Tag Archives: McMansions

Older adults like bigger things, like McMansions; younger adults like smaller things, like skinny jeans

Posted on by

Here is an example of tying consumption of things like McMansions or skinny jeans to certain generations:

If there’s one thing today’s young people know it’s this: size doesn’t matter.

From watching movies on cell phone screens to driving micro-cars like the Honda Fit, less is more with this generation.

Known as millennials, people born in the years just before and after 2000, believe in small carbon footprints and short attention spans. They don’t watch television episodes, they watch YouTube clips. Even email is too cumbersome for them. Millennials prefer to communicate with more instantaneous social media like Facebook chat and text-messages.

Compare this with people from Gen X and older and you see how wide the size-gap has become.

We Gen X’ers wore baggy jeans, flannel shirts and puffy hair. Many (too many) of us have oversized televisions and drive Hummers as big as tanks. We live in McMansions and super-size our lunches while today’s younger people wear skinny jeans, live in small apartments, and eat more salad.

We had record and compact disc collections with gigantic stereo speakers. They have iPod Nanos and ear buds.

The conclusion of the argument is that doing more with less is probably better on a crowded planet. Comparing the consumption of a McMansion to a tiny house (a comparison made a few paragraphs later) is one way to measure things: one house is bigger than the other and requires more resources. But, how do you compare a McMansion to an iPhone? The McMansion might require more resources (though all that goes into making an iPhone is more hidden) but can’t the consumption of an iPhone still be a problem (if younger adults are spending hours and hours with the device – and at least some are)? Plus, if you consume smaller objects, theoretically you might do it more often and collect a lot of stuff in the long run, even if it is more in the form of digital files. And then skinny jeans versus baggy clothes? Is this more about aesthetics rather than the size of consumption objects?

All that said, making sweeping claims about consumption patterns across generations can be difficult. We might be on safer ground by arguing that younger generations today are buying different kinds of products (digital, in particular) and may not be valuing “traditional” American consumption (cars, bigger houses).

Claim: New Jersey McMansions being built in well-connected places

Posted on by

If McMansions are on a comeback, one observer in New Jersey suggests the state’s new McMansions tend to be built to certain places:

The National Home Builders Association survey found growing interest in them, but Rutgers trend watcher James Hughes says not in New Jersey – with a few exceptions.

“In well-placed communities with rail access to New York city, some McMansions are being added.”

He says a large baby boom generation may be vacating their McMansion, but the pool of buyers for them is shrinking.

Hughes is hinting at a few things that influence McMansion placement:

1. Places connected to New York City by train may be likely to have more money, tied to their jobs in the city. These communities may be desirable because they offer options to driving as well as the possibility of more established suburbs.

2. Younger generations aren’t as interested in McMansions so there is less demand for such homes.

These may be actual reasons but the first one is also a bit paradoxical. New Urbanists as well as those interested in transit-oriented development have tended to emphasize that suburbs with mass transit nodes can be home to denser housing. What happens if McMansions and other big housing options come to dominate such suburbs and end up pricing out many suburbanites?

Advantageously framing a teardown McMansions debate

Posted on by

A story on Burbank, California residents opposing teardown McMansions illustrates one way to frame the debate:

Put a six bedroom, five bath, mansion, next to a 1940’s three bed, one bath.  Sound a little mismatched?

A group of Burbank residents think so, and they’re urging Burbank officials to regulate “McMansions” from defacing the character of their neighborhoods…

Her dutch colonial home has been carefully remodeled to stay in line with the character of the neighborhood.

Right across the street from her, a historic house was demolished, oak trees were uprooted, all to make way for three huge six bedroom mansions, two sit empty for months at a time and are up for rent.

Here is what is emphasized in this framing: the lives of long-time residents of an established neighborhood are being disturbed by outsiders constructing big homes that serve their personal interests rather than those of the community. Modest homes next to gargantuan homes. A quaint neighborhood character versus a super-sized, garish character. This is a common rhetorical technique utilized by those opposed to teardown McMansions. (This argument may also include financial pitches as older residents have a hard time keeping up with increased property taxes.)

The counterarguments can include:

(1) Individual property owners should be able to do what they want with their property. This includes the rights of current property owners to cash out on their once-modest homes and for new owners to be able to use their resources to build the kind of home they desire.

(2) Neighborhoods are going to change over time. Suburban residents can be guilty of trying to “freeze” their neighborhoods in time, preserving the features they liked when they moved in. (This isn’t just limited to teardown situations. See NIMBY.) However, this limits the “natural” change that might take place in neighborhoods as new residents move in and social conditions change.

Even this article mainly provides the viewpoint of those opposed to McMansions, it also hints at the common divide in teardown discussions: the rights of owners in a neighborhood to preserve what is there versus the rights of individuals and outsiders to change features of the neighborhood. However, this framing as presented here can be quite effective as it suggests outsiders threaten good neighborhoods.

See an earlier post on Burbank and McMansions here.

Teardowns McMansions responsible for the big American homes of today?

Posted on by

A story about a family who has downsized links teardown McMansions to the big American homes of today:

At a time when smaller, older homes are routinely torn down to build sprawling new “McMansions” — the median American home size has soared 250 percent from 1,000 square feet in 1950 to 2,500 in 2008 — Lindsay and Sue took the opposite approach when they remodeled their 1920 Arts and Crafts style bungalow in 2011. They actually lost square footage, about 40 square feet.

Just how indicative are teardowns of bigger American homes? They can be viewed as a symptom of longer and larger trends, particularly when looking back to 1950. Over the course of 60 years, the average new American home expanded by a factor of 2.5. This is significant as it led Americans to have the largest average new homes in the world. And all of this has happened as the average American household shrunk – perhaps suggesting Americans like even more space and more stuff in that space. Across the board, Americans now consume more than their counterparts in the 1950s – and this includes houses.

But, there might be some merit to linking teardowns to a larger average house size. Teardowns are still relatively rare. They occur most frequently in wealthier or gentrifying neighborhoods where there is money to spend on buying a home, destroying it, and constructing a whole new home. Yet, the average new house size might continue to be pulled up by the luxury housing market that may not have been hit as hard during the economic crisis. Look at the distributions of new homes by square feet from 1999 to 2012: 34% of new American homes in 1999 were over 2,400 square feet (17% over 3,000) compared to 45% over 2,400 square feet in 2012 (26% over 3,000).

On one hand, McMansions are often the whipping boys of the early 21st century American consumer culture. On the other hand, their presence may have helped keep the average new house size high even as the lower end of the housing market has had more difficulty recovering.

Seven square feet of self-storage for every American

Posted on by

The decluttering industry can rejoice: Americans have enough stuff for the self-storage industry to have seven square feet for each American. I’ve always wondered about the relationship between bigger homes and more stuff. Which comes first: having more stuff leads to a bigger house or having bigger houses leads acquiring more to fill them? I suspect the two are mutually reinforcing. Americans generally have quite a few things, even poorer Americans, thanks to general prosperity and a consumer-oriented society which kicked into high gear starting in the early 1900s. As a kid, I liked looking repeatedly at the book Material World which had families around the globe pose for a picture in front of their house with all of the stuff from their house piled around them. The average American family had quite a bit while many around the globe had very little.

This bit of data would bolster the arguments of some who suggest big homes are just a symptom of a larger problem: a society that likes consuming things.

Connecting McMansions to water runoff problems

Posted on by

Echoing a post from a few days ago, a editor to the letter suggests the construction of McMansions has led to more flooding problems in Needham, Massachusetts:

The recent Times article on flooding after our “hundred year storm” didn’t mention one likely contributor to the storm water runoff problem — McMansions. Teardowns surely contributed to the recent flooding, because each new McMansion’s large footprint eliminated a big chunk of drainage land from Needham’s overall water absorption capacity. And building large homes on previously open lots is an even more direct “drain” on our Town’s total runoff capacity.

I’m sure someone could go through the records and calculate exactly how many acres have been lost to big houses (and driveways) over the past 10 years of heightened development. Though we haven’t exactly “paved Paradise and put up a parking lot,” I’m guessing this is enough of a factor that it should be taken into account as Needham considers its longer range development future.

At face value, this seems to make sense. However, I would still have a few questions:

1. What if the new teardown McMansions actually include more efficient drainage systems? This might occur because of updated building codes. I’m not quite sure how this might balance out against having a larger footprint.

2. Is the problem really McMansions, large houses on smaller lots, or is this more of a problem of sprawl in general? Perhaps bigger suburban houses are worse than smaller suburban houses when it comes to water issues but it seems like the underlying problem might be suburban development in the first place.

3. Are there better ways for homebuilders to limit water runoff with new homes? If so, why not require these options for new homes? Local municipalities could make such decisions if they are unwilling to limit more sprawl. Why not require permeable driveways and roadways in new developments?

Charlotte, North Carolina known for its McMansions?

Posted on by

A book review of a new novel about an old money family in Charlotte, North Carolina suggests the city is known for its McMansions:

The city of Charlotte, with its social-climbing bankers and developers, its flock of mega-churches and its McMansions – where, as the old saying goes, folks believe in the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the neighborhood of Myers Park – has always made an inviting target.

And now, with “Lookaway, Lookaway,” Wilton Barnhardt has scored a palpable hit. With his first novel since 1998’s “Emma Who Saved My Lie,” Barnhardt delivers a knowing, wry and delightfully catty satire, an acid-etched portrait of one of the Queen City’s downwardly mobile Old Families.

This review hints at one reason for the abundance of McMansions in Charlotte and I think this is related to another reason:

1. McMansion here might be shorthand for new-money families as contrasted with old-money families. This is more noteworthy in the South with its emphasis on tradition and honor. Established families live in more established homes in older neighborhoods while those with new money live in big subdivision houses.

2. Related to the new money in the city is its Sunbelt population growth after World War II. In 1940, the city had just over 100,000 residents and today the city has over 731,000 and the metropolitan area has around 2.3 million residents. In other words, one of the notable traits of Charlotte in recent decades is its growth which then includes new houses and new residents.

At the same time, I haven’t yet run into any news stories about teardown issues in Charlotte or too many concerns about sprawl.

“The Queen of Versailles” super mansion back on track and on TV

Posted on by

The couple at the heart of the documentary The Queen of Versailles is back in their big house and headed back to television:

David and Jackie Siegel, last seen in the Documentary “The Queen of Versailles,” are the first guests in a new CNBC program, “Secret Lives of the Super Rich,” premiering September 25 at 9 p.m.

Even in a show dedicated to conspicuous consumption, the Siegels are special. When last seen, the Siegel empire was in disarray and their Orlando-area mansion — designed to resemble Versailles — was in foreclosure.

But at least the Siegel economy has rebounded. David Siegel’s Westgate Resorts time share company is recording record profits, he says. Now he’s repurchased the manse from the bank and has resumed construction.

How big is the place? It has 13 bedrooms, 30 bathrooms, 11 kitchens and a 20-car garage. It is so big that at one point in the tour, Jackie Siegel gets lost and doesn’t know what room she’s in.

It will be interesting to get an update on the state of the home. Though it is quite unnecessary, it is quite a building.

My biggest complaint about this article: the title suggests the home is a McMansion. It may share some features such as harkening back to older architectural styles and owners who seem interested in space as well as impressing people. But, this is way beyond a McMansion in terms of size and even way beyond a “normal” mansion. There is a reason a documentary was made about the house: it is one of the largest houses in the United States. This house cannot be mass produced nor is it within buying range of the middle-class or upper middle-class.

Asking residents of Burbank, CA about their thoughts on mansionization

Posted on by

A recent survey in Burbank, California asked residents about possible mansionization in the city:

A new survey of residents in Burbank, California, is trying to quantify some of this local frustration. Using images of seemingly out-of-place new houses within the city’s older neighborhoods, the online poll tries to get at both the “gut reactions” that city residents have to these “mansionized” houses and their overall willingness to create new laws to control the growth of house size.

Burbank last limited the size of new home construction in 2005, when it reduced the ratio of house square footage to total lot size, from 0.6 to 0.4. But even these new regulations allow for homes far larger than the average size across the city, according to Carol Barrett, the city’s assistant director for planning and transportation. She says the poll is designed to gauge the community’s interest in creating further size restrictions, as well as new guidelines for architectural style and building materials.

“It’s not just an issue that the houses are bigger,” Barrett says. Another important question, she explains, would be: “Is it just a giant box with some precast concrete stuck on for a little decorative design, or does it have a specific architectural character?”

All of this could be seen as largely a matter of taste. But the awkward images in the survey, of giant, Spanish-style mini-mansions dwarfing the decades-old bungalows and ranch houses next door are awfully convincing. Below are some of the most telling images from the survey, which Barrett culled from suggestions from local citizen groups like Preserve Burbank and coworkers in city hall.

I like the idea of a survey about mansionization. Here are a few thoughts on such a survey:

1. Having a decent survey response rate might be the biggest issue. Getting a representative sample from a city of just over 100,000 people is not necessarily easy. On one hand, people have more survey fatigue but, on the other hand, suburbanites tend to take threats to their neighborhoods and property values very seriously.

2. Linking people’s “gut reactions” to particular policy changes is an important step. I suspect, based on the pictures shown, people would respond fairly negatively to mansionization. But, there are a number of ways this could be addressed. It sounds like the survey asks about several policy options to limit houses; I wonder if there are a few residents who would argue for property rights (and the ability to make lots of money when selling their property).

3. The pictures included in the survey are very helpful: people need to see exactly what such houses might look like rather than imagine what might be the case. However, the particular pictures might influence responses as mansionziation can take multiple forms.

I would be really curious to see how residents respond.

Restricting McMansions, aka “White Whales”

Posted on by

This story of trying to change zoning regulations to avoid teardown McMansions is fairly standard – but it also includes a new name for McMansions: “white whales.”

Residents in East Rockville are considering creating what’s known as a neighborhood conservation district in an effort to curb mansionization—the proliferation of large homes that seem like mismatches among the smaller ones that surround them, including an East Rockville residence derisively referred to as “The White Whale.”…

East Rockville is mostly comprised of single-family homes built in the early 1940s and during the World War II housing boom. But despite the city’s revised zoning code in 2009, developers have still been able to build massive residences—many of them functioning as rentals for multiple families—that just seem out of character in East Rockville, neighbors complain.

East Rockville residents have publicly voiced their concerns over preserving the integrity of their neighborhood, having testified at Rockville City Council meetings and writing letters to city officials…

Meanwhile, the city council has been discussing the problem, but can’t seem to agree on how to go about fixing it—preserving property owner’s rights, attempting to legislate taste, and other unintended consequences are only a few of the issues complicating things.

I have not heard this term for McMansions before. The photo accompanying the story portrays one of these “white whales” and it is indeed large. But, there are a couple of issues here:

1. Size is one issue. Lots of teardown controversies involve this. From this one photo, it looks like this is a large house and it also is large compared to nearby homes.

2. A second issue is the actual look of the house. When using white to describe the home, I presume critics are referring to the rather bland front dominated by white siding. Building guidelines can suggest certain styles and design elements. Interestingly, one critique of McMansions is that they their exteriors are too odd, perhaps mixing architectural styles, perhaps utilizing features and materials not found in the region, perhaps having ill-proportioned features. Neighborhoods likely want to set an “appropriate” design that isn’t too outlandish but isn’t that bland.

If you won’t want your neighbors to build a “white whale,” what color plus animal name would you prefer they build? We need a catchy alternative…

Another note: the Urban Dictionary has several definitions for “white whale.” The first doesn’t necessarily cast the McMansion opponents in the most positive light: “Something you obsess over to the point that it nearly or completely destroys you. An obsession that becomes your ultimate goal in life; one that your life now completely encircles and defines you.” The second might be more to McMansion opponents’ liking: “Term used to describe an opponent/nemesis who is extremely difficult to defeat. The term can also apply to miscellaneous games or events which are difficult to master.”

 

asdf