Comments on: Our houses are bigger, but not THAT much bigger!

By: mbhunter

mbhunter — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:41:53 +0000

Thanks for the comments everyone!

Feirfiz, you’re right that houses are 3D, but the measurements are given in floor space, which is 2D. And scaling by the square root increases the area covered by the icons appropriately (pretend that the entire living area of the house is in the bottom floor).

Mapgirl, a chart can look pretty without distorting the facts. You might be interested in reading some of Edward Tufte’e work (edwardtufte.com). He devotes an entire section (chapter?) of one of his books to these kinds of scaling errors.

On the contrary, I do think the designers of the chart tried to scale the sizes appropriately (as I pointed out in the post), but they still got it wrong, and as a result the chart lied. They dilated the length proportionally to the area of the floors inside, and that’s not the way to do it. Did they do it on purpose? I don’t think so. But when you slap numbers on a figure, the expectation is that any figures accurately reflect those numbers. If the figures don’t clarify the data, why are they there?

By: mapgirl

mapgirl — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:14:11 +0000

Dear Jason, I don’t think NPR is as devious as you think it is.

For all readers, I think it’s simply a design aesthetic by the graphic designer to make the chart look pretty. Notice how their house are very evenly graduated on the chart on the left. I don’t think there was any intent for it to be an accurately scaled representation of anything. I think someone thought a little house would be cute next to the numbers and that’s it.

However, I do agree, MBH, you have a point in that it’s not a mathematically accurate representation of volume, but it could be. Take for instance this, how many old homes have cathedral ceilings? Your footprint in liveable square footage might be the same, but your volume might skyrocket.

People need to get a grip. There are rowhomes/townhomes in Fells Point, Baltimore that are highly prized pieces of real estate in a flood plain. These homes are at most 18ft wide, but most of them are about 12-15 ft wide. WIDE. They were built hundreds of years ago and they’re still very desirable.

By: rocketc

rocketc — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:40:28 +0000

We live in a two story house with 1240 sq feet built in 1860. The downstairs ceilings are 9 feet tall. Everything is relative.

Nice work on the math, though.

By: Robert MacEwan

Robert MacEwan — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:52:39 +0000

We live in an old 2 story house in the historic district – 2300′ish ft. My mother-in-law lives with me and my wife so we can help her with day to day life.

Although it feels a little big at times for the most part a big house comes in handy with the daughters and grandchildren visits. In the back of my mind I do think of selling and going for a smaller home. Only when the time comes and we’re alone.

By: Mrs. Micah

Mrs. Micah — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:32:53 +0000

Oooh, I understand the math. McMansions do feel a lot bigger. But in my experience they also feel emptier.

By: Feirefiz

Feirefiz — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:29:23 +0000

But a house is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional like a rug. There is an increase in ceiling heights as well, though perhaps not as large an increase. Still, there’s an overall increase in volume as well, not just square footage of houses today. What happens when you add in the numbers for the increase in ceiling height from what used to be 7 or 8 feet to 10 feet or even more now?

By: Galls

Galls — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:54:00 +0000

You still have to be a pig to want such a big house.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:39:11 +0000

Nice article. I agree with you, but you know that no story is any good unless it is sensationalized!

By: Pete

Pete — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:38:01 +0000

I think the NPR graph gets the point across pretty well. Yes, they’re not scaled properly, but the fact is that houses are twice as large today as they were barely 50 years ago. Scaling the way you lay out (which I’m not saying is wrong) doesn’t convey that message as effectively.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:19:38 +0000

It figures, you can trust NPR will do things to distort facts to match their view. In this case I’m sure they didn’t do it on purpose, this type of analysis is probably beyond their comprehension. Thanks for doing the footwork to correct this. (Of course with square footage the number of levels in the house also plays a factor, I’ve been surprised by the “size” of some townhomes that have four levels)