Tag Archives: McMansions

Taxing McMansions and other buildings by roof size to cover stormwater costs

Posted on by

Want a McMansion or another building that covers a lot of ground in Mississauga? You will have to pay more for stormwater costs:

In a move that’s a first for the GTA, Canada’s largest suburb and its sixth largest city will soon charge home owners and businesses for storm water costs based on how much of their property is covered. If you have a very small house that causes little run-off water, you will pay nothing. But if your home is in the highest of five size categories, it will cost $170 in 2016 for your share of the city’s storm-water management costs. It’s an approach that Toronto is also looking at ahead of its 2016 budget process, according to a city spokesperson…

Councillor George Carlson, council’s resident environmentalist, has championed the innovative approach since it was first examined in 2011. He recognizes the impact of climate change, but said development trends are also at the root of the problem. “You can’t use pipes the size of Dixie straws when we need massive concrete culverts,” he said after the meeting. “There were streets in Mississauga that looked like Venice in July of 2013 (when a major storm event wreaked havoc across the GTA).”

“But look at all the asphalt and parking lots and McMansions in this city. All of that covered land is sending more and more run-off water into pipes that were probably already too small. I can see the king and queen needing to live in a castle, but does every third person have to?”…

Charges to businesses will be based on a formula that measures the total covered amount of space, but they will be able to save up to 50 per cent of their fee by putting in measures such as catchment basins and permeable material to prevent storm run-off.

It will be interesting to see how this works out. The Councillor quoted above said he thinks this could have an impact on building sizes down the road. Communities with lots of sprawling development often have water problems and solutions range from permeable pavement to green roofs to taxes like these. But, many of these solutions are after the fact which can get quite costly (just see the massive Deep Tunnel project in the Chicago area).

If the real estate pressure is there to build McMansions, I wonder if there are ways around such a fee. (To be honest, $170 a year doesn’t sound like much for the types who buy McMansions.) What if people built underground to get extra space and to minimize the roof size (a la the luxury underground facilities in London)? Presumably there are height restrictions in the community that would limit building up.

“The McMansions are coming!” to Modesto

Posted on by

Maybe the broader statistics don’t matter – opposition to McMansions is often strongest at the local level, like when teardowns arrive in Modesto:

In the old College area of Modesto, I’ve spotted an unsettling trend – the sprouting of what folks in the Bay Area call “McMansions.”…

These behemoths bring nothing to the locales, and basically boil down to somebody wanting to live in an older neighborhood in a development-style home with maximum square footage. You can imagine how people who have lived among one-story neighbors feel when a McMansion glares down at them. Many choose to move or erect tall plants as barriers in an effort to recapture a sense of privacy.

McMansions are a hot issue in the Bay Area, with existing homeowners protesting the intrusion. But few cities have any restrictions or guidelines in place for protecting and/or building in older neighborhoods. Those who do have recognized the value of managing older neighborhoods to bring value to their town. Along the same lines as preserving historic downtowns for their appeal, they preserve historic neighborhoods.

Large homes equal larger tax revenues from the city’s point of view. But as historic old neighborhoods succumb to McMansions, it’s just a matter of time before these areas look like the row houses in the 1970s Archie Bunker sitcom; they will have ruined the “old” neighborhood ambiance they sought.

Not a positive view of teardown McMansions. I wonder how this works in communities like Modesto which have been hit hard by foreclosures (though some Central Valley cities are not below national foreclosure rates). Can a city afford a NIMBY approach to McMansions if the housing stock isn’t doing so well on the whole? At least the teardowns suggest there is some demand for living in certain neighborhoods in Modesto – not all communities have even that.

This question regarding teardowns could also apply elsewhere: are big teardowns and gentrification better than no development at all? Both involve changing the character of a neighborhood, particularly upgrading the housing options. Both are often viewed negatively by residents already there. Both typically involve outsiders and new residents. Of course, these aren’t the only choices available in neighborhoods but are they better than negative conditions or decline?

Seeing the return of McMansions as a statistical blip

Posted on by

New American homes were bigger than ever in early 2015 but some see this as an anomaly:

The median size of a home built in the U.S. in the first quarter registered 2,521 square feet, up 76 square feet, or 3%, from the fourth quarter, according to Commerce Department data released Tuesday. It was the first increase for that measure after three consecutive quarters of decline.

Robert Dietz, an economist with the National Association of Home Builders, suggests that last quarter’s increase is due more to a smaller amount of housing construction in the first quarter relative to previous quarters than to a return to a market focused on megahomes…

The market has slowly shifted in the past year to allow for the gradual return of entry-level buyers, who tend to buy smaller, less expensive homes. Hiring and wages have improved, and federal regulators have moved to slightly loosen mortgage-qualification standards and reduce some costs of Federal Housing Administration-backed loans.

That contributed to a 7.6% increase in the number of construction starts for single-family homes in the first four months of this year in comparison to the same period a year earlier. It is likely that expanded volume included an increasing number of smaller, less-pricey homes.

It will take some time to sort this out. There is nothing that says smaller homes have to become a bigger slice of the market – but it is also not inevitable that the average home will get larger. Homes were bigger than ever starting in 2013 and a number of commentators, including developers themselves, have noted the lagging lower/smaller end of the new housing market. Unless the broader economy does significantly better in coming quarters, I suspect big homes (and luxury housing units) will continue to drive the housing market.

When neighbors sue over a teardown McMansion

Posted on by

Can this end well? One Sioux Falls family sues their neighbors over the construction of a teardown McMansion and alleged violations of local ordinances:

In court documents, Pierce and Barbara McDowell charge that the new house is too close, too tall and negatively impacts use of their own property.

Not only does it block natural sunlight from reaching the McDowell house, the lawsuit charges, but the McDowells have been stopped from using their wood-burning fireplace because its chimney now is too close to the house being built by Joseph “Josh” Sapienza and Sarah Jones Sapienza…

The McDowells are asking for a permanent injunction to stop further construction at the Sapienza residence until it comes in compliance with the city’s 2013 Shape Places Zoning Ordinance and it is relocated so the McDowell house no longer violates the city’s Residential Code…

When completed, the Sapienza house at 1323 S. Second Ave., just south of the McDowell residence, will be a two-story single-family house containing almost 5,000 square feet. The permitted offset from property now is five feet, putting seven feet between the two houses…

The original house on the Sapienza property was multilevel with a total of 1,811 square feet on the main and upper levels. The lot measures 69 by 143 square feet. It had been built in the 1950s, and the Sioux Falls Board of Historic Preservation approved its removal from Second Avenue since it did not fit the neighborhood’s historic character. At a recent board meeting, however, two members referred to the new house as “a McMansion.”

To answer my own question, this cannot end well for all parties involved. The burden seems to be on the city to show that the proposed home did not violate any ordinances or guidelines. But, if it made it through the entire approval process even when neighbors had concerns, perhaps this won’t be difficult to demonstrate. Possible outcomes might include:

1. The neighbors are upset long-term feeling that the historic district is not protected or that the city doesn’t have a strong enough set of guidelines. Developing guidelines that will satisfy everyone can take quite a bit of time. Just look at Austin or Los Angeles.

2. The city feels like it can’t win in trying to balance competing interests. This is typically expressed as allowing collections of residents to have some control over their neighborhoods but also wanting individual homeowners to have some property rights (including pursuing teardowns). Such a lawsuit can take up time and money that could be better utilized elsewhere, particularly in an era of tight municipal budgets.

3. The property owners could have a tough time for years to come. If the lawsuit succeeds, how much do they have to change their home and at what cost? If the lawsuit fails, it is unlikely that the neighbors will suddenly like the home. I would be interested in reading a follow-up story in a few years to see if these owners are still living in the neighborhood.

At best, the disagreement between these neighbors will fade away and the city will have clearer guidelines that will help residents avoid such issues in the future. But, I would guess a more negative outcome is likely.

How to pronounce McMansion (courtesy of YouTube)

Posted on by

The Internet might bring some wonderful things but it can also make you scratch your head. Here is a YouTube video for how to pronounce McMansion. The video doesn’t exactly have a lot of views – 1 after I watched it! – and comes courtesy of DictionaryVoice.com.

Two quick thoughts:

1. I admit that I have looked up pronunciations through online dictionaries and had the site read to me. This can be a very handy Internet tool.

2. The next video YouTube plays after this one is the song “Jesusland” from Ben Folds. This is one of the few pop songs I know that mention McMansions and, fitting the common use of the word, Folds uses it as part of this critique of Middle America. Here is the portion of the song where it comes up:

Down the tracks, beautiful McMansions on a hill
That overlook a highway with riverboat casinos
And you still have yet to see a soul

Not too different from those depictions in Gone Girl…

Paying for Austin’s permitting backlog which may be partly due to its McMansion ordinance

Posted on by

Several years ago, Austin enacted an ordinance intended to reign in McMansions. But, that ordinance may have contributed to a backlog of permits which the city is now trying to tackle:

The directors of the city’s planning and permitting departments estimate it would take $400,000 to hire temporary workers and pay for overtime to eliminate the current backlog in the next 90 days…

Next year the department plans to ask for $1.6 million in additional money to fund 11 new positions. This memo comes as the city is just launching its annual budget process. Over the next few weeks, every department is going to be compiling a budget wish list, which eventually is sent to the City Council…

Some of the blame for the three-week delay in residential planning and permitting was placed on the “complexity” of the city’s McMansion ordinance, which limits housing sizes in certain neighborhoods. “As such the department will recommend changes to the (land development code) that will simplify the McMansion provisions and will extend turnaround times for those types of reviews to ensure that there is sufficient time to perform a thorough review,” the memo states.

The planning and permitting departments, which used to be one department called Planning and Development Review, are responsible for approving all real estate development in the city, from housing remodels to new subdivisions.

It can take some time to see how ordinances actually play out and perhaps the initial ordinance can be “smoothed out” for this sort of process. Communities can also run into this problem if they have high rates of growth. Austin is a desirable place for construction so it may make sense that it has a lot of permits to deal with.

I wonder how much these decisions to speed up the permitting process are driven by builders and developers who generally want to move as quickly as possible. If there is a bit of a delay in the process, would these builders actually cancel their projects or go elsewhere? Builders and developers are often powerful and are viewed as important harbingers of economic growth. Yet, isn’t Austin so desirable that a delay won’t harm things much? Granted, lots of people might want more efficient government but that also may just require more government employees.

Guatemalan McMansions built with remittances

Posted on by

There may be McMansions built in Guatemala with remittance funds but they require a lot of resources:

The paradoxical strength of Guatemalan migrants’ transnational dreams is nowhere more evident than in the clash between these McMansions — often decorated in red, white and blue — and below-subsistence everyday life in largely indigenous areas like Cabricán…

The remittances they send have increased nearly sevenfold since 2001, according to the International Organization for Migration. The money is projected to reach a record $5.9 billion this year, according to the Banco de Guatemala – over 10 percent of the country’s GDP…

Worse, many experts argue that big houses — unattainable with quetzales, the Guatemalan currency — are risky investments for remittance dollars, too, especially since most migrants already used what little assets they have — land and their existing homes — as collateral for the large loans necessary to pay smugglers’ fees.

A home like the one built from the money sent by the Rojas children’s in San Antonio costs around 500,000 quetzales ($64,000) to build there.

Critics of McMansions might note that such homes in Guatemala reflect the illusory nature of all McMansions: lots of space and an impressive facade but difficult to sustain in the long run with what they cost to build and maintain (and how that money might be better spent elsewhere) and their dubious quality. The Guatemalan McMansions illustrate the downsides of globalization where cultural tastes and spending habits (big homes, lots of features) may cross borders but not all the potential consumers are able to realistically purchase the goods they see.

At the same time, given the cheaper costs for such homes in Guatemala, how long before we see HGTV featuring American retirees looking at McMansion neighborhoods in Guatemala as they try to escape higher costs in the US but still want the private home of the American Dream?

Why your McMansion may need a Juliet Balcony

Posted on by

From the Reddit “McMansionDesign” thread comes this interpretation of an interior Juliet Balcony:

For when you want to lord it over your domestic kingdom and watch your lowly familial subject go about with their useless lives and hobbies.

https://i0.wp.com/www.remodelingguy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/image-3.jpg

Snarkiness aside, I could imagine two uses for such a balcony beyond the Big Brother implications:

1. It looks like this balcony is simply a cut in the wall from a hallway. That looks like a pretty dull hallway except for the overlook. Dark hallways are rather drab so why not liven things up with a balcony as you walk by?

2. Perhaps there are people who would really want to entertain from such a balcony. Isn’t that the point of a two-story great room with an open concept? Perhaps a music performer could play from there. Perhaps it could be the site for a celebratory speech. Or, how about some impassioned Shakespeare reading?

“Having…a bigger McMansion…probably won’t make you happier. At least, not in the long term.”

Posted on by

A journalist discusses keeping up with the Joneses and includes this bit involving McMansions:

So what does this mean for the drive to keep up with the Joneses? It means that having a nicer car, a bigger McMansion, a greener lawn or even the latest iPhone probably won’t make you happier. At least, not in the long term.

How many suburban status symbols can you include in one sentence? While this piece summarizes the detrimental effects of spending in order to keep up a wealthier reference group around us, this reference to McMansions is not unusual. Here, the McMansion stands in for a pattern of excessive consumption, a consumer good that isn’t necessary, requires long-term debt, and doesn’t really lead to long-term well being (at least such satisfaction based on comparisons with others).

Perhaps the more scandalous suggestion here is that the iPhone could function in the same way as a McMansion. The iPhone costs a lot less, is much more common (at least 500 million units have been sold – imagine that number of McMansions), and might even enhance sociability (as opposed to the McMansions emphasis on private space). The iPhone is a status symbol in its own right. But, the iPhone doesn’t attract the same level of criticism…

The size and price of new American homes have increased quite a bit in 40 years

Posted on by

A short video shows how new American homes have changed in the last four decades. Here is a quick summary of the differences:

Americans may occasionally complain about sprawl and the growth of the suburbs, but part of the expansion of homes over the last few decades has actually been due to the expansion of the home. Animator Bård Edlund’s project for CNN Money, 40 Years of the American Home, visualizes changes in features and layout and the slow but steady increase in size and price for the average house, which starts at 1,525 square feet in 1973 and slowly balloons to 2,384 square feet by 2013, a 56% increase. Price, not surprisingly, follows a similar trajectory, rising from $64,600 in 1980 to $268,900 by 2013. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that’s a 32% increase.

I’m not quite sure why the history begins 40 years ago because you would find a similar trajectory going back into the early 1950s when the average new home was around 1,000 square feet.

The Curbed headline is interesting: “Today’s Average Home is a McMansion Compared to 40 Years Ago.” If we are just talking about square feet, this makes sense with a 56% increase. This is a pretty neutral – and therefore unusual – use of the term McMansion. But, if it is suggesting that homes are too big or luxurious today, that is another story.