Tag Archives: McMansions

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?

Does Michael Jordan own McMansions?

Posted on by

One headline for a story about Michael Jordan’s most recent home purchase suggests it is a McMansion: “Michael Jordan buys lakefront McMansion on a North Carolina golf course.” More on the house:

Bobcats owner Michael Jordan has purchased a 12,310-square-foot lakefront home in Cornelius, N.C., for $2.8 million.

The home is about 22 miles north of uptown Charlotte where the Bobcats play their home games and where Jordan owns a spacious condo…

The home is located on Lake Norman and the seventh hole of The Peninsula Golf Club. The listing states it features six bedrooms and eight bathrooms and a “stunning panoramic lake views from almost every room.”…

Last year he purchased a 28,000-square foot home in Jupiter, Fla., for $12.8 million after selling his mansion in Chicago.

I’m leery of dubbing a $2.8 million, 12,000 square a McMansion and not just a straight up mansion. On one hand, the home is less than half the size of the Jupiter, Florida home and it is built on a golf course, a common site for a McMansion. On the other hand, this house is five times larger than the average new home in the United States and is quite expensive.

Also, I wonder how this idea of owning a McMansion fits with Jordan’s image. Jordan’s brand is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and his image doesn’t quite fit the mass produced, garish home that the term McMansion implies. This is far-fetched but what would happen if this home purchase started hurting his brand?

Can a $10 million home really be a McMansion?

Posted on by

I’ve worked on defining a McMansion before but after seeing a recent story about a new house listing few times, I stumbled into a new definitional issue: is there a price point where a home can no longer be considered a McMansion?

Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Price: $10,000,000
The Skinny: Just weeks after closing on a 9,000-square-foot McMansion in Bel Air and reported plans for a gut renovation, hip-hop star Kanye West and reality TV regular Kim Kardashian have decided to cohabitate elsewhere. According to recent reports, the duo have flipped the property for around a million more than they paid. Redfin lists the previous sale price at $9M, so it seems Kim and Kanye have unloaded the place for somewhere around $10M. The mansion, completed in 2010 on less than an acre in the Holmby Hills neighborhood, features five bedrooms and seven bathrooms, but that wasn’t enough for the celeb couple, who were planning to gut the place and expand to 14,000 square feet.

Several features of this home would seem to put it in McMansion territory: it is 9,000 square feet (though this is getting close to regular “mansion” status), it is on a fairly small lot for a house its size, and it may be located in a neighborhood with a number of similar homes.

Yet, the price for this home may be way beyond the typical McMansion at $10 million. This is not just a mass produced home for the American masses; it is a home that from the beginning was only available to the wealthiest in global society. In this case, two of the biggest entertainment stars were able to flip the house. Because of this, I argue this home isn’t really a McMansion at all even though it might exhibit some McMansion traits. It should fall more in the mansion category because its price makes it quite inaccessible.

How a developer of big homes differentiates his homes from McMansions

Posted on by

Few builders are aiming to have their new big homes labeled McMansions. Here is how one developer describes how his new homes differ from McMansions:

According to brothers Taylor and Milton Chamberlin, the goal for the Georgian style homes is for them to be an alternative to “McMansions.”

“We really take our time to design the homes to fit in the neighborhood. We’re not builders that come in and put this huge McMansion in a small neighborhood where it doesn’t fit. That’s not what we do,” said Taylor. “All of this is really thought through and it’s really livable, usable space. It’s not those McMansions where you walk in and wonder, ‘What do you do in this room?’”

The base model runs around $1.4 million and features four bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms, with the possibility of another bedroom and bathroom on an additional level. Costs will vary based on the different lot sizes and individual add-ons the purchasers want in their homes…

Another goal is to foster a 1950s sense of community among the owners of the nine properties, in which everybody knows and interacts with their neighbors. The homes will only be accessible via a private road and there will be a small fence around the subdivision…

The brothers noted The Barrett Companies’ effort toward green building and energy efficiency. From better insulation and caulking to installing appropriate outlets in the detached garages for plugging in an electric car, the Chamberlins believe small touches make their properties stand out.

These are big new homes that at first glance might fit several traits of McMansions. But, here is the argument the developer uses to say their homes are not McMansions:

1. The homes will fit the neighborhood. Critics argue McMansions, particularly teardowns, can disrupt the character of existing neighborhoods.

2. The home is not just about space; it is about well-designed and usable space. One argument about McMansions is that they provide lots of square footage but this is often contained in cavernous rooms or in poor layouts that are difficult to utilize in day-to-day life.

3. They are hoping to promote a community atmosphere in their small development. I wonder if this is primarily a function of size; the fenced-in neighborhood with a private road will only contain nine homes.

4. These homes will be greener than normal big homes. McMansions are often said to about excessive consumption and part of sprawl.

5. There will be a consistent design scheme with Georgian architecture and detached garages on the private road away from the streets surrounding the neighborhood. McMansions are criticized for mixing architectural styles.

In the end, I wonder if a majority of buyers and critics would think these reasons are enough to separate these homes from McMansions. These are still big homes in the midst of suburban neighborhoods. They may be more consistent and be less mass-produced but are they different enough?

Argument: if you want a Walmart, you have to accept the McMansions and other things that come with it

Posted on by

Henry Briggs argues that the phenomena of Walmart is related to other phenomena like McMansions:

In any event, the idea of paying less and less and buying more and more is a real driver of our economy. As most economists will tell you: unless the US consumer is spending, the US economy tanks.

That is what’s behind the “You deserve it! ” lines in ads, why having a “McMansion” is part of the “American Dream,” and why the American Dream is no longer a dream: “It’s my right, by God!”

That’s why household debt shot up from $734 billion in 1974 to $13.6 trillion in 2009, from 45 percent of GDP in 1974 to 96 percent of GDP in 2009.

We complain about Walmart wrecking communities, even as we go there for the deals, and then we must go there for the deals because Walmart is all we can afford.

If you walk into a house built in the ’50s or ’60s, you’ll find smaller closets, smaller kitchens and smaller garages. This in a time when people were happier, the country was thriving, and the future glowed with promise.

You want things cheaper? There’s a price.

This is a familiar argument about McMansions: they are linked to larger patterns of consumption. But, if the economy really does depend on such spending, can’t buying McMansions, smartphones, and other items and shopping at Walmart be seen as helping American society? Of course, one can choose to buy “better” items than others – instead of a McMansion, perhaps a passive house or a tiny house. Instead of a regular car that contributes to sprawl, perhaps a membership to Zipcar. While some complain about particular kinds of houses, Briggs and others suggest that consumption comes in bundled packages. If this is the case, then McMansions are just the symptoms of a society that consumes and spends too much and likes sprawl.

 

Supersized McMansions, supersized roses for Valentine’s Day

Posted on by

I’ve seen McMansions compared to a number of other large consumer items, but until today I had not seen a comparison to flowers:

Leave it to America, land of the Big Gulp, Monster Burger and McMansions, to supersize yet one more thing: the rose.

Make that a six-foot rose, just in time for Valentine’s Day.

This flower-on-steroids — it actually gets this big from special breeding and soils — comes courtesy of several companies, including FTD, The Ultimate Rose and FiftyFlowers.com. Sales are taking off as florists promote the gargantuan blooms, which also come in three-, four- and five-foot varieties. The companies won’t release exact numbers, but FTD says sales have increased 50% year over year since it started selling the roses four years ago…

Skaff says FTD has already sold out of the five-foot variety and had to order more to meet demand ahead of Valentine’s Day. The Ultimate Rose, which supplies the giant roses to FTD and also sells them on its own site, says sales jump this time of year.

The suggestion here is that the presence of McMansions is related to the presence of six-foot tall roses through the desires of Americans for both because they are large. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me; are the same people buying McMansions and large roses? Are both solely about standing out from the crowd? Overall, this seems like a journalistic shortcut of recent years: when an item becomes larger, compare it to McMansions (and perhaps SUVs and Big Gulps might be other apt comparisons). What items if an item becomes smaller – is there a similar go-to comparison?

How much do McMansions contribute to traffic congestion?

Posted on by

After seeing the Washington D.C. region leads the country in traffic, one reader of the Washington Post suggests McMansions have contributed to the problem:

Regarding the Feb. 5 news article “Washington again rated worst for traffic congestion in annual study”:

I don’t understand. The entire metropolitan region builds, builds and builds, squeezing  condos onto every block and ruining old neighborhoods with ghastly McMansion and townhouse developments.

Do officials consider quality of life? Don’t they realize how these new homes have a tremendous effect on our local traffic? We have overbuilt this area to death.

It would be interesting to see a study on this. I suspect the real answer is not McMansions over other forms of housing and development but rather the issue of sprawl. McMansions may often be found as part of sprawl but not necessarily; McMansions don’t have to be built on large lots, which leads to more spread out development, and they can be built as teardowns in denser areas. But once sprawl has already happened, it is more difficult to provide effective mass transit (even as the Washington region sees an expansion of Metro service to suburban counties). In other words, McMansions are symptoms of sprawl which leads to a lot of driving and traffic.

A few issues with Curbed’s timeline of McMansions

Posted on by

Curbed has a new feature: “Track the evolution of this uniquely American housing on Curbed’s McMansion Timeline.” I have a few issues with what they say.

1. There is a lot of editorializing in this timeline. For example, the entry for the 1980s includes “Upwardly mobile suburban rejoiced, the McMansion was born” and the 1991 entry says “Social climbing middle-class professionals weren’t the only ones hooked by the oversized home boom.” These are typical critiques of McMansion owners but are based more in stereotypes than evidence.

2. The article suggests the first usage was in the New York Times in 1993. However, the Oxford English Dictionary gives an earlier usage from the San Diego Union-Tribune on July 15, 1990.

3. We are only given vague descriptions of what McMansions are. They are large houses but it is implied than a 15,000 square foot home could be a McMansion. There are also hints that McMansions are built with less quality materials and they are mass produced. But what about the architecture and design (the pictures hint at this)?

Overall, learn a lot more by checking out my paper on the usage of the term McMansion in the New York Times and Dallas Morning News.