They build them big these days, don't they? Houses, that is.

Just a few generations ago it seemed 1,000 square feet was all a family needed. Now, average seems more like 3,000 square feet and there's no end in sight.

Local bylaws currently state the footprint of a house cannot cover more than 40 per cent of the lot. That means on an average city lot, a two-storey house with a basement can easily hit 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, all floors in. A big city lot — a quarter-acre lot, for example — could legally support a 10,000-square-foot home.

These so-called "monster homes" are a growing concern for City planners who have long realized bigger houses usually draw more services and require more development infrastructure. Five toilets and showers in five bathrooms can draw a lot more water than two.

Randy Lambright said planners wanted development cost charges pegged to the size of houses for that reason. As it is now, developers pay the same no matter what size the house is. City council chose not to adopt the change, however, and the status quo remains.

But planners are looking at the current sizing bylaws, to see how best to manage the growth of monster houses, he said. The first step in the process will see his department clarify the maximum height bylaws so they are well understood.

That reflects the fact that big houses can have impact on their neighbours as well, by blocking views and changing the dynamics of the neighbourhood.

A recent dispute before City council highlights that fact, as neighbours in the Powers Addition complained about a "monster house" being built in their cluster of smaller homes.

There are many neighbourhoods where big homes overshadow smaller homes, said Lambright — Batchelor Heights being one of the most notable. There, newer large homes on the higher heights of land tower over their older neighbouring homes down below.

The differences in size are stark.

Lambright said dealing with the size of homes by way of changes to bylaws is a much trickier issue than restricting heights.

In some areas, larger homes fit in fine, he said. In some they do not. The ideal way to handle some of these issues would be with restrictive neighbourhood design guidelines, but municipalities are not allowed to impose such measures.

The issue is made more complex by the fact lot sizes vary by neighbourhood. In Valleyview, Brocklehurst and Westsyde, there are larger-than-normal lots, often mixed in with smaller ones.

In many cases, these larger lots predated amalgamation, when residents needed to maintain septic fields. To develop size regulations that would provide meaningful controls could literally require neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood control.

"It's very site specific. That's the challenge," he said. "It's going to require a little more work. Is 40 per cent (lot coverage) too much? In some instances it is not, but then in some instances it is."

Brian Hayashi, vice-president of the Canadian Home Builders Association in Kamloops, said the monster home trend might correct itself as construction costs increase and people become more environmentally conscious.

Hayashi said he's often wondered how much home a family needs. He grew up in a 1,000-square-foor house, as did so many of his generation.

"It's a bit of a mystery to me," he said. "Even at 3,000-square-feet, I wonder what people are doing with all the space?

"I personally have some reservation about why we are building such (monster) houses — I don't understand it. I think it's just a fashion trend."

He said more people are realizing performance of a home is more important than its size. Monster homes draw great amounts of energy to heat and cool. As energy efficiency gains importance in home design, people are once again realizing there is value in smaller buildings.

So who builds and buys monster homes?

Craig McIntyre, the president of the Kamloops and District Real Estate Association, said big houses are clearly market driven — builders are supplying what consumers want.

There seems to be two groups interested in big homes — those who have large extended families living with them and those with none.

Some families have more than one generation living under the same roof, so they build homes with more space. The other class of big-home builders are, ironically, the empty nesters, who find they have the money and desire to build their dream homes. These are people who might have raised their families in smaller homes and now want more.

"They have the money to do this, they have the money to spend. It appears they want to do it," he said.

So they build them. Big. Then they discover they have to live in them, maintain them, heat them, cool them and keep them clean. And they discover another reality — big homes are a lot of work. So they sell them and seek out something smaller.

McIntyre said he expects the trend could well return to smaller more livable homes, especially as "green" values take root.

As well, he expects the issue will appear more frequently before City councils as people oppose the emergence of monsters in their midst.

"If taxpayers don't like it, they can lobby council," he said.