Category Archives: McMansions

Scarier than McMansions: half-completed McMansions

Posted on by

In the middle of a slideshow about the “World’s Eeriest Abandoned Places” is an image of a South Florida neighborhood of half-completed McMansions. The description of Lehigh Acres (picture 7 of 8):

There’s something bluntly creepy about the abandoned exurbs of Florida. Forsaken construction sites, like the ones in the middle-class development of Lehigh Acres in Florida’s southwest, are filled with half-built McMansions, unkempt yards overtaken by alligators and snakes, and derelict cul de sacs that lead to nothing. Florida’s population is diminishing for the first time ever, and nowhere is the exodus felt stronger than here.

Before Halloween, I wrote about the trend of horror films using McMansions as scary settings. Perhaps abandoned sites are more in the genre of post-apocalyptic films…

Overall, I’m not sure why abandoned buildings are viewed as being so creepy. I wonder if this fear has increased with the prosperity of the Western world in recent decades. With so much money out there, it strikes us as very odd that a building would just be left behind and unused. Is there something horribly wrong with the building? Why wouldn’t someone want to preserve and reuse it? But, I assume this has happened plenty throughout human history. Think about the ruins of empires; what happened with all the structures the Romans built when their empire slowly collapsed over the centuries? Or what exactly happened to those Mayan cities in the jungle? I remember as a kid learning about the “Lost Colony” of Roanoke but this certainly happened with other explorer settlements like the Vikings in Greenland. Until recent history, abandoned buildings and settlements were probably more common and “normal.”

Sunsets can beautify the suburbs and McMansions

Posted on by

I was amused to run into this Flickr/Instagram photograph of a beautiful sunset over a subdivision of suburban McMansions. The tag on the photo: “Suburbia has awesome sunsets too | #shareyoursunset #sky #McMansions.”

This short commentary can be tied to how suburbs are often portrayed. The suburbs are often caricatured as bland or ordered in a mass-produced way or messy places but rarely as beautiful. Even though the suburbs were originally intended to be a way to combine nature and residences (particularly compared to the dirty cities of the Industrial Revolution), this idea has been lost today. The newest subdivisions tend to be flat places where the existing trees and topography have been leveled for human residences. (However, it is interesting to look at older subdivisions, say those built in the two decades after World War II, and see their more mature trees. Are these neighborhoods now more beautiful simply due to the passage of time?)

This also goes beyond nature. Think of popular culture depictions of suburbs that tend to have a similar storyline: “this suburban family/street/community looks put together but once you dig below the surface, you find all sorts of flaws.” (This is not just limited to suburban stories.) Outside of home interiors (often the focus of magazines and television shows), where is there beauty in suburbs?

Yet, the sky is not completely obscured by suburban subdivisions so perhaps for just a few moments, the suburbs too can be a place where natural beauty is revealed.

Solar panels are not just only for McMansions

Posted on by

Solar panels are apparently not just for McMansions; they can even be used on Habitat for Humanity homes:

It’s solar Friday around these parts (job growth! innovation! sabotage!), with the news getting more and more awesome. Solar isn’t just for the rich, and it doesn’t only belong on skyscrapers and McMansions, but also on homes for families who qualify for Habitat for Humanity.

PG&E has donated about $1.7 million in the form of solar panels for 64 Habitat homes in the Bay Area. The solar paneled homes generate about 300 kilowatt hours a month and cause a yearly reduction in utility bills of about $500.

Overall, Habitat for Humanity is no environmental slouch these days, recently registering its 100th LEED certified home in Michigan.

I don’t know if this was the intention of the article but this seems to be highlighting the relatively high price of solar panels. The suggestion at the beginning is that one can only find solar panels on wealthy houses, like McMansions. (There might also be room here to debate whether McMansions could truly be green, even with plenty of solar panels.) Thus, we need to look at the example of Habitat for Humanity where they have found ways to be green even while providing cheaper new house for those who need it. If Habitat for Humanity can make this happen, can other builders?

I wouldn’t be surprised if solar panels become very common on new houses in the next few decades. Not only are they green, it could help homes become more self-sufficient, something I think plenty of homeowners would like in the wake of disasters like Hurricane Sandy. Yet, we have been hearing for years how solar panels are supposed to become cheaper and thus more accessible to more Americans but it hasn’t happened yet…

Can you publicly pronounce that you like McMansions?

Posted on by

One Internet user posted about their fondness for McMansions earlier this week in a City-Data.com forum:

I just love them.

The exception is if it’s a historic area/themed area, that I consider a bad thing.

I think it’s so cool when you’re driving around a plain jane area and then this gigantic flashy fancy suburban house pops out of knowhere and makes you look at it. I think it’s amazing when you as one homeowner can add so much niceness to a block.

If I become rich one day then I want to one day live in a McMansion in an average area. Most wealthy [suburban] areas have huge lots with very little tight-knitness & interaction; those type of areas are not my cup of tea.

I can’t tell if sarcasm is involved here or not but regardless, this is an uncommon statement. Some of the features that critics dislike, such as the size, gaudiness, and the wealth that is implied, are the very thing this poster likes. One might be able to praise larger houses or defend the need for more space but to publicly express that you like McMansions? The term itself has been given so many negative connotations in the last 13 years or so that it makes a statement of liking a rarity.

At the same time, this person also suggests two things they don’t like about McMansions:

1. McMansions in older, historic neighborhoods. This is one dimension of McMansions that is sometimes forgotten since such homes are often tied to suburban sprawl; teardowns can also be considered McMansions. I’m not sure exactly what it means to have a McMansion in an “average area” as this seems like it could be a teardown situation.

2. Neighborhoods of McMansions on big lots where neighbors don’t know each other. This is the opposite of an older neighborhood and is tied to ideas about McMansions being for wealthy people in sprawling areas.

Perhaps this post just reinforces the negative ideas about McMansions: even when defending the homes, the poster has to also say they don’t like all McMansions or all of their traits.

Tom Brokaw says the next generation of Americans won’t live in McMansions

Posted on by

Tom Brokaw recently said McMansions won’t be in America’s future:

The veteran journalist appeared on MSNBC’s The Cycle to call for Americans to accept a permanent lowering of their standard of living. Speaking of the next generation, Brokaw blithely insisted that “they probably won’t have as much disposable income.” He added, “They won’t live in homes that are McMansions. We gotta get real.”

The former Nightly News anchor, estimated to be worth about $70 million, didn’t seem to find this a bad thing: “It doesn’t mean we can’t have everything that we need.” Brokaw lobbied for Americans to “get proportion.” He lectured, “One of my friends says we have to get up every morning and say, ‘What do I need today and not just what do I want today?’ That’s a good guide.”

This sounds like a good example of the consumerist argument against McMansions. In this line of thinking, McMansions illustrate a full economic and cultural system where Americans but they don’t need. Indeed, see this recent argument that links the need for big houses to our patterns of buying big products. And if this money weren’t spent on unnecessarily large houses, it could be spent on more productive items.

A new off-Broadway play criticizes making the American Dream about buying mini-McMansions

Posted on by

It has become common in recent years to link the economic crisis to the purchases of McMansions. Here are a few lines from the new off-Broadway play “Heresy” illustrate this:

Chris’ college roommate, Pedro (Danny Rivera), and tarty call girl lady friend Lena (Ariel Woodiwiss) appear as witnesses for the persecuted campus radical. With the help of Pontius’ blowsy socialite wife, Phyllis (Kathy Najimy), the negotiation for Chris’ freedom devolves into a boozy cocktail party and a well-meaning but exasperating political debate. The characters spout off arguments like, ”The American Dream has been reduced to mean a mini-McMansion bought with an unaffordable mortgage,” and ”The American dream has dwindled into a vulgar, materialistic view of life.” And so on.

A lot of commentators have argued that the American Dream has become equated with consumerism. I remarked recently to one of my classes that this seems to be an odd interpretation of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” suggested in the Declaration of Independence.

But, there is little doubt that owning property was an important consideration for the American colonists and that owning a home today is one key marker of “making it” in America. I suspect the real issue here could be two things:

1. Buying and consuming more than one needs. It is one thing to be self-sufficient or comfortable and another to be excessive.

2. There are issues when individuals care more about acquiring and protecting their own possessions as opposed to caring about and contributing to the larger community. This has been a tension throughout American history.

Another note of interest: what exactly is a mini-McMansion and how does it differ from a McMansion? McMansions are usually thought to be quite large, probably somewhere between 3-10,000 square feet. Thus, a mini-McMansion would be smaller but the average new home in the United States is around 2,500 square feet so is this typical new home automatically a mini-McMansion?

McMansions in Zion National Park?

Posted on by

McMansions are often associated with sprawl but what happens when such homes are proposed for national park land?

There are 11,640 pieces of private land inside U.S. national parks. From Yosemite to Yellowstone, many have homes either built or being built on them. The land was owned before the national parks existed or ended up inside them as the parks expanded, according to the National Park Service.

Will Rogers, president of The Trust for Public Land, asked how big of an issue this is, he said, “It’s a really big deal. It’s like putting a fast food chain in the middle of the National Mall.”

He’s particularly concerned about what critics call a “McMansion” being built on a bluff overlooking a valley in Zion. Julie Hamilton was shocked to see it during a hike. “All of a sudden there’s this big house up on hill,” she said. “It’s like, are they going to build more? What’s happening here?”

What’s happening is budget cuts. In the 1960s, Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund — $900 million a year paid for with offshore drilling royalties from oil companies. That money was historically used to buy up private lands in national parks when landowners decide to sell. But two-thirds of the oil money is now routinely spent by Congress on other programs, leaving the parks unable to compete with wealthy buyers.

What if the homes being built weren’t McMansions but more modest structures? How about a green McMansion? Would these be more acceptable or is this really about any private development at all within national parks?

I suspect this is one of those cases where McMansion is a very effective to term to use because it contrasts strongly with the image of national parks. National parks equal pristine, rural land. McMansions evoke the idea of sprawl and SUVs. It is one thing to talk about homes or perhaps cottages, a term that might evoke images of Thomas Kinkade-like residences, but another to call them McMansions.

Exporting American McMansions to China

Posted on by

Courtesy of Curbed, here is a look at a Chinese development of 236 McMansions:

Now popping up on the outskirts of several major Chinese cities are homes that would make even the Real Housewives of New Jersey blush. The Rose Garden (above) is a development outside of Shanghai that, once complete, will contain a jaw-dropping 236 McMansions, the largest of which is asking close to $13M. The 9,600-square-foot home will feature both indoor and outdoor swimming pools and a design by the “American SWA Planning & Design Group, American Tao & Lindberg Planning & Design Group, and American HCZ Design Office.” This is the sort of outsourcing we can get behind.

Read on for several other Western-style developments in China that contain homes beyond the level of McMansions.

Several things to keep in mind:

1. The developments in this story are way beyond the means of many Chinese residents. Indeed, they are likely beyond the means of most Americans as well.

2. It is unclear how desirable these homes are in China.

3. This is an example of American cultural exports. Even if the American economy continues to struggle, China’s economy (and perhaps other economies?) grows at a high rate, and America produces or manufactures less, American culture and tastes will continue to be created and exported (at least for a while).

 

Argument: McMansions can’t truly be green

Posted on by

I’ve blogged before about how some have argued green McMansions are possible. Here is a counterargument from Los Angeles:

After all, McMansions require huge amounts of energy to assemble their building materials and move them to job site.  Furthermore, the houses themselves are massive, which means enormous heating and air conditioning bills, even if their windows are double-paned, their walls padded with extra insulation, and their restaurant-sized refrigerators and stoves Energy Star rated.

Then we need to consider their multiple bathrooms and heated outdoor pools and spas, the most energy intensive features of modern houses.

Other McMansion features also have their detrimental environmental effects.  During demolition they release dust and asbestos into the air.  After construction, their large patios, pools, spas, and double driveways reduce natural open space.  Combined with their elimination of parkway trees and landscaping for driveway cuts, the cumulative result is a heat island with less penetration of rainwater.

Last, but certainly not least, we need to factor in their transportation system.  All McMansions are built on single-family residential lots located away from bus stops and transit stations.  This is why McMansion residents rely on their cars to get around; the only difference being that most of their vehicles are large, thirsty SUVs.

While I suspect while there are some who would never allow a large McMansion style house to be considered green, I look at this list of objections and think that they all could have solutions within the near future. The last one might be the hardest part; while there are McMansions located in denser neighborhoods, typically constructed in a teardown situation, the stereotype is that these homes are located on big lots in exurbs. Add this to the fact that suburban lots and houses are tied into the American Dream and it may be easier to retool a lot of energy consuming devices than push Americans to live in denser communities.

Defending new large homes by arguing the new homes are certainly not McMansions

Posted on by

Here is an example of how to defend the construction of large, new homes: argue that they are certainly not McMansions.

When the Anderson home on Ridge Road in Rumson was demolished to the dismay of many, Rumson Historic Commission President Jim Fitzmaurice defended new construction, saying the work of most of the area builders was not tantamount to that of a cheap, McMansion-type reputation, but high end and diverse.

“The term McMansion is often used as a term of derision to describe new large homes,” Fitzmaurice said in a blog on Patch. “I believe the term is inappropriately applied to most of the new construction in Rumson [and the surrounding area]. The term should be reserved for cheesy false front monstrosities, clad in vinyl siding on the sides and back. The homes being built by most of the high class builders in our area are nothing of the sort and will someday be the focus of another Historic Commission in the future.”

Fitzmaurice had said in an interview that he knew of some high quality new construction and revamping of smaller homes in the area as well.

When asked if the trend was one that, as it was followed, ended up pushing out diversity more and making the borough one that could only be afforded by purchasers of larger homes with bigger families, Lucarelli said that while that was not the intent, the need for larger homes and proximity to good schools is one that continues to be satiated by builders in the borough.

Don’t confuse those high-end new homes with McMansions! Fitzmaurice seems to be primarily working with one dimension of McMansions: poor/”cheesy” architectural quality evidenced by impressive fronts but siding on the side and back plus not looking “high-class.”

I’ve encountered a similar situation before where people (metaphorically) almost fell over themselves to declare they personally did not live in a McMansion but they knew nearby people who did. I’ve wondered about that situation: how guilty did these people feel that their home might be labeled a McMansion?

Fitzmaurice also suggests these new large homes may be preserved years from now by Historic Commissions. I’ve never seen anyone estimate this before but I am curious: what percentage of current large homes will survive 50+ years and/or be recognized as places worth preserving?