Tag Archives: McMansions

The newly constructed modern farmhouse is…a scourge? A McMansion? Popular because of a TV show?

Posted on by

A story about an LA teardown describes the rise of the modern farmhouse:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Hollywood actor Chris Pratt, best known for his roles in the sitcom Parks and Recreation and Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, has spurred the wrath of architecture enthusiasts over his decision to raze a historic 1950s house, designed by Craig Ellwood, to make way for a 15,000-square-foot mansion.

The move to demolish came shortly after Pratt purchased the mid-century home in an off-market sale for $12.5 million in January 2023. The house is located in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles, across the street from Pratt’s mother-in-law, former first lady of California Maria Shriver. The historic house will be replaced by a modern farmhouse designed by architect Ken Ungar, Architectural Digest reported, and is now in the early stages of construction. Until its completion, Pratt is waiting it out with his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, in a $32 million estate in Los Angeles’ Pacific Palisades neighborhood…

Pratt’s new home is adjacent to Shriver’s two homes, each valued at over over $10 million, carving out a family compound of sorts in the neighborhood. The demolition reflects the rising trend of modern, multimillion-dollar farmhouses cropping up in America’s suburbs that has gone on for decades and was newly revived after TV personality couple Joanna and Chip Gaines launched their debut show Fixer Upper, in which they remodeled old farmhouses, according to a National Association of Realtors report. Ungar has designed several multimillion-dollar mansions, including modern farmhouses, in Los Angeles.

This raises at least a few questions. Here are mine:

  1. Are the typical new farmhouses McMansions? In this particular case above, this is a home much larger than a McMansion. But, many modern farmhouses might fall into McMansion territory if they are a teardown, have some strange architectural features, and/or are part of suburban sprawl.
  2. In this particular case, the modern farmhouse is replacing a unique single-family home. But, one reading of the summary above is that the issue goes beyond this one property. The farmhouse has spread everywhere. Are there too many? Is it just a passing fad? Will a new style – and problem – be in play ten years from now?
  3. Could one TV show have significantly fed this trend? It is easy to point to a popular show – and then brand – as leading the charge. It would be interesting to see some numbers: how many builders and buyers were directly influenced by Chip and Joanna? Were they the only ones pushing modern farmhouses or were there other influencers? In this one case, who was Chris Pratt influenced by?

Opening land for development and “subsidies for McMansions”

Posted on by

A proposed bill in Utah would allow development on public lands. Critics say it would open the door for McMansions.

Photo by Michael Tuszynski on Pexels.com

Rep. Ivory, R-West Jordan, sponsored HJR19, a resolution supporting a piece of federal legislation called the Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter (HOUSES) Act. Ivory is a manager for two real estate affiliated companies — Mission Property Management and 9615 Property Management — according to his financial disclosure form.

“We’ve learned that about 150,000 acres of federal lands are within city boundaries,” Ivory told the House Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee on Thursday evening. “There’s another about 600,000 acres that are within a mile of city limits.”

The HOUSES Act, sponsored by Utah Sen. Mike Lee last year would open up certain public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to housing developers. Some critics of the legislation note that it doesn’t require those homes to be affordable, calling it a “McMansion Subsidy Act.”

The proposal would require that 85% of public lands sold be used for residential development and that 4 homes be built per acre. The other 15% could be used for commercial businesses or “other needs of potential communities.”

My guess is that the use of the word McMansion here refers less to a home with mixed-up or garish architectural features and more to big houses in the suburbs. More like “McMansions sprouting” or “cookie-cutter large homes” suddenly arriving in fields. The sprawl that has marked America for decades. And why should new housing opportunities go to people with resources? (See the different traits of McMansions here.)

At the same time, if these lands were opened up and they were filled with denser condos or communities of tiny homes, critics might still have concerns. Allowing the use of public land can be contentious as protected open spaces have value. If one goal is to not allow sprawl to take over everywhere, opening federal land is not a line some would want to cross.

Another question: does simply adding any housing to the housing stock help by adding to the supply? Or, is it more important that affordable housing is added? The charge of McMansions being constructed with subsidies suggests these may be houses for people who do not need help or that adding such housing might not help the housing issue.

Do Christmas movies avoid McMansions?

Posted on by

What kinds of homes are featured in Christmas movies? One article suggests McMansions are rarely featured:

Photo by Kristina Paukshtite on Pexels.com

Have you noticed that holiday movies are already streaming? And have you noticed the homes? They’re built for families who enjoy being together.

Rarely opulent “McMansions,” the homes featured in holiday family movies run the gamut from the family cabin in the woods to a stately family home that has been passed down through the generations.

The suggestion here is that the features of McMansions are not well-suited for these films. Here are some traits that might not work. Lots of square footage means family members are not around each other regularly. Unusual architectural features or interior designs do not look like traditional homes. A giant house on a small lot or looming over other homes does not appear friendly.

In contrast, a “good” home for a Christmas movie will be cozy, traditional in architecture and design, and present a particular appearance from the outside. The home might be tied to particular styles from the Victorian era through the mid-twentieth century when many Christian traditions and themes emerged in the Anglo-American sphere.

Given the way McMansions are treated in artistic endeavors, perhaps a McMansions could serve as the setting for a dystopian or black comedy Christmas film.

Here is what Americans gained in interior features with larger and larger new homes

Posted on by

An analysis of data involving American homes from 1970 to 2022 shows several important changes:

Since the 1980s, the percentage of homes being constructed with four bedrooms has on the whole grown, while the percentage of two-bedroom homes have fallen. In 2022, nearly half of all homes constructed had four bedrooms, compared to two-bedroom homes at 9%.

This trend of larger homes is also shown through the number of bathrooms in new houses, with over a third having three or more baths, slightly more than the percentage of homes with two baths.

If you have more square footage, people might want more of these kinds of rooms. Who wants to share a bathroom? Can’t additional bedrooms be repurposed for other uses like an office or workout space? Haven’t all the shows on HGTV convinced viewers that more bedrooms and bathrooms increase the resale value of a home? Too bad we do not have a measure of the number of open concept living areas. Or, how many square feet are allocated to the kitchen, the space where Americans spend a lot of their time?

One more interesting chart regarding basements:

Basements have also become much less popular over the last five decades— the percentage of new homes with a full or partial basement in 1974 was 45%, compared to just 21% in 2022. Slab and other types of foundations have become the sweeping majority for new homes.

I wonder if this has more to do with more new homes constructed in places, like the South, where basements are less common as opposed to a declining interest in basements. This also suggests newer homes have less space underground and have more of their space above ground.

Are these changes due solely to the spread of McMansions? The headline may invoke McMansions but they were not the only style of larger home constructed in recent decades. As many new homes added square feet, their features shifted. McMansions may have had plenty of bedrooms and bathrooms but so did other new homes.

Dallas neighborhood fought off McMansions with conservation districts

Posted on by

The Greenland Hills neighborhood in Dallas limited McMansions in recent decades by establishing conservation districts:

Photo by David Gonzales on Pexels.com

Neighbors were also concerned about tear downs and new builds. They watched as modern mega mansions took over the Park Cities. “There’s this thing coming,” Pratt says. And the residents, who founded the Greenland Hills Neighborhood Association in 1983, knew they had to do something to fight the “McMansions.”…

After that, Greenland Hills residents formed a conservation district. In the early 2000s, they surveyed the houses, and a feasibility study showed that about two-thirds of the homes were Tudors. And there was a schism in the neighborhood. There was the M Streets, between Central and Greenville, and then there was M-Streets East, which was sandwiched by Greenville and Skillman. East wanted less restrictive conservation rules, Mut says, and some blocks wanted to opt out.

Finally, the M Streets and M Streets East conservation districts formed in 2003. The M Streets Conservation District protects seven architectural styles, like neo colonial and contemporary. “We all get hung up on Tudors, and we should because that’s pretty massive,” Pratt says. “But the other styles are just as notable in the time period as well.” The district rules preserve each architectural style’s most iconic features on the front façade. The longest section is dedicated to the Tudors. There are specifications on window proportions, roof pitches, secondary gables, even doors. “We’re not going to put a Victorian door and a Tudor home,” Mut says…

And the prices of the houses increased. Homes in Greenland Hills often go for $800,000 or more. Mut can’t pinpoint the exact reasons for the surge in pricing, but he attributes it to inflation, the proximity to downtown, and demand for the homes. Mut and Pratt recognize the irony of the neighborhood’s start as an “affordable” neighborhood versus today. But it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, Pratt says, especially now that the neighborhood is not on the outskirts of Dallas. And the overall value, she says, is still there. 

Three thoughts come to mind:

  1. The neighborhood wanted to protect its particular architecture and character. To do this, they set up guidelines that limited property owners. This is often the trade-off of historic preservation in American communities: retaining the older styles limits what current and future property owners can do.
  2. This occurs in a metropolitan region where McMansions are common. When I compared how McMansions were defined in the New York Times and Dallas Morning News, I found people in Dallas more open to McMansions. However, it sounds like people saw what was happening in other neighborhoods and decided they did not want this in their neighborhood.
  3. Home values in the neighborhood have increased. Would this have happened at the same rate if McMansions had been constructed instead? Preserving the older homes means the neighborhood appeals to certain buyers. Building McMansions means newer and bigger homes. Which option would have raised property values more?

What allowing “build[ing] more houses on less land” in Austin could lead to

Posted on by

Austin, Texas recently changed its regulations to allow property owners to “build more houses on less land”:

Photo by Abigail Sylvester on Pexels.com

Homeowners now have increased flexibility to build more houses on less land, after the lot size required for a home was reduced from 5,750 square feet to 2,500 via the HOME initiative (Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment). The policy also increases the number of housing structures that can sit on that 2,500 square feet from two to three. 

The debate over these changes continues:

The debate around a policy like this comes down to whether someone believes increased density (more housing for more people on smaller footprints) will help the situation, or will lead to overbuilding, crime, and rental cash grabs. The latter tends to sound a lot like NIMBY talking points more concerned with preserving the charm of longstanding Austin neighborhoods.

Some developers and homeowners feel that the resolution alleviates just a small part of Austin’s building woes, since the zoning codes are still complex and difficult to navigate. Jason Kahle, who owns Small Home Solutions, LLC, says he and his 10 employees are “going to be all over” the changes in a market where it seems everyone with a large-enough lot has considered building a granny pod, mother-in-law suite, or backyard office. 

But being free to build on a smaller lot is not the same as being able to feasibly do it within existing rules, Kahle points out. “There’s a lot of wheels turning at the same time,” he says. “Austin Energy is a challenge. We have protected trees, impervious cover, floor-area ratio rules, the level of detail the city requires on civil engineer plans, the subchapter McMansion ordinance, temp drawings. It’s a lot to deal with.” The McMansion regulations, also known as “Subchapter F” in the city’s housing code, set detailed and strict limits, including height and setbacks from the edges of a lot.

Laura Boas, an Austin physical therapist, is building an “accessory dwelling unit” for her family behind her 1950s-era, 720-square-foot cottage in the Brentwood neighborhood. She’s seen massive 2,500-square-foot homes go up in her area, and her lot is big enough to support additional buildings. Boas lives alone and jokes, “I’m part of the problem.”

It sounds like the goal is to allow for more housing units without changing many existing lots and allowing for smaller lots. This is a different approach than promoting more multi-family housing or larger structures containing more residential units. These changes keep the single-family character and the scale of the neighborhood similar while adding more units and people.

It will be interesting to see if an approach like this solves the problems it was intended to solve. Will the number of new McMansions decrease as property owners pursue other options? Does this add enough units? Does it ease housing affordability? If not, what changes would residents and the city be willing to enact? I hope researchers and policy experts are keeping track of the changes in cities that have enabled similar regulations. This could help determine whether adding ADUs (such as in Portland) is helpful.

The Simpsons encounter a teardown McMansion

Posted on by

The Simpsons have new neighbors in Season 35 episode 3, “McMansion and Wife.” They get to know each other and enjoy spending time together. But, then the neighbors go from a modest home to a teardown McMansion:

As the new home is under construction, it is called a “reno” and then a “do-over.” Then it turns into a giant home. By my count, the teardown is 3-4 stories, is much bigger in terms of square feet and height as it towers over the Simpsons’ home, and has a mishmash of architectural features. The Simpsons live in a modest suburban home by today’s standards.

This story of a teardown McMansion within an established neighborhood is a common story across the United States. The new home can be considered disruptive by some neighbors even as others might defend the ability of property owners to do what they wish with their home and land and benefit from those changes.

One possible twist this episode briefly explores is the relationship between neighbors in these positions. Can they be friends? Can someone moving into a neighborhood build relationships and soften the blow of tearing down a house and constructing something much bigger on the same spot? Or, do teardowns usually lead to conflict between neighbors?

McMansions and combating climate change

Posted on by

A letter to the editor in California includes McMansions on a list of items that need attention in order to fight climate change:

Photo by Guduru Ajay bhargav on Pexels.com

Wildfires are increasing but McMansion developments are underway in brushland.

McMansions have long been connected to environmental concerns. This includes their presence within sprawling suburbs and neighborhoods where driving is necessary and a lot of land is used. It includes the materials required for each home and yard. It includes the use of resources to heat and light such homes.

The concern expressed above is more specific. McMansions are linked to wildfires and brushland. This suggests these homes are being built in places where they should not be built or in places that are vulnerable to wildfires. If McMansions were not in these locations, wildfires would affect fewer people.

I wonder, however, if McMansion is shorthand here for any larger single-family home. Do expanding metropolitan regions in California and other states have climate implications? When people move to what used to be small towns surrounded by more open land or continue to move out into dry suburban fringes, isn’t this more problematic than large McMansions with bad architecture?

“The modern farmhouse is the millennial answer to the baby boomer McMansion”

Posted on by

Of modern farmhouses and McMansions:

Photo by Erik Mclean on Pexels.com

This post-agrarian look is the defining style of the current era — dominating renovations, new construction and subdivisions in communities with no connection to farming, with interiors that have open concept floor plans, wide plank wood floors, plenty of shiplap, and kitchens with apron sinks and floating shelves made of reclaimed wood. Even multifamily homes are getting the modern farmhouse treatment, falling into the barndominium category, as they embrace vertical siding, gables and tin roofs, giving a folksy nod to apartment complexes…

Modern farmhouse, a contemporary style that bears a passing resemblance to a traditional farmhouse, first entered the American lexicon a decade ago on “Fixer Upper,” the HGTV sensation that catapulted the hosts, Chip and Joanna Gaines, onto the national stage, and persuaded homeowners to decorate their walls with enormous clocks and word art proclaiming the banal — Family! Eat! Coffee!…

The National Association of Home Builders does not track the popularity of the style. But Deryl Patterson, the president of Housing Design Matters, which designs homes for builders, says the look accounts for more than a quarter of her company’s work. “If a builder says, ‘I need three elevations,’ one will always be modern farmhouse,” she said…

Now, at a moment when populism has taken hold amid deep political divisions, the style of the day is one that imagines a romanticized and fantastical agrarian past — a real farmhouse doesn’t have a walk-in shower with a waterfall showerhead or a sliding barn door to hide a well-appointed laundry room with a weathered placard that says “wash and dry.” As the country grapples with existential questions about its identity and its future, the house of choice makes you think about spinning wool into yarn.

Several thoughts come to mind:

-The suggestion here is that housing design trends come in waves. The McMansions of the 1990s and early 2000s have largely come and gone. They are driven by social, cultural, and economic changes. What comes after modern farmhouse? (Just as an example of a housing style that has not had such a large wave, modernist structures have had their proponents for decades and have not caught on in a large way – even if elements end up in new homes today).

-The connection in the headline to McMansions means that homes in this style may not be long-lasting. Is the quality of the modern farmhouse in question? Are they just imitating other homes?

-The nod to an agrarian past is connected to real occupational patterns. For example, in the early 1900s, more than 30% of Americans worked in agriculture. Not so much any longer.

-How much of this is driven by particular real estate owners? The examples in this story involve fairly expensive homes and renovations. HGTV appeals to particular audiences. There are examples in this story of less expensive modern farmhouse items but purchasing a modern farmhouse can require a lot of resources.

We will see how many modern farmhouses are built and/or created and what then happens to them down the road.

Enron, McMansions, and unlikeable villains

Posted on by

The Enron scandal broke in late 2001. And it involved McMansions?

Photo by Bob Price on Pexels.com

The characters in this drama were larger than life in the Texas vein, but they lacked the roguish charm of the wildcatters of old, that quality that could make you forgive all. Yes, there were motorcycle races in the desert and Porsche Carreras and River Oaks McMansions, along with ill-advised love affairs and stiletto-in-the-back corporate intrigue. But in the end the Enron villains weren’t that much fun. They were just rich. And arrogant.

According to another story, Enron executives upgraded their residences in the years prior to the scandal:

Only a few years ago, Skilling, Fastow, and Michael Kopper — Fastow’s lieutenant in the Enron scandal, according to conclusions drawn in the Powers report — all lived within walking distance of one another in the quiet upper-class neighborhood called Southampton Place, which borders Rice University. It is a nice neighborhood, with houses that go for around a half-million dollars, but all on small lots, with alley parking in the back. Skilling lived in a simple, square brick house with his wife and three children. Kopper lived a few blocks away in a cottage he eventually remodeled to have an almost Japanese-style look, the house taupe in color, with a gray roof…

And before all three men — Skilling, Fastow and Kopper — bought new properties, tore down the existing structures, and started building their dream houses. Once again, all in the same neighborhood. The neighborhood where the rich live in Houston. The neighborhood where Lay lives. River Oaks.

So now Skilling resides in a mammoth Mediterranean-style home with a tile roof, and he’s engaged to Rebecca Carter (the one known as Va Voom), who under Skilling was promoted to executive secretary to Enron’s board of directors at a salary of $600,000. Fastow is building something that looks like a country manor, almost Tudor-ish. And Kopper and his partner William Dodson opted for a postmodern abode — boxy, all white and beige and glass and hard angles. A house so close to the Lays’ luxe apartment building that the shadow practically falls across Kopper’s lawn…

Skilling’s house is decorated in a sleek, black-and-white theme, in homage to Enron’s corporate colors. But he hired the Houston-based design team of Michael Galbreth and Jack Massing — who are known as the “Art Guys” — to do his guest quarters.

Several thoughts upon reflecting on this story from the past:

  1. Texas does like its houses bigger and I found in a 2012 published article that McMansions were not treated the same way in the Dallas Morning News compared to the New York Times.
  2. Did Skilling live in a McMansion or a mansion, a home with more square feet and not a mass-produced home within a subdivision?
  3. Does calling his home a McMansion fit better with an image of a corporate villain? The term McMansion is not usually used positively and could hint at the ill-gotten rise of Skilling. Does a more garish McMansion make it easier to dislike a figure?
  4. On a “Lives of the Rich and Infamous Tour B” in the Houston area, you may see “Homes of the leaders of Enron:  Kenneth Lay (1942 – 2006) and Jeffrey Skilling.”