Tag Archives: McMansions

Building McMansions in Minecraft

Posted on by

Check out this recently constructed McMansion in Minecraft. Here is a description of the structure:

Finally, it’s here! I have built an amazing McMansion!

This grandiose house features:

• A large entrance and foyer,
• a large living room with a high ceiling (and a balcony of the second floor hallway),
• multiple smaller rooms that could be sitting rooms, a dining room, a kitchen, etc.,
• a back porch, and
• 10 bedrooms! Gee whiz!

I have built two other McMansions before (both on the Iciclecraft server), but this is by far the best one.
Feel free to paste it into your own Minecraft world. However, if you use it in multiplayer, please credit me as the builder.

Sounds like McMansion features. The only thing missing here is a full neighborhood of mass-produced McMansions. And the tags for the post reinforce the McMansion idea:

Tags:Mcmansion, Mansion, Manor, House, Grand, Large, Big, Grandiose, Land Structure

I suppose the quick answer for why someone would build a McMansion in Minecraft is because they can. Perhaps they like building houses. But, to intentionally design a kind of home that is generally viewed negatively begs for a better reason. If you could build anything, why a McMansion?

Can you have a “Colonial version of a McMansion”?

Posted on by

An article about a notable 18th century property in Boston suggests the main house was a McMansion of its time:

The Royall House takes its name from the ostentatiously wealthy Isaac Royall Sr., who grew up in Dorchester then went to Antigua where he established a sugar cane plantation and traded in sugar, rum, and slaves.

He came back to New England in 1737 with more than two dozen slaves, and trumpeted his nouveau riche status by purchasing a 500-acre estate in Medford with impressive lineage: The property had once been owned by Governor John Winthrop. Here, on the banks of the Mystic River, he built the Colonial version of a McMansion.

It’s an immense three-story Georgian residence with two completely different facades. One, mimicking English architecture, was meant to be appreciated by visitors approaching by river; the other was apparently designed to impress those entering the estate by carriage. (It had a more modern look, fabricated of wood that was carved and rusticated to look like stone.)

The lavish interior of the house was adorned with intricate wood carving; the so-called “Marble Chamber” has wooden pilasters “pretending to be something else, in this case marble,” said Gracelaw Simmons, a board member and tour guide.

The description hits some of the main features of McMansions today: its owner wanted to show off his money; it is a big house; it presented multiple architectural looks intended to impress visitors; the inside had nice features. The article also takes the common tack today of suggesting McMansion owners are bad people; the nice house is contrasted with the nearby slave quarters.

But, I wonder at the usefulness of retroactively applying this term. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this and it strikes me as odd every time. One of the key features of McMansions today is missing in older homes: until the early 20th century, homes were not mass produced. Additionally, McMansions today are often assumed to be in the suburbs and suffer from the suburban problem of not having authentic community life.

All together, life was quite different centuries ago and claiming an older home was a McMansion is anachronistic. While it might help current readers and people understand what the author is trying to say, it ends up distorting the social conditions at the time the older house was built and also ignoring the particular social conditions in which the term McMansion emerged in the late 1990s.

 

Would an artist want to be known for showing art in a “McMansion” space?

Posted on by

In linking to an article about modern artists using larger spaces to show off large pieces of art, one commentator suggests artists are exhibiting their works in McMansions:

Art gallery “McMansions”?: That’s what’s happening in NYC and other cities, where gallery owners are building warehouse-sized spaces to showcase GREAT BIG modern art pieces. Perhaps this is a good use for obsolete industrial spaces.

Here is the problem: what artist would want to be connected to McMansions? While art that critiques McMansions may be okay (and there have been a number of examples in recent years – just search this blog), trying to positively link artists to McMansions is not likely to be welcomed.

Plus, these large art spaces are far bigger than McMansions:

White Cube caused a stir nearly two years ago when it opened a 58,000 square-foot gallery in south London. That’s bigger than a football field. In January, Swiss gallery Hauser & Wirth converted a former roller rink and nightclub in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood into a 24,700 square-foot gallery—complete with an artist-designed bar serving free coffee on weekends. “We don’t need to sell coffee,” said director Marc Payot.

Austrian dealer Thaddaeus Ropac opened the world’s second-largest gallery last October when he transformed a group of eight factory buildings on Paris’s outskirts into a 50,000 square-foot art complex. The $10 million space has allowed him to carve up areas for performance art and outfit several apartments for visiting artists like Anselm Kiefer. But recently, Mr. Ropac realized that his artists didn’t want to use the complex’s studio for fear of attracting onlookers, so he’s rented even more space a few blocks away. “I don’t want my artists to feel like they’re in a zoo,” he said

These spaces are not exactly mass-produced or garish in the same way as McMansions.

How related are home sales and car sales?

Posted on by

Americans like big houses as well as cars. But, are sales of homes related to sales of cars?

Driving to work the other day I heard a radio analyst assert that the recent increase in home sales is responsible for the increase in automobile sales (McMansions come with at least two car garages you know!) The short piece didn’t offer much in terms of quantitative information and this made me wonder what data was used to support such a claim. The analyst could have looked at SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) filings, the equities and derivatives market, or perhaps research from industry associations such as the National Association of Realtors; the latter would prompt me to consider confirmation bias.

If only considering home sales, Federal Reserve Board economist Andrew Paciorek recently published an engaging paper describing the effects of household formation on housing demand. Paciorek asserts that in the past 30 years the aging population has moved into smaller homes, which is intuitive from the practicality it offers seniors. Paciorek also postulates that the poor labor market has depressed the headship rate, which is defined as the percent of people who are heads of household via U.S. Census population projections.

According to the S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index report, the average U.S. home is now worth approximately 10 percent more than it was a year ago, marking the largest annual improvement since the market turned south in 2006. What of the automobile market though? American popular culture paints home and car ownership as inseparable in the “American Dream”. The most recent J.D. Power report projects August sales to increase 12 percent compared to last year, the highest monthly sales volume since 2006.

It would be easy to paint a picture of recovery for these industries based on sales revenues, although there is no indication of a casual relationship between the two. These reports are meant for the average consumer only in a sense to stir up positive sentiment, which in turn spurs more discretionary spending. It is more plausible that these reports are meant for the real stakeholders: shareholders and potential investors. We can surmise that in a world of algorithmic high frequency trading and complex derivatives based on yet other derivatives, that the common equities market does not always correlate to the real-world P&L performance. I recall a former boss’s retort of traditional value investing: ‘The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent’.

The conclusion here is that this is a “common sense explanation” without much merit in data. And, I wonder if this is a classic case of the casual observer making a spurious association: both car sales and home sales go back in a better economy.

This is also interesting because of the number of times in the last decade or so when journalists and commentators have linked the building of McMansions to consuming other large objects, particularly SUVs. The idea behind these comparisons is that Americans in general have learned to consumer more bigger items. However, I’ve never seen any data that the same people who purchase McMansions are necessarily the same people purchasing SUVs, super-sized fast food, bulk items at big box stores, and other large items that fit into a category of excessive consumption.

“The McMansion Man” builds larger houses in the Hamptons

Posted on by

The Hamptons have long been known as a retreat for the wealthy but the recent actions of one builder suggest the houses are getting bigger and nicer:

“We’re as busy as we’ve ever been,” said Joe Farrell, the president of Farrell Building, during a recent interview and tour of his $43 million, 17,000-square-foot home here. The estate, called the Sandcastle, features two bowling lanes, a skate ramp, onyx window frames and, just for fun, an A.T.M. regularly restocked with $20,000 in $10 bills…

With a customer base composed largely of Wall Street financiers, Mr. Farrell has more than 20 new homes under construction, or slated for construction, at a time, making him the biggest builder here by far. He has plans for more, many of them speculative homes built before they have buyers…

“Houses have gotten smaller over all but not entirely: 8,000 square feet was the norm, now 6,500 is,” Mr. Farrell said. “Everyone wants six or seven bedrooms and their pool and their tennis.”

Where Mr. Farrell built speculative homes that sold for as much as $20 million before the recession, he now specializes in properties that sell for between $3 million and $10 million. “Mostly, though, $3 million to $6,” he said. “I love that market — there are probably 10 times as many people in that market than to buy an eight- or nine-million-dollar house, right?”

I’m not quite sure what the issue is. The Hamptons are for the wealthy and this man builds houses for the wealthy (though they are smaller and cheaper than a short time ago). But, the article suggests there might be several things going on:

1. Even the wealthy in the United States have to be careful to not completely flaunt their wealth. In particular, when economic times are bad it doesn’t look great to keep spending at high levels when other people are struggling.

2. There is an ongoing tension between old money and new money. The older homes, associated with older money, have more character and have been part of the community for decades. The new homes, associated with new money from the finance sector or from celebrities, are seen as gauche.

3. The construction of more spec/mass housing means the whole area will suffer by appearing more generic. Any historic architecture will disappear under a flood of mass-produced McMansions.

These are interesting arguments in themselves but I suspect (1) many Americans can’t relate and (2) there is enough money involved that it doesn’t really matter – just help pave over the issues with some more money. In other words, this provides a small window into how the wealthy view change within their own neighborhoods.

Wealthy homebuyers don’t want McMansions; they want large, expensive homes with custom finishes

Posted on by

Wealthy homebuyers may not just want McMansions; they are also willing to pay for interior upgrades.

So long McMansion, hello lifestyle. These days buyers who can afford to pay millions of dollars for a house expect plenty of room for living, but they also expect rooms that fit the way they live…

Granite, marble and hardwoods are expected, but homes in that price range have to offer comfort and livability “beyond the finishes,” said Fridrich & Clark Realtor Richard Bryan…

The 6,500-square-foot home, created as a rustic retreat, balances livability and fine design in a way that Allen believes is becoming a requirement for luxury homes…

The house features an infinity pool, a hot tub and lush landscaping. An open floor plan is designed for entertaining, as are the two outdoor kitchens and three expansive covered porches. The home will be sold with custom furniture and drapes, lighting fixtures and potted plants.

Hidden features, out of sight or at least not readily noticeable, enhance the home’s livability.

Rain gardens that capture water for use in watering the lawn are popular in Nashville’s neighborhoods. Allen took the concept further and installed an underground cistern that collects thousands of gallons of rainwater.

When I saw the headline for the article, I thought it was about people not buying large houses but buying smaller houses with nicer features. In other words, the money that once went for more square footage would instead go for nicer features.

However, the story is about wealthy people still buying big houses but with custom finishes or new kinds of features. Does it matter much if instead of buying an 8,000 square foot home, someone purchases a 6,500 square foot home and stuffs it to the gills with add-on options? Does having a rain garden make the large and expensive house more palatable?

I suspect builders would like this quite a bit. No builder wants to be known for constructing McMansions, mass produced large houses. If they can offer plenty of custom features, they can still make a lot of profit and escape claims they are simply building cavernous homes. This echoes the techniques used by big builders like Toll Brothers; they don’t make McMansions, they make luxury homes.

LA’s modernist homes threatened by hot housing market and McMansions

Posted on by

The modernist homes Los Angeles are in danger of being replaced by McMansions and other big homes:

The Backus House still hovers on the same Bel Air hillside where Grossman built it. But because of the sprawling megamansions that have sprung up around the property, and because of the increasingly overheated state of the Southern California real estate market, Grossman’s elegant modernist creation—one of the few surviving examples of residential architecture by a groundbreaking woman now ranked among the finest designers of her era—may not survive much longer.

There’s an irony here. Starting in the 1920s, the combination of climate, terrain, and a young, progressive community of (largely European) architects and clients triggered an efflorescence of modern residential design in Los Angeles that culminated in the famous Case Study House Program (1945–66)—a series of experimental model homes sponsored by the local magazine Arts & Architecture and designed by some of the period’s greatest architects. The modern single-family dwelling may have been invented in Europe, at the Bauhaus and elsewhere, but many believe it was perfected in Southern California…

But a certain kind of modernist property—namely, a lesser-known house situated on a prime lot in an expensive neighborhood—is still at risk, and may be especially imperiled in Los Angeles’s current residential market, which has posted the nation’s largest increase in average sale price (20.7 percent) over the last year. “An economic downturn is always a good thing for preservation,” says Regina O’Brien, chairperson of the Modern Committee of the Los Angeles Conservancy. “A lot fewer developers are making a lot less money, and therefore they have a lot less motivation to pursue these profit-oriented flips. But the problem is that the opposite is true when the market picks back up.”…

“Most modernist homes are considered very modest by the standards of these neighborhoods, where people want far more house than they need,” says Nate Cole of Unique California Property, a Long Beach brokerage specializing in modernist architecture. “Buyers see anything that they deem a compromise, and out come the bulldozers.”

There are several issues at work:

1. It sounds like there are questions about individual property rights versus community-wide preservation efforts. Should property owners be able to cash in during a good housing market? This is a common issue across all sorts of communities debating teardowns and historic preservation.

2. These modernist homes are part of southern California’s image. Elsewhere, modernist homes might elicit more negative reactions but they are part of LA’s coming of age narrative. Part of the argument here is that the replacement homes don’t really add much to LA’s character.

3. Who exactly is supposed to pay to preserve these houses? As if often the case with preserving homes, supporters of the modernist homes are hoping for buyers who want to preserve and fix-up the homes. But, if those people don’t come, it is less clear what might be done.

4. The irony: a down real estate market is good for historic preservation. Not only might the old buildings survive, it might be easier for those interested in preservation to purchase the homes. But, who would wish for leaner economic times simply in order to preserve buildings? All of this suggests historic preservation might be partly about timing and having the opportunity to purchase property that might not be as marketable.

Don’t think that buying a McMansion will make you happy

Posted on by

A new book titled Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending suggests buying a nice home does not lead to greater happiness:

What could possibly be more satisfying than ditching that old starter home you and your spouse moved into during your broke newlywed years?

Two studies cited in “Happy Money” prove otherwise.

When researchers followed groups of German homeowners five years after they moved into new homes, they all wound up saying they were happier with their newer house. But there was one problem: They weren’t any happier with their lives. The same was true in a study of Ohio homeowners in which it turned out they weren’t any happier with their lives than renters.

“Even in the heart of middle America, housing seems to play a surprisingly small role in the successful pursuit of happiness,” Dunn and Norton write. “If the largest material purchase most of us will ever make provides no detectable benefit for our overall happiness, then it may be time to rethink our fundamental assumptions about how we use money.”

Regardless of whether someone owns a McMansion or not, this goes against a lot of the American Dream. Critics argue McMansions aren’t great purchases because of their poor design, environmental impact, poor community life, and other issues, yet people have continued to buy larger houses in recent decades. At the same time, some of these critics would tell McMansion owners to buy homes that better fit their individual needs. What unites these approaches to homes is the idea that people are better off having purchased a home. Perhaps they are in the eyes of society – indeed, people once argued homeownership would keep people from taking an interest in communism. But, if this research holds up, then perhaps we should retire the argument that individuals will be more satisfied as homeowners and stick to making a civic or community-oriented pitch for homeownership.

1989 = a fine year for McMansions

Posted on by

A description of Rob Pattinson’s new Beverly Hills rental includes a funny bit about the year it was built:

Poooooor rich, rakish Rob Pattinson had to abandon his lovely Los Feliz home because it harbored “too many memories” of his life with cheating ex Kristen Stewart. Those two! We could’ve sworn they were still dating. Anyway, he’s finally found a new place to stay, reportedly–a McMansion rental in a part of Beverly Hills “that is so close to Studio City it might as well be Studio City,” as the Real Estalker puts it (it’s in The Summit off Mulholland near Coldwater). The five-bedroom house was built in 1989, a terrific year for McMansions, and comes with six bathrooms, a dining room, a library, a den with an oak sports bar, and a pool and spa. It sold in April for $3.7 million but it’s totally unclear what Pattinson is paying (it was listed for $15k a month last year before it sold). Meanwhile, RE hears that the previous owner was Lisa Marie Presley, “who quietly leased it to a slew of celebs including Cate Blanchett, Pete Sampras, and Shaquille O’Neal.”

McMansions were indeed constructed in 1989 but the term did not enter into wide usage until the late 1990s and early 2000s. I know the line is meant to be a joke but it might be interesting to compare the 1989 models versus those of other years to check their vintage…

Crafting the perfect Gothic McMansion in a 21st century novel

Posted on by

A review of the new novel Fallen Land suggests the McMansion at the heart of the book plays a big role:

The McMansion, that derisively nicknamed trophy home of suburban arrivistes, is different things to all people: the darling of building contractors, the forest-guzzling residential equivalent of the SUV to land preservationists.

Among American practitioners of the modern Gothic novel, the McMansion has rarely been rendered with the resplendent gloom of, say, Shirley Jackson’s Hill House, or the majesterial melancholy of Edgar Allan Poe’s House of Usher. In his smashing followup to his formidable debut novel “Absolution,” however, Patrick Flanery has fashioned a crumbling 21st-century manor that can hold its own among those authors’ most sepulchral, ALLEGORICAL inspirations.

The trappings of “Fallen Land’’ are pure old-school Hollywood. Imagine a housing development that evokes the splashy-cum-sinister Victorian fantasy of “Meet Me in St. Louis” and Hitchcock’s “Shadow of a Doubt” and you have Dolores Woods, a Midwestern subdivision committed to a regressive aesthetic “in which the past was preferable and this country was at its greatest before it tried to tear itself apart in the middle of the nineteenth century.” The community’s pastiche array of gabled roofs and picket fences disguise the jerry-built nature of its construction: pop-up palaces whose yawning spaces and teetering infrastructure “terrify where they were meant to comfort,” the American Dream turned nightmare.

The development’s showpiece, classically enough, has been erected atop the site of tragic events from a darker epoch whose emotional undercurrents will haunt the home’s new tenants, Julia and Nathaniel Noailles. The Noailles have relocated from Boston with their smart, idiosyncratic son Copley (named for the hotel address where he was conceived) in pursuit of snazzier positions: she with a university lab, he with a mega-corporation that powers virtually every private enterprise on earth, including the fascistic private school in which Copley is newly installed.

I’ve noted before that the McMansion has become a popular tragic setting for modern stories. See this post about McMansions and horror films. The McMansion represents a hollow setting, a place that may look impressive but is empty at its core. The people who inhabit such homes are similar: people who thought purchasing a big home would bring satisfaction but are sadly mistaken. Even worse, the inhabitants – and it sounds like those in Fallen Land fit the bill – might be bad people, the kinds who squander money, are mean or amoral, and are up to nefarious purposes. All together, these stories suggest at the least that tragedies befall those in McMansions with the stronger argument that those who live in McMansions and their homes are rotten to the core.

Perhaps my argument would be strengthened by searching for counterfactuals: can we find many positive depictions of McMansion dwellers in novels, movies, TV shows, etc.?