In the humorous 1948 film Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, Jim Blandings (Carey Grant) and his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) meet with their architect Henry Simms to review preliminary design drawings.  With pencils in hand they pour themselves into the drawings adding rooms and stretching the footprint in many directions.  Poor Simms finally calls a halt to the session telling his clients that he will sort it all out, including budget impact.  At their next meeting the hapless Blandings are shocked to discover that their scribbles have nearly doubled the budget.  By the end of the movie Blandings’ best friend (played by Melvyn Douglas) declares “… maybe there are some things that you should buy with your heart not your head, perhaps they are the most important things.”  Needless to say, Jim and Muriel had difficulty making ‘size’ trade-offs in the design of their new home.  It was as difficult in 1948 (when new homes only cost $15,000) as it is today.

According to the NAHB, when the Blandings built their house in 1950 the average new home size was 983 square feet.  In 2010 the Census Bureau reports that the average new home built in the northeast is over 2 ½ times that size — about 2,600 square feet.

The notion that bigger is better in building new homes was addressed head on by Sarah Susanka in her ground breaking book The Not So Big House.  In her book Susanka defines a “not so big house” as approximately a third smaller than the owner’s original size goal but about the same price as the original budget.  The idea is to make conscious tradeoffs between quality and size (fixed budget.)  A “not so big house” more intelligently configures the space, better matches it to owner needs/lifestyle and more appropriately finishes the spaces in a way that each room has substance and style.

Timberdale Homes is familiar with these notions and received a HOBI award in 2011 from the Homebuilders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut for the “Best Not So Big House Remodel” in the state.  The small, 1,000 sq. ft. house located in Ridgefield exudes quality and custom detailing normally seen only in larger luxury homes.  Those of us who have lived in larger homes recognize that daily living is focused in a relatively small amount of space – the kitchen, dining nook, family room, bedroom and bath.  The Ridgefield house takes a laser focus on these spaces incorporating design, layout and finishes that are fully customized to meet the owner’s needs.  It’s not uncommon for somebody entering the house to declare: “This house is all the space I would need to live!”

There are three broad dimensions of the size/shape trade-off that should be considered – footprint, volume/roof and outdoor space.

Usually homeowners focus on the footprint dimension exclusively.  The most common question that I am asked by homeowners is:  “How much will the construction cost per square foot?”  My answer is usually: “It depends…”  A simple illustration shows why my response is appropriate.  Consider two simple footprints, both 1,600 square feet:

Footprint “A” has 160 linear feet of wall while footprint “B” has 200 linear feet of wall.  Clearly these two structures will have different costs to build and, all other things being equal, will have different costs per square foot.  Also, it should be clear from this illustration that a simple square is the least cost footprint to build.  As the footprint becomes elongated with various jogs and incorporates complex geometric patterns (such as round and/or polygon shapes) the building cost goes up for the same amount of square feet.

The second dimension of the size/shape tradeoff is volume/roof.  This refers to the design elements that occur above the footprint which can have an equally dramatic impact on costs.  For example, a common volume-related design element is room height, such as a cathedral ceiling.  Cathedral ceilings add to costs in a number of ways, including: special accommodations for mechanical systems — perhaps requiring scissor trusses; higher insulation and finish costs due to the greater amount of ceiling surface; additional labor costs to erect and move the scaffolding required to build and finish the structure, etc.

As the footprint becomes more complex and the interior spaces assume different undulating shapes, the roof is inevitably impacted.  Complex roofs consume a considerable amount of large-dimension framing material and are very time consuming to frame properly.  Roofing material is also an expensive finish on a per square foot basis (in CT roofing costs are $2.50 per sq ft. for basic asphalt roofing to well over $10.00 per sq. ft. for high-end roofing materials.)  Hence as the roof becomes more complex building costs will inevitably rise.

A final dimension of size/shape that is often ignored in trade-off discussions is outdoor spaces. Sometimes outdoor spaces are not adequately factored into the initial overall space requirements planning.  In this situation, as the homeowner considers size/space tradeoffs, the addition of outdoor spaces in the plan can become a cost effective way to trade-off expensive interior space requirements with less costly outdoor space living options.  Although seasonal, outdoor spaces expand the living area at a time of the year when the household is most active and contracts it when occupants naturally gravitate toward the inner living core of the house.