Could anyone please tell me what the typical size (particularly the typical width) of a plot of land occupied by a detached house in suburban areas of the United States is?
Further details about variations in size depending on location or socio-economic factors would also be greatly appreciated.
Lat I checked all US properties had to be exactly 3/16ths the size of bushel of corn's weight divided by the difference of a football field with the library of congress.
Consequently, US cities are measured as their percentage of weight to the standard unit of 'size of Texas'.
Further details about variations in size depending on location or socio-economic factors would also be greatly appreciated.
This sentence interests me because it really doesn't exist. The neighborhood south of me is highly desirable - houses from $400,000 - $1million. Lots are typically about 40x120. A mile north of me lots are four times as big, but cost less than half as much. The southern neighborhood has historic homes and loads of "character"; the northern neighborhood was built in the 80s.
In Philly one block of 16x40 lots would have houses costing right around $1mil; four blocks away one could buy a bigger house for less than $100,000 - you just risk gunfire into your living room on a regular basis.
I would say there is no 'typical' but there is an average. Although, the average or mean is entirely useless if you're doing an architecture project. If you want to talk about federal policy, then it's perhaps apt. DS is right, the locale matters as pertaining to the scale of the intended project.
Message to all question seekers on Archinect: The more precise your question, the more pertinent the answers will be. Questions like 'can you think of a good example of a module?' get reciprocally general answers. Gosh.
typical market-recognized typologies in the US are as follows (based on net parcel size, based on front-loaded typologies typical in the west and on the eastern seaboard & Texas).
- 4,300 square feet lot (semi-detached patio home)
- 5,500 square feet lot (canon zoning in many munucipalities post 1985 or so)
- 8,700 square feet lot (canon zoning in many municipalities through 1985 or so)
- 10,900 square feet lot (1/4th acre)
70 to 80% block efficiencies are typical.
Rear-loaded typologies (commonplace in west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies, and increasingly popular in the SE although not in Texas)
- 3,600 square feet lot (semi-detached patio home)
- 4,800 to 5,200 quare feet lot (canon zoning since the 1950s)
- 6,400 to 7,000 square feet lot
- no real 1/4 acre product
Note that block efficiencies are a lot lower with this development pattern, with much smaller blocks ~55% average
Thank you so much for your comments, all the information and your time. I still have to take a closer look at some of the links (so please disregard anything below that is already explained somewhere else) but, in the meantime, I’ll try to clarify or elaborate a couple of things…
Thank you so much. Very helpful info and based on solid data. Definitely a great starting point. However, I wonder if you or anyone else has any information about the two most important questions that remain unanswered by knowing just the average square footage:
1) What is the most commonly used proportion? I’ve heard some people say that it’s close to L=1.5W, others say that it’s closer to L=2W, others say that L=3W is very common. I’m not sure how any of them came up with these numbers or if they were just providing a “guesstimate”.
2) Is the average size representative of the most commonly found size? Let’s say for instance that three out of four lots have the same size and one out of four is much larger (just as an example)… If this were the case, I think it would be more helpful to me to know the size of the three out of four lots that are equal instead of the average size that has been affected by the much larger and less common lots.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term “typical” and it would be more accurate to say “the most commonly found” or “the most commonly used” size.
If the point you are trying to make is that not every lot in the US has the same size, or that the US is a big country and it’s difficult to gather and process information about this, I think we can all agree on that. If the point you are trying to make is that the most commonly found size represents such a small percentage of the total (due to very large and frequent variations) that it’s not really representative of anything, I don’t have enough information about that to give an educated opinion and, if you do, it would be great if you could mention your source. If the point you are trying to make is that it’s preposterous to think that a certain size (or a size within a certain range) is more common than others, I have to disagree.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my perception is that single-family housing in suburban areas of the US is quite homogenous and standardized in many ways. This includes the fact that houses of a certain size are built more often than others (many real estate agents and developers have quite detailed info about this). I think it’s reasonable to assume that, at least up to a certain degree, this extends to the size of the lots where these houses are located and that lots of a certain size are more common than others.
As I mentioned above, perhaps “typical” is not the best term and average values don’t provide enough information. I agree with you on that. But is it really necessary to know the details about how the information is going to be used in order to be able to provide statistical data?
Not at all, but someone is paying for the statistical study to be done, and that someone or someones has [and rightfully so] an agenda, no?
There's no such thing as a neutral think tank.
But to get back to your original post, and to your response to DS, I think the US is a ludricously diverse country spatially, even if it is thought of [by people who live elsewhere] as somewhat homogenous culturally.
So, it stands to reason that the breadth and specificity of what you want to know should [or could] mirror why you want to know it. IE, if you're curious about typical, mean, average lot size, then your sphere of inquiry is well suited to a national question/project/agenda, but it's not so well suited to an architectural problem/project/agenda. It's merely a difference in scale. I was merely saying that the scale of the question should relate to the scale of the answer, and likewise both should relate to the scale of the project [which you didn't specify in the original post]. Perhaps I was being a bit harsh, but there's a lot of questions like 'how are modules connected' here on Archinect and it gets tiring.
First order of business is to change your user name from seeker to whiner.
It seems like whatever project you are working on relies so heavily on there being a 'most typical' size, that a dozen people telling you there really isn't will not deter you from finding the 'truth'. Unicorn's link shows that there is a great variation of both average and mean sizes based on the region of the US. I think urbanist gave you some incredibly valuable information that saved you weeks of research.
Oh, but we are withholding the info on lot depth from you because we like being dinks like that. And yes, 'most' of the lot depths are exactly the same, but we're not telling you what it is!
I'm not going to comment on logic of doing a study (or project or thesis), on suburban development trends during the greatest housing recession in history of US, but whenever we do come out of this one, I expect developers to have a much different product to sell. Lot sizes will only get smaller...
Next question. What is the horsepower of typical American car? I know deep in my gut that most cars have the same horsepower, and I'm not leaving until someone tells me what it is! wah wah wah
jplourde, I like your polite answer better. The OP is fishing for answers that suit pre-determined assumptions. He got some great info, and solid opinions (minus the dick jokes), but he didn't get the exact answer he wanted, BECAUSE SUCH ANSWER DOESN'T EXIST. How dare we!
Here a good answer: all US lots are 25 feet wide (unless they are 50).
or 10 feet. It really depends on your trailer orientation. We don't count the double-wides, for they are considered semi-detached houses in my opinion!
lol, hilarious, this is why if you ask everyone and their mother, everyone and their mother hates new urbanism. quite frankly, Mr. Robert had some good ideas about how to cajoule you monkeys into a feasible design that works. Asshats. To see through EVERYTHING is not to see anything at all.
The study of urbanism is a worthwhile endeavor which I personally respect greatly [though it falls outside of my personal sphere of influence or interest].
New Urbanism and the bullshit the comes out of it is as worthwhile as flingling around our poo.
seeker: There is no such thing as a typical width and depth. America is not flat and void of water. Most developments are dictated by what the lay of the land has to offer. Grade change can have a big impact upon a subdivision as well as issues with inland wetlands. So even with in a development the lot size will change. There is also the economic-social thing going on. Realtors will always tell you the value of the parcel is primarly based upon LOCATION>>>LOCATION. It has a little to do with the size of the lot. Another major factor is Utilities. Some places sanitary sewer if privately handled, which means the owner takes care of his own shit. (septic system) and private water system (well). Health Regulations require certain distances between said sewer and said water. You also have Ridge Line Ordances which, regulate where you might build on a hill side, (seems like the people in New England don't like to view houses at the ridge, and prefer the canopy of green to carry thru.) There are all sorts of odd ways of looking at property. I recall my uncle doing a subdivision in Arizona where all the house sites were pre-determined as well as the road locations so when you were entering your property you never saw another road nor another house. I think the parcels were 100 +?-acre parcels...
literally the plot of land can be simply the the size of the house that rests upon it. Especially, in urban areas. Although not as common as lots that include setback restrictions but they do exist. There are "nonconforming" situations where the residence may be built over a particular lot line or setback. But, thats another discussion
Typical Size?
Could anyone please tell me what the typical size (particularly the typical width) of a plot of land occupied by a detached house in suburban areas of the United States is?
Further details about variations in size depending on location or socio-economic factors would also be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
There is no typical. But you could start by looking at zoning laws in the municipalities in which you're interested.
*rolls eyes*
This is Census data usually incorporated into TIGER data.
Existing homes within the US are typically on 1/6th to 1/3rd acre lots.
New home construction ranges on lots 1/8th to 1/4th acres.
Lat I checked all US properties had to be exactly 3/16ths the size of bushel of corn's weight divided by the difference of a football field with the library of congress.
Consequently, US cities are measured as their percentage of weight to the standard unit of 'size of Texas'.
King George gives thumbs up!
This sentence interests me because it really doesn't exist. The neighborhood south of me is highly desirable - houses from $400,000 - $1million. Lots are typically about 40x120. A mile north of me lots are four times as big, but cost less than half as much. The southern neighborhood has historic homes and loads of "character"; the northern neighborhood was built in the 80s.
In Philly one block of 16x40 lots would have houses costing right around $1mil; four blocks away one could buy a bigger house for less than $100,000 - you just risk gunfire into your living room on a regular basis.
There really is no typical.
I would say there is no 'typical' but there is an average. Although, the average or mean is entirely useless if you're doing an architecture project. If you want to talk about federal policy, then it's perhaps apt. DS is right, the locale matters as pertaining to the scale of the intended project.
Message to all question seekers on Archinect: The more precise your question, the more pertinent the answers will be. Questions like 'can you think of a good example of a module?' get reciprocally general answers. Gosh.
to add to donna's comment...check municode here you will find minimum lot requirements for most jurisdictions
typical market-recognized typologies in the US are as follows (based on net parcel size, based on front-loaded typologies typical in the west and on the eastern seaboard & Texas).
- 4,300 square feet lot (semi-detached patio home)
- 5,500 square feet lot (canon zoning in many munucipalities post 1985 or so)
- 8,700 square feet lot (canon zoning in many municipalities through 1985 or so)
- 10,900 square feet lot (1/4th acre)
70 to 80% block efficiencies are typical.
Rear-loaded typologies (commonplace in west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies, and increasingly popular in the SE although not in Texas)
- 3,600 square feet lot (semi-detached patio home)
- 4,800 to 5,200 quare feet lot (canon zoning since the 1950s)
- 6,400 to 7,000 square feet lot
- no real 1/4 acre product
Note that block efficiencies are a lot lower with this development pattern, with much smaller blocks ~55% average
8 inches. Wait what was the question?
most will lie and tell you it is 12"
Is that king George's foot in in your pants, or are you just happy to be employed again?
4.6 inches, but most men believe it is 8
Is it too late to get this back on topic?
Thank you so much for your comments, all the information and your time. I still have to take a closer look at some of the links (so please disregard anything below that is already explained somewhere else) but, in the meantime, I’ll try to clarify or elaborate a couple of things…
Unicorn Ghost and Urbanist,
Thank you so much. Very helpful info and based on solid data. Definitely a great starting point. However, I wonder if you or anyone else has any information about the two most important questions that remain unanswered by knowing just the average square footage:
1) What is the most commonly used proportion? I’ve heard some people say that it’s close to L=1.5W, others say that it’s closer to L=2W, others say that L=3W is very common. I’m not sure how any of them came up with these numbers or if they were just providing a “guesstimate”.
2) Is the average size representative of the most commonly found size? Let’s say for instance that three out of four lots have the same size and one out of four is much larger (just as an example)… If this were the case, I think it would be more helpful to me to know the size of the three out of four lots that are equal instead of the average size that has been affected by the much larger and less common lots.
Donna Sink,
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term “typical” and it would be more accurate to say “the most commonly found” or “the most commonly used” size.
If the point you are trying to make is that not every lot in the US has the same size, or that the US is a big country and it’s difficult to gather and process information about this, I think we can all agree on that. If the point you are trying to make is that the most commonly found size represents such a small percentage of the total (due to very large and frequent variations) that it’s not really representative of anything, I don’t have enough information about that to give an educated opinion and, if you do, it would be great if you could mention your source. If the point you are trying to make is that it’s preposterous to think that a certain size (or a size within a certain range) is more common than others, I have to disagree.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but my perception is that single-family housing in suburban areas of the US is quite homogenous and standardized in many ways. This includes the fact that houses of a certain size are built more often than others (many real estate agents and developers have quite detailed info about this). I think it’s reasonable to assume that, at least up to a certain degree, this extends to the size of the lots where these houses are located and that lots of a certain size are more common than others.
Crave,
Thanks for the link.
Jplourde,
As I mentioned above, perhaps “typical” is not the best term and average values don’t provide enough information. I agree with you on that. But is it really necessary to know the details about how the information is going to be used in order to be able to provide statistical data?
Not at all, but someone is paying for the statistical study to be done, and that someone or someones has [and rightfully so] an agenda, no?
There's no such thing as a neutral think tank.
But to get back to your original post, and to your response to DS, I think the US is a ludricously diverse country spatially, even if it is thought of [by people who live elsewhere] as somewhat homogenous culturally.
So, it stands to reason that the breadth and specificity of what you want to know should [or could] mirror why you want to know it. IE, if you're curious about typical, mean, average lot size, then your sphere of inquiry is well suited to a national question/project/agenda, but it's not so well suited to an architectural problem/project/agenda. It's merely a difference in scale. I was merely saying that the scale of the question should relate to the scale of the answer, and likewise both should relate to the scale of the project [which you didn't specify in the original post]. Perhaps I was being a bit harsh, but there's a lot of questions like 'how are modules connected' here on Archinect and it gets tiring.
First order of business is to change your user name from seeker to whiner.
It seems like whatever project you are working on relies so heavily on there being a 'most typical' size, that a dozen people telling you there really isn't will not deter you from finding the 'truth'. Unicorn's link shows that there is a great variation of both average and mean sizes based on the region of the US. I think urbanist gave you some incredibly valuable information that saved you weeks of research.
Oh, but we are withholding the info on lot depth from you because we like being dinks like that. And yes, 'most' of the lot depths are exactly the same, but we're not telling you what it is!
I'm not going to comment on logic of doing a study (or project or thesis), on suburban development trends during the greatest housing recession in history of US, but whenever we do come out of this one, I expect developers to have a much different product to sell. Lot sizes will only get smaller...
Next question. What is the horsepower of typical American car? I know deep in my gut that most cars have the same horsepower, and I'm not leaving until someone tells me what it is! wah wah wah
lol, ss, i would post the same thing under a six pack of fat tire! good show
jplourde, I like your polite answer better. The OP is fishing for answers that suit pre-determined assumptions. He got some great info, and solid opinions (minus the dick jokes), but he didn't get the exact answer he wanted, BECAUSE SUCH ANSWER DOESN'T EXIST. How dare we!
Here a good answer: all US lots are 25 feet wide (unless they are 50).
or 10 feet. It really depends on your trailer orientation. We don't count the double-wides, for they are considered semi-detached houses in my opinion!
lol, hilarious, this is why if you ask everyone and their mother, everyone and their mother hates new urbanism. quite frankly, Mr. Robert had some good ideas about how to cajoule you monkeys into a feasible design that works. Asshats. To see through EVERYTHING is not to see anything at all.
The study of urbanism is a worthwhile endeavor which I personally respect greatly [though it falls outside of my personal sphere of influence or interest].
New Urbanism and the bullshit the comes out of it is as worthwhile as flingling around our poo.
seeker: There is no such thing as a typical width and depth. America is not flat and void of water. Most developments are dictated by what the lay of the land has to offer. Grade change can have a big impact upon a subdivision as well as issues with inland wetlands. So even with in a development the lot size will change. There is also the economic-social thing going on. Realtors will always tell you the value of the parcel is primarly based upon LOCATION>>>LOCATION. It has a little to do with the size of the lot. Another major factor is Utilities. Some places sanitary sewer if privately handled, which means the owner takes care of his own shit. (septic system) and private water system (well). Health Regulations require certain distances between said sewer and said water. You also have Ridge Line Ordances which, regulate where you might build on a hill side, (seems like the people in New England don't like to view houses at the ridge, and prefer the canopy of green to carry thru.) There are all sorts of odd ways of looking at property. I recall my uncle doing a subdivision in Arizona where all the house sites were pre-determined as well as the road locations so when you were entering your property you never saw another road nor another house. I think the parcels were 100 +?-acre parcels...
Even when there is no water and the land is flat we do things the screwed up way. Phoenix Arizona Retirement Community:
This was printed in the New York Times today.
literally the plot of land can be simply the the size of the house that rests upon it. Especially, in urban areas. Although not as common as lots that include setback restrictions but they do exist. There are "nonconforming" situations where the residence may be built over a particular lot line or setback. But, thats another discussion
Pre-1950s 66'x132' for the midwest. After that, not as easy...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.