Tag Archives: McMansions

A McMansion and a Megamansion have a spirited debate

Posted on by

Listen as a 9,000 square foot McMansion and a 30,000 Megamansion debate their respective virtues. Who should really be called ostentatious? At least they can agree on their dislike for a nearby apartment building.

This is a funny series: you can also find a conversation between two trash-talking classic pieces of furniture, an argument between a blender and espresso machine, and two NYC bikes duke it out. Here is more about the short series:

Comedy writer Tom Saunders (Arrested Development, The Larry Sanders Show, Just Shoot Me), on the other hand, has long fantasized that the stuff around us actually talks, and he has created a series for DnA that proves it.

In Everything Talks, buildings and objects (often brand-name designer products) bicker over who’s best. They puff out their chests, brag and trash talk, trying to best their rival. The segment spotlights the thrill of rivalry and in doing so has fun with the status we humans attach to our objects.

Here is how Tom describes Everything Talks: “The idea that we could hear an actual conversation between, for example, a Vitamix blender and a Rancho Silvia espresso maker was science fiction only a few years ago. At last, a new computer app (connected to an ultra sensitive listening device) is able to translate, amplify and record otherwise inaudible discussions between inanimate objects without them knowing we are listening in!

Throw in some of the magic from The Twilight Zone and these braggart status could soon be taking over the world…

One part of this that is funny is that while humans use consumer goods as status symbols and measure themselves against others with these objects, they don’t always do this directly. This can be done through intermediaries or in one’s own head for a long time while trying to not let others know this is happening. This reminds me of the findings of the ethnography The Moral Order of a Suburb where a sociologist finds that suburbanites tend to get along by avoiding direct confrontation. In debates over McMansions, this might take the form of going to local government and objecting or writing a letter to the editor (though I’m sure there are occasionally face-to-face arguments about McMansions).

 

Financial advice for young adults: don’t buy a series of McMansions

Posted on by

A set of “10 Pillars of Financial Independence” includes advice about avoiding McMansions:

Therefore, their choices are to sacrifice a bit now so that in 30 years they have a home paid for and $204,958.63 in the bank, or a slightly smaller house payment and a home paid for without a good start on their nest egg. Many of the choices you make 10-20 years ahead of retirement can pay off very well when you want to retire.

I’m a firm believer in paying for your home as soon as possible. Unfortunately, beginning with a starter home and moving up to McMansion after McMansion has become commonplace; this habit can make it practically impossible to pay off your home in a timely fashion.

The general advice sounds good: beware of long mortgages for houses you don’t need. Instead, take the money you could save with a smaller mortgage over a shorter period of time and invest it.

However, the idea of people buying McMansion after McMansion after having a starter home sounds exaggerated to me. Perhaps I might be wrong: do McMansion owners tend to live in multiple such homes over their lifetime? Are they more or less likely to move than others? The illustration makes sense – don’t keep purchasing home after home that you can’t afford – and fits the idea that Americans overconsumed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But, I would be interested in knowing more about serial McMansion purchases…

Argument: you can’t hide the size of McMansions, regardless of the design

Posted on by

A local debate over McMansions draws this claim about whether the size of the homes can be overlooked:

However, I do feel that we need to bring the elephant in the room out into the open so everyone can appreciate it properly. If you strip away all of the polite planning jargon about massing, square footage, curb cuts, along with most everything else gets said in those circles, and then boil it all down to its core essence, the view becomes much clearer. What we are talking about here are some very large and quite ostentatiously designed houses.

I call it Adele Chang’s Dilemma. How do you build McMansions that don’t look like McMansions? You can’t. No matter what the design style, or where you place the garage, or how you reconfigure the roof, or bedeck the place with curlicues and cornices, or shuffle the massing, or even bring in a small gaggle of winged gargoyles and lawn gnomes, the result is still going to be one heck of a big barn.

In other words, some will argue that McMansions are just too big, even if are designed well or maybe even fit local architectural traditions. Underneath those design elements will always be too many square feet. And why is this square footage so important?

We are talking about a clash between two differing cultures here. On the one hand you have the traditional version of Sierra Madre. A place where people are comfortable with what they have today and don’t view house size as a measure of their personal or spiritual worth.

The culture Adele Chang and her CETT bosses cater to, on the other hand, is a nouveau riche arriviste’ sort crowd who somehow believe that building a vanity castle on the side of an open hillside will be recognized by all of those living below as a sign of an innate personal superiority. It is a form of unchecked clodhopper consumerism that most people living here today do not respect or care to live beside.

The size matters because it (1) suggests something vain about the owner and (2) is resented by others because it is a blatant status symbol. A big new home in a community that does not want it is tied to an owner who is seen as a jerk.

Update on increasing number of teardowns in Los Angeles

Posted on by

The number of teardowns isn’t close to the peak of 2006 but there is increasing teardown activity in Los Angeles and this is drawing concern:

The rebounding housing market has sparked the demolitions. In November, the median price for a home in Southern California was $385,000, up nearly 20% compared with the same month a year earlier, according to research firm DataQuick. Builders such as Leonard are constructing houses “on spec,” confident that they’ll find buyers…

In the city of Los Angeles last year, builders received approval to raze 1,227 houses and duplexes from January through mid-December, according to Department of Building and Safety records. That’s 29% higher than in all of 2012, though still well off the pace of more than 3,000 in 2006, during the housing bubble…

Carlton and his neighbors want the city to take action. They are pushing Los Angeles to tighten the so-called anti-mansionization ordinance passed in 2008. Critics say it has failed to stop the construction of outsized homes that rob views, block sunlight and alter the character of established neighborhoods.

In October, the Los Angeles City Council imposed additional size limits on new houses in the Beverly Grove neighborhood. But the changes don’t mandate a particular style…

Tear-downs have long stirred controversy, especially in beach communities — once-funky towns that have seen property values skyrocket over the years amid an influx of wealthy residents, chic boutiques and cafes. Many who grew up in the area have moved out, unable to afford a house with an ocean breeze. Many who did own homes couldn’t resist cashing in.

I don’t think there is an easy answer to this, particularly in Los Angeles. Because the housing market is currently tight, teardown opportunities are attractive to builders. Additionally, there is enough money floating around for people to want to purchase expensive new homes. This, of course, alters existing neighborhoods in a way that tends to irritate neighbors who think the new homes are all about the individual owner and not about fitting in with the neighborhood. I wonder how many residents who oppose teardowns would prefer no new construction at all, perhaps going for historic preservation rather than tighter mansionization guidelines.

I’m not sure why this strikes me right now but it does seem a bit odd that California, the home of American dreams (weather, Hollywood, sprawl leading to single-family homes and lots of driving), seems to be home to so many bitter housing and land disputes. Perhaps the stakes are higher – people’s dreams are on the line – so the fights get more intense. Or places like Los Angeles and San Francisco are simply too desirable and there isn’t enough housing to go around. Or all of this helps lay bare the American tendency to want to be the last one in to enjoy the neighborhood before slamming the gate behind them to preserve the features forever.

Preferable to selling to a developer for McMansions: creating a paintball facility

Posted on by

One Fairfax County, Virginia couple has decided to develop their 200 acres as a paintball facility rather than let it go to developers and McMansions:

Jeff Waters and his wife could have sold her family’s 200-acre property at 6390 Newman Road in Clifton in “two seconds” to a developer to carve into McMansion lots.

Instead, they’re developing it themselves — into Fairfax County’s first paintball field. The special use permit application was submitted in June. The fees assessed: $16,375.

“We wanted to come up with some way for the property to generate enough income to justify keeping it,” Waters said. “The county wants it to stay an open space. Despite the fact that it’s taking forever, I think the county wants this to happen.”…

This will be green paintball. What could have been 40 lots, 40 septic fields and 36 new acres of impervious surface — or “1,000 pigs,” Waters said — will be a wooded game arena with a couple ancillary buildings.

I wonder if the county and/or the Park Authority would make a good offer to purchase the land itself. I would guess nearby residents would prefer paintball to more subdivisions but wouldn’t they prefer protected open space even more? As the article notes, getting the paintball operation up and running isn’t cheap (between $150-200k). And, imagine the kind of people that are attracted to paintball operations…are these the kind of people neighbors want to see? Perhaps the stick in the mud here are the current owners who appear to want to keep the land themselves – and who could always look for better development opportunities down the road.

Increasing home sizes on Chicago’s north shore due to little lower end construction?

Posted on by

A North Shore real estate agent finds that new homes of 2013 in North Shore suburbs are bigger than the new homes of 2003:

She continued to say that buyers still basically want everything to be large:  the master bedroom, the garage, mud room, laundry, kitchen, and outdoor spaces.  I decided to do a little checking on newly-built homes in Winnetka, Wilmette, Kenilworth, Glencoe, and Northfield.

I compared all new homes built in 2003 versus those built in 2013.  Those built ten years ago averaged 4,753 sq. ft and those built last year averaged 5,784.  That is an 18% increase in overall home size.  McMansions rule.

I went a little further and checked living room sizes.  They seem to be shrinking every time I walk into a new home and surely those numbers would be down.  Nope.  The average living room was 187 sq. ft in 2003 and 236 sq. ft in 2013.  That’s an increase of 21% – so much for the long heralded extinction of  living room space.

As for the overall  square footage of North Shore houses, the 5,784 is just an average.  The largest built home had 11,000 square feet and the smallest was 2,300.  So there is still plenty of variety if you are looking for new construction in Winnetka and other North Shore villages.

My guess is that while there is still some range of housing in these suburbs (though 2,300 square feet is not far below the average new home size of around 2,500 square feet), there was less range in 2003 versus 2013. In other words, the lower ends of the housing market haven’t recovered while large homes are still being built. Does this mean McMansions rule? Maybe – if there are enough of them in a concentrated area to be noticeable. But, McMansions can’t be attained by as many people today and they are less in number overall.

Can a McMansion successfully coexist with nature?

Posted on by

A description of a large Coral Gables, Florida house suggests McMansions and nature can successfully mix:

Since the major asset of living in coastal Miami is nature, we’ve never understood the draw of a McMansion that fights its setting. Unfortunately, the city’s got street after street of homes incongruously designed, then slapped on lots stripped of fauna.

Not this beauty, though! Set on two lakefront acres in Coral Gables filled with sabal palms, live oaks, palmettos and ferns, the home is built with floor-to-ceiling windows that fill it with light and allow the outside to fill in as the most glorious decor, giving each room a loft-like, secluded feel.

While not everyone can afford — or even wants — a massive 12,231-square foot, $8.9 million home, the principle applies on scale: more nature is better!

There are two perspectives to this mixing and I don’t think they agree:

1. A home can be enhanced by its interaction with nature. This is linked to several factors: the size of the lot (just how much nature is around the home), the landscaping around the house (which is more like sculpted nature), and how the architecture and design of the home allows for more views or spaces for interaction with nature.

2. Critics of McMansions would suggest they are antithetical to nature and conservation. Big homes require lots of resources to construct and maintain. Additionally, they tend to be associated with suburban sprawl and lots of driving. A big home might be nicely married to nature but it is still an excessive use of resources.

This posting does seem to be making the point that many McMansions try to adopt natural elements but fail. Like my first point, a well-done connection to nature might be able to gloss over other problems with McMansions. However, I think there are still some out there who would argue that McMansions can never really promote nature.

People who waste money purchase McMansions

Posted on by

McMansions aren’t just critiqued on an architectural level. Another argument is that owners of such homes are not frugal with their money:

As a gift to the institution that gave her so much joy, the former school teacher left $2.5 million to the Council Bluffs Public Library…

Cook supported the library financially throughout her life, thanks in part to money inherited from her parents, who also passed on their love of books and learning to their daughter. As an adult, Cook would stop by after school let out. She taught from 1964 to 1997 at Norris and the now-closed Bancroft Junior Highs in the Omaha Public Schools system. After retirement she spent even more time at the library, volunteering with the Friends of the Library organization…

He said Cook maintained the wealth she inherited through an unassuming lifestyle, spending her money wisely while living in a modest home on the west end of the city.

“She lived frugally. She didn’t have a McMansion,” her attorney said. “She took care of her money.”

In other words, people who buy McMansions spend lavishly. Such homes are testaments to their money, perhaps through their size or bad design. In contrast, people who are good with their money (and can donate big sums to the local library) live in unassuming houses. They don’t feel a need to show off their money with a big, flashy home.

Of course, these are broad generalizations. Cases like these reinforce the idea that not spending on a big house helps lead to more long-term wealth. Someone who had $2.5 million to donate to the local library could have easily afforded a decent-sized McMansion near Omaha and still have had $1.5+ million to donate. I think the idea is that buying a McMansion is a sign of broader spending patterns but this is not necessarily the case. This is a good example of citing McMansions as shorthand for other undesirable behaviors.

“They get McMansions, we get McJobs”

Posted on by

One columnist suggests McMansions are for the few thriving in the current economy while everyone else gets low-paying jobs:

The Great Recession ended in mid-2009, but for middle class Americans the economic “recovery” never began.

Times will get harder in 2014 for thousands of families in Bucks and Montgomery counties. As reported in this newspaper, long-term unemployment benefits ceased on Saturday for 73,000 Pennsylvanians, about 6,000 of them in the two counties. These people and their dependents will have the penultimate hope ’n change experience – no job, few prospects for full-time work and no unemployment benefits.

The economic news for the majority of Americans has not been good in recent years. However, I’m intrigued by the argument about who McMansions are for. The suggestion here is that McMansions are only for the wealthy, those who have still done well in the economic crisis. Yet, the typical usage of the word McMansion implies that they are big houses for the masses, not just the wealthy. At the economic peak in the early 2000s, the idea of a McMansion meant that a middle-class American could purchase a large and ostentatious home.

At play here is the relative status of McMansion owners. Are they the nouveau riche who are trying to conspicuously present their wealth? Are they the top 10% of the population? The truly wealthy don’t need McMansions – they have mansions – but in times of more scarcity, McMansions might not be for the masses. Also, the article seems to present its criticism of McMansions from those of lower economic and social standing whereas some of the critique of McMansions in recent decades has come from the top in suggesting the owners aren’t really wealthy or don’t have much architectural taste.

Who wants to be in the “McMansion and minivans” category?

Posted on by

Big data makes it possible to slice up Americans into all sorts of consumer categories like “McMansions and minivans.” However, how many would want to be in that category?

Acxiom provides “premium proprietary behavioral insights” that “number in the thousands and cover consumer interests ranging from brand and channel affinities to product usage and purchase timing.” In other words, Acxiom creates profiles, or digital dossiers, about millions of people, based on the 1,500 points of data about them it claims to have. These data might include your education level; how many children you have; the type of car you drive; your stock portfolio; your recent purchases; and your race, age, and education level. These data are combined across sources—for instance, magazine subscriber lists and public records of home ownership—to determine whether you fit into a number of predefined categories such as “McMansions and Minivans” or “adult with wealthy parent.” Acxiom is then able to sell these consumer profiles to its customers, who include twelve of the top fifteen credit card issuers, seven of the top ten retail banks, eight of the top ten telecom/media companies, and nine of the top ten property and casualty insurers.

Acxiom may be one of the largest data brokers, but it represents a dramatic shift in the way that personal information is handled online. The movement toward “Big Data,” which uses computational techniques to find social insights in very large groupings of data, is rapidly transforming industries from health care to electoral politics. Big Data has many well-known social uses, for example by the police and by managers aiming to increase productivity. But it also poses new challenges to privacy on an unprecedented level and scale. Big Data is made up of “little data,” and these little data may be deeply personal.

This is not new though the amount of data advertisers and others have – which is often given voluntarily on the Internet – may have increased in recent years. What might be more interesting, given that this is happening, is then to present Americans with the categories they are in and see how they react. Neither McManions or minivans have very good reputations. McMansions are seen as ugly houses owned by people who just want to make a splash, not own a quality house or participate in a close-knit community. Minivans signify suburban parent schlepping kids from place to place. Think the Toyota commercials from a few years back that tried to make owning a minivan cool. Put together these two functional objects that also serve as status markers and I suspect many people would not want to identify themselves as being in such an uncool group. Yet, there are plenty of people in such a group. Drive through any well-to-do suburb and both the homes and the parking lots (lots of Toyota and Honda minivans as well as a range of upscale SUVs – does this category include “McMansions and SUVs”?) reveal a certain lifestyle built around home, kids, school, and safety. It may be derided by outsiders and the people on the inside might not self-identify as such (and they might object to being lumped in a group – we Americans are individuals after all), but these are fairly popular choices to which marketers and businesses can then cater.