Category Archives: McMansions

A much less constructive use of McMansions: using them to grow “McPot”

Posted on by

While some have suggested taking abandoned or foreclosed McMansions and putting them to constructive uses (see an example here and here), there are also less constructive uses:

Manteca Police filled a huge dumpster to the brim with some $2 million worth of marijuana plants after executing a search warrant at a home midway between Woodward Park and South Main Street

Sgt. Chris Mraz, heading up the four-member Street Crimes Unit (SCU), said the search of the 4,000-square-foot, two-story rental home in the 1800 block of Arlington Court contained the largest marijuana grow he has ever seen within the city of Manteca.

Elaborate marijuana growing operations have been found in other Manteca neighborhoods in the so-called McMansions due to their massive square footage. The last such large operation was found off Pestana Avenue near Joshua Cowell School…

The in-house nursery was highly sophisticated with growing operations underway in every room of the house, Mraz said, except for one bedroom that was used by one of the two men in a caretaker role. He noted that the plants found in the grow operation went from seedlings to fully mature plants. The Street Crimes Unit lead detective said the grow made the one found last year in a vacant building in the Manteca Industrial Park look insignificant in comparison.

This sounds like a plot of a typical movie depicting the suburbs: who knows what your suburban neighbors are really doing next door.

Just how many McMansions are home to such plots?

At the same time, the amount of water and electricity needed for this operation would fit the stereotype that McMansions are not green at all.

In discussion of Occupy Wall Street, McMansions seen as part of the culture war

Posted on by

As part of a larger fascinating discussion about who the members of Occupy Wall Street actually are (the almost-elite versus the elite?), Megan McArdle suggests McMansions are part of the larger culture war in the United States:

Orwell goes on to point out that it is the anxious lower-upper-middle-class who have the most venom towards those below them–precisely because to preserve their status, they have to keep themselves sharply apart from the workers and tradesmen. And I think that that does apply here as well, at least to some extent. One of the interesting things about going back to my business school reunion earlier in the month was simply the absence of the sort of cutting remarks about flyover country that I have grown used to hearing in any large gathering of people. I didn’t notice it until after the events were over, because it was a slow accumulation of all the jokes and rants I hadn’t heard about NASCAR, McMansions, megachurches, reality television, and all the other cultural signifiers that make up a small but steady undercurrent of my current social milieu, the way Polish jokes did when I was in sixth grade.

Some of my former classmates now live in flyover country, of course, but mostly, I think, they just didn’t care. No one seemed very interested in the culture war.

So why does that same culture war seem so important to so many of the people that I know in New York and DC? (“The intellectuals”, as one of my classmates laughingly called us, when I started dropping statistics in the middle of cocktail chitchat, and then lamely explained that this is kind of what passes for fascinating small talk in DC.)

It’s not entirely crazy to suspect, as Orwell did, that this has something to do with money. Specifically, you sneer at the customs of the people you might be mistaken for. For aside from a few very stuffy conservatives, no white people I know sneer at hip-hop music, telenovelas, Tyler Perry films, or any of the other things often consumed by people of modest incomes who don’t look like them. They save it for Thomas Kinkade paintings, “Cozy cottage” style home decoration, collectibles, child beauty pageants, large pickup trucks***, and so forth.

It is fascinating to think about the comments that McArdle describes: in some circles, there is a different set of profane objects while such objects barely rate as topics among “average” people in middle America. Being in academia also leads to hearing more of such comments. I would add Walmart in as another significant “cultural signifier” in these conversations.

McMansions is an interesting addition to this group. There is often quite a bit of scorn intended when using this term. Of course, most people in flyover country don’t own McMansions (though perhaps they aspire to own them) but many communities allow them. I have found that the use of the term McMansion is often tied to sprawl, another issue that can separate the big cities from flyover country. McMansions are often seen as a part of the larger package of sprawl which includes an emphasis on cars, big houses, a waste of natural resources, and a lack of beauty and quality.

I don’t know if she knows it but it sounds like McArdle is making Bourdieu’s argument: those with more education look at aesthetics and a deeper understanding of objects while those with more money purchase for functionality. Take a McMansion: someone with more education might note its lack of quality, its contribution to sprawl, and wish for an architect-designed home. Someone with more money might note that you can have eight family members easily fit in the home and each can have their own bedroom, bathroom space, and play space.

A side note: I did have to laugh when McArdle suggests that dropping statistics into conversation is also a signifier. If so, I am guilty…

(A caveat: these sorts of flyover country/big city or red vs. blue state dichotomies are always more complex than they are commonly presented in public discourse. But just because they are broad terms describes tens of millions of people doesn’t mean that there isn’t necessarily some truth to them.)

Tying purchases of larger fast food items to McMansions and status seeking

Posted on by

A forthcoming study from researchers from Paris and Northwestern University shows that powerless people make larger fast food purchases in order to show their status:

Consumers who feel powerless reach for extra-large portions of food in an effort to increase their social standing in the eyes of others, a new study suggests.

“An ongoing trend in food consumption is consumers’ tendency to eat more and more,” the researchers wrote in the study to be published in the April 2012 print edition of the Journal of Consumer Research. “The increase in food consumption is particularly prevalent among vulnerable populations, such as lower socioeconomic status consumers.”…

The study authors noted that cultural norms associate some larger items, such as houses, vehicles or flatscreen TVs, with wealth, success and high social status. If consumers feel unhappy with their status, they may take this belief and apply it to food, the researchers suggested.

These consumers may attempt to compensate for their perceived lower status by showing others that they can afford to buy the larger sizes, but instead of a Mcmansion they buy larger portion sizes, according to the researchers. In one of the experiments, the participants perceived that consumers who bought a large coffee at a cafe had a higher status than those who chose medium or small — even when the price of all sizes was the same.

It seems that the key here is that these are the decisions made by powerless people, people who have limited, more legitimate ways to show off their status. So do the authors suggest that people with more power don’t buy items to simply show status? This is an argument typically made about McMansions and SUVs: certain people with money feel the need to show off their wealth with these more ostentatious, larger purchases. On the other hand, the implication is that people with more education or taste would consume other sorts of items, not seeking status. Really? A designer larger, green home isn’t also somewhat about status? Going smaller is necessarily less about status?

I would love to see results of similar experiments done with different groups regarding some of the other consumer items mentioned in this report. I suspect we might find that status seeking purchases look different across different socioeconomic statuses, echoing Bourdieu’s distinctions between those who little capital (in this fast food study) versus more capital and also between those with more education and more money.

The Wall Street Journal on turning McMansions into affordable housing

Posted on by

Others have already suggested this idea but the Wall Street Journal reports on another call for turning McMansions into affordable housing:

McMansions, a type of home became popular with affluent boomers during better times, have fallen out of favor as more consumers seek smaller, more affordable homes that cost less to operate. They also want to trim the gas tab by living closer to their jobs and public transportation – the opposite of McMansion developments deep in suburbia filled with gas-guzzling SUVs. (There’s no precise definition of a McMansion, but it’s often a case of you know it when you see it.)

Such changes in taste — and, of course, the foreclosure crisis — has left America saddled with about 30 million more homes on large lots than the market needs, The Atlantic Cities writes. But rather than let them languish on the market indefinitely, Mr. Nelson suggests converting these excess homes into affordable housing or housing for multi-generational or multi-family households. (Developments called Mr. Nelson for comment, but he was not available.)

Such homes, he points out, can have more bathrooms than bedrooms, allowing for residential space that could be divided into private units, with a common kitchen and living room. Some already have or could be outfitted with second or third kitchens. Plus, there’s plenty of room for several cars and, usually, enough of a backyard for a swing set or two.

“When you add up the spaces and how they’re distributed, the typical McMansion can be occupied by three-to-five households with their own splendid privacy, their own large space,” Mr. Nelson is quoted as saying.

Just because there may be these larger housing units available does not mean that it would be easy to make them into affordable units and/or rentals. Here are some obstacles:

1. Whoever owns these houses would have to agree to this. Would the owners want this or is this an idea from critics who don’t like these homes that want this to happen? If the homes are in foreclosure, do the banks want to jettison them quickly and do the new buyers want to convert them into more units?

2. One can’t go into many neighborhoods where McMansions are located and simply subdivide the houses into five or six units. This would require zoning changes or special exemptions from a community. If the neighbors found out about this, I imagine many would not be happy. How many would want several houses in a large neighborhood to start being effectively apartments/condos? There would be questions about traffic, safety, and perhaps under the surface, who exactly would be moving into these affordable housing units.

3. The locations of many of these homes could still lead to affordability issues. If the McMansions are in exurbs, it would require a lot of driving to get to jobs, schools, and other places. The houses may be more affordable but the other costs of sprawl would still show up.

These are not insurmountable issues but it is not necessarily an easy or quick path from McMansion to source of affordable housing.

Australian hipsters eschew suburbs, McMansions while immigrants seek after them

Posted on by

An Australian author argues that hipsters favor the authentic and gritty over suburbs and McMansions while immigrants hold different views:

In movies and TV shows, kids now talk wistfully of getting out of the ‘burbs and heading to funky town, the exact opposite of our grandparents, who drove the other way in search of an extra bedroom, a lawn and somewhere to barbecue the chops.

The aforementioned Great Australian Dream is apparently a nightmare for many hipsters; as laughably daggy as John Williamson singing about plum trees, ”a clothesline out the back, verandah out the front and an old rocking chair”…

Writing recently in Canada’s Toronto Standard, Navneet Alang observes, ”it’s a profoundly privileged, Western idea to want to forsake sterility for the ‘real and gritty’…

Their visions are probably pretty similar to those of our grandparents – a lawn and a nice, big, neat, bland house – because, as Alang writes, ”Once you’ve lived in a developing nation, sterile can feel good. Uncluttered is good. Cars are good.”

The author goes on to suggest that perhaps these young Australians simply think the grass is greener on the other side: after growing up in suburbs, these young people are now looking to urban life. Several thoughts about this:

1. It would be interesting to see survey data about what immigrants imagine America to be before they arrive or even during their early months in the United States. Does it look like suburbia? Is their goal from the beginning to make it to the suburbs?

2. The sterility of the suburbs, often held in contrast to the authenticity, richness, and contrasts of the big city, is an old argument. Just listen to Malvina Reynolds’ song “Little Boxes” for an overview. (Interestingly, more people probably know this song now because it is the theme song for a trendy/novel current TV show: Weeds.) I would guess that many suburban residents, particularly those older than hipster age, actually prefer the suburbs over the city because of this sterility: the city may be more interesting but this interesting could also include negative outcomes.

3. Could we see the rise of hipster suburbs or at least hipster enclaves within suburbs? For example, inner-ring suburbs would be perfect places for hipster types: denser and cheaper housing in neighborhoods that have been around a century or more. There are a number of neighborhoods in these suburbs ripe for gentrification (though there could be disadvantages to this). Also, newer New Urbanist developments or neighborhoods might offer the authenticity hipsters seek.

Where Americans desire McMansions the most

Posted on by

Amidst a story about the declining future fortunes of the McMansion, this story has a fascinating graphic based on a recent Trulia survey:

Desire for McMansions by metropolitan area

At a quick glance, it looks like people in the biggest three metro areas desire McMansions more than other places. What are the reasons for this? These are relatively wealthier areas yet they are also places where we might expect that city people would look down on McMansions. Bostonians are the most modest in their dreaming and are closer to the national averages. Does this mean people in Boston are more average in their home searches and purchases?

However, there are some caveats to these findings:

1. According to Trulia, the data is based on web searches for homes. So perhaps people in these cities simply dream bigger than people in smaller metro areas. Or there are more bigger homes in these larger metro areas?

2. Why exactly these eight cities? In particular, why don’t we have any findings from a classic Sunbelt city, like Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, or Houston, where people are known for having larger (and relatively cheaper compared to the big three metro areas) homes?

2a. Is there not enough search data from these places?

2b. Does Trulia not offer the same level of services/features in these Sunbelt cities?

3. Are the users of Trulia representative of metro populations? I would guess they skew toward the younger, more educated, and wealthier.

McMansions are too costly in terms of money and relationships

Posted on by

In another article about McMansions in Australia (and I have been seeing more and more of these  – perhaps due to the recent news that the country has the largest new homes on average), one writer suggests McMansions cost too much and have a negative impact on relationships:

Australians live in the world’s biggest homes but new research shows our trend to upsize our living space is reversing. The average size of new houses being built in this country is getting smaller as people start to realise that living in a McMansion does not make sense. While the financial implications of owning a large home have surely been considered, there are other costs that are not as obvious…

The reasons are obvious- it costs too much. Far from being energy efficient, the financial burden that comes with a bigger pad can weigh too heavily on a household already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. There are bigger gas and power bills and mortgage repayments not to mention the hassle of having to spend time and money maintaining and keeping the whole thing clean … no wonder we are thinking again.

Another problem of the larger, have-it-all home is that we have less need to leave it to meet our daily needs. Social interaction is being replaced by home-based activity for our convenience. It is easier to get on the treadmill, ‘chat’ to someone on Facebook, play tennis on the wii and shop online instead of getting out into our communities.

There is no substitute for real communication and the lack of it can affect our sense of well-being. Mental health issues such as depression and the feeling of isolation that many people experience is the reason some programs are being developed, specifically aiming to get people out of the house, talking to others and active in their communities. ‘The Shed’ for men and ‘R U OK’ Day are a couple of examples.

The financial costs of McMansions are clear, particularly if you include costs beyond the price of the home and consider the impact on other areas like cars, roads, infrastructure, and filling/furnishing a larger home.

The relational impact of McMansions has also been covered by others, particularly since they seem to encourage more private lives. But, my mind jumped to the next step in the argument illustrated in this article: how small would houses need to be in order to encourage interaction even among family members? If a McMansion is roughly 3,000-6,000 square feet, it seems like it would be fairly easy for family members to avoid each other. But, if a home is 2,000 square feet, would families necessarily interact more? Perhaps if we went back to the era of Levittown sized homes, around 900 square feet, this could induce some interaction.

But even in smaller homes, there are other factors at work. At the end of the article, the writer suggests that perhaps the real problem isn’t the size of the home:

I am conscious of creating an environment where communication is encouraged and valued so we know what’s going on in each other’s lives. There are no computers, TVs or other electronic entertainment in the bedrooms. Our living space is used for meals, games, entertainment, homework and handstands. It’s a bit cluttered but it’s homely and there’s always someone to talk to.

Technology could play a role as could cultural ideas about the need for “time alone.”

In the end, a smaller home probably increases the number of times people have to run into each other but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will have deeper, more meaningful relationships. There are larger issues at work here beyond the number of square feet a home has or whether the home has a porch close to the street.

International Furnishings and Design Association survey also suggests McMansions are on the way out

Posted on by

A number of commentators have suggested the era of McMansions is over. A new survey of the American members of the International Furnishings and Design Association agrees with this prediction. Here are some of the findings:

-Americans will be living in smaller spaces with fewer rooms by the year 2020, say more than 76% of IFDA members. Eleven years ago, only 49% foresaw less living space in our future…

-Separate rooms are disappearing; they are blending into spaces that serve many different purposes, believe 91.5% of the design experts – which is exactly what they foresaw back in 2000.

-Furniture also is going multipurpose, say 67.5% of the the IFDA forecasters. They see modular, moveable, and smaller-scaled furniture overtaking built-ins and big pieces. There will be more interest in ergonomic designs – designed to fit the human body – but almost none in furniture designed to be disposable…

-Everyone’s working at home. A home office is a given, say more than three-quarters of the respondents, but here’s the news: Nearly 40% of the forecasters see more than one home office under every roof…

In summary: leaders in the furnishings and design field think that Americans will be living in smaller, more multipurpose spaces.

Several questions regarding these survey findings:
1. How much do those surveyed get to set and sell these product changes in the years to come?
2. If the economy improves dramatically in the next few years, are all these predictions moot?
3. How long before these predictions and ideas become the norm set before average Americans in places like furniture showrooms or on HGTV?
4. What do you do with previous findings of the survey?
a. For example, in 2000, roughly half surveyed thought Americans would be living in smaller spaces. The actual Census numbers about new single-family homes: on average, they were 2,266 square feet, 2,438 square feet in 2009, and 2,392 square feet in 2010. This is still a net gain over most of the decade with a dip between 2008 and 2010. So half of those surveyed in 2000 were wrong?
b. The predictions about the drop in separate rooms were the same now as in 2000. Were they right?
c. If those surveyed can be wrong, what does it mean? Do their companies/firms lose money because they mispredicted the future? Is it really difficult to predict the directions in this particular field and anticipate what the American consumer wants?

Not just single-family homes: McMansions can be townhouses

Posted on by

McMansions typically refer to single-family homes. I had not seen this before but here is a reference to “McMansion townhouses” in a letter to the editor:

The proposal also appears to be extremely bad financially for the county. EYA proposes to build 30 McMansion townhouses on River Road at the Kenwood doorstep. Each household will have two to three automobiles, not counting transient maids, maintenance, deliveries and other service vehicles, adding to present traffic. Presently, this dangerously narrow bottleneck pours excessive traffic onto River Road at the Kenwood doorway. Furthermore, the proposal to allow an outlet onto Little Falls Parkway is bad precedent and the proposed inadequate land swap and will do nothing to solve the traffic impact. It will diminish the amount of “real” park land. Little Falls Parkway is already overly and dangerously congested — it is an extremely narrow road at the proposed outlet.

An earlier piece on the proposed development says the townhomes would be built on a former industrial site. More details from a report suggests there will be “25 market-rate townhomes and four Moderately Priced Dwelling Units.”

Even though I found several documents regarding this proposal, I don’t know exactly what the townhomes will look like. If I had to guess at what a McMansion townhouse might look like, here are some ideas:

1. The structure incorporating several townhouses would look cartoonish with large rooflines, bloated details (two-story pillars, three-car garages that stick out, etc.), and a disregard for nearby architecture.

2. The homes would take up a large percentage of the lots, prominently backing up to other developments who won’t be able to avoid the new construction.

3. These will be large homes, perhaps greater than 3,000 square feet.

But perhaps the usage of McMansion in this case is a little different. It could refer to:

1. The homes are newer construction. By virtue of being new, the townhomes get this moniker.

2. Larger processes of sprawl. Residents who already live in the area want to defend what they bought into, preserve open space (even if it is fairly ugly industrial land), and limit the density of development.

3. The term is simply meant to paint the townhomes in a negative light, regardless of their actual design.

I will have to keep my eyes open to see if others refer to McMansion townhouses.

As a side note, this letter contains a classic NIMBY argument: the new development will add too much traffic to the area and the development will not bring in the money needed to offset the services that will be required.

McMansions in the cemetery

Posted on by

This may seem like a strange application of the word “McMansion” but this I have seen several other articles that apply the term to cemeteries. With just the right amount of money, one can purchase a plot in one of New York City’s “most prestigious cemeteries”:

Woodlawn, the final home of honorary New Yorkers such as the publisher Joseph Pulitzer, the composer Irving Berlin and the musician Duke Ellington, calls itself the “resting place of a host of history’s greats”…

Labelled the “McMansions of the dead” by Susan Olsen, the cemetery historian, these tombs come complete with features, such as ornate carvings and mosaics, that are detailed in glossy brochures.

“We’re a little pricier than most places,” said Ms Olsen. “It’s not only because of the quality of our mausoleums but also the service we provide.

“Our lawns are mowed every 10 days, we have full-time security and we transport visitors to the graveside. It’s sort of like staying in the fancier hotels. We’re certainly the Ritz of cemeteries.”

I like the emphasis on service: that money should buy you more than just a piece of real estate.

The allusion to McMansions apparently refers to the wealth and opulence of such homes. But this isn’t fit just for anyone with money: in addition, Olsen also suggests this trend was started by people with “new money” who wanted to establish themselves. If you can practice conspicuous consumption in life, why not also in death?

I suspect wealthy families might not like having their plots and mausoleums labeled “McMansions.” Could this hurt the cemetery?