![]() ![]() ![]() We now know that just because you can afford more space doesn’t mean it’s desirable. We have a memory of before the recession when we had all that space, more than we needed. In 1998, for instance, the average home was 2,195 square feet, and in 2013, it was 2,679, according to the National Association of Home Builders.Ī: We’re seeing a small resurgence moving toward bigger again, but that trend won’t have the same sway. ![]() Q: But the average size of new homes is still growing. To see the housing industry embrace that has been affirming. Especially since the recession, we’ve seen a fundamental shift in attitude, where many more homeowners want quality, not quantity. That had to end somewhere, and it has really changed. Everyone was focusing on how to get the square footage up, up, up. Q: How has the American house changed since your first book came out?Ī: When we first spoke, the idea of building smaller, and using the money (that might have gone into a larger home) to make a smaller, better-quality home was really out there. This week, I took the pleasure of speaking with Susanka again to ask what she felt had changed since she turned a critical light on the bigger-is-better building mentality. “It means not as big as you thought you needed, and designed and built to suit the way you live.” “Not so big doesn’t necessarily mean small,” Susanka says. Digital Replica Edition Home Page Close Menu ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |