Tag Archives: design

Making art out of “McMansion doors”

Posted on by

Making art of McMansions is not that unusual in recent years but specifically focusing on their doors is:

How housing became a commodity — and what ultimately led to the housing crisis in America — is the theme of a new work of art by Koumoundouros. It’s on view at the Hammer Museum, and is called the “Dream Home Resource Center.”

But it might not be what you typically think of as art.

Two giant doors enclose the exhibit. They once belonged to a McMansion in nearby Orange County, but have since been repainted in rainbow colors by Koumoundouros. Inside the clear glass walls, it’s actually a pretty white spare room — with a few striking differences. To the left, a giant whiteboard is updated weekly with statistics on the economy — from the most recent homeless population numbers to news about the Detroit bankruptcy filing. Wrapping around the rest of the room: a rainbow timeline following different threads, all piecing together what housing looks like in America today.

The most unusual aspect of the exhibit sits dead center in the room: An informational booth. Here, the artist curated a number of guests — from real estate brokers to homeless rights activists.

There may be other features of the typical McMansion that receive more attention: the undulating roof lines, the foyers, the stucco or fake stone or fake brick finishes. But, the humble door doesn’t get as much attention. An interior door might be a six-panel dark wood door or perhaps a french door, such as between a den and a great room. The exterior door is likely to be a large one, double-wide, ornate or with plenty of glass, and proportionately fitting the outsized foyer which may include two stories, pillars, and surrounding windows.

All that said, I’m not sure there is a single image of a “McMansion door.” The Soprano McMansion had a double set of double doors – a vestibule sat in between – with frosted glass. Cynics might note that the garage doors on McMansions might actually be more important.

Is this Beverly Grove (LA) home a McMansion?

Posted on by

As debates continue over McMansions in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Beverly Grove, Curbed LA takes a look at one home for sale in the neighborhood and a brief yet lively discussion ensues in the comments on whether the home is a McMansion. Here is the description of the home (and plenty of pictures to help you arrive at your own conclusion):

Just in time for the City Planning Commission’s vote on an anti-mansionization ordinance for the Beverly Grove neighborhood, this fine specimen hits the market. It looks like just the thing neighborhood activists are trying to prevent, though since no square footage is given, we can’t be absolutely sure. Taking the place of an (admittedly unlovely) 1927 house, this typically boxy number–or “modern, cutting edge and rearranged design with retro reclaimed wood accents,” depending on your perspective–has four bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms. Like so many of the new houses in this area, there’s an openish floor plan, loggia, small pool and spa, a nice array of balconies, and name-brand kitchen. It also seems to have kinda low ceilings upstairs, but maybe that’s just the pictures playing tricks. It’s on the market for $2.799 million.

Not having the square footage means an important piece of information is missing. Here are a few of the comments on whether the home is a McMansion (each new paragraph is a new commenter:

Normally I’d be banging the drum for keeping the neighborhoods original in style and scale, but I don’t think this one is too bad — it at least has some visual interest and doesn’t seem too overbuilt for the lot — wouldn’t object if this were my neighborhood…

Let’s not go crazy with calling anything larger than average a McMansion. It may be out of scale, but it doesn’t use mismatched home depot pre-fabbed design elements…

This house is at the high end of the lot to improvement ratio for Beverly Grove – its not over improved. But, this type of concrete and glass, shoe box design is just not appealing! Just look at the house across the street in the view photo. It has all kinds of architectural finishings that appeal to the eye, clay tile roof line, arched carports, corner rotunda, custom picture window etc…. This house looks like the lego house my son built when he was 4. Maybe that’s why its appealing to some, it resembles the lego structures built during childhood! I don’t blame the neighbors for being pissed!

The discussion primarily focuses on the design of the home. Since it doesn’t seem unnecessarily large or take up all of the lot, a number of people commented for or against its unique modern style. On one hand, it seems cohesively modern, not a mish-mash of styles for which McMansions are often criticized. On the other hand, it does appear different from the other homes of the neighborhood (of which we have one picture).

One takeaway: the term McMansion can be used as a pejorative term for a home one doesn’t like even if it doesn’t fit the “classic” definition of a McMansion.

Two minutes to sum up Le Corbusier, Bauhaus, and Herman Miller

Posted on by

Refresh your architectural knowledge with these short videos on the influential works of Le Corbusier, Bauhaus, and Herman Miller.

I’ve asked this before: where in a K-college curriculum does a typical American student learn about modern architecture and design? I remember learning about Greek and Roman architecture in Western Civilization in high school. But, I don’t remember ever formally learning about more modern developments. I suppose some of this could be taught in art classes at older ages or in history courses. For example, it is hard to ignore the development of the skyscraper in American history in the late 1800s and early 1900s but this could easily be taught more from an angle about industry and progress rather than aesthetics and urban planning.

Because of this question, my urban sociology course this past spring semester spent several weeks discussing architecture and urban planning. All together, we read Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities, talked about New Urbanism, took a Chicago Architecture Foundation walking tour titled “Modern Skyscrapers (1950s-present),” and watched several episodes about sustainable design and development in the PBS e2 series. This led to some good discussions about the social life and role of buildings and urban design.

h/t Curbed National

Building Gulf Coast houses on 10-20 foot stilts

Posted on by

Federal regulations regarding building on flood areas on the Gulf Coast have led to a new kind of up-in-the-air house:

I’ve visited the Mississippi Gulf Coast at odd intervals since Hurricane Katrina struck almost eight years ago, and have been keeping tabs on an emerging architectural typology. Ordinary suburban-style neocolonials and ranch houses are being jacked up on sturdy wooden or concrete piers ten or 20 feet in the air, the heights dictated by the Base Flood Elevation set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and enforced by insurance companies. These houses fascinate me because most of them make few concessions to the fact that they’re not built at grade. They look as if someone has played a cruel joke on the owners, as if the family had gone out to dinner and come back to find their house out of reach…

I know a little about the prehistory of these houses. About six weeks after Katrina, the then-governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, invited New Urbanist architect supreme Andrés Duany to bring pretty much everyone he knew to Biloxi to envision a rebirth of the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast. The Mississippi Renewal Forum, as it was called, filled a giant ballroom of the Isle of Capri casino with some 200 industrious, inspired architects, planners, and engineers, all champions of pedestrian-oriented development.

But after several feverish days of dream-ing up antebellum casinos and neoclassical Walmarts, reality intruded. In the wee hours of day four, the conference leadership received the newest flood maps for the Gulf Coast from FEMA, and they showed Base Flood Elevations that were five to ten feet higher than those the designers had been working with. In the Velocity Zones, areas most likely to be impacted by a storm surge, the lowest habitable floor of a home suddenly had to be 21 feet in the air.

“I think the problem is totally recalibrating the aesthetic,” Duany said, leading an emergency meeting. “It’s not taking antebellum houses and cranking them up. The aesthetic has more to do with lighthouses.” While others in the room pointed out the political and economic ramifications of the flood map—some towns might not be able to rebuild at all, poor people would be driven off the coast for good—Duany was nonchalant. “It will be like Tahiti,” he said. “Totally cool.”

It is worth reading the rest as it discusses how such stilted homes make it really difficult to have the close community life desired by New Urbanists. On one hand, I imagine some sort of community will develop if all the homes share the same fate. At the least, they all become known as the people who live in the odd houses. On the other hand, being so high in the air may reinforce the notion that Americans care more about their private spaces – within their homes – than street life and the community.

One odd bonus of a home so far in the air: imagine the size of the vehicle that could fit below.

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.

Destroying city buildings with no debris

Posted on by

The New York Times highlights new techniques for “stealth demolition” so that large urban buildings can be demolished with little mess:

At times the techniques seem to defy gravity, or at least common sense, for although the buildings appear intact, they slowly shrink. The methods, which make for a cleaner and quieter work site, may eventually find favor in New York and other cities as aging skyscrapers become obsolete and the best solution is to take them down and rebuild.

The latest Tokyo high-rise to get the stealth treatment is the Akasaka Prince Hotel, a 40-story tower with a distinctive saw-toothed facade overlooking one of the city’s bustling commercial districts. Since last fall, its steel and concrete innards have been torn apart, floor by floor, starting near the top, by hydraulic shears and other heavy equipment. The building has been shrinking by about two floors every 10 days; this month it will be gone, to be replaced by two new towers…

The cap helps keep noise and dust down compared with more conventional methods of demolishing tall buildings, which involve erecting a scaffold all the way up and around the structure but leaving the top exposed. “All the work is inside the covered area,” Mr. Ichihara said. “The noise level is 20 decibels lower than the conventional way, and there’s 90 percent less dust leaving the area.”…

It is unclear whether demolition contractors in the United States will adopt any of the Japanese methods; even in Tokyo many buildings are demolished in more conventional ways. (With the new techniques, setting up the project can be more expensive, but the demolition often takes less time than with conventional methods.)

We put a lot of effort into thinking about how buildings are constructed but less effort in thinking about how to effectively repurpose them or tear them down. Perhaps the owners of many new buildings aren’t terribly concerned with the long-term prospects of a building but the buildings aren’t just about the initial occupants and become part of a community.

Just a quick thought: with the relatively slow pace of demolition, how many people who see these large buildings day-to-day notice the demolition? I suspect for some that the building will disappear and they won’t notice until the end.

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.

Wrigley Field and the suburbanization of sports stadiums

Posted on by

Cheryl Kent looks at the proposed plans for renovating Wrigley Field and concludes it makes the ballpark less urban:

The trouble is the Cubs are also pitching a plan for a kind of baseball theme park that pretends to authenticity while proposing to damage the integrity of the real deal: Wrigley Field. The Cubs want Ye Olde Baseball Mall, except with a Jumbotron and a rival entryway to the stadium…

The proposal is modeled after the “festival marketplace” approach launched in Boston with the renovation of historic Faneuil Hall as Faneuil Hall Marketplace by Benjamin Thompson in 1976. In a series of legendary projects, including work on Navy Pier in the mid-’90s, Thompson enticed people to visit the cities by promising safe, orchestrated experiences, with an emphasis on charm over authenticity and spontaneity.

In time, and as cities regained cachet, the marketplace approach came to represent a suburban take on cities that downplayed genuine urban diversity and vitality while assuming a defensive, apologetic crouch when it came to design.

Thompson was brilliant and a visionary, producing work more nuanced than subsequent formulaic applications reflect. But his work was driven by a condition that has disappeared — white flight to the suburbs. The planned renovation of Navy Pier, intended in large part to downplay its carnival aspects, is evidence the formula is outdated.

In other words, the proposed plans are a Disneyfied version of Wrigley Field and truly urban areas. It might look urban but it is a theme park version meant to encourage consumerism. This reminds me of sociologist Mark Gottdiener’s book The Theming of America as well as the work of other urban sociologists about public spaces. Genuine public spaces, like the ones Elijah Anderson talks about in The Cosmopolitan Canopy, allow all people the opportunity to enjoy and interact. In this proposed Wrigley Field, it is all about the Cubs and expanding their revenue base.

Kent doesn’t say as much about how the Cubs might renovate Wrigley Field to better fit with the city. The biggest problem here seems to be that the Cubs are likely to insist their changes are necessary because they will cover the costs of the renovation as well as make them money. Sports team owners don’t exactly have a good record of truly caring whether their teams and properties fit with the city.

Architezer’s list of the top 10 US buildings

Posted on by

In response to a recent PBS show titled “10 Buildings that Changed America,” Architizer puts out its own top 10. They admit that their list is a little different:

Sure, the criteria governing our choices are more architecturally inclined — you won’t find the White House or even the Empire State Building here — and our tastes, unabashedly modern, but it’s undeniable how each of the buildings listed here have significantly contributed and even altered our built environment.

So these aren’t really the same lists – it seems like PBS was going for the most important socially and culturally through all of America’s history while Architizer is reflecting more modern architectural interests. The list features Wright, le Corbusier, and van der Rohe (x2). The geographic distribution is interesting as well: 2 in New York City, 1 in Boston, 1 in LA, 1 in Seattle, and then the rest are scattered throughout the country. Interestingly, at least for people in Chicago where there are frequently claims that modern architecture really took off in the city, no building from Chicago is on the list.

I would be fascinated to see how many Americans know about the 10 buildings on the list. Maybe they could identify two or three, with perhaps Fallingwater and the UN Building being the most well-known?

McMansion owners want “a front and rear entrance, a dining room, and a recreation room”

Posted on by

According to this description of McMansions, they offer suburban homeowners the basics:

When Sandy and Chris Ross were in Portland, Ore., they lived in a house built for those who buy large suburban dwellings.

“Our house was a McMansion, designed for most people who want a front and rear entrance, a dining room, and a recreation room,” says Chris Ross, a software engineer.

But the Rosses are not most people.

When they moved to Bryn Mawr, they wanted a house built to accommodate their family’s special needs, limited finances, and environmental awareness.

The main contrast developed here is between a McMansion and a custom-built home designed by an architect. McMansions provide the basics of a suburban home: a front and back door, some basic rooms, and plenty of space for living. In contrast, the home designed by an architect allowed the couple to have a kitchen that met their needs, a house that highlighted a notable Japanese maple in the front yard, and a good insulation and design that helps keep utility costs low.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is that most suburban homes are not built by architects nor are they really customized for their buyers. The article seems to suggest the custom home is desirable but a majority of homebuyers choose not to go this route. This particular story does not say how much this custom home cost. Additionally, a custom design might take longer and many homeowners may not feel equipped to help put together or desire a more customized home. Yet, a custom-designed home could allow more homeowners to really say their home reflects them.