What a house provides

A house provides physical protection from the outside world - including weather, animals, and other humans. How the home responds to these environments is site specific though the essence of protection is essential. 

The house is also a place for gathering and living. By bringing people together to live in proximity and also providing hospitality to others. The home is a place to store, prepare, and share meals and a collection of systems are responsible for making that possible. It is also responsible for connecting other homes in proximity, creating, in essence, a community. The home promotes gathering and connection both within and outside of its walls.

The adverse of gathering is the benefit of privacy that the home affords. Separating and subdividing spaces within gives individuals or groups private  (or semi-private) spaces inside of the home. The enclosure of the house externally privatizes its spaces and contents from the outside world. Other systems, such as plantings and sheer distance, isolate a home from other signs of humanity. Internally, it is mostly walls and openings which provide privacy to those who live-in and use a home.

Lastly, homes provide a level of comfort and ownership to its inhabitants. Ownership can come from the contents of the house - filling it with things that are your own, an inward / outward expression of uniqueness through customization, and /or the association of memories which give the home the sense of being “yours.” The ways in which we “claim” a home as our own contribute to the comfort of being in one’s home. Additionally, systems such as enclosure and thermal control create more habitable spaces and further protection of one’s self and property from external stressors.

What we look for in a house

The categories that new homeowners look for in a home differ from the terms which define what it is a house provides - if by nothing more than a name change. Each term has different connotations and inclusions than it’s “counterpart” on the left side of the diagram; though, the systems which manifest the term three-dimensionally are often similar or identical.

Size is an important consideration for homebuyers. A house needs to meet their needs in terms of both program and area devoted to each program. The area of the lot is also connected to this category. The “size” category expand upon the “shelter” category by placing importance on the contents of what is being enclosed - not simply the act of enclosing.

The location of the house places it in relation to green spaces, other homes, commercial centers, schools, transportation, and countless other spaces and places. The hierarchy of importance differs from person to person though there are systems (like roadways, sidewalks, transit routes, communities, etc.) which determine how successful the location is to the homeowner.

Privacy is connected to both the design of the home and its location. Walls and partitions / programmatic design provide privacy within the home while plantings, barriers, and location separate the home from other homes and the public.

The style and age of a home is important for homebuyer’s own preferences and budgets. Older homes may be less energy efficient and require more maintenance than a newer home. Newer homes might also have included amenities that drive up the price unfavorably. A home’s style has associated connotations and cultural connections which are important to a homebuyer’s decision.

Arguably the most important factor in choosing a home is price. Homes are most often the most significant investment a person makes in their lifetime; while the above factors range in importance, if the price is too high, a home can be unattainable. The price of a home, connected to the above systems, also gives back to those who own it in the form of equity. This is not included in the “what a house provides” diagram as it is not physical; though, it should not be overlooked.

The evolving American home

After re-examining and categorizing what makes our homes what they are, we must look at the evolution of the American detached single family home (DSFH) - as it is the affordability of this house type that this research is concerned. The DSFH was reinterpreted in the 20th century most famously by Sears, Roebuck, and Co., who sold simple and affordable kit homes to populate and iconize the expanding American suburb. Affordable single family homes were available to the masses. They were attainable, quick, and varied (though part of a limited catalog). The homes featured in Sears catalogs ranged in size from 600 - 1,500+ sq ft - with prices as low as $1.2 / sq ft - not adjusted for inflation (searsarchive.com). 

Sears set the standard for affordable single family housing by using the kit home method to lower costs and increase efficiency. As the century progressed, there were continuous examples of designers, builders, and manufactures who used kit or prefabricated home processes to design and build affordable houses for the masses. These homes often had an associated architectural language - be they part of a notable development effort (Sears or Levittown) or designed with an aesthetic signature (Cliff May Homes). This type of home design and construction, although successful, has fallen out of favor with US home builders and buyers; in 2017, modular homes represented only 1% of new single-family houses completed (US Census). While the construction industry is slow to adopt new construction methods, the size and price of homes has changed dramatically over the last century.

While it is out of the scope of this research to examine and evaluate why US homes have ballooned to their current average size and cost., it is undeniable that American homes are huge - a comparison of average home sizes across Western countries shows as much. The average size of 2,265 sq ft for the Midwest (2,314 for the US as a whole) is a 71% increase in area from the 1950s national average and a 62% increase from the national average in 1910. 

How building code shapes homes 

The Minnesota Building Code establishes minimum program and size requirements for both habitable spaces and dwelling units. Our diagram lays out the required spaces and how small those spaces are allowed to be for an “efficiency dwelling unit”. Living rooms and bedrooms are considered “habitable spaces” - requiring a minimum dimension of 7’ in any plan dimension. They each have their own respective minimum areas. The smallest a living room can be is 220 ft2 - with 100 ft2 added for each additional person (beyond two) living in the dwelling. Kitchens are not bound by the 7’ dimensional constraint though they must maintain 3’ of clear space between counter fronts, appliances, and / or walls. The code does spell out what kinds of appliances (vaguely) are necessary in a kitchen - specifying each appliance have a minimum of 30” of clear  working space. A similar list of requirements is included for bathrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms, though, do have restrictions on their ceiling height along with habitable spaces. 

Habitable spaces have a minimum allowable ceiling height of 7’-6” while kitchens and bathrooms have a 7’ minimum. Closets have no restriction on dimensions. It is these five spaces which are required for an “efficiency dwelling unit” to meet code standards on program. There are additional code requirements for lighting, ventilation, and finishes. These requirements have all impact on the cost of a home and who / what is being constructed. Most homes in Minnesota are built to code both for safety considerations and fiscal security. Homes that are built to code are safer investments for lenders. For more information on building code, please see the GMRHP section on code.

Home-builders, home-buyers, and home-designers, need to think critically about what their definition of home is, and how much home they need, in a time of nationwide affordable housing shortages. Would young homebuyers be willing to purchase a $800 sq ft home with fewer of the commonplace luxuries (laundry rooms, air conditioning, etc.)? Would homebuyers be willing to off-load half of their shared living space to the exterior - creating a smaller home footprint in the winter and a much larger space for the other three seasons? Homeowners may be willing to accept less if the supply (and the price of said supply) reflected their needs. There is a serious demand for less expensive housing in the US and Minnesota, specifically. By continuing to critique our own definitions of “house”, we can question our assumptions and expectations - possibly arriving at a home that better fits an individual’s lifestyle and budget.