Tag Archives: McMansion

Subdividing the McMansion into multiple housing units

Posted on by

With many houses around the country in foreclosure, an idea regarding McMansions has popped up in a few places: why not subdivide these large suburban homes into multiple units? A writer for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune brings up this suggestion when reviewing a book about granny-flats:

The only serious omission is any example that would show how the enormous, 4,000-square-foot, 5- or 6-bedroom McMansions that dot the country could be creatively subdivided into separate living units. This strikes me as an obvious move because it would create affordable housing for renters while it would help financially pressed owners to stay in their houses. And the square footage that would be allocated to a granny flat would not be missed — most owners of these big houses have a lot of space they never use.

Litchfield concurred that such conversions seem obvious, but in most cases, he said, suburban residential zoning codes prohibit it.

Several things are interesting in this short section:

1. The McMansion is roughly 4,000 square feet and larger according to this writer.

2. Subdividing the McMansion would benefit multiple parties: the homeowner who could rent out a few units and people who need affordable housing, a particular need in higher-end suburbs where a lot of the available jobs are service or low-paying jobs but there is little nearby housing for such workers.

3. People have so much space in these 4,000+ square foot homes that they won’t really miss the extra space. I wonder if anyone has ever studied this in large homes: how much of the space is regularly used or even filled with furniture or storage? Is this really unused space or is this just the perception?

4. Zoning codes generally are against this idea as single-family home districts typically restrict the creation of multiple units out of single units. Once renters are in a neighborhood, people often have the impression that the neighborhood has changed: renters don’t care as much about keeping up the property, renters are different types of people than homeowners (sometimes hinting at class or race concerns), etc. But if converting larger homes into multiple units helps stave off foreclosures, should communities allow renting rather than contributing to empty houses in empty neighborhoods (which brings on its own set of issues)?

The dropping of two-story ceilings

Posted on by

One commonly cited architectural feature of McMansions are two story ceilings, often in the entryway to the home or in the family/great room. A new survey suggests that builders are pulling back on these tall ceilings as people alter their priorities:

Now, trends are more down to earth, another sign of the times. Yes, high ceilings open up living spaces. But many homebuyers want to take advantage of the wasted space on the second floor with perhaps another bedroom. Issues concerning energy inefficiency, sound transmission and a lack of coziness also pointed to the desire for lower ceilings.

Builders have gotten the message. A survey of builders across the country revealed that 14 percent of homes this year will be built with two-story foyers and 12 percent with two-story family rooms, a substantial decline from previous years, said Stephen Melman, director of economic services for the National Association of Home Builders…

“Customer feedback describes two-story open spaces as cold and austere,” Parkman said. “That goes against the current trend toward warmer and more functional spaces. Rooms with two-story ceilings actually can be a negative for some buyers.

This change goes along with plans builders have to construct smaller and greener homes.

What will be interesting to watch is to see how the architectural profile of the McMansion changes in the coming years. The two-story foyer is common but so are other features like a multiple-tier roof (many gables), a brick or fake stone facade, and more. If future McMansions lose these features and for good reasons (such as wanting to be a bit smaller or greener), will they no longer be called McMansions? Or will there be other features of such homes, such as their size or neighborhood, that will still invoke the term?

Australian commentator: movies don’t depict the suburbs

Posted on by

A writer in The Daily Telegraph suggests that Australian films have not told the stories of typical, suburban life:

Yet it’s not the working class who are neglected.

In fact, according to our films, these are the only people who inhabit Australia.

For all the frustration that exists among moviegoers as to an over-representation of bleak morality tales, it’s this unspoken class warfare that goes unchecked.

From salt-of-the-earth drovers to down-on-their-luck-gangsters, we’re traditionally very fond of our battlers. It’s the prospect of venturing near a McMansion, 4WD or flat-screen TV that seems to paralyse our finest scriptwriters.

The aspirations of families in tree-lined suburbia all too rarely catch the eye of local filmmakers. Perhaps it’s all a bit common.

We pride ourselves on telling real tales, but we don’t want to get too real…

We have been too busy wallowing in the down-and-out to delve into where and how most of us actually live.

An interesting take. I have had the impression that Australia is more suburban than other industrialized nations but it is difficult to find data to back this up. (I spent about 25 minutes searching the Australian Bureau of Statistics website and it appears that at least part of the issue is how the Bureau defines suburbs. While the American Census Bureau essentially says suburbs are the spaces between central cities and rural areas, it appears that Australia tends not to make these clear distinctions. There may be Inner Sydney and North Sydney and Outer South Western Sydney but they are all part of Sydney.) We do know that in late 2009, the average new Australian home was bigger than the average new American home.

More broadly, this doesn’t seem to have been a problem in American media and entertainment. Whether we look at novels or TV shows or movies, the suburbs are a common setting. We could argue about whether these depictions of suburban life are accurate. There is a long history of suburban stories serving as suburban critique: the characters are often portrayed as being unfulfilled, shallow, and unsophisticated. Additionally,  the “typical” TV sitcom or movie family tends not to be that typical: their homes are fairly large, money or subsistence issues rarely come up, and the family always end up in wacky situations.

McMansions a legacy of the 1980s?

Posted on by

A Philadelphia man who loves the 1980s suggests that one of the legacies of this decade is the McMansion:

Remember the ’80s? Greed. Narcissism. Size.

“Everything was big — really big,” Sirota writes. “Big hair. Big defense budgets. Big tax cuts. Big shoulder pads. Big blockbuster movies. Big sports stars. The Big Gulp.”…

Sirota (who was born in 1975) says the ’80s speak to us today for one simple reason: “Because it’s still the ’80s. The calendar doesn’t say ’80s, but we’re still looking through an ’80s mind-set.” Think Charlie Sheen. Think Lehman Brothers. Think McMansions.

I don’t know if this guy is right or not about these specific links between the 1980s and today. I suspect people growing up in different time periods (whether it is was the 1980s or 1960s) would suspect that the periods of their early lives are most consequential for subsequent events.

But, we could examine more closely his idea that the 1980s gave rise to the McMansions of recent years. Let’s first look at the average square footage of new homes. Here are the increases over the decades (US Census data):

1973-1979: from 1,660 to 1,760 square feet – increase of 100 (5.68%)

1980-1989: from 1,750 to 2,035 square feet – increase of 285 (14.00%)

1990-1999: from 2,080 to 2,223 square feet – increase of 163 (7.33%)

2000-2009: from 2,266 to 2,438 square feet – increase of 172 (7.59%)

So it appears the 1980s did see a larger increase in the size of new homes.

Second, we could look at when the term McMansion entered the popular lexicon. From news sources that I have looked at (this is not one of them but it does give a similar idea), the term really started picking up steam in the late 1990s. Even if the houses started getting larger in the 1980s, it wasn’t until the late 1990s and early 2000s that people frequently started calling them McMansions. In this case, perhaps the term took some time to develop or McMansions really originated in changes of the 1990s.

Overall, these sorts of sweeping ideas (everything was BIG in the 1980s!) could use some more nuance.

Discussing the mortgage interest deduction and how pricy (and large) a McMansion is

Posted on by

One common use of the term McMansion is simply a large home. In this blog post about the mortgage interest deduction, the writer contrasts the price of McMansions to more normal-sized homes:

That means average homeowners with modest Capes and fixer-uppers are helping subsidize others stretching to keep up with the Jones and their million-dollar McMansions.

The measuring stick of a McMansion in this post is how large the mortgage is:

A close look at the interest rate deduction reveals much of its benefits go to homeowners with mortgages far larger than most in the middle of the housing pack. Check out this Forbes piece, which nicely lays out the argument for taking away this perk from the homeowners with outsized mortgages – incredibly the limit is currently $1 million…

The president’s deficit commission recommended capping the deduction’s use at $500,000 in mortgage debt, down from $1 million now, while nixing its use for vacation homes and converting what’s left to a 12.5 percent tax credit.

OK, I vote for keeping it simple and just lowering the mortgage cap to $500,000 or $600,000, while making second homes ineligible as well.

So a McMansion here would start with homes that cost $500,000 to $600,000. In most suburban communities, this buys a large home. In denser areas, not necessarily. What about older homes that cost this much – are these McMansions? It wouldn’t take too much searching online of real estate listings to translate these prices into square footage in particular areas.

Overall, this use of the term McMansion seems to refer to any large house beyond “modest Capes and fixer-uppers.” This use of the term seems quite vague: a McMansion is any (presumably larger) house above a certain price point.

USA Today says McMansions are “out of vogue”

Posted on by

Citing recent housing figures, USA Today argues that McMansions are “out of vogue”:

Fran DiBello of Cleveland didn’t need a lot of room. For her, a three-story townhome has everything she could need.

“I really like the style of this home,” she says. “It’s very efficient. The appliances, the heat.”

It also has a view of Lake Erie and an 8-minute commute to work. Ten years ago, this neighborhood wasn’t here; 10 years ago, these homes would have been over shadowed by the McMansion.

“A McMansion was a trophy — often times a house with five or six bedrooms when you only needed two,” says Scott Phillips, real-estate agent with Keller Williams in Clevekand.

The median size of homes purchased in 2008, the most recent year for which figures are available, is 1,825 square feet. For first-time buyers it is 1,580 square feet, according to the National Association of Realtors.

A majority of the homes Phillips sells are less than 1,700 square feet.

Some consider it an outgrowth of being green; others see it as people living within their means.

Another shift in housing trends also means a move closer to the city’s core, Phillips says.

Numbers show that 90% of home sales nationwide are to young professionals looking for urban housing.

“People like to live where they’re closer to the amenities, the parks, nightlife, grocery stores,” he says.

The article seems to invoke several meanings of McMansions:

1. A more suburban home. This is contrasted with a desire for more urban homes in these tougher economic times.

2. A large home, a “trophy” where people bought a bunch of space that they really didn’t need. It is also suggested that this is wasteful of both money and resources (not being “green”).

But overall, the real story of the article seems not be about McMansions but about the most recent patterns: a shrinking median size of homes purchased and a rise in demand for urban housing among young professionals. This is contrasted with the “McMansion,” that exemplar of all suburban housing and of American housing excess.

About these newer trends:

1. This article cites the median size of homes purchased in 2008. The typical figures cited for home size is the size of the average new home purchased. This figure is still over 2,400 square feet though this is down a bit from the peak of several years ago. The median size is rarely cited and this article doesn’t provide any comparison so that we would know how this size in 2008 compares with previous years.

2. I also had not heard of this figure that “90% of home sales nationwide are to young professionals looking for urban housing.” This is remarkable if it is true. It suggests that this group is the primary one driving the market and that they clearly prefer more urban living. This corroborates what the National Association of Home Builders has discussed.

3. Is this a long-term trend or will Americans seek larger homes once the economy picks up? See my thoughts here.