And those people want tear down the old house and build a bigger, fancier house where the smaller, less environmentally impactful houses stood.
In my old upper middle class neighborhood, our entire block of houses on our small cul-de-sac were all California ramblers. Small (under 3K sq ft), but on larger lots (some were 1/4 or 1/2 acre lots) near several natural ponds and wetland areas. Over the course of the last 15 years, out of the two dozen or so houses, only four or five are left as original. Thee rest were all bought, torn down and had huge, multi-million dollar houses which took up almost the entire lot built instead.
You're right, personal preference is a big one, and there are other obvious mechanisms at work here such as the city letting this happen because they benefit from the increased taxes they collect, but its not helping the environment at all.
many new houses are much more energy efficient, though. Modern building code basically guarantees that this is true. from an energy consumption POV, a bigger new, efficient house may be better. (within reason).
OTOH, modern tax laws and lot coverage calculations actively discourage energy efficient design. In many jurisdictions, you are taxed on the size of the house measured from the eaves, not the walls, and this encourages builders to maximize the house relative to the roof overhang. this reduces the ability to implement passive energy efficiency strategies like large eaves to increase shade on walls / windows.
A house that's 2x the size would have to be more than 2x efficient for it to be better. I doubt that new houses would be that much more efficient than an older house with some insulation and efficiency updates.
this article suggests that newer homes are more than twice as good, but that the size cancels some of this out, so that the new homes are only a bit better than old ones.
This isn't comparing new homes to old homes, but the overall homes over time. Obviously heat pumps, furnaces, etc are more efficient today than in 1970. If you updated an older home with efficient windows, doors, heat pump, and attic insulation, then I doubt there would be much difference.
In my old upper middle class neighborhood, our entire block of houses on our small cul-de-sac were all California ramblers. Small (under 3K sq ft), but on larger lots (some were 1/4 or 1/2 acre lots) near several natural ponds and wetland areas. Over the course of the last 15 years, out of the two dozen or so houses, only four or five are left as original. Thee rest were all bought, torn down and had huge, multi-million dollar houses which took up almost the entire lot built instead.
You're right, personal preference is a big one, and there are other obvious mechanisms at work here such as the city letting this happen because they benefit from the increased taxes they collect, but its not helping the environment at all.