Category Archives: McMansions

A few issues with Curbed’s timeline of McMansions

Posted on by

Curbed has a new feature: “Track the evolution of this uniquely American housing on Curbed’s McMansion Timeline.” I have a few issues with what they say.

1. There is a lot of editorializing in this timeline. For example, the entry for the 1980s includes “Upwardly mobile suburban rejoiced, the McMansion was born” and the 1991 entry says “Social climbing middle-class professionals weren’t the only ones hooked by the oversized home boom.” These are typical critiques of McMansion owners but are based more in stereotypes than evidence.

2. The article suggests the first usage was in the New York Times in 1993. However, the Oxford English Dictionary gives an earlier usage from the San Diego Union-Tribune on July 15, 1990.

3. We are only given vague descriptions of what McMansions are. They are large houses but it is implied than a 15,000 square foot home could be a McMansion. There are also hints that McMansions are built with less quality materials and they are mass produced. But what about the architecture and design (the pictures hint at this)?

Overall, learn a lot more by checking out my paper on the usage of the term McMansion in the New York Times and Dallas Morning News.

From modest homes in a Canadian prairie town to McMansions

Posted on by

R.J. Snell returned to the Canadian prairie town of his youth and was surprised to find that its modest homes had been replaced with McMansions:

Having just returned from a two-week visit, I’m struck by the visible demise of modest restraint, particularly in the homes. Driving about the countryside, for this is what one does there, I saw many new homes of a preposterous scale, many thousands of square feet (one even had an outbuilding to house all the mechanicals), with multiple garrets and turrets, all jutting conspicuously from the fields and into my purview. They could not be hidden, nor were they meant to, and on the treeless flatness were visible for great distances.

Right beside them, sometimes just across the road, stood the old farmhouse, diminutive, overshadowed. In the towns, a kind of segregation had taken place, with the older neighborhoods a mix of homes smaller or larger (but of a kind), but new developments on the far side of town housing looming monstrosities dwarfing the older places.

This was not neighborly. This was not modest. This was a thumbing of the nose at those with less, a demand to be noticed, seen.  Roger Scruton writes of the bad manners of much contemporary architecture compared with older patterns, saying:

The principal concern of the architects was to fit in to an existing urban fabric, to achieve local symmetry within the context of a historically given settlement. No greater aesthetic catastrophe has struck our cities—European just as much as American—than the modernist idea that a building should stand out from its surroundings, to become a declaration of its own originality. As much as the home, cities depend upon good manners; and good manners require the modest accommodation to neighbors rather than the arrogant assertion of apartness.

Rod Dreher follows up with an interesting question:

The question is, did money cause this cultural revolution in domestic architecture, or did the arrival of wealth happen to coincide with a cultural revolution in the way people thought about themselves and their desires, causing them to build their houses in a certain way now as opposed to then?

Which comes first: the cultural values or the material conditions? If looking at this from the production perspective in the sociology of culture, changes in material conditions like how architects are viewed, how single-family homes are viewed (as Snell suggests, should homes fit into the neighborhood or stick out?), how houses are constructed, how the real estate business operate, how zoning laws and local regulation encourage or discourage larger homes, etc. In other words, architectural styles or consumer desires don’t just change because individuals desire this. Rather, they change in conjunction with material and cultural change.

I also wonder about larger factors affecting this community. Where did residents get this money to spend on bigger houses? I ask this after lecturing this week about the Ferdinand Tonnies’ ideas about gemeinschaft and gesellschaft as well as Emile Durkheim’s concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity. Both theorists were interested in the shift from small town life to more urban life. Both suggested urban life contained fewer strong interpersonal relationships and systems where people were joined together by interdependence and external constraints rather than tradition, family ties, and shared values. Is a similar process taking place in this prairie town, perhaps through suburbanization or the rise of a good nearby job source or the Internet which opens up more possibilities for residents to connect to the outside world?

Living in a more isolated neighborhood of McMansions could limit how long you live?

Posted on by

In discussing a recent piece  from sociologist Eric Klinenberg about how cities can better prepare for climate change and natural disasters, MarketWatch jumps to an odd conclusion about McMansions and longevity:

As politicians and civil servants study how to prepare communities for the possible effects of future disasters or climate change, Klinenberg writes, they’re taking social infrastructure into account. And while it’s tricky to extrapolate broader lessons from these very specific situations, Klinenberg’s work does seem to reinforce the broader point that, for older people, social isolation can become a health threat in its own right. For the baby boomer trying to decide between a “Main Street” condo and a McMansion, or a retirement community and a farmhouse, it’s food for thought.

I don’t understand why a McMansion is mentioned here. The suggestion does fit with general stereotypes that neighborhoods of McMansions tend to be antisocial places where wealthy suburbanites only want to retreat to their electronics and nuclear families rather than engage the broader world. Critics suggest McMansions are all about privatization and not engaging with others. Hence, solutions to McMansions and sprawl such as New Urbanism tend to design things in such a way to encourage more interaction.

But, this connection doesn’t necessarily fit with Klinenberg’s analysis of the 1995 heat wave in Chicago. McMansions tend to be located in wealthier areas where people have the resources to access other forms of social support. In other words, would you be better off in a dense urban neighborhood with a strong social infrastructure or a looser suburban neighborhood with more money? Also, do a McMansion and a farmhouse really fit in the same category for isolation?

In the end, I would like to see data that people living in McMansions suffer in terms of longevity because of their houses and neighborhoods as compared to other settings.

New alternative to McMansions: “post-recession houses”

Posted on by

A number of builders and architects have proposed alternatives to the McMansion but I recently ran into another term: “post-recession houses.” Here is a description of what such homes are about in Tennessee:

Powell expects houses in the Village section, which will range from 2,800 to 3,400 square feet, to appeal to young families and to older couples who are downsizing.

There, Woodridge Homes is building what company founder Lloyd Craig describes as the “post-recession house” with less square footage than the McMansions that were once popular but with high-quality finishes.

“The recession made all of us realize that more is not necessarily better. Bigger is not necessarily better,” said Craig.

Woodridge’s homes will feature open floor plans that combine the kitchen, dining and living spaces. They will also have walk-in storage, island “breakfast bars” in the kitchen, luxurious master baths and outdoor living spaces.

“People can buy a $375,000 house and have the same amenities as an $800,000 house,” he said.

The “bigger is not better” idea has been popular in recent years. However, two things work against this idea of a “post-recession house” in these new homes:

1. These homes are still larger than the average new American home which is around 2,500 square feet. So while these are not huge houses, they are still larger than normal. Families moving into these homes are still going to have plenty of space.

2. The homes are still going to be luxurious. While they won’t be as large as McMansions, they will still be well appointed. Again, people living in these houses are going to have plenty, though it will come in a smaller size.

To me, it sounds like the idea that these are “post-recession” means they will be slightly smaller and yet won’t skimp on the nicer features. The same critiques that are sometimes leveled at McMansions, that they are bigger than necessary and are about showing off wealth, could still be aimed at these new houses. (Plus, the homes are in a gated community with more expensive homes and nice features such as LED streetlights and a saltwater neighborhood pool.) Is this much of a change? Perhaps we could change the term for the homes to “less obvious McMansions”?

Question: “What are some pictures of McMansions that some people find aesthetically pleasing and well designed?”

Posted on by

In contrast to looking for photos of the most garish McMansions, one Quora user ask the opposite question: “What are some pictures of McMansions that some people find aesthetically pleasing and well designed?”

This is a fascinating question because it assumes such pictures could be found. The definition of the term itself tends to imply something is wrong with the home: it is too big (absolutely or relative to other nearby homes), it is not designed well, or it is tied to other issues (sprawl, excessive consumption). Beyond that, McMansions could be viewed less as a matter of bad taste and more as morally wrong. There are not too many loud defenders of McMansions though it seems like builders like Toll Brothers, who critics have argued have built such homes for years, are doing okay.

So if people can’t bring themselves to suggest a McMansion is well designed, I wonder if tweaking the question might get better results: “are there McMansions that are less problematic?” If phrased this way, we could place McMansions along a continuum of well designed to poorly designed or better to bad and see the range of possibilities.

Comparing the architecture of a Phoenix Frank Lloyd Wright house to area McMansions

Posted on by

A letter to the editor in The Arizona Republic contrasts the worthiness of a Frank Lloyd Wright home and McMansions that are typically found in the area:

The horror of this melee about a Frank Lloyd Wright house is that the men who bought it claim they didn’t know Frank Lloyd Wright from the Wright brothers (New York Times, Oct. 25) and yet they, if left unhindered, decide the fate of a master work of architecture.

In this Mcmansion craze, people employ the horror of the unaesthetic, the death of art. Unlike Wright-designed and constructed homes that seem composed of what nature predicates, “living buildings” that fit the surroundings, these faux Tuscany tract homes on steroids rise up out of the ashes of demolitions in Arcadia, changing the entire landscape of what was once a unique Phoenix neighborhood with their attendant assault on beauty and proportion.

Phoenix does not need to buy the property for the inflated asking price. What the city and its officials need to do is vote for the historic landmark overlay on Dec. 5.

While McMansions can be defined by several characteristics, this letter’s argument relies exclusively on the architecture and design argument. The Frank Lloyd Wright home is a “living building” meant to fit into its surrounding landscape. In contrast, McMansions poorly mimic other housing styles (in this case, importing Tuscany to the Arizona desert), contrast with the landscape, and lack beauty because of their poor proportions.

Frank Lloyd Wright homes are of limited number and according to this Wikipedia list, there are not too many Wright designed buildings in Arizona. See more of the story about the house here and a gallery of images here. According to one of the captions, “The [spiral] house was designed to twist around a central courtyard and also offer views of Camelback Mountain to the north.” And the house may have been a testing ground for another famous work that came later: “Wright chose a spiral design akin to the Guggenheim Museum’s. He had drawn plans for the Guggenheim by then, but it was still some years away from construction.”

“McMansions Gone Rogue”: critiquing McMansions on Pinterest

Posted on by

For a gallery of photos that critique McMansion rooms, check out this Pinterest page. These rooms have some interesting design elements and beyond these style choices, they don’t look very liveable.

I presume the solutions for these rooms is to consult the interior designer who put together this page. Is her solution primarily about better interior design in these spaces or would she advocate for different homes, like the Not So Big House, all together?

 

Goodbye, McMansions with granite countertops; hello, pre-fab green homes with LEED ratings

Posted on by

Author Sheri Koones thinks the new housing trend is green homes:

The way Sheri Koones looks at it, the next real estate status symbol will be a minuscule heating bill.

“It’s the new bragging rights,” said Koones. “People used to brag, I have granite countertops. Today I think it’s going to be a lot more substantial to say, ‘I pay hardly anything for energy. I’m LEED Platinum” (a certification of residential energy conservation).

Granted, with the housing market still wounded, green construction is hardly likely to dominate cocktail-party chatter anytime soon. But Koones is mindful of our newfound economic sobriety. Declaring “the whole McMansion thing is over,” she’s become a champion of an unlikely-sounding candidate for the Next Big Thing: factory-built housing…

But she doesn’t mean like trailers. She means homes that aren’t constructed start-to-finish on someone’s lot, but largely in manufacturing facilities, sometimes on assembly lines. She’s become such an advocate of these processes that she’s out with her third coffee-table book on the subject.

There does seem to be a growing interest in green homes, partly for their earth-consciousness and partly because of an interest in reducing utility costs. However, I wonder about two things:

1. A granite countertop is a more obvious status symbol than “a minuscule heating bill.” So is a McMansion compared to a pre-fab green home. Of course, one can have less obvious status symbols but then the owner has to do more work talking it up and pointing it out to people. I suppose LEED homes could start displaying plaques or signs that highlight their green status. Plus, is the LEED rating of the pre-fab home enough to overcome people’s conceptions about pre-fab homes?

2. As I’ve wondered before, how do green homes compare in cost? Cutting down heating costs is good but there must be some cost to this up-front. What about resale value, particularly for a pre-fab home?

Argument: McMansions contribute to excessive American pride, sin

Posted on by

Here is a post-election argument that McMansions fed into the problem of American pride:

But along with all of the goods we manufactured and skyscrapers we erected, we cultivated immense pride—a pride that overfocused us on the material rather than the spiritual aspects of prosperity (to do for others) and freedom (to live for others) and military might (to defend ourselves and others). When we overtipped the scales and became weighed down with McMansions we neither needed (with our 2.5 children) nor could really afford, when we began to manipulate the stock market, when we began to make war with drones and shrug off human life as “collateral damage” we justified it by saying we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen; exceptional and indispensible.

The typical moral argument against McMansions (see here) doesn’t usually delve into the idea of spiritual sin. Is the main sin that Americans built such homes (degrading the environment as well as relationships with neighbors and communities), that Americans were too proud of such homes (which are intended to impress and opponents say are too garish), or that Americans saw the homes, and by extension the country that made it possible, as something to be idolized?

Thinking beyond McMansions, what homes then are more moral? Tiny houses? Not-So-Big houses? New Urbanist homes and neighborhoods? Green homes?

Would you rather have a wind farm or McMansions built nearby?

Posted on by

This is a choice I assume many homeowners would not want to make: would you rather have a wind farm or McMansions built nearby? Here is what one Montana resident had to say in response to plans for eight wind turbines on a nearby hill:

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Windmills are not ugly, they are neat. Whoever saw a postcard of a windmill in Holland as a kid and didn’t want to go there? So what’s the deal? Windmills in Holland are picturesque, but a windmill in Anaconda is ugly? It’s got nothing to do with ugly. You’re brainwashed if you believe that.

I’ll tell you what’s ugly. What’s ugly is a McMansion on the skyline in Montana. That’s ugly! McMansions, with those “grand entrances.” They ought to be outlawed. Revoke the insurance policies on them I say.

What would you rather see on the skyline, a windmill or a McMansion? How would you like to look up and see some fool’s mansion everyday looking down on you? Just rubbing it in? Huh? I’d move. I wouldn’t put up with it for a week.

— Oldie

This is a clear denouncement of McMansions, particularly in the context of considering another kind of development that many homeowners would not want. Apparently, McMansions have entrances that are too large, they should not be built in the first place, the ones that are built shouldn’t be allowed to have insurance, and they are even worse when built on hills to lord it over everyone else. Perhaps McMansions should primarily be built in valleys where other people can look down on them?

Note: the windmills in Holland do look a little different than modern wind turbines…