JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
Big Homes, Big Problems
How the size of our houses inflated the housing crisis.
Down the block from my home, workmen are finishing a new house. It replaces a bungalow that had measured about 1,500 square feet. The new home has a covered front porch, two fireplaces and a finished basement. It comes in at just under 5,700 square feet. What is it with Americans and their homes?
Everyone knows the direct causes of the present housing collapse: low interest rates, lax mortgage lending, rampant speculation. But the larger force lies in Americans' devotion to homeownership. It explains why government officials, politicians and journalists (including this one) overlooked abuses in "subprime" lending. The homeownership rate was approaching 70 percent in 2005, up from 64 percent in 1990. Great. A good cause shielded bad practices. The same complacency lulled ordinary Americans into paying ever-rising home prices. Something so embedded in the national psyche must be OK.
"House lust" is what Dan McGinn calls it in his book by the same title. McGinn documents—sympathetically, for he dotes on his own home—our housing excesses, starting with supersizing. In Sweden, Britain and Italy, new homes average under 1,000 square feet. By 2005, the average newly built U.S. home measured 2,434 square feet, and there were many that were double, triple or quadruple that. After World War II, the first mass Levittown suburbs offered 750-square-foot homes. (Full disclosure: McGinn is a NEWSWEEK colleague.)
"We're not selling shelter," says the president of Toll Brothers, a builder of upscale homes. "We're selling extreme-ego, look-at-me types of homes." In 2000, Toll Brothers' most popular home was 3,200 square feet; by 2005, it had grown 50 percent, to 4,800 square feet. These "McMansions" often feature marble floors, sweeping staircases, vaulted ceilings, family rooms, studies, home-entertainment centers and more bedrooms than people.
In a nation of abundant land—unlike Europe and Japan—our housing obsession is understandable and desirable up to a point. People who own homes take better care of them. They stabilize neighborhoods. In a world where so much seems uncontrollable, a house seems a refuge of influence and individuality. In a 2004 survey, 74 percent of would-be home buyers preferred a new home to an existing house. One reason is that a new house often allows buyers to select the latest gadgets and shape the design. The same impulse has driven the remodeling boom, which totaled $180 billion in 2006.
"The most exciting thing was just watching the house go up piece by piece," said one buyer of a new, $380,000 home in Las Vegas. The fiftyish couple added a pool, hot tub and deck. They love their home.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Knows RE @ 10/06/2008 4:14:18 PM
Comment: ."House lust" .Americans let their egos buy their McMansions. This was happening in the early 1990s. Now they have to eat at McDonalds to keep their mortgage current. I wonder how soon we'll see rusted out Lambos up on blocks in the front yard.
Posted By: snjmom @ 09/20/2008 4:38:34 PM
Comment: I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing the McMansions being subdivided? 5200 sf would get you 2-3 nice sized condos.
Posted By: trazer @ 09/20/2008 2:56:28 AM
Comment: Learn from Obama.....Take money from Lehman Brothres, Fannie and Freddie, and known felons. Buy a house.....on fraudulent money. Then even go after half of the property of your neighbor to get a bigger house. When that does not work, Obama abandons his 2 children and lives in hotel rooms. He now expects the american taxpayer - 50 per cent who dislike him - pay for his living expenses. Talk about someone who is using us.