Tag Archives: McMansions

Marketing “McMansions For Sale in Arizona”

Posted on by

With the general negativity surrounding the term McMansion, it is rare to see those in real estate marketing McMansions. However, here is such a website: MyOwnArizona has “McMansions For Sale in Arizona.”

An Arizona home builder has a model available in a three-bedroom, or a larger four-bedroom version. “The four bedroom outsells the three bedroom all day long,” said Arizona McMansion home builder. “I don’t know if we’ve ever sold a three-bedroom one.”

“But it’s hard not to see the increase in home size as a sign that the economy is recovering,” said AZ builder. “People weren’t buying SUVs during the recession either and they are again.”

Please feel free to contact us and we can provide you with additional Arizona McMansion information to guide you through the buying/selling process in AZ. We look forward to hearing from you and working with you soon!

I’ve quoted the closing pitch. But, how the site gets to the conclusion is interesting as well. The argument is that Americans want bigger homes and homes are getting larger again after a downturn during the recent economic crisis. The whole thing reads as if it is trying to convince potential buyers that purchasing a McMansion is okay. In other words, McMansions may get a bad rap in the media (just like SUVs) but they are exactly what you and other Americans want!

I don’t know if this is the right way to sell McMansions. But, there is clearly quite a hurdle to overcome here.

 

Overview of the move of Toll Brothers into urban development in the last ten years

Posted on by

Commonly known as builders of McMansions, Toll Brothers has branched out into urban development in the last decade. Here is a description of their efforts in New York City, as told by the head of Toll Brothers City Living:

We did some projects early on in Williamsburg, which I didn’t think would have been ahead of the curve. But for a lot of people who came to our sales office from places like Manhattan felt the neighborhood hadn’t arrived yet.

Based on that experience, we’re really focusing on neighborhoods that are established. When your main focus is condo, the way ours is, it needs to be that way, because you get one chance to sell a project. If everything isn’t perfectly right, then you’re going to suffer for it…

We’re certainly busy, but we’ve been more selective, so we’re on Gramercy, we’re on Park at 89th, we’ve got a tower on Park Avenue South going up, we just did the Touraine at 65th and Lex. Further down the line, we’ve got something on First and 52nd and in Hudson Square, on King Street. The project we’re doing in Brooklyn is in Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is basically in Brooklyn Heights, which was basically the first suburb…

We were fortunate coming out of the real estate recession and having a lot of cash and not needing to borrow, when most lenders were very reluctant to do condo loans. Toll has about a billion in cash and a billion-dollar credit line nationwide. We bought the Touraine site with just cash; we bought the Gramercy site with just cash; we bought a site in Dumbo with just cash. This was in ’09 and ’10. Most of the condo guys were not yet back, and we were competing with the rental guys, and we can always pay more than them.

Three quick thoughts:

1. It is hard to tell whether the image of Toll Brothers is changing. This article is similar to a number of other ones in recent months (example here) discussing the company’s efforts in New York City. At the same time, Toll Brothers is consistently linked to the construction of large suburban houses. In the long run, I wonder if there are critics who will never be able to look past the company’s connections to McMansions and see whatever else they are doing.

2. Few of the articles that discuss the efforts of Toll Brothers in New York City give any numbers about how much of the company’s business is in cities versus suburban development. From the projects described above, I would guess the urban efforts are still just a small part of the total operations.

3. The last paragraph hints at the dynamics of the housing market in recent years. Toll Brothers had the resources to capitalize on the housing market bubble. They aren’t alone but while these flush buyers make more money at the upper-end of the market, the lower end languishes.

McMansions just a symptom of sprawl

Posted on by

Reflecting on a recent case of building a wall along the edge of a suburban property, a Bakersfield, California columnist suggests the wall is a larger symptom of sprawl:

And now we’re a nation of cul-de-sacs and dense residential mazes that, except for the most ambitious among us, are navigable only by automobile. Wonder why the U.S. is the most obese nation on earth? Look no further than a culture that favors cars to walking shoes and cherishes the illusion of privacy over the interactivity of community.

The design of our cities is killing us. We drive a mile to a supermarket that’s just a quarter-mile away as the crow flies. We buy McMansions on the outer edge of the city’s metro footprint and drive 10 miles to work, sending up emissions we needn’t have produced. And we recruit city councilmen to help us block off walking paths near our houses because we’re tired of seeing people actually out and about on our streets.

So many of our societal ills can be traced to a Calle Privada mindset. Half-acre lots with three-car garages on longtime ag land instead of smaller homes closer to work. Municipal tax dollars devoted to new roads, new sewers, new traffic signals and new utility infrastructure instead of public safety and the maintenance of what we already have. And homeowners who barricade their streets instead of developing neighborhood bonds that encourage cooperation, build trust and hinder crime. Cinderblock walls don’t do much to facilitate any of that.

This is an example of what the critique of McMansions is often about. Note that the houses in sprawl themselves don’t get much attention in the argument above. We see that they are on large lots, half an acre, with lots of garage space. But, the bigger issue is what the sprawl in which McMansions are a part. Here are the problems with sprawl, as suggested above:

(1) the infrastructure is costly;

(2) driving is required;

(3) it is bad for the environment;

(4) and it inhibits neighborliness and the development of community.

Those who don’t like sprawl suggest it is a whole system of public investment and choices. Americans may like their large, private houses but there are costs associated with it. Opponents of sprawl tend to assume that if homeowners and policymakers knew these costs, they would make different decisions. That hasn’t exactly happened yet…but the term McMansion is certainly part of the critique of sprawl.

Colbert: watch out for “egg McMansions”

Posted on by

In discussing a recent stance by Iowa House member Steve King, Stephen Colbert suggests chickens don’t deserve McMansions:

Now, King is fighting a California law that would give egg-laying hens more room in their cages and trying to keep it from becoming national law.

“Damn straight,” said Colbert. “This is just another case of the left-wing loons in California imposing their deviant values on the heartland. I’ll bet those California chickens don’t even have to be married before they have an egg.”

The law mandates that a poultry cage must measure 200 square inches, which Colbert called an “Egg McMansion.”

“This is a chicken Xanadu,” he said. “It’s way bigger than the cages I keep my interns in.”

Two quick thoughts:

1. It sounds like Colbert is primarily hinting at two traits of McMansion. First, they are big homes. They have lots of space. For chickens, that apparently equates to 200 square inches. Second, also suggesting the homes are like Xanadu also plays out the wealthy and luxurious aspects of McMansions.

2. Since Colbert is poking fun at King, this might be the commentary: conservatives and others might want themselves and other Americans to have the opportunity to own McMansions and large homes, but they don’t want to extend these privileges to other living creatures.

Making a clear contrast: “Micro-apartments: The anti-McMansions”

Posted on by

CNN profiles micro-apartments and frames them as the opposite of McMansions:

Move over McMansions: These days, pint-sized, micro-apartments are all the rage.

Typically ranging between 180 and 300 square-feet, these tiny apartments are becoming increasingly popular among the young-and-single set and even some retirees, seeking affordable places to live in the nation’s costliest cities.

Nowhere is the micro trend hotter than in Seattle. More than 40 micro-apartment developments have been built in the city in the past three years, according to Jim Potter, chairman of Kauri Group, a Seattle-based developer. Many of these apartment buildings offer shared patios, roof decks and even communal kitchens. (Zoning laws in Seattle allow up to eight apartments to share one kitchen)…

The key selling point is affordability. In Seattle, 250-square-foot apartments rent for under $800 a month, almost half the average $1,400 people pay for newly built studios of 400 square feet or more in the city, according to Potter.

The first comparison is not surprising: as McMansions came to be the symbol of large houses, micro-apartments are just the opposite. The whole unit is the size of perhaps a smaller owner’s suite in a McMansion and often features space-saving designs.

The second comparison is less common: micro-apartments are also cheap compared to McMansions. Particularly in the cities cited in this article, places like Seattle or San Francisco, affordable housing is in short supply. Micro-apartments may be small but more importantly, they give people an opportunity to live closer to work and in or near places they couldn’t afford otherwise. McMansions were also known for their price, or at least for the mortgages that owners had to take on. The comparison is not perfect since McMansions are assumed to be in the suburbs and less of an issue in the big city.

It will be interesting to see how this comparison plays out down the road. McMansions are a powerful symbol while micro-apartments are on the rise and still could change quite a bit as they grow in number and spread to more places. The article hints at one change: the micro-apartments might be popular with retirees. Such a development could set up some interesting stories of

Holding a McMansion mortgage limits your American freedom and liberty

Posted on by

Here is another argument why you should not own a McMansion: it limits your ability to be a free American.

Want to sever from your body an arm and a leg in the name of the American Dream? It’s certainly at odds with what the dream is supposed to be about. If the idioms ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ still reign supreme in the minds of Americans, a mortgage on a single family McMansion is losing its shine.

The lifestyle manufactured by the burbs lacks the luster it once held. Working incessantly to maintain payments on your suburban box and pay for gas to drive EVERYWHERE is less desirable for those who have the luxury of choice in today’s America…

I recently visited a very well planned subdivision. It had a small row of shops, a park, lots of trees and wonderfully manicured lawns as far as the eye could see. It felt false. It felt like the neighborhood committee was the Joneses that enforced the keeping up. In older neighborhoods there are intermittent shops, bars, community halls, schools and houses of all shapes and sizes. Some neighbors are house-proud and commit themselves to a fine garden and home. Others have bottomed out station wagon in their front yard. The lots are different sizes. The houses have assorted kitsch, architectural details. There are old people who have lived there since the Great Depression.

It’s time for an organic refit of those suburbs that reek of bland mass-market ideals. They come from a time that was most certainly thrown overboard in the 2009 housing crisis. Surely, the frugality that was thrust upon us can manifest itself in creativity!

I interpret this argument as an updated version of a decades-old suburban critique. First, the old part of this critique which was quite common in the 1950s. Living in the suburbs stifles your creativity and ability to innovate. This is because all of the houses look the same, everyone has to drive, the zoning only allows for one use at a time, and conformity is encouraged. In this view, you can’t really be an individual in the suburbs because the environment pushes everyone to be the same.

The updated part of this argument is that owning a single-family home may not be worth the cost. For the last 100 years or so, the United States in both policy and culture has pushed homeownership and its ties to individualism and being part of the middle-class. But, taking on a big mortgage limits your options. Indeed, even conservatives like Dave Ramsey might agree with this critique as there has been an increase in advice to avoid taking on unnecessary debt.

In the end, I suspect this argument hinges on what you consider American freedom to be. Is it the “right” to get ahead and purchase a nice home in the suburbs where you can raise a family? Or is it the “right” to be an individual outside of the mass market and mass society and enjoy and contribute to vibrant communities?

Reminder: a 14,000 square foot home is not a McMansion

Posted on by

I argue that Avery Johnson’s 14,396 square foot home is way beyond a McMansion – it is clearly in mansion territory. What pushes it into the mansion category?

1. The square footage seems beyond mass produced and is only really available to the wealthy. Johnson certainly is wealthy – he was fired as coach of the New Jersey Nets in December 2012 in the midst of a 3 year $12 million contract. Also, the home is listed for $9 million. While the home is located in The Woodlands which has a median household income around $85,000, this home is way past this median income.

2. The home is beyond large. It has seven bedrooms and eight bathrooms.

3. The luxury features go beyond a typical McMansion. Check out the pool that looks it belongs in a resort, the bathroom with a giant tub and three central columns, and the fully appointed game room.

In my mind, the best argument for why this home is a McMansion has less to do with the house itself and more to do with the community in which it is located. The Woodlands is a master-plan suburb outside of sprawling Houston and fits the image of the newer kind of wealthier suburb with bigger homes and office parks.

McMansion owners in the Chicago suburbs get cheaper ComEd rates than city-dwellers

Posted on by

Crain’s Chicago Business highlights an interesting part of the regulations for ComEd: a suburban homeowner pays a more advantageous rater than a city resident.

The reason: The price to reserve “capacity”—the right to buy electricity during peak-demand periods—will soar next June. That rising cost, which is embedded in the energy price on customers’ electric bills, will hit households consuming small amounts of power far harder than owners of large homes using a lot of electricity. Residents of wealthy suburbs with larger, high-consumption homes could well pay 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour less for electricity than city residents.

Why? ComEd allocates the capacity charge evenly among all residential customers regardless of their usage. So the owner of a city bungalow consuming 500 kilowatt-hours per month pays the same dollar amount for capacity as the owner of a McMansion in the suburbs using three times as much. The McMansion owner’s total electric bill will be higher than the bungalow owner’s, but the McMansion owner will pay less per kilowatt-hour because the added capacity charge makes up a much smaller percentage of the total.

This disparity hasn’t been an issue to date because capacity costs have been unusually low over the past two years. But the price for capacity in PJM Interconnection—the 13-state power grid that includes northern Illinois—will rise 350 percent for the year beginning in June 2014. That will have a bigger impact on towns and cities with lots of small-usage households such as Chicago than it will on suburbs featuring larger homes…

Evidence of “have” and “have-not” municipalities already is starting to appear. Two wealthy north suburbs with many large homes, Bannockburn and Kildeer, last month locked in an energy price for their residents of just below 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the next two years beginning in September. By contrast, under the Integrys contract, Chicago residents pay 5.42 cents, or 8 percent more. And next May, when the city must reprice the deal, it’s expected to struggle to beat a ComEd price that will approach 7 cents.

The article doesn’t answer the most basic question: how did this disparity end up in the regulations in the first place?

The article suggests that people in the city or suburbs should be paying the same electricity rate. It is only fair to pay equally. But, I wonder if some wouldn’t argue that the suburbanites who are more spread out, require more infrastructure to reach this larger area, and tend to live in bigger houses should actually be paying higher rates. Couldn’t that be written into the regulations? This may not be politically popular but I imagine the argument could be made. Indeed, using the term McMansion in comparison to the humble Chicago bungalow leans in this direction by referring to unnecessarily large homes.

Some wealthy US zip codes don’t have enough mansions to sell

Posted on by

This may be related to a supposed McMansion comeback: some wealthy US communities have a limited inventory of big homes available for purchase.

While housing inventory is falling throughout the country, it’s falling especially fast in some of the country’s richest ZIP codes. A study from Altos Research, the Mountain View, Ca., real-estate research firm, found that inventory in the nation’s 90 wealthiest ZIP codes fell 15 percent over the past year, slightly faster than the broader market.

But in the richest ZIP codes, inventory is down more than 50 percent. In a ZIP code in Carmel, Calif., inventory fell 76 percent over the past year. There were only four homes left on the market priced at $1 million or more as of the end of May, according to Altos.

In Palm Beach, Fla., the number of $1 million-plus homes has plunged by 70 percent, falling from 89 to 26. And in the Old Greenwich, Conn. ZIP code, there are only 10 homes left priced at $1 million or more, down 58 percent, according to Altos.

“I don’t recall seeing the market like this, and it’s come so quickly,” said Cristina Condon of Sotheby’s International Real Estate in Palm Beach. She said buyers have poured into the market in recent months, many from overseas. American buyers are also piling in—some from higher-tax states like California, lured by low taxes and still-low prices in Florida.

The phrase “mansion shortage” sounds funny. It may be true in a business supply and demand sense but shortage is a term often reserved for more essential commodities, not luxurious homes.

This is more evidence that there is a bifurcated housing market: the wealthy, whether Americans or residents of other countries, seem to be doing fine with their real estate.

Five kinds of new houses that are non-McMansions

Posted on by

A recent discussion thread started with this statement: “I don’t think it should cost $500K or 5,000 square feet for a body to live. Show me the opposite of the McMansion that is still sexy.” So what might this look like? Here are some common options today of non-McMansions, homes intentionally built not to be McMansions:

1. Tiny houses. These are opposites of McMansions because of their size. While McMansions are known for having 3,000 square feet or more, tiny houses have several hundred square feet or less. The tiny house is not just about having less space; it is a completely different way of life as it is hard to accumulate much in the house.

2. The Not-So-Big House. Promoted by architect Sarah Susanka, these homes are not necessarily much smaller than McMansions but are built more to the personal interests and tastes of the individual owner. In other words, these houses are built to fit the owners while McMansions are seen as being mass-produced homes that owners have to fit themselves into.

3. New Urbanist homes. These homes could look quite different depending on the area of the country in which they are located as New Urbanists argue homes should follow regional architectural styles. But, there would be some common features: front porches, closer placement to the street, alleys if possible. The New Urbanist home might have the same square footage or similar features compared to McMansions but is intended to be better connected to the surrounding neighborhood, encouraging more social life.

4. Very energy-efficient homes including passive homes and net zero-energy homes. Again, these homes may be like McMansions in features and size but they are seen as less wasteful and have more quality construction.

5. Modernist homes. I’m not convinced many Americans would choose this option but it seems to be a regular favorite of architects and designers. These homes are not necessarily smaller than McMansions but have much more architectural credibility and are often one-of-a-kind.