Tag Archives: McMansions

Examining the claim that “conservatives prefer suburban McMansions while liberals like urban enclaves”

Posted on by

The new report from Pew on political polarization reaffirms there is an urban/suburban divide in the electorate:

With disquieting predictability, 10,013 adults — respondents in the largest survey the Pew Research Center has ever conducted on political attitudes — answered according to their ideology. Seventy-seven percent of “consistently liberal” adults went with what sounded like the urban milieu: the dense neighborhood, the compact home, the “walkability.” Fully seventy-five percent of “consistently conservative” adults went with the polar opposite.

“It is an enduring stereotype – conservatives prefer suburban McMansions while liberals like urban enclaves – but one that is grounded in reality,” Pew concluded in the report released today.

Screen Shot 2014-06-11 at 5.41.50 PM

This is corroborated by other data: Democrats are centered in cities, Republicans in exurbs and more rural areas, and the parties fight over suburban votes.

Two interesting points from the tables above:

1. The first question describing more spread out areas versus cities is a double- or triple-barreled question that supposedly contrasts more suburban versus more urban areas. Maybe. Take the larger or smaller house part of the question. Plenty of wealthier urban residents own single-family homes or large condos or apartments – but these neighborhoods aren’t going to be as sprawling as many urban neighborhoods. But, even there, you would get some big differences between denser cities – the Northeast, Midwest, San Francisco – versus more sprawling city neighborhoods in places like Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and other Sunbelt locations.

2. In the second chart, the real difference between conservatives and liberals is not that they have different opinions about suburbs: that holds relatively steady at around 20%. The bigger differences are between preferring cities versus small towns or rural areas. I’ve seen enough other data about small towns on surveys to think that there is quite a bit of overlap between suburbs and small towns. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive categories. Even some rural areas might still be suburbs, depending on their location within a metropolitan region or their proximity from the big city.

All together then, the suggestion that it is suburban McMansions versus cities is a bit misleading. Adding the label McMansion gets the point across about larger houses but it also adds a pejorative element to the mix.

A big uptick in large homes constructed in recent years? Maybe

Posted on by

With the average size of new American homes at record levels, just how many big homes have been built in recent years?

As a result, the market for smaller homes, of 1,400 square-feet and less, has shrunk to just 4% of homes built. That compares with 9% in 2005…

Meanwhile, extremely large houses — 4,000 square feet and up — have been making up a much larger slice of the new homes built.

Last year, these mega homes accounted for more than 9% of new homes. In 2005, they represented 6.6% of homes built.

Houses that are a little smaller but still verging on mansion territory, those between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet, made up 21.7% of new homes in 2013, up from 15.6% in 2005.

So these are changes in the housing market: more large homes built in recent years, fewer small houses constructed. But, are they big changes? The decrease in homes under 1,400 square feet is 5%, the rise in homes over 4,000 square feet is just over 3%, and the increase in homes three to four-thousand square feet is somewhat bigger at 6%. Does this mean McMansions are back? The data is up for interpretation with figures that could likely support either side: there are shifts taking place versus the percentage changes are limited.

New American homes bigger than ever in 2013

Posted on by

Census data shows new American homes grew in 2013 to nearly 2,600 square feet:

According to just released data, both the median and average size of a new single-family home built in 2013 hit new all time highs of 2,384 and 2,598 square feet respectively.

And while it is known that in absolute number terms the total number of new home sales is still a fraction of what it was before the crisis, the one strata of new home sales which appears to not only not have been impacted but is openly flourishing once more, are the same McMansions which cater to the New Normal uberwealthy (which incidentally are the same as the Old Normal uberwealthy, only wealthier) and which for many symbolize America’s unbridled greed for mega housing no matter the cost.

…

Of the 569,000 single-family homes completed in 2013:

  • 518,000 had air-conditioning.
  • 59,000 had two or fewer bedrooms and 251,000 had four bedrooms or more.
  • 27,000 had one and one-half bathrooms or less, whereas 188,000 homes had three or more bathrooms.
  • 166,000 had a full or partial basement, while 91,000 had a crawl space, and 312,000 had a slab or other type of foundation.
  • 305,000 had two or more stories.
  • 333,000 had a forced-air furnace and 216,000 had a heat pump as the primary heating system.
  • 347,000 had a heating system powered by gas and 214,000 had a heating system powered by electricity.

The headline reads “McMansions Are Back and Are Bigger Than Ever.” The data would seem to support such an argument as square footage continues to increase and homes have more amenities. Additionally, this is more evidence that the higher ends of the housing market are more robust these days compared to the lower end where smaller homes aren’t moving as quickly.

US just a “great post World War II McMansion”

Posted on by

I’ve seen McMansions compared to many things but not the whole United States as James Howard Kunstler argues:

That is, first of all, a place of far less influence on everybody else, in a new era of desperate struggle to remain modern. That fading modern world is the house that America built, the great post World War II McMansion stuffed with dubious luxuries in a Las Vegas of the collective mind. History’s bank has foreclosed on it, and all the nations and people of the world have been told to make new arrangements for daily life. The U.S. wants everybody to stay put and act as if nothing has changed.

Therefore, change will be forced on the U.S. It will take the form of things breaking and not getting fixed. Unfortunately, America furnished its part of the house with stapled-together crap designed to look better than it really was. We like to keep the blinds drawn now so as not to see it all coming apart…

Even the idle chatter about American Dreaming has faded out lately, because too much has happened to families and individuals to demonstrate that people need more than dreams and wishes to make things happen. It’s kind of a relief to not have to listen to those inane exhortations anymore, especially the idiotic shrieking that, “We’re No. 1!”

Others have got our number now. They are going their own way whether we like it or not. The Russians and the Chinese. The voters in Europe. The moiling masses of Arabia and its outlands. The generals in Thailand. Too bad the people of Main Street U.S.A. don’t want to do anything but sit on their hands waiting for the rafters to tumble down. My guess is that nothing will bestir us until we wake up one morning surrounded by rubble and dust. By then, America will be a salvage operation.

This is a typical “America is in decline and should wake up piece” with an interesting metaphor: the country is like a badly made, falling-apart McMansion that once glittered but now is exposed as an inadequate dwelling. Such a comparison does not come as a surprise from Kunstler who has criticized suburban sprawl for decades and would likely agree with Thomas Frank’s recent piece on giving away the American farm for a limited number of McMansions.

But, Kunstler doesn’t go further and then give us the more positive comparison. Should America be more like a stately renovated Victorian with its ornamental charms? Should we be like the pragmatic ranch or split-level home with a can-do spirit? Should we prefer modernist homes with sleek lines and the notion of the future? Or, perhaps we should all be living in a grittier or refurbished (depending on your income) mixed-use block in a denser urban area. What kind of house do we want America to be moving forward?

How much more expensive is it to completely repair a McMansion versus buying one new?

Posted on by

I saw this story about a Bellevue, Washington McMansion that suffered a costly fire:

A new Enatai area ‘McMansion’ that was not yet occupied suffered more than $750,000 worth of damage during a fire early Monday morning.  The cause of the blaze is not immediately known but being investigated by authorities.  The house was not occupied yet, and no one was injured – although a Bellevue firefighter endured a big scare.

Once a home has suffered this kind of damage, is it simply cheaper to buy a new one rather than completely repair the existing home? Homes are usually built with economies of scale as builders work on multiple homes in an area and have materials and workers on hand. I’ve had this thought about cars as well: if you had to replace all of the individual parts, your costs would likely rise past the full value of the vehicle. Since the home was unoccupied (it does not note whether it was owned yet), I suspect it may just be torn down and a new home rebuilt on the spot.

Remodeling dated and garish McMansions

Posted on by

Some buyers of McMansions do quite a bit to update the homes:

The towering (and disintegrating) stucco walls, pretentious interior columns, two-story great room, and four vinyl garage doors that greeted visitors didn’t do much to distinguish it from its neighbors.

“We knew it was, inherently, a version of a McMansion. So one of our challenges was: How do we bring a new identity to it?” said Seip, vice president of Chase Building Group, based in Doylestown.

As the region’s stock of oversize – but often under-designed – suburban tract houses ages into its teens and 20s, some homeowners are looking to reverse the gravest missteps and most ludicrous larks of prerecession developers. They’re ripping out never-used master-bath Jacuzzis, lowering space-wasting cathedral ceilings and replacing builder-grade finishes with more personalized selections…

“If you have a house that was cheaply built with bad materials, with a short-term development mentality . . . it will always plague whatever you do,” he said. “We can solve for a badly planned house. But we can’t change a badly made house into a well-made house.”

This is one answer to the question of what will happen to McMansions several decades later: some of them will be remodeled to fit new trends. New owners often want the latest features and want to avoid the appearance of dated finishes.

There are several possible responses to this:

1. Not all McMansions are likely to be significantly remodeled. What happens to them and how many will there be?

2. The last quote in the passage above is interesting: the changes can only go so far to fix earlier features of the house.

3. Critics of McMansions might suggest no one should buy these homes in the first place but it is interesting to note that there are homebuyers who think McMansions can be “fixed” or changed to better meet their needs. Even if significant remodeling is desired, is square footage still a key drawing point of these homes?

4. The stucco McMansion finishes in Pennsylvania seem to draw quite a bit of attention. Are there no stucco McMansions further in the Northeast? Perhaps builders got a little carried away with this exterior finish in an area that has more roots in northern European architecture.

Buying or renting smaller spaces related to less consumer spending

Posted on by

If Americans turn away from McMansions and toward smaller homes or renting, they may also spend less on other items:

The apartment/renting moves have two implication for consumer spending. First, less space means less stuff. Second, rental units typically aren’t fitted with high-end appliances and finishes.

Looking at real spending for certain home goods, the data show annual increases in spending on items like appliances, furniture and window treatments are averaging less than they did during the boom years. That means that, like home construction, demand for home goods isn’t supplying the boost to economic growth that it did before the recession.

The Demand Institute, a joint initiative of The Conference Board and Nielsen, looked into the shift’s impact on consumer spending in a 2012 study. The DI analysis expected demand for home goods to pick up as housing recovers, but “value-oriented brands are likely to see the greatest growth,” the report said, a short-run trend “driven by landlords and renters who want to spend less on fixtures and furnishings than homeowners [do].”

Renting households also tend to own fewer vehicles, said the DI report, in part because their finances are worse than homeowners but also because parkingspots are limited. That shift will limit future car sales

All together, this links spending in one large area – housing – to spending in other sectors. Take owning a large suburban house. Such a home tends to support a more robust housing industry including construction and real estate. Such homes are often built in more sprawling suburban neighborhoods, leading to more cars and more road construction. Bigger homes require more furnishings, landscaping, and opportunities for improvements and repairs, supporting more suburban big box stores and other retailers.

I do wonder how much this is a case of spurious correlation versus indicating broader shifts: is this all linked to people having less disposable income? If they feel they have less money, they might make different choices about housing as well as consumer goods. Or, due to the economic crisis and relatively stagnant income for many Americans, consumers might be shifting their preferences in a number of ways that could upset traditionally important economic sectors. It could be a move away from expensive and more durable goods (houses, cars) toward electronics (like smartphones) and entertainment (the creative class).

South Barrington has the “Ultimate McMansion”

Posted on by

Curbed Chicago highlights a 21,000 square foot South Barrington home as the “Ultimate McMansion”:

If you looked up the word McMansion in the dictionary, a photo of this house would appear next to the definition. And no doubt, South Barrington is a place where folks like to live large. The suburb is known for being the home of the fourth largest church in the country, for having a movie theater that’s the size of most small airports, and a plethora of McMansions that were built in the last couple of decades. And of all the McMansions for sale in South Barrington right now, this 21,000 square foot home may just take the cake. The manse sports a six car garage, four master suites, a 3,000 square foot rec room and a private beach. The huge seven bedroom home also has some pretty interesting interior design going on as well, complete with clouds painted on the ceiling in some rooms and a basement that looks like something you’d find in Vegas from the 90s. For $3.87M, this ultimate McMansion could be all yours.

Quite the interior and exterior. But, this is a classic case of an expensive home that is way past McMansion with its square footage. What would the average McMansion owner do with 21,000 square feet? Most of the photos show rooms that are simply much too large for even a good amount of furniture. I would argue that once you get past nine or ten thousand feet

The connection of the big home to other big features of South Barrington is also intriguing. Do people who live in McMansions tend to like to live in places in large churches or movie theaters? Perhaps the connection is the level of wealth in the community but having a lot of big houses is not necessarily related to having one of the biggest churches nearby

“8 Dream Homes That Aren’t McMansions”

Posted on by

Not all desirable homes have to be expensive McMansions:

When one’s job is to write about incredible homes, one quickly finds out that most of the really incredible pictures are from…really, really, really expensive homes. As in: Homes that have more infinity pools than they have bedrooms; couches that cost the equivalent of a down payment on an actual house; houses with pantries that are bigger than a studio apartment — that sort of thing. But we believe that a “dream home” doesn’t have to be outrageously expensive — or even that big. Here are 8 houses that prove just that.

Two quick points:

1. Most big “dream homes” are far beyond McMansions. If you have an infinity pool, this is usually beyond a McMansion. If you are featured in an architectural magazine because of your interior design, it is usually beyond a McMansion. These homes are usually just plain mansions.

2. The eight homes featured in this story have some commonalities: they tend to be relatively small, green, and well-designed (meaning put together by an architect or adhering to local design). These traits are more often anti-McMansion rather than looking at the number of infinity pools a home has.

Don’t let your McMansion turn into a financial McPrison

Posted on by

A real estate firm argues buyers shouldn’t buy a home that could turn into a McPrison:

McMANSION OR McPRISON?
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE?

The sprawling McMansion that someone said you can afford may quickly turn into a McPrison when all of your money is locked up in it. There are lots of home affordability guidelines out there. Start with this one:

  • Don’t spend more than 300% of your gross household income.
  • Another is to pay no more than 150 to 200 times the monthly rent of a comparable property.
  • All of that said, don’t buy a home unless you plan to spend at least seven years in that area.

Some conservative guidelines for buying a home, particularly from those whose livelihoods depend on moving houses. Yet, the contrast between a McMansion and a McPrison is interesting. According to this advice, the main negative of a McMansion is that it can cost too much. The McMansion can appear to be a good thing that ends up trapping the homeowner. This has been a common argument after the economic crisis: too many people and lenders overextended themselves in purchasing and enabling McMansions. Part of the definition of McMansion from Investopedia reinforces this idea:

Many McMansion homeowners live beyond their means as mortgages on these monstrous properties may be 100% mortgages, interest-only mortgages and/or amortized over 40 or more years. The cost of utilities and maintenance in a larger home are also more significant, as is the cost of commuting from the distant suburban settings in which these homes are often located.

Two quick responses:

1. Of course, non-McMansions can be pricey as well depending on their size, location, and design.

2. Ultimately, this ignores the numerous other critiques leveled against McMansions (i.e., you could be trapped by a lack of community in McMansion neighborhoods) and focuses on the financial implications. If the homebuyer wanted a McMansion and could financially make it happen, there is nothing on this page to suggest the realtors would disapprove.