Lower birth rates and the future of those BIG HOUSES?

[barkley]

Is it common having houses with 4/5 bedrooms?

I look at open houses a lot and watch lots of House Hunters and having more than 3 bedrooms is unusual.
(Besides a 4th in the basement perhaps…)

around here it's popular to do a 3 bedroom with a number of additional 'flex rooms' which are identical in size to the non primary bedrooms but absent a closet. reason being is the more bedrooms the higher the property taxes, 'flex rooms' don't count as a bedroom in the tax appraisal. california closets makes some lovely units that can be installed as a peice of furniture which does not impact taxes and their nearby factory does well for itself.

 

[ronandannette]

LOL. You sound like a real estate developer. Those 1,000 square foot condos are HUGE with builders here. Proposals come out, with a percentage of the units designed as "affordable units" But sometime after the project is approved, and the time the complex gets built, those unis get amended out of the project. Within the city limits some units are even being built with NO parking in areas where on street parking Cram a bunch on very little land, well them for $450,000-$500,000. Throw in crazy high HOA fees for little more than a gardener to cut a little lawn in the public areas and blow leaves. I just have to wonder if in the future THOSE are going to be impossible to sell.

It’s just the reality of the market economically here right now. There’s next to nothing for new single-family suburban development going on going on for under $600,000 and that doesn’t get you much. Even though they may be relatively modest homes, it’s hard to call them “starters” because of the prices. Even former single-family starters originally built and sold 30 years ago for $100,000 are now in the $500,000 range because of the land value, larger lots and the potential for redevelopment. Multi-family, which can still be had in the high $300,000’s or low $400,000’s is really the best shot for entry to the market.

As to your last sentence, well, the condo market in Toronto and Vancouver is cooling but it’s not due to lack of demand. Housing supply is dire in major cities. The problem is entirely that even those are now priced beyond a first-time buyer’s reach. The market will have to adjust itself on that end.

 

[Southernmiss]

I think people still want some openness to their floor plan. What they don't want any more if they ever really did is one big room with the kitchen in some corner somewhere that you can see from everywhere in the house not named bedroom or bathroom.

We just remodeled to get an open kitchen living room space and took out the walls of a small room for an open layout. Complete with a counter that seats 8.

We now have 4 grown kids and are the host house for extended family Thanksgiving and Christmas celebrations.

Dh and I absolutely love it. We held our first family gathering last weekend and it was so much more comfortable for everyone.

Our home was built in 2001, 2100 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths.

 

[_19disnA]

Hard to make sweeping generalizations on this topic. People who have the financial means will buy the size home appropriate for how they want to use it. Cost of living varies quite a bit based on which part of the country someone is in. Not sure anyone can accurately predict how birth rates will go in the next 10-20-30 years. Way too many variables can impact that. I think people buy a home based on what their financial means & needs are. What they might do 30 years from now once their retire and/or move elsewhere is probably less of a factor.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

'flex rooms'

"Flex room" just means it can serve a variety of purposes rather than being deemed strictly a bedroom but it does not mean it wouldn't be counted as a bedroom, perhaps in your codes it prohibits it. Things like size, egress (meaning ability to get out) and whatnot affect the counting of a bedroom here not the usage of the term flex room. The absence of a closet doesn't mean it wouldn't be considered a bedroom though I think you'd find most flex rooms that are counted as bedrooms here have the closet because people don't want to buy a house with a room counted as a bedroom without a closet.

Our 5th bedroom is on the main level, used as an office and labeled on the house plan by the builder as a flex room. The most common usage of an additional bedroom on a main level in my direct area is an office.

A random example, one of the main builders in the metro "The two-story Acadia features a main-level flex room to accommodate a fifth bedroom or a home office."

reason being is the more bedrooms the higher the property taxes,

That wholly depends on where you live. There are a multitude of factors that can be involved in one's property taxes and the number of bedrooms could be insignificant all things considered in the end depending on where one lives. New builds here the purchase price of your home is the 1st valuation number, try telling the home across the street from us that has about the same square footage as us but 1 less bedroom (they have 4 we have 5) that higher property taxes is related to that...they paid about $325K more than we did 10 years apart from us both new builds at the time of purchasing so their property taxes was based on that purchase price of the house. And their home was considered a comp to ours because it was a 2 story recent purchase on our street. Normally in terms of comps the county mostly uses the type of house like 2 story, 1 1/2 story, reverse 1 1/2 and around the same square footage as you as the bulk of why they pick a house especially as they are trying to find homes as close in distance to yours as they can.

 

[neverlandsky]

If it’s a larger home in a non HOA community they are doing the following to them: Becoming licensed elderly care centers, multigenerational households, and multiple roommates in one house especially if it’s in a HCOL area with a college nearby.

What’s frustrating is that builders caught on with their multigenerational households floorplans and they are refusing to build starter one story 1200-1500 sq homes because there’s no money in it. It’s either multi residential homes with no backyards & no parking options or the single residential homes with multigenerational features all 2 stories+. They are being advertised as investors dream.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What’s frustrating is that builders caught on with their multigenerational households floorplans and they are refusing to build starter one story 1200-1500 sq homes because there’s no money in it

I think the Great Recession did that for us in our metro. Not the multi-generational homes which by in large are prohibited from being built here if in a zoned area for single family residential but that there was no money in it, some builders left the metro. Our rental house built by Pulte homes was built in 2005/2006 we moved in in 2013 moved out in 2014 and was a starter home, Pulte left the market during the Recession and not many builders build small homes. That said I also think the definition of starter home is very different than before at least when I look at my metro's housing market.

For example I do see the builder we went with has on the other side of the state line a home as small as 1,435 square feet but the current new homes they have for sale with that house plan are anywhere between $435K-492K for a 2 bed 2 bath. Which for comparison if it was on my side of the state line would be significantly more than that. And to further drive it home our house is 2,700 sq feet 5 bed 4 bath for less than those homes are being sold for the difference being we bought at the tail end of a buyer's market and it's been a seller's market here for more than 10 years. I don't know about you but paying $400K for such a small home is hard for anyone to consider it a starter home especially when you can get existing homes with more square footage for less, it's just older homes.

 

[china mom]

If it’s a larger home in a non HOA community they are doing the following to them: Becoming licensed elderly care centers, multigenerational households, and multiple roommates in one house especially if it’s in a HCOL area with a college nearby.

What’s frustrating is that builders caught on with their multigenerational households floorplans and they are refusing to build starter one story 1200-1500 sq homes because there’s no money in it. It’s either multi residential homes with no backyards & no parking options or the single residential homes with multigenerational features all 2 stories+. They are being advertised as investors dream.

I bought my childhood home from my mother's estate and turned it into a rental. First tenants I got was a business that runs assisted living facilities. With my permission, they split the den, turning a four bedroom into a 6 bed/ 2 bath house. They pay $2950/mo and have made upgrades at their expense.

I looked up their website and they charge their patients $5,000/mo base - more if they need more care. Of course they do have other expenses in addition to rent but win/win.

It is in a residential neighborhood and you would never know it was anything other than a single family home from the outside.

 

[tvguy]

around here it's popular to do a 3 bedroom with a number of additional 'flex rooms' which are identical in size to the non primary bedrooms but absent a closet. reason being is the more bedrooms the higher the property taxes, 'flex rooms' don't count as a bedroom in the tax appraisal. california closets makes some lovely units that can be installed as a peice of furniture which does not impact taxes and their nearby factory does well for itself.

Must simpler here in California with property taxes. Your property taxes are 1% of what you paid for the house. The dollar amount of that tax can go up by no more than 2% year. How many bedrooms or pools or how big your garage is not used to calculate your property taxes. Voters can approve addition taxes on top of that. I pay an additional $50 a year because voters approved a bond measure for the park district, and $125 for the schools. They are just over half way through tearing down ALL the schools in my district and building new ones. Most of our schools were built in the 1950s.

 

[NotUrsula]

I think that the answer to a lot of these problems is restrictive zoning rules and (especially) very tight examination of variance requests.

The biggest problem killing affordability in my area is the infill tear-down market. Builders are coming into established neighborhoods of small homes, buying up entire streets, and then replacing those 1000-1600 sqft homes with new builds at least 2X the size on the same lot. The homes that are there may be a little dated, but they are perfectly sound and completely liveable; these areas are not blighted. So the house sells for maybe $200K, and then it is replaced with a much bigger one that is put on the market at $800K.

IMO, that has to stop, and it can be stopped, by making it a rule that if there is an existing home on the property, the one that replaces it cannot be more than a certain percentage larger (maybe 10-15%). Put that rule in place, and the neighborhoods of affordable starter-size homes will be left alone by the spec builders. (I am OK with exceptions for homeowners who wish to substantially enlarge their own homes that they already live in; I just want to prevent the wholesale destruction of affordable neighborhoods by builders and investors who are doing it purely for profit, and not because they had 2 more kids, need to move Mom in, or have to have a home office.)

ETA: The homeowner exception I meant was for renovation, not full teardowns, but IME, when that kind of thing happens it usually involves getting a setback variance to take the larger building closer to the lot lines. I'm mostly against that, within limits. I think it can be OK to go to the lot line on one side only, and preferably only the rear boundary. My son previously lived in a garage apt behind a 1930's bungalow in a very leafy and walkable old neighborhood. Someone bought the lot on the other side of the alley and built an absolute monstrosity on it: a concrete box 3 stories high with an integrated garage; it went to within a foot of the lot lines on all 4 sides. Took out 5 mature trees and completed concreted the entire lot. The thing literally blocked out the sun for at least 3 buildings around it. A house like that is prohibited in that neighborhood because it's a historic district, but someone gave that jerk a variance.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think that the answer to a lot of these problems is restrictive zoning rules and (especially) very tight examination of variance requests.

The biggest problem killing affordability in my area is the infill tear-down market. Builders are coming into established neighborhoods of small homes, buying up entire streets, and then replacing those 1000-1600 sqft homes with new builds at least 2X the size on the same lot. The homes that are there may be a little dated, but they are perfectly sound and completely liveable; these areas are not blighted. So the house sells for maybe $200K, and then it is replaced with a much bigger one that is put on the market at $800K.

IMO, that has to stop, and it can be stopped, by making it a rule that if there is an existing home on the property, the one that replaces it cannot be more than a certain percentage larger (maybe 10-15%). Put that rule in place, and the neighborhoods of affordable starter-size homes will be left alone by the spec builders. (I am OK with exceptions for homeowners who wish to substantially enlarge their own homes that they already live in; I just want to prevent the wholesale destruction of affordable neighborhoods by builders and investors who are doing it purely for profit, and not because they had 2 more kids, need to move Mom in, or have to have a home office.)

There's a city here that has that issue but it's not investors buying it up really just people who are purchasing homes where historically the homes are smaller than what current desires want them to be and the lots they are on allow for a larger home than what is currently there so you'll see people buy up the home bulldoze it and build a larger home on the lot or they will significantly add on to the home. It's mostly just this one city that experiences this as a main problem in my metro but has drawn a lot of ire from long-term existing homeowners who wish people would go back to buying in the city for the known-charm of the homes.

The city is aware of the issues and is trying various things but the reason I mentioned this is because you're okay with exceptions for homeowners who want to increase their home size when that is the very issue that here in that city, now I wouldn't say this city is necessarily affordable nor filled with starter homes in terms of price point because the pricing is very high and has been for years despite the smaller home size but all the same the trend is there to take small home and make it bigger for the last 10+ years in that city.

This is from an article about a month ago pictures is a new home being built after tearing down the old, next to it is a home that is considered normal for the city


An article back in 2017 talked about this city and said most often the rebuild homes were about twice the size of the old ones.

Now investors are a problem but not necessarily in that city when the main issue is tear down by homeowners buying up homes that don't suit their desires but they like the neighborhood/area. And in terms of buying a brand new home on a brand new lot many seem to find financially speaking it's cheaper to buy an older smaller home tear down and make new and bigger. Other cities have some issues with tear downs but it's so heavily impactful in this one particular city.