It peaked in the late 1960s and has been roughly dropping since (with the occasional peak).
The reason? As we've discussed frequently here, one possible reason is that the construction industry hasn't adopted many new techniques since the 1960s. At least that's the best guess from Goldman Sachs
Regulation is part of it. And in general it's still debated
About 3-4 charts down
https://www.a16z.news/p/charts-of-the-week-ventures-300b
Single family home builders around here tend to be a very conservative bunch. They keep building the same house plans with the same materials because they already have it all on a spreadsheet, how much to order of what and when to order it and they can estimate costs from there. Market forces do introduce some changes over time (ie. engineered floor joists, etc.) because you can't get the grades of lumber that you did in the 1950's. In general they are resistant to change.
That's for spec homes, custom home bulders may be more willing to innovate.
I'm having a hard time reconciling with the gist of the clickbait subject line when it comes to stick-built residential and/or light commercial construction. Debbie says the stats are skewed by 'heavy' construction (skyscrapers, apartment complexes, etc) which is more moribund --erecting steel frames or pouring concrete has had some advances but seems only a little improved since the 60s.
OTOH, for light construction battery-driven tools, nailers, and innovations in materials have knocked days off roofing as just one example.
IMNSHO, red tape and more modern/sophisticated designs & materials (kitchens, master baths, closets come to mind) are the larger culprits here. Compare the simple floorplan of an uber-popular 60-70s ranch to a current middle-class residence and you'll see a lot of man-hours.
This last paragraph also relates to the rising un-affordability of homes, particularly starter homes.
That may be so. I'm still astounded at how long it takes a stick frame house to go up in our neighborhood.
But then again, as I mentioned in the other thread, the speed with which they go up in Austin is shocking. Of course, they are all 3000SF with 14' ceilings, pools and 2+1 garages (two big "car" doors and small "cart" door). So perhaps you're right.
It is certainly so with respect to affordability. All this giant homes that are "worth" a lot and then it puts huge pressure on the small homes.
My dad wants to move out of his big house into a small house and my realtor SIL said that the type of house that he bought as a starter house in 1954 is now subject to fierce competition and they commonly don't come onto the public market at all. When I told him that house that he bought for $13K is now listed at $417K, he told me that was impossible. Price per SF is way higher than the nice new house he lives in.
Also, all sorts of zoning has made it impossible to build condos, which was my brother's starter home and that puts pressure on small houses from the other side.
>starter house
Our expectations have changed, compared to a 1954 cape cod or a little ranch today young people think they want 3 big bedrooms, 3 big bathrooms, storage, and an open plan media space the size of a football stadium. They can't imagine cramming 5 kids and two adults into a 1200 sq ft house on a slab with one tiny bathroom. But in 1954, those people were coming off the Great Depression and World War II, and many where just happy to have small rooms and indoor plumbing they could call their own. Also, G.I. Bill.
You forgot walk-in closets for the secondary bedrooms and a dressing area with a cavernous walk-in closet(s) for the master BR.
>closets
The homes of my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and their peers I knew had homes built 1900-1920ish. My father's boyhood home was originally built by a doctor in 1900 and was big, nicely trimmed & fitted, large rooms Victorian. Definitely upper middle-class (but not eloquent... Baptist). Other than the one in the doctor's office, not a closet in the entire house. If you had money, you bought a wardrobe. Otherwise, you put pegs on the wall.
<+>
But they did have pantries. The ones owned by the better cooks had big pantries. The regionally famous cooks had walk-in pantries and also lots of storage shelves for foods they canned.
Charles C Mann had an article recently where he reflects on the fact that one thing that sometimes vexed Thomas Jefferson, a man of great wealth, president of a new nation, owner of human beings and a great deal of land, was that some mornings he would sit at his desk to write and find he could not because his ink had frozen.
Only the poorest among us would live that way now.
Monticello | Jefferson's Debt
https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/debt
I've been in one of the above-mentioned homes many times in the winter. Everyone would retreat to the center room -the one with the pot-bellied stove- and also located next to the kitchen with its own wood-fired oven & range which cooked for much of the day.
Once while there, I noticed that frost had climbed about 6ft up the interior side of walls of the outer rooms.
+
Quilts! There were a couple of quilts in the bedroom that were so thick you could hardly lift them.
Most in US prefer big houses, even if community is farther away | Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/19/majority-of-americans-prefer-spread-out-communities-with-big-houses/
Intriguing. as I'm getting older I'm looking to get closer to the local community I was expecting that in America too but apparently not.
My reasoning is that as a get older I want to be able to walk to the doctors to the pub to the coffee shop and to the grocery store oh and the Butcher.
Of course having seen so many lonely old folk being in the community seems quite important to me too.