Tag Archives: McMansions

Maryland couple intentionally designs teardown home so that it isn’t a McMansion

Posted on by

Here is a story of a Kensington, Maryland couple who tore down a 1930s Cape Cod, built a new 1,800 square foot home, but deliberately avoided making it a McMansion:

Call it empty-nester economy: The couple’s contemporary house in Kensington has no grand entrance hall, no family room, no breakfast area in the kitchen, no mud room or a finished basement.

Instead, the main level is simply treated as a big open room for living, dining and cooking. “One of my favorite things about it is being able to stand in the kitchen and see the fireplace in the opposite corner 40 feet away,” Kurylas says.

Upstairs are three bedrooms, with one of them now serving as an office. Another is used as a guest room for visiting friends and relatives, including Lann’s sons, Ben, 32, and Nathan, 26, from a previous marriage. The couple considered adding a fourth bedroom for resale but decided to enlarge the master suite instead.

“We didn’t want a McMansion,” says Lann, co-owner of Stroba, a contracting and cabinetry business in Hyattsville. “We wanted a nice, open space where we could live and entertain, a small house that met our needs.”

While the house does sound unique, I am most interested by the idea that the house was deliberately designed not to be a McMansion. Several possible reasons are cited for this:

1. The couple was looking for a smaller house since there are only two members of the household.

2. The home as it was designed and built better fits with the older homes of the neighborhood.

3. The interior and exterior design is unique and not cookie-cutter or mass-produced.

4. Having a new house that could be labeled a “McMansion” is a negative thing that certain homeowners don’t want.

The idea of building a non-McMansion played some role in the construction of this home and this demonstrates the power the term has to influence perceptions about houses. I suspect the fact one of the couple is an architect and designed the home also played into wanting to avoid the negative label of McMansion.

Can you publicly pronounce that you like McMansions?

Posted on by

One Internet user posted about their fondness for McMansions earlier this week in a City-Data.com forum:

I just love them.

The exception is if it’s a historic area/themed area, that I consider a bad thing.

I think it’s so cool when you’re driving around a plain jane area and then this gigantic flashy fancy suburban house pops out of knowhere and makes you look at it. I think it’s amazing when you as one homeowner can add so much niceness to a block.

If I become rich one day then I want to one day live in a McMansion in an average area. Most wealthy [suburban] areas have huge lots with very little tight-knitness & interaction; those type of areas are not my cup of tea.

I can’t tell if sarcasm is involved here or not but regardless, this is an uncommon statement. Some of the features that critics dislike, such as the size, gaudiness, and the wealth that is implied, are the very thing this poster likes. One might be able to praise larger houses or defend the need for more space but to publicly express that you like McMansions? The term itself has been given so many negative connotations in the last 13 years or so that it makes a statement of liking a rarity.

At the same time, this person also suggests two things they don’t like about McMansions:

1. McMansions in older, historic neighborhoods. This is one dimension of McMansions that is sometimes forgotten since such homes are often tied to suburban sprawl; teardowns can also be considered McMansions. I’m not sure exactly what it means to have a McMansion in an “average area” as this seems like it could be a teardown situation.

2. Neighborhoods of McMansions on big lots where neighbors don’t know each other. This is the opposite of an older neighborhood and is tied to ideas about McMansions being for wealthy people in sprawling areas.

Perhaps this post just reinforces the negative ideas about McMansions: even when defending the homes, the poster has to also say they don’t like all McMansions or all of their traits.

Key to promoting small houses: it needs to be cool

Posted on by

A columnist discusses small houses and how the houses need to be “cool”:

How the poor fit their families into these tiny spaces has become the stuff of wonder for the urban young seeking to do likewise in expensive cities — but with considerably fewer people and more polished style. This month’s Dwell magazine, the hipster bible, shows how these clever people can turn a two-room third-floor walkup into a stylish and low-maintenance place. The “Small World” issue features houses that are 235 square feet, 900 square feet and 2,000 square feet (that’s cheating, IMHO)…

What makes small living spaces cool — in addition to their historic environs — is the thinking that’s involved, the sort of thinking you need heavy black-rim glasses for. You have to “curate,” a favorite hipster word. That is, you pick the one or five things you really want to keep and get rid of the rest. This can be a brutal task.

Minimalism is an attractive ethic in moderation. (Bare concrete walls don’t do much for me.) But it remains my dream. The iPad, though I love it, hasn’t replaced my affection for books. Where do you put the books in 500 square feet? You don’t. You store them in your parents’ basement or a rented storage unit — a minimalist cop-out, but one I understand…

Once the thinking is done, though, you can ponder higher things, like writing a symphony, inventing a new app or what’s for supper. That’s because the stuff you got rid of doesn’t have to be moved around, polished or updated. And money is time. You save hours not shopping for more stuff. The smaller spaces cost less to buy, heat and electrify. Fixing one leaky toilet is cheaper than fixing four. All this adds up to less time spent in unpleasant day jobs trying to pay for consumption. Less of the material also creates less distraction. There’s a reason why holy men choose small, bare rooms for meditation.

The columnist puts the tradeoff this way: you can either choose to store all your stuff (perhaps left over from all of those trips to Costco) or live in a a more minimalist, sleek, and cool setting. This is getting at a larger issue: for people to move into smaller homes, there has to be a positive image associated with them. This image would be the opposite of the use of the term McMansion which is generally meant to be derisive and criticize people who chose size and impressiveness over quality and fit. Small and well-designed could indeed be considered cool if it is branded (associated with certain lifestyles, symbols, and values), marketed through the appropriate channels (like Design magazine), gets the right endorsements (what if a bunch of Hollywood celebrities moved this direction?), and other social forces, like a down housing industry and economy, push people in that direction.

In the game of extra-local housing politics, call the proposed housing renovation you don’t like a McMansion

Posted on by

Cases like these happen frequently: a homeowner wants to enlarge their existing home. (This is a different but related ballgame to cases of teardowns.) If the neighbors don’t like it, there is common tactic they can use: dub it a McMansion.

The commission unanimously voted Oct. 9 to allow the homeowner to keep a permit to build a 2,692-square-foot single-family residence on the property located on Huntridge Lane. The project property is located in a standard zoning district, which permits two-story homes up to 28 feet in height. The project was initially approved by the city’s community development director on Aug. 23.

However, the city received several letters, emails and telephone calls from neighbors voicing concerns about the project, with issues ranging from concerns about privacy to the compatibility of the proposed two-story residence in a predominantly single-story neighborhood, as well as the size, bulk, height and mass of the project.

During the public hearing, one neighbor referred to the home as a “monster house” or “McMansion,” and others suggested reducing the scale of project.

City staff stated that the project is consistent with all aspects of the R1 zoning ordinance and other related city ordinances. In addition, the project was not subject to design review by the city since the proposed second floor is less than 66 percent of the square footage of the first floor and there are 15-foot side yard setbacks on either side of the second floor.

It sounds like the homeowner followed the zoning guidelines in the community and made some adjustments to cut back on the project when asked by the city. But, the McMansion tag used by opponents can be quite effective: it suggests the home is garish and unnecessary. It puts the owners and/or builder in a bad light as it suggests they are not looking out for the interests of others. While 2,692 square foot is not that big since the average new home is the US is around 2,500 square feet, it is larger than the surrounding homes which look to be (on Zillow) around 1,200 square feet without any additions. In the end, calling it a McMansion wasn’t enough in this case in Cupertino, California but the same tactic will be used again elsewhere. It would be interesting to see if the neighbors opposed to the project continue to call the particular home a McMansion in the years to come.

Through the magic of Google Street View, you can check out Huntridge Lane in Cupertino, California. The street is about one block and 13 houses long. It looks like (and Zillow also suggests) the homes were built in the early 1960s as single-story ranches. As the news article notes, several homes in the area already have second story additions. Also, Zillow suggests (and this could be a ways off) the homes on this block are worth around a million dollars. Is this one proposed addition, the so-called McMansion, really a threat? Perhaps this should lead to a new maxim: all housing politics are extra-local (usually within a few minute walk in each direction).

Is a McMansion truly a better scary movie setting than a smaller, older house?

Posted on by

In the last few days, I’ve seen a few stories about horror movies that take place in McMansions (see here and here). Are McMansions inherently scarier than smaller and older houses? I’ll offer a few arguments for each.

On the side of McMansions:

1. Bigger houses allow more room for weird things to happen and more space for bad creatures to pop out of. The victims have room to run away and utilize rooms they may not have entered in weeks (because the house is just that big!).

2. Perhaps residents of McMansions and all of their faux wealth (according to critics) are more deserving of bad things happening to them or are more naive and innocent. Either way, there is something about McMansion owners that makes them better targets for these films.

3. It is really about a commentary on the foolishness of buying and living in McMansions. Perhaps the horror is the inevitable result of American individualism and consumerism.

On the side of smaller and older homes:

1. They are more claustrophobic. There is nowhere else to go.

2. They are older so there is more potential for odd backstories (think of all of those old owners) or odd places (unused cellars, crawlspaces, attics, etc.).

3. The homeowners may be of a different demographic – they don’t have the wealth to live in McMansions or new homes – so there is potential for different kinds of story lines beyond wealthy and pampered teenagers or young couples who have “made it.”

I think McMansions are an easy target for horror movies and other cultural critics. Most Americans don’t live in them but they symbolize the kind of well-off life that contrasts with darker stories. Of course, dark things can happen in all kinds of houses…

Tom Brokaw says the next generation of Americans won’t live in McMansions

Posted on by

Tom Brokaw recently said McMansions won’t be in America’s future:

The veteran journalist appeared on MSNBC’s The Cycle to call for Americans to accept a permanent lowering of their standard of living. Speaking of the next generation, Brokaw blithely insisted that “they probably won’t have as much disposable income.” He added, “They won’t live in homes that are McMansions. We gotta get real.”

The former Nightly News anchor, estimated to be worth about $70 million, didn’t seem to find this a bad thing: “It doesn’t mean we can’t have everything that we need.” Brokaw lobbied for Americans to “get proportion.” He lectured, “One of my friends says we have to get up every morning and say, ‘What do I need today and not just what do I want today?’ That’s a good guide.”

This sounds like a good example of the consumerist argument against McMansions. In this line of thinking, McMansions illustrate a full economic and cultural system where Americans but they don’t need. Indeed, see this recent argument that links the need for big houses to our patterns of buying big products. And if this money weren’t spent on unnecessarily large houses, it could be spent on more productive items.

You need a McMansion to take home all the bulk items from Costco

Posted on by

Here is one argument for why Americans need McMansions: they need space to hold all of the bulk items from places like Costco.

But what I require now is a special place to house the mountain of junk I buy at Costco, because it certainly doesn’t fit in my existing house.

I suppose some of you reading this live in Tuscan-style McMansions with huge pantries that could hold the yield from a dozen trips to Costco, plus a few sheep and goats on the side…

My problem is that I like the bulk savings you can get at Costco. But I don’t like the Costco bulk. I’m not kidding: At this exact moment, there’s a case of water bottles on my tiny kitchen floor, because I haven’t figured out exactly where to put it. Cardboard boxes full of lunch snacks sit on top, along with enough canned tuna to last at least until the Rapture comes.

Putting away Costco stuff requires several days of planning in my house, especially when I bring my children, which I try not to do.

This would fit the data that shows while the average size of the American household has decreased, the average size of the new homes has gone up.

It would be interesting to do some analysis on how the space in recent homes compares to space in houses from earlier years. One way to get more space in a house is to simply have more space to start with. But there are other ways. Have more and bigger closets and take space from elsewhere. It seems like a lot of the new houses on HGTV have two walk-in closets for the master bedroom. You could also cut down on the “middle” space of rooms in order to free up space for other uses. Large living spaces may be nice but they could require more furniture and many homeowners may not use all that space most of the time. Another way is to have fewer hallways and more “combined” rooms. The classic bungalow does this by often combining the living room, dining room, and a kitchen as the main thoroughfare through the house.

A new off-Broadway play criticizes making the American Dream about buying mini-McMansions

Posted on by

It has become common in recent years to link the economic crisis to the purchases of McMansions. Here are a few lines from the new off-Broadway play “Heresy” illustrate this:

Chris’ college roommate, Pedro (Danny Rivera), and tarty call girl lady friend Lena (Ariel Woodiwiss) appear as witnesses for the persecuted campus radical. With the help of Pontius’ blowsy socialite wife, Phyllis (Kathy Najimy), the negotiation for Chris’ freedom devolves into a boozy cocktail party and a well-meaning but exasperating political debate. The characters spout off arguments like, ”The American Dream has been reduced to mean a mini-McMansion bought with an unaffordable mortgage,” and ”The American dream has dwindled into a vulgar, materialistic view of life.” And so on.

A lot of commentators have argued that the American Dream has become equated with consumerism. I remarked recently to one of my classes that this seems to be an odd interpretation of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” suggested in the Declaration of Independence.

But, there is little doubt that owning property was an important consideration for the American colonists and that owning a home today is one key marker of “making it” in America. I suspect the real issue here could be two things:

1. Buying and consuming more than one needs. It is one thing to be self-sufficient or comfortable and another to be excessive.

2. There are issues when individuals care more about acquiring and protecting their own possessions as opposed to caring about and contributing to the larger community. This has been a tension throughout American history.

Another note of interest: what exactly is a mini-McMansion and how does it differ from a McMansion? McMansions are usually thought to be quite large, probably somewhere between 3-10,000 square feet. Thus, a mini-McMansion would be smaller but the average new home in the United States is around 2,500 square feet so is this typical new home automatically a mini-McMansion?

McMansions in Zion National Park?

Posted on by

McMansions are often associated with sprawl but what happens when such homes are proposed for national park land?

There are 11,640 pieces of private land inside U.S. national parks. From Yosemite to Yellowstone, many have homes either built or being built on them. The land was owned before the national parks existed or ended up inside them as the parks expanded, according to the National Park Service.

Will Rogers, president of The Trust for Public Land, asked how big of an issue this is, he said, “It’s a really big deal. It’s like putting a fast food chain in the middle of the National Mall.”

He’s particularly concerned about what critics call a “McMansion” being built on a bluff overlooking a valley in Zion. Julie Hamilton was shocked to see it during a hike. “All of a sudden there’s this big house up on hill,” she said. “It’s like, are they going to build more? What’s happening here?”

What’s happening is budget cuts. In the 1960s, Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund — $900 million a year paid for with offshore drilling royalties from oil companies. That money was historically used to buy up private lands in national parks when landowners decide to sell. But two-thirds of the oil money is now routinely spent by Congress on other programs, leaving the parks unable to compete with wealthy buyers.

What if the homes being built weren’t McMansions but more modest structures? How about a green McMansion? Would these be more acceptable or is this really about any private development at all within national parks?

I suspect this is one of those cases where McMansion is a very effective to term to use because it contrasts strongly with the image of national parks. National parks equal pristine, rural land. McMansions evoke the idea of sprawl and SUVs. It is one thing to talk about homes or perhaps cottages, a term that might evoke images of Thomas Kinkade-like residences, but another to call them McMansions.

Real estate agent: the $3.1 million, 5,900 square foot home is warm and likeable and not a McMansion

Posted on by

Here is an example of trying to sell a large home by first arguing that it is not a McMansion:

The house that ranks as the Baltimore region’s priciest sale in August is, in the words of the sellers’ real estate agent, “understated” — the sort of home that doesn’t smack you in the eye with its high-end glitz.

The four-bedroom home on Golf Course Road West in Owings Mills, which sits on 2 acres near Green Spring Valley Hunt Club’s golf course, changed hands for just over $3.1 million.

“It wasn’t a McMansion,” said Linda Corbin of Prudential Homesale YWGC Realty, the listing agent. “It was an absolutely beautiful, charming, warm, wonderful house that you could feel like you could put your feet up in every room … and be comfortable.”…

Part of the home’s not-in-your-face style comes from its U shape, which makes its 5,700 square feet look less enormous from the outside. But there’s a lot packed inside. Besides four bedrooms, the home’s features include four full bathrooms, three half-baths, two laundry rooms (one upstairs, one downstairs), a gourmet kitchen, a butler’s pantry and a movie theater.

A separate building paired with the in-ground pool has its own living room, bathroom and second-floor space intended for an exercise room or guest bedroom.

This home may be more understated that other homes of similar square footage or in its price range, but in comparison to the majority of American homes, this home is probably not understated.

I am intrigued by this sales pitch: this home is attractive because it isn’t a McMansion. This suggests buyers tend to think larger homes are indeed McMansions and want to be shown otherwise. Also, I wonder if this means that the homes that are indeed McMansions do sell for less because fewer buyers are interested and that real estate agents change their tactics when the home they are selling is indeed more obviously a McMansion.