Every year since 1984, the National Association of Home Builders (in the United States) has commissioned a home with the goal of showcasing new trends and technologies in the industry. At the same time, it also serves as a kind of dream home. This is what one should aspire to achieve. The initiative is called the New American Home (TNAH).

The first home was built in Houston by Village Builders. The architect was Booth/Hansen & Associates and the home was about 1,500 square feet. It cost $80,000. Last year the home was in Montverde, Florida and was about 10,690 square feet (6,676 square feet of air-conditioned space). Not surprisingly, these homes have grown over the decades.

According to a recent New York Times opinion piece by Allison Arieff -- called, The New 'Dream Home' Should be a Condo -- the square footage of this New American Home has been steadily rising:

This is, of course, reflective of what has been happening in the market as a whole. According to Arieff, the average size of a new U.S. home today is about 1,000 square feet larger than it was in 1973. The average space per human has increased from 507 to about 971 square feet. As our wealth has grown we have naturally become more consumptive.

But as Arieff asks in her article:

What if the next New American Home was a condo? And what if there was a new American dream, not of auto-dependent suburbia, but walkable urbanism?

She then contrasts last year's 10,000 square foot "Tuscan style" New American Home against this 6 unit urban infill condo project in Los Angeles, where the average home is about 1,800 square feet and the building in its entirety is around 11,000 square feet.

Which one would you prefer?

Charts: New York Times

This morning I went through some of the floor plans for King Toronto, which are now up on BuzzBuzzHome. In case you’re wondering, they are currently showing an average price of $1604 per square foot.

Here is a 1 bedroom + atelier:

And here is a 2 bedroom + atelier:

Right away you’ll probably notice a few things. 

There are no dens in these plans. They have been replaced with ateliers, which sounds cool. I want my own atelier where I make things. But it may also be a clever way to get around calling them studies or nooks.

A lot of people in the industry have been commenting on how they’ve included the exterior living space in the calculation of total area. That seems logical to me, especially for a project like this where the terraces form such an integral part of the architecture.

The other thing I noticed is that the buildings are, actually, being referred to as mountains. This has been part of the project’s design narrative since the beginning. So I like the consistency. The above plans are for suites within the “east mountain.” 

But what I wanted to ask all of you today is whether you find the addition of a 3D plan helpful. It’s obviously not new, but it is still fairly uncommon, at least in this market. Do you think it’s worth it?

Urban Capital has just unveiled its new Smart House condo project here in Toronto. With units starting at 289 square feet, the project is all about ultra-compact and ultra-smart living.

While micro-apartments are trending right now, they’re not a new idea. Architects have been fascinated by modular, adaptable and compact living for ages. Here’s an example of 100 square foot living capsules built in Tokyo in the 1970s.

Tokyo, of course, is a unique example. There you have the entire population of Canada living in one city. But that doesn’t mean that Toronto isn’t feeling the pressures of urban intensification. Apartments are getting smaller.

But the interesting thing about space is that it’s a relative thing. I personally live in 650 square feet and find it more than enough space. Though I also place a huge value on my time and try to minimize the amount of traveling I need to do.

And this is really the trade off you make with space. As you move further away from a city (and housing costs drop), you’re effectively shifting those housing costs to transportation costs. Which includes real costs like gas and time, as well as more intangible costs like quality of life.

However, I know many people that are willing to make that trade off for more space. But I wonder sometimes how much of that incremental space is necessity versus perceived necessity.

How much space do you need?