Illustrations by Travis Foster

BIGGER, TALLER, COOLER

Calling them McMansions may be an exaggeration in most cases, but as a rule, single-family homes were indeed built on a larger scale in 2004 than they were three decades earlier. Since the early ’70s, the Census Bureau has been reporting on the characteristics of new housing units on an annual basis. Here are some differences between single-family homes built in 1974 and those completed in 2004.

HEIGHT Then: Only 25 percent of all new houses in the US had more than two stories (not counting split-levels), compared with 45 percent in the more crowded Northeast. Now: A slight majority (52 percent) of new houses nationwide have two or more stories, while 79 percent of those in the Northeast have upper floors.

PARKING Then: Though 62 percent of all new houses nationwide had a garage that could hold two or more cars, only 39 percent of new homeowners in the Northeast could boast the same, and 29 percent had no garage at all. Now: Covered parking for at least two cars is nearly universal nationally (82 percent), and the Northeast has almost caught up (73 percent).

EXTERIOR WALLS Then: Most new homes were sheathed in brick (35 percent nationally, 8 percent in the Northeast) or wood (32 percent nationally, 46 percent in the Northeast). Now: Vinyl siding is overwhelmingly the material of choice in the Northeast (81 percent); it’s also the number one choice nationally (38 percent), but stucco is a strong second (22 percent).

SIZE Then: Twenty-four percent of all new homes (and 33 percent in the Northeast) had less than 1,200 square feet in floor space, while only 13 percent (11 percent in the Northeast) topped 2,400 square feet. Now: A mere 4 percent of new homeowners, both nationally and regionally, make do with less than 1,200 square feet. Almost half of all homes nationally (48 percent) and more than a third regionally (39 percent) boast more than twice as much space.

BEDROOMS Then: Three bedrooms was the norm, accounting for 64 percent of all new homes nationally and 58 percent of homes in the Northeast. Now: The percentage of new homes with fewer than three bedrooms is pretty much the same, going from 13 percent to 11 percent nationally and rising a bit from 15 percent to 17 percent in the Northeast. But bigger houses are getting bigger: Those with more than three bedrooms rose from 23 percent to 37 percent of the total nationally and from 27 percent to 39 percent in the Northeast.

BATHROOMS Then: This is one of the few areas where houses in the Northeast are more extravagant than those elsewhere. In 1974, only 19 percent of the new homes nationwide, but 24 percent of those in the Northeast, had more than two bathrooms. Now: Fifty-seven percent of new homes in the US have more than two bathrooms, but in the Northeast that figure is up to 74 percent.

AIR CONDITIONING Then: Still a regional phenomenon, central A/C was in 48 percent of new homes in the US but in only 16 percent in the Northeast. Now: Freon (and, increasingly, the more environmentally friendly Puron) flows in almost all new homes—90 percent of those in the US and 82 percent of those in the Northeast.

HEATING SYSTEMS Then: Nationally, electric heat was on the rise, warming 49 percent of all new homes. While electricity was also the most common form of heat in new Northeastern homes (38 percent), good old oil wasn’t too far behind (32 percent, vs. 9 percent nationally). Now: Gas heat reigns supreme, fueling 69 percent of all new homes in the US and 73 percent of new homes in the Northeast.

FIREPLACES Then: Despite a reputation for harsh winters, fireplaces were actually less common in new homes in the Northeast (47 percent) than at the national level (49 percent). Now: Hearths are making a comeback here. Sixty percent of new homes in the Northeast have at least one fireplace, compared with 55 percent nationally.

UPS AND DOWNS FROM 9 TO 5

It’s a law of science that all elements expand when exposed to heat. Cities and towns, however, each have their own reaction to the rising sun on a workday. Lowell and Lynn get smaller and sleepier as the morning progresses, while Waltham and Woburn get a jolt from an influx of commuters.

By tracking the movement of working adults in and out of communities, the US Census Bureau recently came up with daytime populations for 124 places in the Bay State, based on data from 2000. (“Places” include all incorporated cities, plus the urban sections of larger towns.) The daytime population change due to commuting was highest in the resort district of Orleans (up 105 percent, from 1,700 to 3,500), the shopping mecca of Burlington (up 95 percent, from 23,000 to 45,000), and the business district of Falmouth (up 75 percent, from 4,100 to 7,200). In raw numbers, however, the biggest magnets for commuters were still Boston (up 41 percent to 830,000) and Cambridge (up 58 percent to 160,000), which passed Lowell to become the state’s fourth biggest city during working hours.

As for places that clear out the most during the day, North Amherst (down 40 percent), Hull (down 37 percent), and Arlington (down 36 percent) were among the leaders. But the biggest loss numerically was in Somerville, which fell from 77,000 to 55,000 during the day.

The most perfectly balanced place was, appropriately, Middleborough Center, whose daytime population (6,910) was almost exactly the same as its evening population (6,913). But there was still plenty of traffic in and out of the area, as 83 percent of the residents with jobs worked elsewhere. Outside of the island of Nantucket, the most self-contained community seemed to be Pittsfield, where 69 percent of the residents with jobs worked within the city limits.

THE SHAPE OF HOMES TO COME

You can now visit one Web site to find out just how complicated it is to build in the Boston area. The Pioneer Institute and Harvard’s Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston have jointly compiled a Housing Regulation Database (www.pioneerinstitute.org), which catalogues all the zoning, wetlands, and septic regulations in 187 Bay State communities within 50 miles of Boston (but not the Hub itself). “I had no idea just how gargantuan the task would be,” says project manager Amy Dain. “Not only do the same terms mean dramatically different things in different communities, but also many regulations lack sufficient definitions or include frustratingly vague wording.”

Among other findings, Dain and her fellow researchers discovered 10 communities that do not allow any multifamily housing (Bridgewater being the largest), and nine more that allow multifamily units only if they are limited to residents over a certain age (Marshfield being the largest). Accessory apartments are explicitly allowed in 107 communities, but 57 of them have restrictions on who can live in such homes (hence their nickname, “in-law apartments”). Developers may complain about state regulations that affect homebuilding, but on some matters the suburbs are even tougher. More than two-thirds (131 cities and towns) have local wetlands laws that regulate activities or areas not covered by the state’s Wetlands Protection Act, and 109 communities have local septic regulations that are more restrictive than the state’s Title 5 rules.

Perhaps the most vertiginous section of the report accompanying the database is on “Lot and Structure Dimensions,” which include prohibitions on oddly shaped lots. Some towns require lots to conform to mathematical equations, such as Carlisle’s “16a/(p^2)>=.4,” where a is the total lot area and p is the perimeter. Boxford deems a lot to be irregular if its area is “less than 50 percent of the area of a square lot of the same perimeter.” Other towns are less confusing, if more ambiguous. For example, Millbury does not allow “pork chop, rattail, or excessively funnel-shape or otherwise unusually gerrymandered lots.”