Tag Archives: McMansions

Homebuyers don’t want “the same old McMansion”

Posted on by

Here some evidence that “the same old McMansion” is outdated and needs some new features:

New home buyers are coming back, but they don’t want the same old McMansion. They want a house they can use.

That means a “great room” where everyone can gather – and a spalike bathroom to escape from the crowd.

But usefulness also extends to lots of storage space for big-box buys. It means “drop-off zones” for recharging smartphones and pet-friendly “puppy showers.” It means a home office actually designed for work and media centers made for play. It means big closets and little nooks…

According to experts, today’s home buyers are much more budget conscious, a natural consequence of the recession. They demand more value per square foot. They’re not interested in rooms they will rarely use such as a formal dining room. Most of all, home buyers want a house that “works” for them.

“McMansions put a huge percentage (of square footage) into hallways and formal spaces that are used infrequently,” Lake said. “It adds up to a lot of square footage. We’re building homes with 1,000 less square feet but every room feels bigger because the house isn’t so cut up.”

As the article notes toward the end, these are not necessarily smaller homes. In fact, my interpretation here is that these are McMansions with different features. What counts for luxury today versus twenty years ago has changed: buyers want to see how to use their space rather than simply have large spaces, they want luxurious bathrooms, and they want exciting kitchens and great rooms. I’m guessing builders don’t mind these changes too much – they can work against the McMansion image (customize the luxury items!) and still sell expensive homes at high prices.

The question in the long run is whether these interior design changes are enough to stop these homes from acquiring the McMansion label.

One way to avoid teardown McMansions nearby: just buy all the properties yourself

Posted on by

Mark Zuckerberg has a way to avoid annoying teardown McMansions next door:

Facebook chief and founder Mark Zuckerberg bought four homes adjacent to his own tony Palo Alto house to prevent a developer from building a McMansion capitalizing on being next to the creator of Facebook.

Zuckerberg paid more than $30 million for the four properties next door and behind his home, and is now leasing them back to the owners, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

The 29-year-old billionaire reportedly bought the houses to prevent a developer from building a McMansion and marketing it as “being next door to Mark Zuckerberg,” according to an unnamed source.

According to public records, the home behind Zuckerberg’s was sold last December to a legal entity affiliated with Iconiq Capital, a San Francisco company that handles Zuckerberg’s finances. Last month, two more properties behind his home and one next door were also bought by associated entities of Iconiq. One of the properties sold for $14 million.

The irony of this is that defeating teardown McMansions requires having more money than the possible property owners. Have less money and residents can often have a fight on their hands.

Another issue: who would pay more money for a home just because it is next to Mark Zuckerberg? Rather than offering opportunities to spy on Zuckerberg, I wonder if this is more of a halo effect for the neighborhood: it’s such a good neighborhood that one of the world’s best-known people live here.

Bankrate.com asks “What is a McMansion?”

Posted on by

Bankrate.com defines financial terms and recently look at the term McMansion:

The Bankrate.com financial term of the day is: “McMansion”

“McMansion” is a disparaging term used to describe homes that are oversized and opulent, but also without a whole lot of uniqueness. McMansions are loosely defined as houses between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet with soaring, grandiose entryways and multicar garages, often shoehorned onto relatively small lots.

McMansions are giant homes that have sprouted up in the suburbs the way fast-food restaurants have — hence the name.

Three features of this definition stand out: (1) marking the term as a disparaging one – it is rarely used positively and can be used effectively when criticizing others; (2) it highlights their mass-produced nature (not very unique, sprouted up); and (3) sets some square footage limits so that McMansions are larger than most American homes but don’t run into mansion territory. Several other parts of the definition, including common design features and small lots, may be common but are not part of all McMansions. However, the video is disappointing. I was hoping for some classic images of McMansions…

I also wonder if this is Bankrate’s definition of a McMansion as Americans see them or as a financial publisher? Here is a little bit about Bankrate.com:

We at Bankrate, Inc. have over three decades’ experience in financial publishing. Bankrate was born in 1976 as “Bank Rate Monitor,” a print publisher for the banking industry…

Today, Bankrate, Inc. is the Web’s leading aggregator of financial rate information, offering an unparalleled depth and breadth of rate data and financial content. Bankrate continually surveys approximately 4,800 financial institutions in all 50 states in order to provide clear, objective, and unbiased rates to consumers. Our flagship Web site, Bankrate.com, provides free rate information to consumers on more than 300 financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, new and used automobile loans, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, checking and ATM fees, home equity loans and online banking fees.

In addition to rate data, we publish original and objective personal finance stories to help consumers make informed financial decisions.

What exactly does Bankrate think about McMansions?

 

Chicago McMansion battle reaches the McMansion pumpkin stage

Posted on by

One battle over a proposed McMansion in Chicago recently turned to pumpkins:

The large pumpkin popped up over the weekend next to his lot at 829 S. Bishop St. It was painted with the words, “When size matters … McMansion Pumpkin.”

Many neighbors have referred to Skarbek’s plan for his home as a “McMansion.” He plans to build a home much larger than the row home that had been there, and the home will eventually interrupt a string of front yards that are all set back from the street…

Later Tuesday, Skarbek’s next-door neighbor, Paul Fitzpatrick, said his wife decorated the pumpkin, which actually sits on his yard to the north of a fence surrounding Skarbek’s lot while the new home is being built.

“I meant it as a good gesture,” Carrie Fitzpatrick said. “He likes big houses, so I thought he’d like a big pumpkin. I spent a lot of money on that pumpkin, and if it backfired, I’ll feel really stupid.”

A holiday-themed McMansion fight turned petty. Both sides appear to be trying to pass it off as no big deal but even in a country of moral minimalism (the argument of M. P Baumgartner in The Moral Order of a Suburb), this is an odd way to go about things. If the neighbors are already pursuing a lawsuit, the other main way for Americans to settle irreconcilable differences, why move to the pumpkin stage?

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?