating, geothermal, solar assists, new pump technology, wider wall cavities and space to accomplish this results in houses that are far more energy efficient than the older smaller houses. (Believe Mr KillTheMessenger can lay claim to this!)
Am designing one development to be energy / environmentally neutral (basically only using electricity on cloudy days) . . . but these are large-large houses on large-large lots, which can support geothermal, water capture and solar . . . The large lots and large houses permit use of technologies not available in lower cost - smaller lot homes.
Just thoughts!
I've given this a lot of thought and I believe that this phenomenon is related to people (read parents) reconceptualizing the outdoors as unsafe. This lack of safety in the outdoors is manifested in the sun, insects and unsupervised play being understood as unsafe and dangerous to children. Since many believe the sun is dangerous, and needs to be blocked by sunscreen, insects are carriers of disease (tick borne diseases proliferate, and west nile virus transmitted by mosquitos) and predators lurk to snatch your children should they leave your sight , I am not surprised that increasing indoor space is sought to protect children from the perceived harms of the outdoors.
I can't blame people for wanting their children to be safe. And I agree that those dangers are real, given the destruction of the ozone, changing weather and disease patterns, and heightened awareness of pedophiles.
Hi Graham,
Well-written . . . though, there is a factor missed and it doesn't deal with happiness . . . more like the size of lobster in Kansas City.
The discouragement of house construction via down-zoning
----------
Towns in NJ, VA, PA, MA . . . are actively discouraging house construction by raising the minimum lot size. As a consequence, when you pay for a large 3, 5, 25 acre "house lot" it would be natural to place a larger house on the site . . . It makes no sense to build a 1,300 sq ft home on a 5 acre lot . . . If the builder pays $400,000 for the lot and the lot price is traditionally 25% of the home cost . . . then the house would be $1.2m retail ($1.6 m, including land). . . .There are fewer buyers in this range and those expect the associated size / luxury.
Consequence of down-zoing
----------
A consequence of large-lots is the reduced availability of more reasonably sized houses in the market place (starter homes). As a result, a higher percentage of new homes are large and a lower percentage are reasonably sized.
Would conclude this has little to do with the buyer's yearning to have a large house. Like lobster in Kansas (which have to be air freighted in) . . . the only ones available are the large ones.
The simple fact is that most people can not afford location, which is the single most important pricing factor. And few people have architectural taste, so they end up with "bigger is better", no matter how far away. Sad but it seems to have worked for generations of developers.
"In 1970, the average number of people per household was 3.14. Now, it is 3.2. Lots more space per person..."
Is 3.2 people per household less than 3.14?
I think it is 0.06 more. Am I right?
That confused me too. But if you divide average square footage (1660 vs 2434) by average people per household (3.14 vs 3.2), then you do get more space per person. Could have been written more clearly.
I don't understand it either. I have 1400 sf and it's plenty big enough 3 and 2.
It's not sq. ft. it's how it's used. If you have 3000 sf of weirdly configured space with badly sized and configured rooms then it is a waste of space and resources. Homebuilders and buyers should get a clue, hopefully the soft re mkt. will help.
I agree. We built a house in 1992. It is about 1800 square feet, and lives like 3000. Open areas, 9 foot ceilings, recessed lightling and the like increase the "livability". Our old house was 3 and 2 but poorly designed with little flow and smaller rooms. The new house has larger living/dining room, kitchen and master bath. The other two bedrooms are on the other side of the house, one of which is my office. We insulated this house to the hilt and use less energy than houses in our area of comparable size. We did not do this to be "green", but to save money on utilities, and we have.
They are projections of the owners' penises.
We need more room for our stuff!
While this Carlinesque excuse may seem tongue in cheek, storage facilities are actually seeing more business form homeowners whose homes are no longer large enough to accommodate all the crap they have accumulated. So that you are seeing a demand for larger homes isn't that much of a surprise.
And just aside from the tonnage of stuff factor, many people now use their homes as studios and offices. So they need space to put them in. So the happiness factor, for the most part, really doesn't matter. It is more about sheer logistics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
