Tag Archives: McMansions

Don’t bother with a McMansion on land; get a 557 foot McMansion yacht

Posted on by

When compared to transportation options, McMansions and SUVs are often linked. Here is a different example: McMansions compared to mega-yachts.

Anyone who’s traveled down New York’s West Side Highway in the past few weeks has seen Roman Abramovich’s mega-yacht, The Eclipse, parked at Pier 92. While it has already been eclipsed by a 590-foot-long yacht as the world’s largest, the oligarch’s floating McMansion, at 557 feet, is a boat like Versailles is a house.

I don’t much at all about the world of yachts but I think the comparison to McMansions here is quite wrong. In fact, the journalist contradicts themselves at the end of this paragraph when he compares the yacht to Versailles. Well, Versailles is certainly not a McMansion and neither is a 557 foot yacht – both are mansions.

So, why use the term McMansion? It may not be as much about the size of the home but more of a commentary about the new wealth of Abramovich. Additionally, Abramovich is well-known for throwing his money around, in purchases like that of Chelsea, and McMansion owners are often thought to be trying to make a flashy statement. With this comparison, the implication is that Abramovich may not be that much different than an American who hopes his home impresses people at first glance.

Claim: America has 40 million McMansions?

Posted on by

Here is an interesting claim: America has 40 million McMansions.

Americans, especially generations X and Y, want shorter commutes, walkability and a car-free existence. Which means that around 40 million large-lot exurban McMansions, built primarily during the housing boom, might never find occupants.

My guess is that this application of the term McMansion is quite misguided. Look at the original news story about these figures:

America has too many big houses — 40 million, to be exact — because consumers are shifting preferences to condos, apartments and small homes, experts told the New Partners for Smart Growth Thursday, holding its 11th annual conference in San Diego through Sunday.

Relying on developers’ surveys, Chris Nelson, who heads the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah, said 43 percent of Americans prefer traditional big, suburban homes but the rest don’t…

He estimated that this demand suggests a need for 10 million more attached homes and 30 million more small homes on 4,000-square-foot lots or less. By contrast, demand for large-lot homes is 40 million less than currently available.

There is no explicit mention of McMansions in this original story. There can’t really be 40 million McMansions. In 2000, there were just under 70 million total detached housing units. So roughly half of all American houses are McMansions? Also, there are 40 million houses in the exurbs? (You may have to define all suburbs as exurbs to get close to this.) At the same time, one could argue that the average new home, around 2,400 square feet is still too big for what many Americans want. But, a home at the average or even slightly over is not automatically a McMansion.

“4 Reasons to Own a Smaller Home” and not a McMansion

Posted on by

One writer gives four reasons for eschewing a McMansion and instead purchasing a smaller home:

1. Your mortgage will be smaller.
The most obvious advantage of living in a small home is the cost. Some wee homes are priced in the five-figure category, which could translate into a mortgage less expensive than your car insurance payment. Or, if it’s a real cheapie, you could pay cash for your new small home and kiss your mortgage good-bye forever.

2. Your taxes will be cheaper.
There are many factors that influence taxes, including house square footage and lot size. A smaller house usually means a smaller tax bill. Make sure you research your chosen town and state before settling on a home. We suggest plugging the address into Propertyshark.com before even picking up the phone to call the listing agent.

3. You will reduce your carbon footprint and save money on utilities.
Living simply means consuming less resources and creating as low an impact as possible upon the environment. That’s tough to do when you live in a sprawling 3,000 square foot manse with central air conditioning in a planned neighborhood with no trees or wild land for miles around. Furthermore, it takes a lot of heating oil to keep a big house warm, particularly if you live in cold climes. A strategically-placed pellet stove, on the other hand, could heat an entire 800-square-foot cottage. A smaller house also means a smaller electric bill.

4. Your house will be unique.
When your living space is small, you must get creative with how you use it. Gone are the days of devoting entire rooms to storage. Every nook and cranny of your home is essential, so it’s up to you to figure out how to make it work. This is a good thing. It forces you to carefully consider purchases and evaluate the necessity of the belongings that you do have. Additionally, it turns your house into something that is uniquely yours and adds character to your home. After all, isn’t that what turning a house into a home is all about?

This is a decent comprehensive list of complaints people have about McMansions: the first three reasons cover the financial aspects, the third also discusses the green or sustainability issue, and the fourth gets at the mass-produced nature or the poor quality of McMansions. Perhaps the only thing left to add is the negative neighborhood or community life that McMansions supposedly contribute to?

What would the flip side of this be – 4 reasons to purchase a McMansion? Here is a start. 1. You get a bigger house. 2. You get a bigger house for less money compared to a custom-designed house or one put together by an architect. 3. At least the front of the house will look impressive and large. 4. It is likely to be a newer house with fewer problems.

McMansions, housing markets, and the influence of banks

Posted on by

An Australian architect argues homes should be valued on newer tastes rather than older interests in McMansions:

Recent sales and development figures have highlighted a trend towards smaller living spaces but the system for valuations in the capital seems biased towards larger average quality homes, Canberran architect Allan Spira said…

Mr Spira said building smaller, more affordable and sustainable homes will only be an option for “cashed up clients” unless the current system of valuations is changed.

“It’s time for the banks and their valuers to stop basing their assessments on the ‘McMansions’ of the past and start acknowledging the way of the future – smaller, smarter, better fitted out homes,” he said…

Mr Spira said most recently his clients struggled to get a $300,000 loan to build their three bedroom home in Wright.

Built across 127 square metres, he said it was “probably the most affordable and sustainable home in the suburb” but valuers CBRE based their calculations on inappropriate figures as no previous sales figures existed in Molonglo.

It might be hard to make a larger argument based on two cases. But, this argument does raise some larger issues:

1. Just when exactly do bankers and others know when the housing market has turned? In this case, the architect suggests people now want smaller homes compared to the McMansions they wanted a few years ago. It is easier to see change over the course of several years or a decade but it is harder to see this in the short run.

2. How much do banks and their choices about mortgages influence house purchasing and building patterns? Banks were partly blamed for the housing meltdown in the late 2000s but what percentage of blame do they deserve? I haven’t seen someone parse out the particular effect banking and mortgage choices have on what homebuyers are willing to do. This architect suggests homes aren’t being built because banks won’t provide financing for them but it is not clear how often this really happens.

Consumer Report says buyers don’t want exurban McMansions; they want other features

Posted on by

Consumer Reports lays out five features homebuyers want – and these five features are not usually associated with McMansions.

Homebuyers have become more practical since the housing market crisis—they don’t want cavernous entryways but they do want plenty of storage space. They want to be close to their jobs and integrated into their communities. And they want to keep their energy costs low. In today’s market, a McMansion in the exburbs may be a tough sell. Price is still primary, but if you’re thinking of buying or selling a home, you should learn how buyers’ preferences have changed since the last time you were in the market. Here are the five features today’s homebuyers want most.

Proximity to work…

Energy efficiency…

Lots and lots of storage…

Quality of space, not quantity…

Connection outdoors, and to the community beyond…

Perhaps this could be summed up as a McMansion double-whammy: not only did you buy a house that a lot of Americans criticize, now fewer people want to buy it from you which would help you leave such a house.

There are a couple options available to McMansion owners and builders:

1. Hunker down and find the segment of the real estate market that still wants McMansion. And there are still people who do.

2. Retrofit their existing McMansions. There might be some relatively easier fixes in the areas of energy efficiency or developing storage space. The location aspects or connecting to the surrounding community might be harder.

3. Take a decent loss on the McMansion and move on.

We’ll see what happens to aging McMansions. I don’t think this is going to happen in large numbers anytime soon but if they could be built quickly, could they also be torn down and replaced quickly?

The antidote to McMansions: tiny houses

Posted on by

If you are suffering from McMansion disease, here is a cure: the tiny house.

Say what you will about tiny homes, the reasons behind their increasing popularity are pretty solid: Small houses are inexpensive and easy to maintain, and they also offer more privacy than your average apartment.

Micro-spaces are especially popular with eco-conscious homeowners invested in consuming less—a stark contrast from their McMansion-buying counterparts of years past. A tiny home pretty much guarantees less electricity and water will be wasted, which is always a good thing.

These mini-houses are from all over the U.S. and they’re selling for a fraction of what a regular home would cost. Even if you’re not up for the challenge of moving into one, they’ll at least inspire you to imagine a reality that’s less focused on accumulating stuff and more focused on living.

While I have read much criticism of McMansions in recent years, I’ve never before seen it compared to a disease or sickness. Are McMansions a sickness the United States needs to be rid of? I’ve tended to see such homes more as symptoms of some larger issues in the United States such as an emphasis on homeownership and sprawl. Talking about McMansions as a disease could contribute to a view that McMansions are a social problem that has been socially constructed. There may not be anything inherently wrong with such homes until they are compared to other homes that are seen as being more moral or decent.

Drawing the line: an 18,000 square foot, $45 million home IS NOT a McMansion

Posted on by

I know the line and price point between a mansion and a McMansion is not exact but this goes way over the line: an 18,000 square foot, $45 million home in the Hamptons is definitely not a McMansion.

Even in a rich man’s playground lined with one McMansion after another, the Linden Estate in Southampton, N.Y., stands out as one of the best. The stately — and gigantic — home sprawls across 18,000 square feet on a 9.11-acre plot, and it has not one but two outdoor pavilions and a bevy of resort-style amenities (including indoor and outdoor pools). But it seems like that might not have been enough to satisfy one tech tycoon.

James H. Clark, co-founder of Netscape (you remember that, right?), was reportedly under contract to buy the glorious property at a $49 million price tag last July — after the mansion spent a staggering four years on the market. Clark and his wife (both pictured at left) even gave Haute Living magazine a tour of the home’s immaculate grounds. But the sale was never completed, and now, less than a year later, the home is once again up for sale for $45 million, Curbed reported. It’s unclear exactly what happened, but man, what a bummer for the owner.

I’m not sure exactly what McMansion means in this setting. Mass-produced? Probably not homes of this size. A large house? This one is extra large, or gigantic as noted in the story. A home for the wealthy? Clearly.

I wonder if there is something else going on here. One idea about McMansions is that they are about excessive consumption. This often refers to the average American taking on too big of a mortgage or purchasing a lot of space that they don’t need. But, might this also refer to excessive consumption by the ultra-wealthy? Of course, the wealthy may not have the financial difficulties in purchasing some homes but the tone here might be that the even the wealthy don’t need a home like this. Then, the term McMansion applies even more broadly to any home consumption that might be considered out of the ordinary.

Wait, “RIP, McMansion” or are McMansions making a comeback?

Posted on by

Depending on who you read and what statistics are cited, McMansions are either returning or dead. Here is a new article in the second category:

The “McMansion” is dead.

That jumbo-sized, aspirational edifice, often with vaulted foyers, vast bathrooms and granite countertops, has become a relic of the housing bust in the Hudson Valley, builders and real estate experts say.

“It all boils down to the caution that buyers have adopted since the downturn,” said J. Philip Faranda, whose J. Philip Real Estate business is based in Briarcliff…

This is one way to interpret recent data: baby boomers and younger adult Americans, in particular, want smaller homes in more urban areas. Yet, there is also evidence that big homes are rebounding: Toll Brothers is doing okay and there are still a lot of big houses being built. So which side is correct? As I’ve suggested before, there may be two options. First, it will take some time to sort out the longer-term trends and whether the housing activity in the economic crisis continues for years. Second, it may be that both trends are happening: more Americans want smaller homes even as a decent segment of wealthy Americans can still afford supersized homes.

McMansions vs. trees in Bethesda, Maryland

Posted on by

Here is how the community of Bethesda, Maryland is planning to save trees from an onslaught of McMansions:

County Executive Isiah Leggett last year introduced a Tree Canopy Conservation bill that would force private property owners in small lots to pay a still-to-be-determined fee for lost canopy into a fund that Montgomery would then use to plant new trees.

Now, the County Council is wrangling with both sides to find a compromise.

Members of the building industry say the county shouldn’t legislate tree protection on private property, that they already avoid removing trees because of associated costs and that existing stormwater management requirements make protecting trees extremely difficult.

Some conservationists say the bill doesn’t go far enough, that replacing mature trees with new ones still takes away from the canopy, which everybody agrees is important for environmental and economic reasons.

Sounds like a typical suburban debate: should green interests or building/economic interests win out? The article doesn’t say this but I imagine there might be some old-timer versus newcomer aspects to this debate. If you have lived in the suburb for some time, trees are a good thing. They are not only green, they look better, suggest neighborhoods have stability, and contribute to higher housing values. If you are a builder or involved in real estate or want to move into places like Bethesda, you might want to pay less attention to trees and introduce new housing options.

One interesting note in the debate: there was some conversation about what percentage of tree canopy is desirable in a community. One pro-housing advocate suggested Bethesda already has more tree cover than much of the county. Just how much tree cover is necessary? Is a certain percentage related to housing values?