Millennials aren't going to buy your ugly mcmansions, silly Boomers!

[Anonymous]

There will always be those who opt to be closer in and willing to live in smaller homes. There will also always be those who opt to move out for bigger homes. So there are going to be many millennials who choose to have smaller families and stay closer in. But there are also going to be many millennials who choose to have more than one child who opt for larger homes with more yard space, more rooms and more square footage.

That said, the average square footage of homes is still trending upwards, so it looks as if the desire for more house is still outweighing other factors.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/02/u-s-houses-are-still-getting-bigger/

See the graph in the article above. The only significant drop in average sf house size since 1982 was 2007-2008 during the big housing recession where many buyers had to opt for smaller because that's what they could afford.

So, even if some millennials are opting not to get bigger houses, many of those with 2+ children still are buying larger houses.

[Anonymous]

In the end, the millennial so won't be any different than the generations that came before them, they just got an extended single, no kids phase because of the greatrecession and in some cases, helicoptering parents. You don't know the need of multiple school aged kids until you actually have them, or what it is like to have your kid in less than ideal school for them until you are actually there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if millennials do follow the footsteps of previous generations, and as some anecdotes here are attempting to prove, some millennials have, it doesn't mean that their values are the same as the generations who kept going bigger and bigger with house size. To the extent it's sound to make generalizations about such a large, diverse group of people, there does seem to be a trend towards preferring walkable city living, as nationwide property value trends demonstrate. But there's only so much housing stock in cities and everything is weighed against what it cost. Millennial are already proving they have values shaped by their experiences (newsflash--every generation does) by virtue of this shift in demand and denying the move to suburbs, even if inevitable. They can't go back and time and make choices that have shaped housing stock and transit options any more than previous generations could have done when they were young. If and when some millennial do move to the suburbs, and many will because that's where homes are, it will likely be because housing there is cheaper than other options precisely because other people their age are making different choices. I don't understand why everyone seems to get such joy out of criticizing young people and betting on them making the same choices most of you probably made. Of course some of them will. That's the path of least of least resistance at this point, thanks to policies put into place well before anyone who qualifies as a millennial had much say in the matter. It reeks of really deep dissatisfaction and insecurity to need to tear down an entire group of people merely because a very slight amount more of them are making different choices than you did. If it makes you feel better about your property values, whatever generation after millennials will likely have different values and preferences and they will be in your shoes someday, whether those shoes are in the closet in a suburban McMansion or shoved in Ikea's latest contraption in the front hallway of an urban rowhouse. I hope when I am in the position to observe those younger than me making their way in the world I will be happy enough with my own choices to let them live their lives while I live mine. People choosing to live in a way other than how you've chosen is neither a personal attack nor an invitation for feedback. But as you've probably guessed, I'm part of the most diverse generation yet, so I recognize it's probably harder for all you olds to understand.

Good points. I'm 43 now and am in the process of tearing down my house and building a nice home (but some would call it a McMansion since it will be huge). Right out of college, I remember having a stereo system, buying a huge tube TV, having a bike, my PC was massive, and dreaming of a home theater one day but never having enough space. When I mentioned to my son about having a home theater, he laughed and said that for the money, just buy a bunch of virtual reality glasses and view a massive theater size screen instead. He sort of has a point. Why do I need a whole room to do what can be done with VR glasses? Extend this to bedroom sizes, family rooms (used often to watch TV), etc. Who knows what the future holds. Many of the things that people want now are on our phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be those who opt to be closer in and willing to live in smaller homes. There will also always be those who opt to move out for bigger homes. So there are going to be many millennials who choose to have smaller families and stay closer in. But there are also going to be many millennials who choose to have more than one child who opt for larger homes with more yard space, more rooms and more square footage.

That said, the average square footage of homes is still trending upwards, so it looks as if the desire for more house is still outweighing other factors.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/02/u-s-houses-are-still-getting-bigger/

See the graph in the article above. The only significant drop in average sf house size since 1982 was 2007-2008 during the big housing recession where many buyers had to opt for smaller because that's what they could afford.

So, even if some millennials are opting not to get bigger houses, many of those with 2+ children still are buying larger houses.

You're assuming millennials are the ones building houses. That's not yet the case. As some people here have said, mostly in attempts to be demeaning, millennials as a whole do not have the earning power (partly due to age, at least) that would allow us to know whether, as a group, they would make the same choices given the same circumstances. Your post proves nothing until we know who is designing and building the houses you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be those who opt to be closer in and willing to live in smaller homes. There will also always be those who opt to move out for bigger homes. So there are going to be many millennials who choose to have smaller families and stay closer in. But there are also going to be many millennials who choose to have more than one child who opt for larger homes with more yard space, more rooms and more square footage.

That said, the average square footage of homes is still trending upwards, so it looks as if the desire for more house is still outweighing other factors.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/02/u-s-houses-are-still-getting-bigger/

See the graph in the article above. The only significant drop in average sf house size since 1982 was 2007-2008 during the big housing recession where many buyers had to opt for smaller because that's what they could afford.

So, even if some millennials are opting not to get bigger houses, many of those with 2+ children still are buying larger houses.

Actually, more recent data seems to suggest the opposite--homes are starting to shrink, just a little:

"For the first time since the recession, home size is shrinking. Median single-family square floor area fell from the first to the second quarter of this year by 73 feet, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and U.S. Census data. That may not sound like a lot, but it is a clear reversal in the trend of builders focusing on the higher-end buyer."

"The majority of it is a question of affordability," said Bob Youngentob, president of Maryland-based EYA, a builder concentrating largely in urban townhomes. "People want to stay in closer-in locations, at least from our experience, and closer-in locations tend to be more expensive from a land and development standpoint and so, the desire to be able to keep people in those locations is translating into smaller square footages and more efficient designs."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/why-houses-in-america-are-getting-smaller.html

[Anonymous]

Just turned 31 and have two babies. We bought a historic home with a decent commute in the close in burbs. McMansions are gross. Our next house will be another historic home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if millennials do follow the footsteps of previous generations, and as some anecdotes here are attempting to prove, some millennials have, it doesn't mean that their values are the same as the generations who kept going bigger and bigger with house size. To the extent it's sound to make generalizations about such a large, diverse group of people, there does seem to be a trend towards preferring walkable city living, as nationwide property value trends demonstrate. But there's only so much housing stock in cities and everything is weighed against what it cost. Millennial are already proving they have values shaped by their experiences (newsflash--every generation does) by virtue of this shift in demand and denying the move to suburbs, even if inevitable. They can't go back and time and make choices that have shaped housing stock and transit options any more than previous generations could have done when they were young. If and when some millennial do move to the suburbs, and many will because that's where homes are, it will likely be because housing there is cheaper than other options precisely because other people their age are making different choices. I don't understand why everyone seems to get such joy out of criticizing young people and betting on them making the same choices most of you probably made. Of course some of them will. That's the path of least of least resistance at this point, thanks to policies put into place well before anyone who qualifies as a millennial had much say in the matter. It reeks of really deep dissatisfaction and insecurity to need to tear down an entire group of people merely because a very slight amount more of them are making different choices than you did. If it makes you feel better about your property values, whatever generation after millennials will likely have different values and preferences and they will be in your shoes someday, whether those shoes are in the closet in a suburban McMansion or shoved in Ikea's latest contraption in the front hallway of an urban rowhouse. I hope when I am in the position to observe those younger than me making their way in the world I will be happy enough with my own choices to let them live their lives while I live mine. People choosing to live in a way other than how you've chosen is neither a personal attack nor an invitation for feedback. But as you've probably guessed, I'm part of the most diverse generation yet, so I recognize it's probably harder for all you olds to understand.

Good points. I'm 43 now and am in the process of tearing down my house and building a nice home (but some would call it a McMansion since it will be huge). Right out of college, I remember having a stereo system, buying a huge tube TV, having a bike, my PC was massive, and dreaming of a home theater one day but never having enough space. When I mentioned to my son about having a home theater, he laughed and said that for the money, just buy a bunch of virtual reality glasses and view a massive theater size screen instead. He sort of has a point. Why do I need a whole room to do what can be done with VR glasses? Extend this to bedroom sizes, family rooms (used often to watch TV), etc. Who knows what the future holds. Many of the things that people want now are on our phones.

Thanks for being open to reason. You're very right about how much technology changes things. I am in my thirties and sometimes I can barely believe what I've seen change in my lifetime. It's just a different world. It's impossible to know how any of us would have acted under circumstances other than the ones we have, since we only get one direct experience. Trying to compare any one persons experience to another, let alone trying to predict how a generation will act, seems like an exercise in futility. When I bought my (close in) home, I did so fully knowing that desirability of cities cycles and I invest in non-realestate avenues so I won't be penniless if I need to move in the midst of a mass exodus from cities.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget, average house size is heavily influenced by who is doing the buying. Some of the increase in average new home size post recession was likely due to the fact that less affluent first time buyers were simply not in the market. Some of the recent decrease is probably due to them returning to the market.

To really see changes in taste relative to home size, we will need more years' data, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Xer here with two middle school kids in McLean VA. My wife and I knocked down our tiny 1960s split level (worth $~750K) and built a new home (now worth ~$1.6 million). The neighborhood we live in has a mix of tear downs and older homes. It's a large home, but we still have a nice backyard and added many upgrades that weren't cheap although I think the haters would still call it a McMansion. However, I don't understand the desire for the alternative. Here's what I mean:

Our old home had a brick exterior, no house wrap, tiny windows, squeaky floors, no drain tile so the basement leaked, no basement vapor barrier so radon was leaking up, and no character. The original kitchen contained asbestos tiles (which was covered up). The energy efficiency of the house was terrible. Why is what I described better than a new home? Sure, we decided to use HardiPlank vs. brick on the outside but that’s a personal design preference but everything else in the new place is superior to the old one. I hear comments from people that our old home used plywood and solid wood beams but the new home uses Advantech OSB and beams. Well, science tells us that the products are structurally equivalent and OSB is stronger in shear values. The new home has a radon system, better drainage, large windows so we don’t need to use as much electricity, sensors that shut off lights to save energy, and is air tight. The floor doesn’t squeak and is less likely to in the long run, our fire alarm is integrated into home security system which makes it a much safer home (e.g., the air conditioner shuts off if a fire is detected). And yes, we now use our gourmet kitchen to cook most of our meals because it’s just much easier and fun (our old kitchen was tiny and it sucked to cook in)! Why is our ‘McMansion’ worse than our old home?

I'm the 37yo PP who lives in DC in a SFH. Sounds like a sound decision to me to knock down the old house. We wouldn't live that far out because our jobs are in DC, but if you don't have/don't mind a long commute, it sounds like the new build definitely allows better quality of life than the older house.

We have an older house (1930s), but thus far we haven't encountered too many problems in terms of maintenance, have had pretty great appreciation over the past few years, and bottom line, we just felt it was worth it to live in the city, with a short commute. YMMV.

If PP lives in a tear-down neighborhood in McLean, it is most likely in 22101 and close to both Arlington and Metro. I guess what constitutes a "long commute" is relative, but for most people a 20-45 minute commute, depending on the time of day, is pretty sweet, at least if it comes with other amenities.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Millennial and we also have no desire to buy a McMansion. We both work in the core of DC and hopefully our jobs will never move.

The current plan is to have a cheap, old, well built condo WoTP and a weekend house within 90 minutes of DC. We are about to close on the weekend house, do some minor cosmetic renovations, and then get it on AirBnB. I think having a weekend house will take pressure off us to buy the row house or move out to MoCo. No kids right now, ideally we're aiming for only one kid.

Of course, life can give you lemons and we may need to abandon that plan depending on jobs, health, kid situation, family dynamics, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, the millennial so won't be any different than the generations that came before them, they just got an extended single, no kids phase because of the greatrecession and in some cases, helicoptering parents. You don't know the need of multiple school aged kids until you actually have them, or what it is like to have your kid in less than ideal school for them until you are actually there.

Boomer here.

When I was in my early 20s, it was not nearly universal that recent college grads preferred city living. A few did, but plenty went to nice garden apts in the suburbs (and no, Clarendon, which is much more urban and walkable than those places, is not the equivalent). And the vast majority of those who did start in the city, moved when they had their first baby - often before. Today the vast majority prefer urban style living while childless, and large numbers do not move out till they have a second child, or the first child is ready for Kindergarten or even later. I would suggest that is a considerable difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh they will, just not yet. Still too young.

This - obviously - once they stop taking pictures of their food, have a kid and find it harder to go to Iceland for the weekend, they will want what everyone wants. Space and easy access (by car) to the things they need. Walking to meet friends for sushi will be replace by putting the sleeping baby in the car seat and finding a drive through Starbucks.

Matter of time. I am perfectly happy in my house for the next 20 years - I can wait.

36 year old Millennial here. I don't want your McMansion. Not eve a little. I don't want poor design, crap materials, a probable long commute, suburbs with amenities only accessible by driving, or the more conservative politics. I'd like more space for my three (already existing) kids, but I'm not buying a trailer on steroids to satisfy that desire, especially when I'm 56.

Also, I cook 90% of our meals at home. I've taken zero pictures of them.

+1. I'm 33 with 2 kids. Live within the city limits, SFH, 1800 sqft. Walk everywhere and love it. Although I do take pictures of my food sometimes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will always be those who opt to be closer in and willing to live in smaller homes. There will also always be those who opt to move out for bigger homes. So there are going to be many millennials who choose to have smaller families and stay closer in. But there are also going to be many millennials who choose to have more than one child who opt for larger homes with more yard space, more rooms and more square footage.

That said, the average square footage of homes is still trending upwards, so it looks as if the desire for more house is still outweighing other factors.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/02/u-s-houses-are-still-getting-bigger/

See the graph in the article above. The only significant drop in average sf house size since 1982 was 2007-2008 during the big housing recession where many buyers had to opt for smaller because that's what they could afford.

So, even if some millennials are opting not to get bigger houses, many of those with 2+ children still are buying larger houses.

Actually, more recent data seems to suggest the opposite--homes are starting to shrink, just a little:

"For the first time since the recession, home size is shrinking. Median single-family square floor area fell from the first to the second quarter of this year by 73 feet, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and U.S. Census data. That may not sound like a lot, but it is a clear reversal in the trend of builders focusing on the higher-end buyer."

"The majority of it is a question of affordability," said Bob Youngentob, president of Maryland-based EYA, a builder concentrating largely in urban townhomes. "People want to stay in closer-in locations, at least from our experience, and closer-in locations tend to be more expensive from a land and development standpoint and so, the desire to be able to keep people in those locations is translating into smaller square footages and more efficient designs."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/why-houses-in-america-are-getting-smaller.html

I'd tend to pay more attention to the larger data set than to an article that extrapolates from data about two quarters in a single year and then quotes a niche builder of townhouses for the proposition that people want townhouses.

[Anonymous]

I shit you not. I live in Ashburn and was at happy hour a few weeks ago and met a few millennials who living in Ashburn near their high paying jobs and own condos in DC for the weekend. Not just one millennial, but a group of them all had this arrangement.

I will not let the oracles, experts, and clairvoyanto carry on with their Internet drivel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I shit you not. I live in Ashburn and was at happy hour a few weeks ago and met a few millennials who living in Ashburn near their high paying jobs and own condos in DC for the weekend. Not just one millennial, but a group of them all had this arrangement.

I will not let the oracles, experts, and clairvoyanto carry on with their Internet drivel.

That's bananas. What are their jobs?!? I'm guessing intel and cyber security contractors. I definitely have not heard of this trend!