How U.S. Homes Grew and Why Affordability Shrunk: A Look at the 1970s, 1980s, and Today Walk into a renovated ranch or split-level from the 1970s or 1980s, and it immediately feels more compact than a modern home. That feeling is justified. Over the last fifty years, houses in the United States have nearly doubled in size while household incomes have barely budged in comparison. This widening gap between how big homes have become and how slowly wages have risen is a central reason ownership is harder to achieve today. Homes in the 1970s In the mid-1970s, the typical new home averaged about 1,600 square feet. Layouts were straightforward and focused on practicality rather than luxury. Families lived with smaller kitchens, modest storage, and traditional room separation because expectations were simpler and budgets were tighter. Homebuilding was oriented toward utility, affordability, and a middle-class buyer who did not demand extensive amenities. The Shift in the 1980s By the mid-1980s, home sizes had increased to around 1,800 square feet. This period introduced early versions of open-concept living along with expanded kitchen and living areas. Builders also began adding attached garages, bonus rooms, and more specialized spaces as suburban growth took off. Rising dual-income households and improving consumer credit contributed to a mindset that more space was both desirable and increasingly achievable. To summarize the difference between the two decades: 1970s homes emphasized simplicity and low cost. 1980s homes added space, convenience, and early luxury features. Consumer expectations started shifting upward, influencing how builders operated. Today’s Homes Homes built in the 2020s typically fall between 2,350 and 2,500 square feet and come with features that would have been considered upgrades in earlier generations. The standard wish list now includes large owner’s suites, walk-in closets, spacious kitchens with islands, and flexible rooms that serve as offices or guest spaces. Higher ceilings, larger garages, and outdoor living areas also contribute to the modern idea of what a “normal” home should offer. What Larger Homes Mean for Affordability As home sizes grew nearly seventy percent since the 1970s, incomes increased far more slowly. Larger homes naturally require more materials, more labor, and more land, which raises the cost of construction and pushes prices upward for buyers. Affordability becomes strained when the baseline product in the market shifts from modest and functional to expansive and amenity-rich. A second pressure point is land. In the 1970s, land near growing cities was cheaper and more abundant, which allowed builders to sell small starter homes at accessible prices. Today, land is significantly more expensive and zoning rules often require larger lots than many buyers truly need. This combination forces builders to create larger homes at higher margins simply to cover land and development costs. Cultural expectations amplify these pressures. Over time, Americans began viewing certain upgrades as non-negotiable features. Big kitchens, large closets, and spacious bathrooms became the standard rather than the exception. This shift helped eliminate the traditional starter home. Only a small share of new homes built today are under 1,400 square feet, a size that was once common in nearly every market. Here are the key impacts on today’s buyers: Fewer small, attainable homes are being produced. The cost of land and regulation pushes builders toward larger, more expensive products. Entry-level buyers face limited options and higher barriers to ownership. Where This Leaves the Market Affordability did not erode solely because construction costs rose. It eroded because the definition of a “standard” home fundamentally changed. Earlier generations bought smaller, simpler homes, and those homes were intentionally designed to fit middle-class incomes. Today, the baseline product has grown beyond what many first-time buyers can comfortably afford. The path back toward affordability requires more than just adding supply. It requires enabling builders to create smaller homes through updated zoning, smaller lots, and more flexible housing types such as cottage courts, townhomes, and missing-middle developments. Many households also show a growing interest in manageable, lower-maintenance homes, which suggests that demand for smaller options is strong if policies and economics allow them to be built. Final Thoughts Homes in the 1970s and 1980s were compact, practical, and accessible to average families. Modern homes offer far more features, but that expansion in size and amenities has come at the cost of affordability. If homeownership is to become widely attainable again, the market must shift toward building smaller, thoughtfully designed homes that align with what typical households can realistically afford.
The Hidden Cost of Housing Restrictions in Greenville County Greenville County has experienced a decade of fast-paced growth, attracting new residents, businesses, and investment. But in 2025, development has slowed sharply, not because demand has fallen, but because new regulations, policy changes, and uncertainty are making it harder to build. At Hill Development, we believe well-planned housing growth is essential for affordability, opportunity, and a healthy local economy. Limiting housing supply through shifting rules and delays ultimately leads to higher home prices, increased rents, and a less competitive region. Regulatory Uncertainty Around the UDO In late 2024, Greenville County adopted a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to streamline zoning rules and reflect its comprehensive plan. But within weeks, the UDO was paused for revisions. Now, developers are left in limbo, unsure which rules apply or how long approvals will take. Key Takeaways: Developers and lenders hesitate to move forward without clear standards Permitting and investment decisions are being delayed Planning staff are tied up revising code instead of reviewing projects Moratoriums on Cluster and Open-Space Development The County has temporarily halted approval of cluster and open-space subdivisions, citing concerns about density and rural character. But many of these layouts are used to preserve land while building cost-effective homes in growing areas. The moratorium affects more than just clustered projects, since it diverts staff attention and policy focus. Key Takeaways: Cluster housing allows efficient development with green space The moratorium freezes a major segment of the market Even unrelated projects face delays due to limited review capacity Environmental Compliance Adds Time and Cost New stormwater regulations are now in effect, requiring more complex engineering, longer review cycles, and higher upfront costs. While managing runoff and water quality is important, the changes make marginal or smaller sites harder to build on. Key Takeaways: Tougher requirements increase design and permitting costs Project timelines are extended, especially for smaller builders Some sites that were previously buildable no longer pencil out Sewer and Septic Capacity is a Growing Constraint Sewer access is limited in some key growth areas, and the County is increasingly cautious about approving new septic-based subdivisions. Until infrastructure expands or new solutions are funded, many projects remain stalled. Key Takeaways: Some growing areas lack sewer capacity for new development Septic-dependent subdivisions face higher scrutiny Builders are limited in where they can deliver new homes Rural Development Faces More Pushback Longstanding debates around rural conservation rules have resurfaced as the County revisits how to manage density and land use outside urban cores. These unresolved issues create legal risk and public resistance that slow down even modest proposals. Key Takeaways: Uncertainty around rural rules affects land planning Organized opposition adds risk for rural or edge-of-city sites Density assumptions from past years no longer apply consistently Navigating City vs County Regulations Inside Greenville city limits, a separate code aligned with the GVL2040 plan offers more predictability, though it is more design-intensive. Outside the city, the County's UDO is still in flux, creating a patchwork of standards that can be difficult for builders to navigate. Key Takeaways: Two overlapping codes in one metro area increase complexity Developers must adjust plans and timelines depending on jurisdiction Smaller firms may struggle to meet shifting requirements in both areas What This Means for Housing Affordability These combined challenges add friction to nearly every stage of development. Delays, engineering requirements, code revisions, and moratoriums all make it harder to bring new homes to market. And when housing supply falls behind demand, the result is higher prices. What’s at Risk: Fewer affordable and workforce housing options Rising prices for both buyers and renters Slower job growth and reduced economic competitiveness A regional market that becomes less accessible to young families and first-time buyers Moving Forward At Hill Development, we support responsible growth, strong environmental standards, and community input. But we also believe that clear, consistent, and timely regulations are essential for a healthy housing market. Greenville County must align its land use policies with its economic goals to remain affordable and attractive. If you're considering a project or investment in the area, we're here to help you navigate this evolving landscape and identify areas of opportunity.