Temples and Houses

The graph (diagram 3) in the second chapter of Liverani's book caught my attention. Temples grew exponentially by about 4500 BCE while the house growth over time only increased slightly. I understand why the temples grew, but it was never explained why the houses remained pretty much stagnant. With more food coming in from the temples, wouldn't it make sense that families would have more kids? Or if they had more money because they were specializing instead of leading subsistence farming lives, wouldn't they want bigger houses. The only way for me to evaluate this is through today's lens, because I really don't know anything else. I can understand why families didn't grow, but isn't there still a human want for conspicuous consumption?

Through today's understanding, the ancient families not growing and thus not needing bigger houses makes sense. Though we have more disposable income than any time before, families have gotten smaller. This is to give the few children that parents do have a better quality of life. The emphasis here is on quality, not quantity, because childhood mortality is less of a problem now in developed countries and they don't need all the children to help with the work. However, if the houses didn't get bigger when the temples grew exponentially, does that mean that people in the first city weren't drawn to ostensible displays of wealth? Houses today are considered status symbols. The bigger your house, the more successful you are. If the house size only rose modestly, does it mean that that sort of competition wasn't present in this era? And furthermore, if they weren't concerned with flashing wealth and importance, does that mean our current society can change, too?