Tag Archives: green

Imagining the conversion of neighborhoods to multi-family housing

Posted on by

A journalist imagines what might happen to neighborhoods of McMansions:

I’ve long thought with a kind of evil glee about what might happen one day to all those horrid McMansions dotting the suburbs. I visited one for a story a few years back that was three stories. It had five bedrooms — each with its own bath. These places have kitchen, breakfast room, dining room, living room, den, office and solarium.

In other words: Perfect for being split up into multi-family housing…

Enough suburban decline, and who’s to care — or perhaps even notice — about the chicken coop in the back yard?

How long before the entire front yard is a cornfield?

Somehow, thinking about this makes me happy.

Others have also suggested this idea. Wouldn’t the truly green solution to McMansion be to allow these neighborhoods to return to their original natural state?

At the same time, turning McMansions into affordable, multi-family housing would require a lot of changes to communities as well. While it may be relatively easy to convert houses, this would lead to changes for local school districts and other services. Additionally, these neighborhoods would still lack public transportation and still be set up so that walking to necessities would be difficult. This would be a much bigger project to truly transform these neighborhoods.

Argument: “environmental racism” in Aspen

Posted on by

Two sociologists discuss “environmental racism” in Aspen:

A new book by two sociology professors at the University of Minnesota, blasting the Aspen way of life for fostering “environmental racism,” is stirring up indignation and mea culpas among the glitterati. The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants vs. the Environment in America’s Eden, by Lisa Sun-Hee Park and David Naguib Pellow, is a ten-year study of the use of immigrant labor in the ski town that focuses on the stark contrasts between the good life of superwealthy “locals” — many of them absentee landowners who are around only a few weeks of the year — and the legions of foreign-born workers who live in trailer parks and dilapidated rentals “down valley” and commute to menial but essential jobs at the resort.

The authors contend that the privileged have ample use of the beauty and recreational opportunities of the Roaring Fork Valley while systematically excluding the lower-income workers from sharing in that bounty. “This is a bizarre story of a town that prides itself on being environmentally conscious,” they write, “whose city council can approve the construction of yet another 10,000-square-foot vacation home with a heated outdoor driveway, and simultaneously decry as an eyesore the ‘ugly’ trailer homes where low-income immigrants live.”…

Response to the authors’ charges have been heated, with some locals denouncing illegal immigration and “scab labor” — while others have pointed out that the book doesn’t give much attention to the town’s efforts to develop affordable housing and improve living conditions for seasonal workers. The town of Basalt recently signed off on a deal to purchase a trailer park in a floodplain, redevelop it as open space and relocate the residents to better housing.

But Park and Pellow see the notion of “affordable” housing in Aspen to be problematic, at best — kind of like the prissy locals who complain about the older, high-polluting cars driven by immigrant laborers while tooling around themselves in shiny new Range Rovers. Nothing about a bubble of privilege like Aspen is simple, especially at this time of year.

Another social arena where race and class matter (and I also imagine there are gender disparities here as well). I imagine the situation is not that different in many tourist destinations: wealthy travelers can easily travel in and out and even practice consumption in environmentally-conscious ways while poorer workers struggle to meet ends meet, have limited mobility, and can’t partake of the natural beauty the wealthy visit to enjoy.

This reminds me of a paper one of my students wrote at the end of this semester suggesting that the environmental movement has ignored issues of race and class when promoting or condoning gentrification (or renewing older urban neighborhoods) because it can then push lower-class residents to the suburbs which the environmentalists would claim are environmentally harmful. Like in Aspen, the wealthy have better chances to be environmentally conscious.

I wonder how much these two sociologists tie these issues to a growing divide in the United States between those with the education and income to pursue desirable behaviors, whether it is being green or getting married, and those who cannot.

Shifting resources away from the “fringe suburb[s]”

Posted on by

In an op-ed in the New York Times, an academic argues that “fringe suburb[s]” are dying and we should shift resources to communities that need reinvestment:

Simply put, there has been a profound structural shift — a reversal of what took place in the 1950s, when drivable suburbs boomed and flourished as center cities emptied and withered.

The shift is durable and lasting because of a major demographic event: the convergence of the two largest generations in American history, the baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and the millennials (born between 1979 and 1996), which today represent half of the total population…

Over all, only 12 percent of future homebuyers want the drivable suburban-fringe houses that are in such oversupply, according to the Realtors survey. This lack of demand all but guarantees continued price declines. Boomers selling their fringe housing will only add to the glut. Nothing the federal government can do will reverse this…

For too long, we over-invested in the wrong places. Those retail centers and subdivisions will never be worth what they cost to build. We have to stop throwing good money after bad. It is time to instead build what the market wants: mixed-income, walkable cities and suburbs that will support the knowledge economy, promote environmental sustainability and create jobs.

This is not an unusual argument. Based on survey data, a number of commentators have suggested that the demand for the sprawling suburbs will shrink and builders and governments should get ahead of this shift. The suburban critiques delivered by academics and others since the post-World War II suburban boom may have finally gained some traction as the young and old seek out community over a big, cheap house. How much of this shift will be “durable and lasting” remains to be seen but it would certainly be helped if “the market” goes in this direction.

Two claims in the final sentence of this op-ed are intriguing. The argument that density = greener neighborhoods is common but the arguments about benefits for the knowledge economy and creating jobs is less common. A little more about each of these:

1. I assume the knowledge economy bit is tied to ideas like “the creative class” from Richard Florida. Younger adults, in particular, want to live in places with some culture and neighborhood life, not on the metropolitan fringe in bland neighborhoods. These places become centers of innovation and culture, attracting more residents and businesses.

2. The jobs claim is a bit less clear to me. If money was spent redeveloping older neighborhoods, this could create jobs – but so could building new balloon-frame homes in new subdivisions. Perhaps the creative cities will create so much innovation that this leads to job growth? Does Richard Florida have data that shows a link between the creative class and job expansion overall?

Overall, this is another voice calling for a new urban strategy where the government and businesses stop subsidizing sprawl and start providing money to promote denser, more New Urbanist type developments that some Americans desire.

Australian critiques of suburbia

Posted on by

As part of a larger discussion about the green (or not-so-green) features of high-density living, an Australian academic describes typical Australian critiques of suburbia:

The intellectual misadventure of high-rise urbanism also perpetuates a pernicious bias in Australian environmental debates in which less affluent suburban dwellers are treated as environmentally unsophisticated “bogans” – a stereotype recently denounced by Melbourne University’s David Nichols.

It fits within a long and regrettably continuing Australian tradition of denigrating suburbia whose recent version sneers at “aspirationals” in suburban “McMansions” driving “monster-trucks”. That complaints about suburban consumption lack objective scientific foundation, raises suspicions that the anti-suburban prejudice serves to deflect scrutiny from the more harmful consumption patterns of wealthier – and typically denser – inner urban households.

Those who criticise high-rise urbanism, though, risk being cast as apologists for urban sprawl. Disagreeing with Sydney’s Barangaroo proposal, for example, doesn’t equate to support for the latest fringe growth area splurge.

More single, detached dwellings in low density estates at the suburban fringe also causes harms. These range from the destruction of bio-diverse habitats to the social isolation of new residents from work and services. My own work on household oil vulnerability clearly reveals the future perils from higher fuel prices already planned into the fabric of many of our car-dependent fringe suburban zones.

The argument here is that being green isn’t so easy as simply saying suburbs are bad and cities are good. Unfortunately, the suburbs tend to receive blanket criticism.

It would be interesting to trace the rise of these attitudes in Australia compared to the United States. The US has a long history of these critiques which emerged quickly after World War II, particularly as examples of mass-produced suburbs like the Levittowns became widely known. Out of all of the countries in the world, Australia might have the most similar suburbs to the US (see a recent debate about McMansions in Australia as an example). Did Australian critics of suburbia simply borrow American critiques or did they develop their own independently? Sounds like a very interesting comparative project.

What builders say the homes of 2015 will look like

Posted on by

If you are looking for big changes in the homes of 2015, you probably won’t find them. But here is what builders say they do expect to change for the new homes of 2015:

According to the results of the study, surveyed home builders expect new single-family homes to check in at an average of 2,150 square feet. Current single family homes measure around 2,400 square feet, which is already a decrease from the peak home size in 2007 of 2,521…

Other things that make up the home of 2015? No more living room. According to the survey, 52 percent of builders expect the living room to merge with other spaces and 30 percent believe that it will vanish completely to save on square footage. Instead, expect to see great rooms — a space that combines the family and living room and flows into the kitchen.

Expect to see more:

  • spacious laundry rooms
  • master suite walk-in closets
  • porches
  • eat-in kitchens
  • two-car garages
  • ceiling fans

Expect to see less:

  • mudrooms
  • formal dining rooms
  • four bedrooms or more
  • media or hobby rooms
  • skylights

Many of these changes reflect a desire for builders and consumers going green. Smaller space means more efficient heating and cooling. Ceiling fans distribute heat evenly while skylights, on the other hand, release heat.

The two big changes proposed here aren’t revolutionary. Particularly if the economy remains in the doldrums, homes will decrease in size. The real question is what would happen if the economy really picked up again – would builders go back to larger homes? Also, 2,150 square feet is still pretty large and perhaps is more of a reflection of the smaller number of people per home these days. The formal living room hasn’t been too popular for a while and this could also be behind the drop in home sizes. Of course, compared to the sweep of American homes over the last sixty years, these are changes.

The rest seem like pretty small adjustments. I suppose I was hoping for something a little more revolutionary but I’ll have to settle for bigger laundry rooms and a few other things. The picture attached to the story of a more slanted Hawaii home that can take advantage of “Photovoltaics” looks  a lot more interesting than the rest of the story. Would Americans buy a home that looked like that just to save on energy?

Also: where do builders get their ideas about these things? From surveys and marketing they conduct or industry-wide figures and trends? What if we could ask what builders themselves would like to see change? Perhaps they simply want to go with what the public wants.

And what about those granite countertops and stainless steel appliances?

You can have an “Eco Freak McMansion”!

Posted on by

I’ve asked before whether one could have an acceptable green McMansion or if no McMansion could ever be considered truly green. I recently ran across this story of a man who has a 3,000 square foot “Eco Freak McMansion”:

Bill Newman’s kayak buddies love to tease him about his new house in Brooklyn Center. It’s too big for just one person, they say. It’s a McMansion. And it’s way too nice for him.

Newman just laughs. He erased his guilt about the home’s size (more than 3,000 square feet spread over three levels) by packing it with sustainable features, including solar panels, geothermal heating, super-insulated walls and rainwater collection systems…

His house, which he nicknamed the Eco Freak McMansion, is bigger, better and, yes, way nicer than what he’s used to. Even though he’s lived in his new house for several months, “I feel like I’m house-sitting for some rich guy,” he said…

The new house has three times the finished square footage as the cabin, but it’s three to four times more energy-efficient, Newman said.

It’s also a lot more stylish, thanks in part to designer and kayak buddy Jackie Kanthak, who helped him pick out finishes, fixtures and colors, aiming for locally sourced and green materials whenever possible.

Interesting. No mention of how much this all cost but it sounds like Newman no longer feels guilty about his larger than average house. It would be interesting to hear whether his friends are convinced that it really isn’t a McMansion. The house may be efficient and green but doesn’t it still have a large land footprint? Does Newman really need multiple great rooms?

If this house meets with the approval of his friends and others, could this be the wave of the future where Americans get their cake and eat it too, getting a big yet efficient house?

The guilt of over living in a McMansion

Posted on by

While it is clear that a number of people think that owning a McMansion is a negative thing, I haven’t seen as much reaction from the people who actually live in the homes that others would derisively call McMansions. Amidst a farewell to an “environmental pioneer” who recently passed away, here is one person’s experience of owning a McMansion:

Linda tried to live sustainably long before it was chic and was always health conscious. More than a decade ago, she was reading food labels to avoid eating anything with high fructose corn syrup. She was the first person we knew to drive a Prius.

When Alex and I bought a McMansion nine years ago in McLean, Va., after living in a small bungalow, I felt self-conscious inviting her over, as if we had somehow let her down.

Linda became an informal adviser after we sold what Alex called our BAH (big a– house) in December 2009 and embarked on building an energy-efficient home half the size in the neighboring, walkable town of Falls Church. She, John and their son, Eli, were the first friends we had for dinner in June once the house was habitable. We had talked so much about the project that I knew she’d share my enthusiasm. Besides, she’d understand our green house better than I do.

When she saw the spray foam insulation in the unfinished storage room, she lamented that she didn’t have any in her house, which she had retrofitted as best she could. Yes, she had spray foam envy!

While this is just one story, I wonder if it hints at a broader explanation. Are tastes for or against a McMansion be primarily dictated by one’s reference group? Once you are in a McMansion subdivision (not the teardown variety where there could be other home sizes), presumably there is less judgment about the other houses. But if your friends and family don’t approve of such homes, there would be some dissonance.

The key moments for understanding who does or does not buy McMansion would come at two points:

1. When moving into a new house. While it ultimately is a decision made by the future homeowners, all sort of other people include family members, real estate people, and friends have input.
2. When hosting people from outside the neighborhood in the house. This could get particularly interesting if the homeowners and visitors have differing views about suburbs and home styles.

I think we need some research into this topic: what is the lived experience of McMansion owners and what happens when they encounter criticism for their choice in homes?

The growing gap on environmental issues between American political parties

Posted on by

As you might suspect from political discussions about environmental and green issues, a sociologist has some data to show the two major political parties in the United States are growing further apart.

Looking at League of Conservation Voters ratings of Congress and the Senate, Robert Brulle of Drexel University in Philadelphia passes along a revealing look at the history of the partisan divide on environmental issues. Averaging ratings for both parties, he and his colleagues show a sharply growing division that started back in the Reagan era.

Asked to comment on whether last week’s “24 Hours of Reality” event led by Al Gore would change any minds about climate change, Brulle pointed to the chart to express his doubts. “The real purpose of these campaigns is to generate news coverage,” Brulle says, stories a bit like this one.

While it is not like there was agreement on these issues in the early 1970s, a growing divide suggests this has become an increasingly political issue, perhaps just like religion.

As favorability ratings on Congress are still at low levels, is there any data to suggest that the two parties have closed the gap on any issues?

How a 6,000 square foot Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton escapes being called a McMansion

Posted on by

A basic component of the term McMansion is a large house. But this defense of a large Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton shows that this isn’t a necessary component of the term McMansion:

Looking past the seven bedrooms, this Brown Harris Stevens listing on Lee Avenue in East Hampton seems to be an antidote to the McMansion trend currently occurring in the ‘Gauche-ing over’ of the East End, making a seemingly cozy use of its 6,000 square feet…

From the language in the listing, the fully screened-in porch is the work of Robert A.M. Stern (the listing says “Robert Stern” but we’re going to assume that they’ve left the A.M. off for those ‘in the know”), making it a nice, neighboring companion piece to the library and town hall that Yale’s dean of architecture has designed for East Hampton over the last 20 years.

So, while the deck—and attached house—will run you $6.5 million, you will be getting an adorable piece of early 20th century living with a late 20th century porch on roughly an acre of land in the tony Georgica section of East Hampton.

Perhaps I am just being cynical but it sounds like this home is not a McMansion simply because it was designed by a well-known architect. Because of this, it is better quality and more aesthetically pleasing.

If you look at the slideshow pictures, the home does seem to avoid some McMansion design features: no pretentious columns or two-story foyers; the rooms have some traditional features; and the kitchen is not full of granite countertops, a Viking stove, or a Sub-Zero refrigerator (at least as far as we can see).

Still, it is a 6,000 square foot home. Can that much space really be cozy? Only in places like the Hamptons could this size home seem restrained. What about arguments that all big homes are bad (large homes don’t fit with other green products) or need to be regulated (see this recent discussion in Australia)?

McMansion defender claims to be fighting against “green jihadists”

Posted on by

McMansion is a term that can be used pejoratively. And in response to a proposed “mandatory energy star ratings” for Australian houses, McMansion defenders can use their own pejorative terms like “green jihadists”:

It seems rarely a month passes without some new assault on the lifestyle and housing choice preferred by the overwhelming majority of Australians – the detached suburban home.

Denigrated by a careless media as ‘McMansions’ or attacked as some archaic form of reckless housing choice which is ‘no longer appropriate’ (according to some planning or environmental fatwa), the detached home is under a constant assault of falsely laid allegation and intellectual derision…

But you get the strong impression, reading the constant digest of anti-suburban living which parades through mainstream media, that mainstream Australians are a reckless bunch of self-interested misfits whose behaviour and choices need to be controlled by people wiser than them.

And there’s one of the great ironies in all this: those who advocate denying housing choice and enforcing apartments over detached homes, public transport over private, inner city density over suburban expansion, invariably seem to do the opposite of what they preach. Next time you come across one of these green jihadists waging war on the suburban home (and the people who live in them), ask them if they live in a house or a unit, how many children they have, ask how many cars they own, and ask what their power bill is like.

Perhaps those using these terms might consider it fair after the way “McMansion” has been used over the years. Or perhaps some feel that this imposition on their preferred homes is simply crossing such a line that it should be equated with one of the most negative images one can throw around.

While I’ve written before on the meaning of the word McMansion, this might indicate another possible area of research: what sort of discourse McMansion defenders use. I would guess that a common argument, expressed in this piece, is that people are simply buying homes that they want and they shouldn’t be restricted from pursuing their tastes. Additionally, just like this piece, defenders will point at the hypocrisy of the other side.