Heh. My family of five is hoping, if all goes well (we've made the offer), to move into a 2050-square-foot house (plus unfinished partial basement)--and we're thrilled with the extra space. (We currently have ~1600 square feet and three bedrooms, which is a little tight--we really need to get our older two in different bedrooms, for the sake of everyone's sanity.) It's interesting, the difference in perspective . . .

My family of 6 (with 4 very rowdy boys) upgraded from a 2 bedroom apartment the size of a postage stamp to our 1300 sq ft house and it felt like a palace when we moved in here. The only time it feels tight is when we have family over to visit. I think the difference is that now we cram out homes with bigger and more stuff. This was an interesting read. I don't think I could raise my family in a 3800 sq foot home....can you imagine what 4 boys could do in all that space?! I already feel like I could clean 24 hours a day...that would just be overwhelming. ;O)

The only way to say it is avarice is to compare the percentages of one's income these things comprise. If the proportions are staggering higher in favor of today vs. the 1950s, then the case is made.

But to say that it is avarice that a 2300 square foot home that costs the same percentage of one's salary per month as a 1000 square foot home of the 1950 is not making the case. If the larger home is 30% of one's monthly pay, the same as one's monthly pay in the '50s, then I'd say that the larger home is actually quite a better value and a smart buy.

Again, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

So, do we know those percentages?

Yeah I'm pretty skeptical myself when someone just throws out statistics, though I don't doubt that avg. home sizes have increased over 50 years.

Undoubtedly debt has increased in 50 years, which speaks clearly, IMO, to the rise of avarice in the general population.

I certainly think that the guy who thinks he can't raise his family in 3800 square feet probably needs to re-think a few things.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of sociological factors that give his underlying point-- stripped of its obvious hyperbole-- some good logic.

There is a lot of discussion these days about the loss of public social spaces for face-to-face human interaction. Because those spaces aren't as publicly available as they used to be, we're trying to re-create that in our homes (but cf. the growth of places like Starbuck's & Panera Bread).

Guys fifty years ago didn't work out of their homes. Now, many of us do. I spend about a third of my working hours at home now. I need room to do that.

Fifty years ago, women were housewives (or, like my grandmother, working out of the home). Women have transitioned from domestic duty only, to working outside the home, to working from home. Many families need two home offices to accommodate this change.

It's no longer safe (or at least, perceived as safe) to let the kids roam free. From little kids playing computer games to teenagers having parties, families want to be able to supervise (in a loose sense) what kids do. If there's not enough room in the house for a game room/etc., then parents will de facto lose that supervisory option.

I also think it's poor form for a pastor to use such statistics to prove a moral point. The cause behind the increase in square footage has to do with a lot of things. Greed is probably pretty far down the list. Voluntary assumption of consumer debt would seem to be pretty fair game. But even that's complicated to measure. That is, I've seen a lot of people who were living beyond their means for no good reason. I've also seen more than a few who went into debt because of adverse life events (untimely death/injury/illness), but the reason that's debt on a credit card now and it wasn't fifty years ago is complicated, and has a lot do with how the rise of easy credit coincided with the weakening of family ties that left borrowing from family, moving in with relatives, etc. (time-honored debt relief mechanisms) either unavailable or despised.

It's important to note also that the average family size has decreased while the average home has increased in size. When my mom was a child, the norm for middle class was a 2 bedroom home. When I was a child, it was 3 and it seems to be getting to be 4 now.

Another thing that should be noted is my pastor's statement, and my post, was not intended to equate large houses with covetousness. It was during a point in the sermon where he talked about trends: smaller families, larger homes, larger cars, more cars, excessive debt, materialism, etc.

What he said, and what I agree with is this: if you can afford it, and if you've been blessed with a big house then that's great -- enjoy it. But don't overextend yourself thinking it's going to make you happy or that you "need" it.

I still think the homes in America are much bigger than we really need. I used to work with a woman from Ireland. She grew up on the peace line in Belfast and she showed me pictures of their homes. These homes were smaller than the apartments of most college students I know...yet they housed 2 adults and 6-8 kids. Have you ever watched Trading Spaces on BBC? Compare those homes to the houses on TLC's Trading Spaces. There is an enormous difference in size. I think you can look at our house sizes from an environmental standpoint as well. If you have a 4,000 sq ft. house I can almost bet you are using about 2-3 x's the energy and gas that a smaller home uses. One of our friends had to put in 2 furnaces to heat their home because it was so large.

Enjoy it? Not just. Use it for the work of the Kingdom of God. Hospitality is an important gift which the church really underplays these days. One of the reasons Sara and I really wanted a house with a couple more bedrooms than what our new one has is so we'd have more room for guests. (Of course, that would also require people to accept our invitations to come visit, but that's another matter . . .)

That's a great point, AM. What's interesting is how the increase in house size seems to have gone along with an expansion in the hotel industry (probably mostly fueled by the increase in business travel).

I think we'd do well to keep in mind that people who are building the houses of today lived in the houses of yesterday.

People who are building houses with spare guest bedrooms grew up having to give up their beds to Uncle Ralph or Missionary Bob when he came into town. My mother slept in the same bed with her two sisters when she was a kid. Having the option to build something that doesn't require those arrangements is a blessing.

If there's not enough room in the house for a game room/etc., then parents will de facto lose that supervisory option.

People who are building houses with spare guest bedrooms grew up having to give up their beds to Uncle Ralph or Missionary Bob when he came into town.

Alan, I think you're making those statements from a faulty presupposition; namely, that more space is good for kids. I'd suggest that in a lot (most?) of cases, less space is actually more beneficial to children.

Having to give up your bed to an uncle or missionary teaches kids respect, hospitality, and the value of other human beings. I see that as a character-building opportunity for kids rather than an inconvenience.

Again, if you're able to afford a big house, be blessed and bless others by all means!

Well, as to the first paragraph you quoted me, I'm just expressing the point of view I know is out there. I don't have much of an opinion on that yet, given my oldest is 7.

As to the rest, well, I'm not sure if you really believe it as a general principle. You don't live in a hut, right?

I wouldn't focus on square footage, but on how the house contributes to family life. Square footage is a symptom. The real issue is turning the house into an apartment complex-- filled with self-contained units for every family member, encouraging cocooning and discouraging family interaction & cooperation.

As for the hospitality issue, I suppose that's a fair perspective on it, but I don't see any reason to think that having a house that makes it necessary for a family member to sleep on a cot when guests come is any better way to foster godly character than any other. And I think guests sleep more comfortably when they know they're know booting junior out of his room for the night.

Well, as to the first paragraph you quoted me, I'm just expressing the point of view I know is out there. I don't have much of an opinion on that yet, given my oldest is 7.

Oops. My bad. Yeah, I agree that that opinion is definitely out there.

I'm not sure if you really believe it as a general principle. You don't live in a hut, right?

No, of course not. More like a cardboard box. :-) In reality, we don't live in a big house by any means, though, compared to my grandmother's house, it's pretty sizeable.

My point was that, like with most material things, giving kids excessive stuff (whether that be toys, video games, cars, movies, money, or a loaded game room) tends to cause more problems then solutions.

I don't see any reason to think that having a house that makes it necessary for a family member to sleep on a cot when guests come is any better way to foster godly character than any other. And I think guests sleep more comfortably when they know they're know booting junior out of his room for the night.

You're right on all those counts. I think having to sacrifice can be good for kids, though. So if the choice is between a 40-year balloon mortgage that comes with a 3000 square foot home that you really can't afford, or something smaller; I think the better choice is to take a pass on the larger dwelling ... to live within your means.

I agree.

You guys have ENORMOUS houses! I'm not entirely sure of the square footage of the house I grew up in, but I don't think it can be more than 1000 - 1500 square feet in total. It's a 3 bedroom terraced house in North East London, probably built around 1900. Most of my school friends lived in similar sized houses, pretty average for the area. Going back to it now, I wonder how we managed, especially when my two sisters and I were hormonal teenagers, but we did.
I suppose everything's bigger in the US.