"Why would I buy a McMansion?" Its a question on the next generation of homeowners' minds. They represent something to different people: one person's symbol of wealth is another's money pit. Are those vaulted ceilings grand and awe-inspiring or are they an enormous drain on the heating bill? Is the rolling lawn a vista inspiring tranquility or a liability to address when you're on vacation?
For generations the move in the United States has beenn towards bigger and bigger homes (with the very sharp divergence of the 2008/2009 financial crisis). However, in recent years this trend has slowed. How big is too big eventually has to be asked? If the average household is under 2.5, does each person need 1,500, 2,000, or 2,500 square feet to themself? When is enough, enough?
Moving to the local market, we see that over the last three years, homes over 4,300 sf in size have appreciated in value, but slower than most other homes.
To see how slowly this has occured, lets look as a small section of Chesterfield since the 2008 collapse.
Over the course of this time, when most other areas have seen annualized returns of +5%, this section of homes struggled to post .5% year over year. The market isn't dead for large (4,500+ sf) homes, but it is showing long term trends that should be concerning to prospective buyers/builders of new homes.