Category Archives: McMansions

Why not give McMansions green roofs?

Posted on by

McMansions can be made green by adding green roofs:

Where it gets tricky for a McMansion is that green roofs tend to lend themselves to shallower gradients, not to 20deg-30deg pitches. We’ll assume for now that a McMansion roof structure [typically prefabricated timber trusses] has enough load capacity to bear a fully soaked green roof.

Here’s how it could potentially be done;

1. Remove the existing cladding – whether it be concrete tiles or metal decking. Metal decking could remain if the load isn’t too much. Replace with marine ply board;

2. Add the requisite layers of waterproofing, drainage cell, insulation and geotextile;

3. Add the perimeter angles to hold the soil/planting [sounds like it could be a tricky detail, but it is possible];

4. Add the soil profile and planting. For this one there are various methods available – I didn’t have any luck sourcing Australian examples/products so the US it is. There are proprietary soil stabilisation products available for steeper slopes with in-situ planting, or there is planting in plastic trays or even mats which come ready-established.

I agree with the final assessment of the post: I’ve not seen this proposal before. How much might it cost to retrofit the roof of an existing large home? It seems like the easiest way to make this happen would be to change buildings codes to require greener roofs and then the cost simply becomes part of the new home.

With more interest in greener dwellings (tiny houses, net zero energy homes, passive homes, etc.) plus the negative connotations of owning a McMansion or larger homes, I suspect more of these homes will be constructed with green features. However, I continue to wonder: will a large home with some green features, like a green roof, be considered green enough?

Maybe not just McMansions making a comeback; “Super Gulp” mentality extends to pickup trucks

Posted on by

A review of the 2014 Chevy Silverado starts with some commentary about American consumer behavior: from McMansions to Super Gulps to large trucks.

North Americans are feeling so comfortable with their bank accounts these days that they’re re-embracing a Super Gulp mentality. They’re eating more hamburgers – at restaurants. They’re back to buying McMansions. And, as the major auto makers reported last month, they’re also buying trucks – especially the sort of full-size pickups that could plow sedans asunder.

General Motors reported sales of its Silverado were up an astounding 25.3 per cent in May compared with a year earlier – and that’s before its long-overdue update, which arrived at dealers this month with the same $32,710 starting price as the outgoing model, despite massive tweaks.

Small might have been big in a down economy, but for the 2014 model year, big is most definitely back en vogue.

I’m not sure exactly why this commentary starts the review as it seems to have a decently positive ending:

The 2014 Chevrolet Silverado may have been redesigned as a boxy utilitarian man wagon, but it’s a muscular manservant that even a woman could love.

At the least, this review draws upon a common critique of McMansions, SUVs, and other large items: they are all part of consumer mindset where bigger is better. These sorts of comparisons to large food portions or vehicles are not unusual when invoking McMansions. And lurking behind this is the issue of how to pay for all this size – the review doesn’t mention it but a fully loaded 2014 Chevy Silverado doesn’t come cheap (MSRP starting at $31,715, according to Chevy). Additionally, the size is anti-social as the truck reviewer dreams transforming her commute in the truck into a demolition derby.

It’s too bad we can’t get this same reviewer to look at a few houses of different sizes, or perhaps an economy car, to see if this worry about the size of consumer items is a bigger issue.

Hoping McMansions aren’t making a comeback

Posted on by

Not everyone is happy with the idea that McMansions may be making a comeback:

Please don’t tell me we’re picking up where we left off. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against big houses in particular, but I had hoped we’d seen the end of over-building tiny residential lots to gain spaces far larger than they really needed to be. If there was a silver lining in the housing downturn, I thought it might be a shift toward smaller spaces that put a premium on creativity, great design, and organization.

Thankfully, I don’t think the census data points toward the whole nation deciding, once again, that bigger is better. Instead, I think we’re seeing the results of a very simple economic fact: When the economy is in the tank—which it undoubtedly was a few years ago, when 2012 completions were in the planning, permitting, and construction phases—the only people building houses were the “Go Big or Go Home” crowd whose members probably splurged for the extra bedroom or three. That’s why the census data is now showing a record high median home size. I hope, at least.

See recent posts about a possible return of McMansions: a CNN report in early June 2013 and a New York Times follow-up on the CNN piece.

Tim Layton hints at several complaints against McMansions. First, the homes are simply too big to start with. They have more space than people really need. This is related to the idea that Americans often think “bigger is better” and don’t think about anything else. Instead, Americans could think more about the design of their homes rather than just focusing on more space. This sounds similar to Sarah Susanka’s arguments about her Not-So-Big House.

Additionally, this also gets at trends and cycles in housing. McMansion-type homes emerged in the 1980s with the term exploding in the early 2000s. But, the economic crisis led to smaller homes for several years. The question is what will come next. Layton does not want McMansions to return but he also notes that we may also be in new kind of market where the wealthy continue to purchase such homes while they don’t really extend to the larger housing market. Perhaps there will be a limited McMansion comeback? If so, there may be plenty of opportunity for builders and others to be more creative with smaller homes.

Marketing “McMansions For Sale in Arizona”

Posted on by

With the general negativity surrounding the term McMansion, it is rare to see those in real estate marketing McMansions. However, here is such a website: MyOwnArizona has “McMansions For Sale in Arizona.”

An Arizona home builder has a model available in a three-bedroom, or a larger four-bedroom version. “The four bedroom outsells the three bedroom all day long,” said Arizona McMansion home builder. “I don’t know if we’ve ever sold a three-bedroom one.”

“But it’s hard not to see the increase in home size as a sign that the economy is recovering,” said AZ builder. “People weren’t buying SUVs during the recession either and they are again.”

Please feel free to contact us and we can provide you with additional Arizona McMansion information to guide you through the buying/selling process in AZ. We look forward to hearing from you and working with you soon!

I’ve quoted the closing pitch. But, how the site gets to the conclusion is interesting as well. The argument is that Americans want bigger homes and homes are getting larger again after a downturn during the recent economic crisis. The whole thing reads as if it is trying to convince potential buyers that purchasing a McMansion is okay. In other words, McMansions may get a bad rap in the media (just like SUVs) but they are exactly what you and other Americans want!

I don’t know if this is the right way to sell McMansions. But, there is clearly quite a hurdle to overcome here.

 

McMansions just a symptom of sprawl

Posted on by

Reflecting on a recent case of building a wall along the edge of a suburban property, a Bakersfield, California columnist suggests the wall is a larger symptom of sprawl:

And now we’re a nation of cul-de-sacs and dense residential mazes that, except for the most ambitious among us, are navigable only by automobile. Wonder why the U.S. is the most obese nation on earth? Look no further than a culture that favors cars to walking shoes and cherishes the illusion of privacy over the interactivity of community.

The design of our cities is killing us. We drive a mile to a supermarket that’s just a quarter-mile away as the crow flies. We buy McMansions on the outer edge of the city’s metro footprint and drive 10 miles to work, sending up emissions we needn’t have produced. And we recruit city councilmen to help us block off walking paths near our houses because we’re tired of seeing people actually out and about on our streets.

So many of our societal ills can be traced to a Calle Privada mindset. Half-acre lots with three-car garages on longtime ag land instead of smaller homes closer to work. Municipal tax dollars devoted to new roads, new sewers, new traffic signals and new utility infrastructure instead of public safety and the maintenance of what we already have. And homeowners who barricade their streets instead of developing neighborhood bonds that encourage cooperation, build trust and hinder crime. Cinderblock walls don’t do much to facilitate any of that.

This is an example of what the critique of McMansions is often about. Note that the houses in sprawl themselves don’t get much attention in the argument above. We see that they are on large lots, half an acre, with lots of garage space. But, the bigger issue is what the sprawl in which McMansions are a part. Here are the problems with sprawl, as suggested above:

(1) the infrastructure is costly;

(2) driving is required;

(3) it is bad for the environment;

(4) and it inhibits neighborliness and the development of community.

Those who don’t like sprawl suggest it is a whole system of public investment and choices. Americans may like their large, private houses but there are costs associated with it. Opponents of sprawl tend to assume that if homeowners and policymakers knew these costs, they would make different decisions. That hasn’t exactly happened yet…but the term McMansion is certainly part of the critique of sprawl.

Colbert: watch out for “egg McMansions”

Posted on by

In discussing a recent stance by Iowa House member Steve King, Stephen Colbert suggests chickens don’t deserve McMansions:

Now, King is fighting a California law that would give egg-laying hens more room in their cages and trying to keep it from becoming national law.

“Damn straight,” said Colbert. “This is just another case of the left-wing loons in California imposing their deviant values on the heartland. I’ll bet those California chickens don’t even have to be married before they have an egg.”

The law mandates that a poultry cage must measure 200 square inches, which Colbert called an “Egg McMansion.”

“This is a chicken Xanadu,” he said. “It’s way bigger than the cages I keep my interns in.”

Two quick thoughts:

1. It sounds like Colbert is primarily hinting at two traits of McMansion. First, they are big homes. They have lots of space. For chickens, that apparently equates to 200 square inches. Second, also suggesting the homes are like Xanadu also plays out the wealthy and luxurious aspects of McMansions.

2. Since Colbert is poking fun at King, this might be the commentary: conservatives and others might want themselves and other Americans to have the opportunity to own McMansions and large homes, but they don’t want to extend these privileges to other living creatures.

Making a clear contrast: “Micro-apartments: The anti-McMansions”

Posted on by

CNN profiles micro-apartments and frames them as the opposite of McMansions:

Move over McMansions: These days, pint-sized, micro-apartments are all the rage.

Typically ranging between 180 and 300 square-feet, these tiny apartments are becoming increasingly popular among the young-and-single set and even some retirees, seeking affordable places to live in the nation’s costliest cities.

Nowhere is the micro trend hotter than in Seattle. More than 40 micro-apartment developments have been built in the city in the past three years, according to Jim Potter, chairman of Kauri Group, a Seattle-based developer. Many of these apartment buildings offer shared patios, roof decks and even communal kitchens. (Zoning laws in Seattle allow up to eight apartments to share one kitchen)…

The key selling point is affordability. In Seattle, 250-square-foot apartments rent for under $800 a month, almost half the average $1,400 people pay for newly built studios of 400 square feet or more in the city, according to Potter.

The first comparison is not surprising: as McMansions came to be the symbol of large houses, micro-apartments are just the opposite. The whole unit is the size of perhaps a smaller owner’s suite in a McMansion and often features space-saving designs.

The second comparison is less common: micro-apartments are also cheap compared to McMansions. Particularly in the cities cited in this article, places like Seattle or San Francisco, affordable housing is in short supply. Micro-apartments may be small but more importantly, they give people an opportunity to live closer to work and in or near places they couldn’t afford otherwise. McMansions were also known for their price, or at least for the mortgages that owners had to take on. The comparison is not perfect since McMansions are assumed to be in the suburbs and less of an issue in the big city.

It will be interesting to see how this comparison plays out down the road. McMansions are a powerful symbol while micro-apartments are on the rise and still could change quite a bit as they grow in number and spread to more places. The article hints at one change: the micro-apartments might be popular with retirees. Such a development could set up some interesting stories of

Five kinds of new houses that are non-McMansions

Posted on by

A recent discussion thread started with this statement: “I don’t think it should cost $500K or 5,000 square feet for a body to live. Show me the opposite of the McMansion that is still sexy.” So what might this look like? Here are some common options today of non-McMansions, homes intentionally built not to be McMansions:

1. Tiny houses. These are opposites of McMansions because of their size. While McMansions are known for having 3,000 square feet or more, tiny houses have several hundred square feet or less. The tiny house is not just about having less space; it is a completely different way of life as it is hard to accumulate much in the house.

2. The Not-So-Big House. Promoted by architect Sarah Susanka, these homes are not necessarily much smaller than McMansions but are built more to the personal interests and tastes of the individual owner. In other words, these houses are built to fit the owners while McMansions are seen as being mass-produced homes that owners have to fit themselves into.

3. New Urbanist homes. These homes could look quite different depending on the area of the country in which they are located as New Urbanists argue homes should follow regional architectural styles. But, there would be some common features: front porches, closer placement to the street, alleys if possible. The New Urbanist home might have the same square footage or similar features compared to McMansions but is intended to be better connected to the surrounding neighborhood, encouraging more social life.

4. Very energy-efficient homes including passive homes and net zero-energy homes. Again, these homes may be like McMansions in features and size but they are seen as less wasteful and have more quality construction.

5. Modernist homes. I’m not convinced many Americans would choose this option but it seems to be a regular favorite of architects and designers. These homes are not necessarily smaller than McMansions but have much more architectural credibility and are often one-of-a-kind.

Assessing “The Return of McMansions” in the NYT

Posted on by

Following up on the same data behind the CNN story on the McMansion comeback, the NYT looks more closely at the characteristics of new houses in 2012. Here is my summary:

-Housing starts were still down in 2012. Looking at the graph with housing start data since 1973 shows that the last few years have been quite different.

-The homes built in 2012 were bigger: the highest median square footage ever of 2,306 square feet, 41% of the houses were four or more bedrooms (a new record), and 30% of new houses had 3 or more bathrooms (also a new record).

My thoughts on this data:

1. This is not a big surprise. While housing starts are way down, wealthier Americans and others have still been able to buy large new homes. Again, Toll Brothers is doing just fine. On the other hand, the lower ends of the housing market are not doing well.

2. It is interesting again for people to pick up on the highest-ever median square footage for new houses. For years, journalists and others have looked at the average square footage which is bit down from its high several years ago. Perhaps the median is now alluring because it is at its highest point and therefore can be linked to McMansions and American excess?

3. More houses have more bedrooms and yet the average family size in the United States has decreased in recent decades and more Americans are now living alone. So what are these bedrooms being used for?

 

CNN says “McMansions are making a comeback” but the data is limited

Posted on by

CNN reports that McMansions just may be on the way back:

During the past three years, the average size of new homes has grown significantly, according to a Census Bureau report released Monday. In 2012, the median home in the U.S. hit an all-time record of 2,306 square feet, up 8% from 2009.

During the recession, Americans downsized and the average new home shrunk in size by 6% over two years to 2,135 square feet. At the time, many industry experts said the days of the McMansion were over.

The shrinkage was supposed to indicate that a new era had begun, with young buyers seeking to live closer to urban cores and settling for smaller places and baby boomers downsizing after their kids had flown the nest.

But it wasn’t that consumers wanted less space, many just couldn’t afford more, said Jeffry Roos, a regional president for home builder Lennar. And now that the economy is improving, they’re demanding bigger homes again, he said.

This is what I suspected might happen: once the housing market picked up again, some Americans would go back to buying bigger houses. But, this article has a few problems as it relies on (1) the median home size and (2) talking to several large builders.

Regarding home size: the figures cited more often is the average home size. The average size for new houses went from roughly 900 square feet in 1950 to nearly 2,500 in the mid-2000s. The median home size might be more accurate as the extra big homes can’t skew the data as much but the average is used more often. Also, the median hasn’t changed all that much in the last few years – this is only a difference of 150 square feet, a 12×12 room. Why can’t we see figure about the number of big homes that have or have not been built rather than relying on these overall figures that are a snapshot of a varied housing industry?

Relying on just a few large builders also does not reveal the big picture. The builders cited, particularly Toll Brothers, are big players but the housing market has a lot of different builders and developers. Overall, how are lots of different builders feeling about big houses? Are they actually building these bigger houses? What do real estate experts say? The news for Toll Brothers has looked good recently but there is more to the big house market than just Toll Brothers.

This seems like an article that would benefit from better data and also may not really be able to be written until some more time has passed and the trend is more clear. In the meantime, simply invoking the term McMansion and discussing a possible trend is apparently enough…

UPDATE 6/5/13: As the CNN story is repeated across the web, there is some confusion. For example, look at how this retelling mixes the idea of an average or median:

A new Census Bureau report says the average size of a new home has grown eight percent in the last three years, up to a record 2,300 sq. ft. in 2012…

According to the National Association of Homebuilders, buyers prefer a median home size of just over 2,200 feet, in line with the Census average.

Two different figures for the “middle” size mean two different things…