Post Star: Spa City Builder Thinks Bigger Isn’t Always Better for Homes

by Blake Jones for the Post Star | September 25, 2010

Photo by T.J. Hooker

SARATOGA SPRINGS – For developer Matt McPadden, bigger homes aren’t always better.

McPadden’s company, Vintage Bungalow, builds mostly three-bedroom houses starting at 1,600 square feet.

For the money – the homes range from $300,000 to $500,000 – his buyers could afford more. But they, like McPadden, opt for efficiency and detail over scale.

“One of the main priorities is to build smaller houses with more character,” he said.

As it turns out, efficient living appeals to plenty of people these days.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently reported that the median home size is declining. Statistics show the median American home was 2,135 square feet in 2009, down from an all-time high of 2,277 square feet in 2007.

The drop was fairly evenly spread across all regions, although it was larger inside metropolitan areas.

This isn’t the first time the median home size has shrunk. There were four consecutive years of decline in the early 1980s and a two-year decline in the mid-’90s – both coinciding with economic downturns.

The National Association of Home Builders believes a number of factors are driving that trend, including a spike in first-time homebuyers who tend to look for smaller and more affordable houses.

Stephen Melman, director of economic services at the National Association of Home Builders, said affordability is a consideration for everyone these days.

An extra bedroom and bathroom means higher heating and cooling costs, in addition to a bigger price tag.

“When it comes time to spend an extra $25,000 on a house, they just don’t,” he said.

Melman also noted that homes aren’t the investments they used to be, which means larger home won’t necessarily yield larger returns when it comes time to sell.

“(The investment) is not the driving factor,” he said. “It’s about purchasing the home you need.”

Home builders appear to have received the message. A survey of the association’s membership found that 95 percent planned to build smaller homes in 2010.

Melman noted, however, that what buyers have lost in square footage, they’ve gained in utility.

Houses today have more open layouts, which allows greater function in a smaller space.

Rooms like dens, libraries and formal dining rooms aren’t as popular because they are used less frequently. Even garages appear to have peaked in size, according to Melman.

“For 35 years, bigger was better,” he said. “Now maybe smarter is better – not necessarily smaller, but better design.”

That rings true for McPadden, who says Vintage Bungalow has done well in a difficult home-building environment as homeowners downsize in search of lower property tax and utility bills.

He tries to economize space by skipping two-story foyers, separate living and family rooms, or gigantic master baths, while adding value with high-quality materials like real stone for the fireplace, built-in cabinets and hardwood floors.

Unlike original bungalows built in the early 20th century, though, McPadden’s homes offer larger closets, more bathrooms and better flow between the living, dining and kitchen areas.

So far, the “new-old house” concept has appealed to a wide range of people, from young families to retired couples, said Valerie Thompson, the broker representing Vintage Bungalow.

McPadden has sold all of his lots and is looking for new sites. He said he would also like to do a small development of bungalows in the future.

“I just want to build houses that make sense,” McPadden said.