A couple of years ago we were buzzing about the possibility of Slumburbias–where Baby Boomers were abandoning cul de sacs, suburbs and the McMansions battled for a decade ago. Instead, they wanted something smaller, something in a walkable neighborhood, something that didn’t require 100 square feet devoted to lawn mowers, clippers and tools.

They still long for the freedom to lock and go, the freedom to travel, the freedom from having to care and climatize square footage they don’t even visit for weeks at a time. Kids have either moved on or are hanging on and something without a grand staircase sounds mighty inviting to knees that remember prior injuries.

Today, CNBC reports that the McMansions, Starter Castles, Garage Mahals and Faux Chateaus–or whatever you want to call them —are history. These days, few are seeking 4000 square foot  two-story boxes that sit 15 feet from their neighbor’s Plan II Tuscan with 3800 square feet–each with granite and stainless kitchens, epoxied garage floors and mind-numbing sameness. The article goes on…

Just 9 percent of the people surveyed by Trulia said their ideal home size was over 3,200 square feet. Meanwhile, more than one-third said their ideal size was under 2,000 feet.

“That’s something that would’ve been unbelievable just a few years back,” said Pete Flint, CEO and co-founder of Trulia. “Americans are moving away from McMansions.”

We are seeing much the same in our San Diego real estate practice. There is great demand for single story homes, neighborhoods where one can walk to a store, where life can be simpler and more easily managed.  And, of course, it also helps if this downsized San Diego home has the luxury of sitting on the beach–or fronting the golf course at La Costa, Fairbanks Ranch or Rancho Santa Fe.

You may also wish the read:

7 Bargaining Secrets for Luxury Home Buyers

Homes for Baby Boomers: What Do They Want?

The post Adieu to McMansions? appeared first on Luxury Home Digest.

I really want to talk about the effect gas prices will have on real estate, but first wish to tell a little story:

My grandgather, Adolph Michelson emigrated at the age of 7 with his family from Norway to Deadwood, South Dakota. It required a long, hard journey by steamship. train and wagon to arrive at their eventual home in the steep hills above Deadwood. It was there that they lived with other immigrants and Indians, sharing magnificent views and boot camp workouts as they trudged up and down that steep, steep hill to get to town for work, school, food and other supplies.

Views be damned. This was where the poor people lived.

As soon as the Michelson family could afford to do so, they moved their big family into a home in town, where shopping, school and employment were within easy walking distance. Their decision to move was not based on home features, the quality of the stove, or the number of closets–or even neighborhood amenities. It was based on that single and most basic real estate dynamic:

LOCATION

It is only since the advent of sprawling suburbias and each family having multiple automobiles that we strayed from distinct town and country living. The wealthy may have had homes in both locations, but the average family lived near employment . There were no school buses (or video games because kids had to hike through miles of rain and snow to get to school each day) and gasoline stations were pretty rare at the turn of the that other century. Which all leads me to wonder….

What might be the top priority for the home of the future when gas prices reach $6, $8, $10 or even $12 per gallon?

How about the radical choice of living walking-close to employment, shopping and schools? Or living near a bus stop or transit center where one can commute for work, school and fun?

I am eying real estate differently these days–and am coming around to my ancestor’s way of thinking. Location trumps views, walkable sidewalks trump big back yards and a bicycle pump beats a gas pump–at least for kids who drive or are driven to school (ever seen the long lines of mini vans idling outside our schools at arrival and departure times–or high school parking lots?). Might a more urban lifestyle offer some solutions that would allow for a saner lifestyle?

I am also wondering if Carol Lloyd’s prediction of suburbs turning into Slumburbia might also come true–sooner rather than later due to rising fuel costs? In her SF Gate article, she notes, “In Europe, where the cities never died, the suburbs have long been the homes of last resort for the poor and the marginalized.” This is already occurring in and around sprawling urban centers like Houston, where home prices in and close to downtown Houston are selling at a premium, while homes in once-affluent suburbs are selling at prices far below replacement costs. It is a scenario being repeated all over the country, with slightly different configurations along the coasts.

In San Diego County, where I live and work, we are anecdotally seeing a surge of buyers seeking to live within walking distance of restaurants, theaters, dry cleaners and food or farmer’s markets. They no longer want to battle freeway gridlock, and would happily trade their road warrior status for the peace of riding a train to work. They are also seeking more open communities, where neighbors stroll by and greet one another, where not so much of life is lived in and for cars–or behind mortgaged garage doors.

I am so, so tempted to join them and not worry about gas prices again….

The post A Radical Proposition for Real Estate and Gas Prices appeared first on Luxury Home Digest.