A story from marketwatch.com reports that prospective homebuyers may finally be over their space lust. 

The average size of homes started in the third quarter of 2008 was 2,438 square feet, down from 2,629 square feet in the second quarter, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Similarly, the median size of homes started in the third quarter was 2,090, down from 2,291.

Undoubtedly, this is an analogue for how commuter lines grew much more crowded when gas went to $4 a gallon. Bigger homes cost more to operate, period, even the ones that are built with environmental sensitivity, and anyone not worried about the near-term economic future is obviously oblivious.

The important take-away from this, or one of them, at least, is the demonstrable need for carbon pricing. People like me think that making leaner personal choices is the clear, caring, course, even if it's going to cost more, but we are not in the mainstream. (We're not wealthy, so like anyone, there are limits to what we can bear, but we do our best.)

Most people are going to react, and to the greatest degrees, in response to cost. Just as clearly, the market is not going to price itself according to any shared needs or principles, so we have to influence pricing to get the outcomes we collectively need. 

That leaves one question to resolve: What are our collective needs? I don't have any doubt what they are, and I feel that I am, unfamiliarly, flowing in the direction of the tide. But clearly, we don't have consensus yet.

Meanwhile, in addition to the census data, the story references a Better Homes and Gardens survey that confirms the trend:

Buyers are looking for a home that is "right-sized, organized, and economized," said Gayle Butler, editor-in-chief.