Tag Archives: McMansions

Looking for new houses that don’t give off a McMansion vibe

Posted on by

A discussion of some new homes in Mt. Airy, Pennsylvania involves which homes do and do not give off a “McMansion vibe“:

“What’s THAT?” she said suddenly. “That’s just not okay.”

She was looking at two identical McMansions near the intersection of Lincoln Drive and Wayne Avenue, tall houses too big for their lots with boring beige stucco and stone that lacked the tell-tale Wissahickon schist sparkle.

I had a similar reaction to a house on the corner of Bryan and Durham, in a close-knit neighborhood known for the quality and variety of its Halloween decorations. It’s a neighborhood where kids play in the streets and everybody lives in almost identical row houses and twins with deep porches and sparkling stone walls. The new house looks like something from a soul-crushing suburban development, and the owners haven’t bothered to plant anything in the huge sunny side yard. The most notable feature of the house is a No Parking sign on the front of it.

So I was relieved when I looked at the listing for a new house being built on one of my favorite streets in Mt. Airy–St. Georges Road. It’s one of two planned homes by Blake Development.

From the looks of the plans, the house suffers a little from a common East Coast malady, multiple siding disorder, where the vertical exterior surfaces have a little too much variety. They’re stone, no they’re stucco, no they’re wood-like planks made out of concrete. But overall the house holds true to the character of the neighborhood. I’m encouraged by the interior shots of the developer’s other projects. The rounded door under the stairs is very Mt. Airy, and the kitchens
are good quality but not overly fancy. They’ve also won a bunch of awards for historic restoration.

It seems that the primary trait of what distinguishes between a McMansion vibe or not is whether the new home fits architecturally with other homes in the neighborhood. So, the definition of a McMansion could then differ quite a bit from place to place depending on whether the new home is near 1950s ranches, early 19th century Cape Cods, or other styles.

This could also lead to an interesting question: should new homes always fit in with existing homes? More broadly, should all new buildings fit in with nearby buildings? What happens when architectural styles change? I suspect the answer in practice is that it depends; not all homes or buildings are perceived as worth preserving and it often requires dedicated groups of residents or local actors to defend existing styles.

By the way, what neighborhood wants to be known primarily for “the quality and variety of its Halloween decorations”?

When the new McMansion next door blocks your solar panels

Posted on by

This is a twist on the issue of a McMansion being built next door: what if it blocks your solar panels?

What happens when the community wants terrace houses and a developer says ”no thanks, I’d prefer 20 storeys”? Which anonymous expert then knocks him back to 18 and compliments himself on his Solomonic even-handedness? Who prevents the new ”complying” McMansion next door from overshadowing your new solar panels? Who decides who gets listened to?

One complaint about teardowns or larger buildings constructed next door is that they can block sunlight. This can be a big deal, particularly in cities where really tall buildings could block sunlight for blocks. Indeed, many cities have restrictions on the footprint and the shadows large buildings can cast.

But, I’ve never seen the argument that it isn’t really about experiencing natural light and is more about solar panels. How many people are affected by this issue? Do homeowners have a right to access direct sunlight so they can power their dwellings? This sounds like a new area for regulations.

Fighting McMansions in Miami

Posted on by

The group “Save Miami Beach Neighborhoods” is looking for help in fighting McMansions:

Miami Beach homes comprise a variety of architectural styles that reflect the history of our City, which is not yet 100 years old. Unfortunately, recent zoning changes have allowed for out-of-scale McMansions which threaten the historic character, authenticity and desirability of our single-family neighborhoods.

Our goal with Save Miami Beach Neighborhoods is to ensure that new construction is in line with existing neighborhood context. We want to stop oversized McMansions that are popping up seemingly all around us…

As homeowners and concerned residents, we must act to limit new construction size and scale before our neighborhood character is lost forever.

I would say the one photo of an 18,000 square foot McMansion in the neighborhood is pretty emblematic of what critics do not like about McMansions: large, taking up much of the lot, unusual design compared to the house next to it, and much larger than the next house (which is probably only 5,000 square feet).

At the same time, I wonder if outsiders would look at this and say it is simply an argument between wealthy people about something nebulous like “community character.”

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.