Tag Archives: McMansions

Just how many McMansions have actually collapsed like Trump’s polling figures?

Posted on by

One common critique of the McMansion is that they are poorly built. The story continues that because they are mass-produced, the materials are bottom of the line so builders don’t have to do anything more than necessary  in the search for big profits. This idea was found in a recent story about the decline of Donald Trump’s polling figures:

Public Policy Polling finds Donald Trump’s numbers collapsing like a poorly-built McMansion.

Might some people find this phrase redundant and ask whether McMansions are poorly-built by definition?

Perhaps I am being too literal here but this gets me thinking about how many McMansions have actually collapsed. I would guess that not too many have collapsed on their own so perhaps the more appropriate figures to search for would measure how many McMansions needed major renovations or fixes and then how this data compares to other kinds of homes. Would HGTV, the network always on the search for homes that need help, be a good source for figures? This is probably not the kind of data builders would want to keep and it would be difficult to collate the information from millions of individual homeowners.

And what would be a better metaphor for the collapse of Donald Trump’s polling numbers?

Rising debt for college loans better than debt for a McMansion

Posted on by

The college Class of 2011 might expect more in life than simply to be known as “the most indebted ever“:

22,900: Average student debt of newly minted college graduates

The Class of 2011 will graduate this spring from America’s colleges and universities with a dubious distinction: the most indebted ever.

Even as the average U.S. household pares down its debts, the new degree-holders who represent the country’s best hope for future prosperity are headed in the opposite direction. With tuition rising at an annual rate of about 5% and cash-strapped parents less able to help, the mean student-debt burden at graduation will reach nearly $18,000 this year, estimates Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of student-aid websites Fastweb.com and FinAid.org. Together with loans parents take on to finance their children’s college educations — loans that the students often pay themselves – the estimate comes to about $22,900. That’s 8% more than last year and, in inflation-adjusted terms, 47% more than a decade ago.

In the long run, the investment is probably worth it. Education is a much better reason to borrow money than buying cars or McMansions, and it endows people with economic advantages that the recession and slow recovery have only accentuated. As of 2009, the annual pre-tax income of households headed by people with at least a college degree exceeded that of less-educated households by 101%, up from 91% in 2006. As of April, the unemployment rate among college graduates stood at 4.5%, compared to 9.7% for those with only a high-school diploma and 14.6% for those who never finished high school.

I am intrigued by the McMansion comparison here as it is used to illustrate the foolishness of overspending on a big or expensive house versus the possible “good debt” of college loans. Of course, this is all in economic terms as the education is expected to pay off down the road while McMansion purchases of the last 15 years are not expected to yield such great values in this poor housing market. (And using a car as a debt comparison seems a bit strange: a car is rarely an investment but rather a black hole for money.) But this view of a house, as an investment opportunity, is a relatively recent development.

There is something about this data that could warrant a closer look: while it appears that the average college student debt has increased, is the average really the best measure here? I would much rather see a distribution of college debt in order to better know whether this mean is heavily influenced by people with massive amounts of college debt. Here is a paragraph from a recent New York Times article regarding college loans:

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. Default rates are rising, especially among those who attended for-profit colleges.

And here is some additional data from recent years that sheds more light on the distribution of college debt:

These figures were calculated using the data analysis system for the 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics at the US Department of Education. (For comparison, cumulative education debt statistics from the 2003-2004 NPSAS are also available.) The 2007-2008 NPSAS surveyed 114,000 undergraduate students and 14,000 graduate and professional students. These statistics are not necessarily available from published NPSAS reports.The median cumulative debt among graduating Bachelor’s degree recipients at 4-year undergraduate schools was $19,999 in 2007-08. One quarter borrowed $30,526 or more, and one tenth borrowed $44,668 or more. 9.5% of undergraduate students and 14.6% of undergraduate student borrowers graduating with a Bachelor’s degree graduated with $40,000 or more in cumulative debt in 2007-08. This compares with 6.4% and 10.0%, respectively, for Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with $40,000 or more (2008 dollars) in cumulative debt in 2003-04.

This data provides a median that is somewhat similar to the two figures cited above. Based on these three figures and interpretations, it sounds like more college students are taking on debt rather than some students are taking on a lot more debt.

11,000 square foot NYC homes designed by a noted architect qualify as McMansions?

Posted on by

Villanova Heights is a newer residential development in the Bronx, New York City. Despite being designed by noted architect Robert A.M Stern, Curbed NY says even the smallest homes in the development are McMansions:

We’ve occasionally mentioned Villanova Heights, the McMansion community in Riverdale designed by Robert A.M. Stern. And by McMansions, we mean houses that aren’t only huge in comparison to Manhattan apartments—the smallest Bobby A.M. creations in Villanova Heights are around 11,000 square feet. The rents are similarly hefty, with the first two completed homes in the development renting for $13,000 and $16,000 per month. Now we’re finally getting a peek inside one of these things, with the new listing for 5020 Iselin Avenue, an 11,000-square-footer on a 25,000-square-foot lot that contains a heated swimming pool and cabana. In fact, we’d be amazed if there were anything this house didn’t contain. When it comes to Riverdale, though, this one’s still our favorite.

Two things strike me here:

1. The homes are at least 11,000 square feet. This is more like a mansion, not just a McMansion. Percentage-wise, very few American homes are that large. When people typically refer to suburban McMansions, they are thinking of homes that are 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.

2. The neighborhood is designed by a noted architect and yet the houses are still called McMansions. One major criticism of McMansion is that they lack tasteful design or more authentic materials. So is this more of a criticism of Stern’s home designs than anything else? Stern is a noted architect but designs McMansions?

This is how the Villanova Heights website describes the home design philosophy:

In developing Villanova Heights, Robert A.M. Stern Architects has adhered to its philosophy that the residences designed “do not, by their very being, threaten the esthetic and cultural values of the buildings around them.” Further, that no one style “is appropriate to every building and every place.” Finally, consistent with Robert A.M. Stern’s belief in the continuity of tradition, his firm’s work on Villanova Heights is driven “by entering into a dialogue with the past and with the spirit of the places in which we build.”

Does this sound like a description of a McMansion?

“Shunning the McMansion”

Posted on by

Earlier this week, US News & World Report ran a story titled “Why We’re Shunning the McMansion.” Here seems to be the main data in this article:

Only 9 percent of consumers surveyed said they wanted a home 3,200 square feet or larger, according to a recent study by the NAR, while the majority of house hunters—about 55 percent—preferred homes in the 1,400 to 2,600 square-foot range. Builders also plan to scale back new home sizes as well, with 9 out of 10 builders expecting to build smaller, lower-priced homes in the coming years, according to a study by the NAHB.

Despite the drop in desired median home square footage, Melman says it’s not so much a matter of downsizing as “right-sizing”—forgoing larger homes with unused space for smaller, more efficient and well-laid-out homes. Americans are reconsidering the notion of financially stretching themselves to the limit to purchase a large home. “The trend here is shelter value,” he says. “Affordability is driving the decisions. If you buy a home that’s a little bit smaller, that’s one way to get some control over energy costs and the overall costs of the home.”

The article goes on to say more about how affordability is the primary driver of this trend, particularly due to increased difficulties in obtaining mortgages.

Several things strike me in this summary:

1. What is the percentage of Americans surveyed who said they wanted a home between 2,600 and 3,200 square feet? If we knew this percentage, we could add this to the 9 percent who want a home bigger than 3,200 square feet. Why not say what percentage of Americans want a home bigger than the average new house size of roughly 2,450 square feet? Also, to better make this point, it would be helpful to compare this data to earlier surveys about what size homes Americans want.

2. I still would be interested in seeing some data about how much cheaper these smaller homes are. If one wants a smaller home but wants a lot of features, that still might cost quite a bit. And might we see some of the design trends of bigger homes, such as stucco exteriors or always-on gas lamps, trickle down to these smaller homes?

3. The article seems to set the size of McMansions at 3,200 feet and above. So all homes with this square-footage or above are automatically a McMansion?

Historic Bethlehem, PA has character – but what about McMansions and big box stores?

Posted on by

The neighborhood of Historic Bethlehem, Pennsylvania was recently recognized for preserving the community’s more historic buildings. And the mayor drew a contrast between this historic preservation and the (negative) construction of McMansions and big box stores:

Recently chosen by This Old House magazine as a Best Old-House Neighborhood, Bethlehem is one of only 64 communities to receive the honor.

“So much rests on the quality of our neighborhoods,” [Mayor] Callahan said. “We’re incredibly honored to have received this designation.”…

“It’s our character that has been recognized by This Old House magazine which named Historic Bethlehem to its annual list of Best Old House neighborhoods,” he said. “Here in Bethlehem, you’ll find no grids of cookie-cutter McMansions or big box store strip malls. Here…we have character.”

The mayor also took the opportunity to announce that the city’s proposed historic preservation plan has been completed.

The contrast could not be more stark: the community is recognized for preserving homes rather than giving in to sprawl. This Old House quotes a local realtor saying, “You can traverse centuries in eight blocks.” This sounds like a traditional American community where neighborhood character has won out.

But I was intrigued by this particular statement that Bethlehem has no big box stores. Could this really be possible in a decent-sized city (2009 Census estimate population of 73,088)? Bethlehem’s page on Wikipedia (I know, a source fraught with difficulties) suggests this is not the case:

Adjacent to W. Broad Street is the Bethlehem Plaza Mall, a 90,000 square feet (8,400 m2) enclosed shopping mall.

Outside of Downtown there are several other shopping centers.

  • Westgate Mall is an enclosed mall with anchors The Bon-Ton and Weis Markets.
  • Lehigh Center Shopping Center has Marshalls/HomeGoods, Staples, Giant, and Big Lots.
  • Martin Court Shopping Center has Lowe’s and PriceRite.
  • Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center has Valley Farm Market, Dollar Tree, and Radio Shack.

In Bethlehem Township

  • Bethlehem Square is a shopping center with Giant, TJMaxx, Wal-Mart, The Home Depot, and Sears Essentials.

The city’s own website emphasizes the local downtown (and nearby) shops. A quick search of Google Maps (“shopping near bethlehem, pa”) quickly turns up some of the nearby shopping malls and big box stores. The most emblematic big box store, Walmart of Bethlehem, is part of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce (with a link to the Chamber from the Bethlehem website).

Reading the mayor’s statement, I think he is referring to Historic Bethlehem when talking about the lack of McMansions and big box stores. Many communities are interested in preserving older neighborhoods, both commercial and residential, while facing the threat of sprawl. The mayor was likely not referring to Bethlehem, the full city of over 70,000, when saying the community has no big box stores: like many other American communities, Bethlehem has these. And perhaps like other communities, these big box stores are both disliked for their appearance and impact on local businesses and historic neighborhoods while also prized for helping to provide revenue for the city through sales and property taxes.

(Disclaimer: I have never been to Bethlehem. My primary interest here was to think about whether a sizable community could have no big box stores or McMansions. As for McMansions, I suppose one would have to search real estate sites or spend some time with Google Streetview to assess this claim.)

Chinese purchase “monster homes” in New Zealand

Posted on by

McMansion type homes are not just restricted to the United States. This article describes what Chinese buyers are moving into in New Zealand:

When veteran architect Ron Sang drives around the outer fringes of Auckland near Albany or Botany, he can always spot a house built for a Chinese buyer.

“Generally it has a high portico on the outside – a big, high, ostentatious-looking porch, usually double height,” he says.

“Generally above the door you have a window and through the window you can see chandeliers. Inside the door you’ll see a big, ostentatiously curved stairway. They like to show wealth.”

These grand mansions on small suburban sections – what sociologist Paul Spoonley, adopting a Canadian term, calls “monster houses” – have become the stereotypical Chinese footprints in our cityscape.

While the homes described here are called “monster homes,” this sounds very similar to what Americans would call McMansions with the traits of a big entryway, garish appointments, the goal of impressing a buyer or visitor, and large homes on relatively small lots in suburban neighborhoods.

There is an interesting discussion later in the article about Chinese immigration to and residential patterns of Chinese residents in New Zealand.

Septic tanks and McMansions

Posted on by

A commentator in southern Maryland discusses how the construction of McMansions in more rural areas is related to septic tanks and social class:

Public sewer might have caught up to the suburbs, but now the suburbs are leapfrogging public sewer. Although it has been slowed by the national housing crisis, the trend has been toward rural ridge tops bristling with “McMansions” like plates on the spine of a stegosaurus. These homes have problems that transcend septic. They generally gobble up land 5 acres at a time, not to mention their associated energy and transportation inefficiencies. It is indeed hard to feel sorry for these developments when cracking down on septic systems.

But at the same time big and rich developments are being scrubbed, it would be a mistake to throw country people out with the wastewater. In rural counties, lawmakers have been merciless in their attacks on anti-septic proposals, which they view as a job killer and an assault on private property rights. One Frederick County, Md., delegate called the proposed Maryland ban the worst bill he’d seen in 25 years.

There is hyperbole involved, naturally, but the danger is that septic bans, if too harsh, could make country life unaffordable for people of limited means. That’s the economics of reduced supply. Land prices in many areas have already made it difficult for people raised in rural locations to stay there. It’s proper that all sources of pollution, including septic systems, be controlled. It’s also proper that country life be protected at. The goal should be inclusive of both ideals.

Sounds like a case of competing interests: being greener (and the story suggests that a quarter of the homes in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have septic tanks leading to a pollution issue) versus keeping more rural homes affordable.

This discussion reminds me of Adam Rome’s book The Bulldozer in the Countryside which addresses the history of septic tanks in suburbia. In the suburban boom after World War II, it was often cheaper for builders to include septic tanks as suburban communities struggled to provide sewers and sewage treatment plants. In my own research into the development of local suburbs, it wasn’t until the early 1960s that communities began to see the importance of sewers and treatment plants. Eventually, many communities found ways to help pass the costs on to developers and builders through sewer hook-up fees but these were originally contentious.

In defense of larger Australian homes

Posted on by

In 2009, new Australian homes became the largest in the world, beating even new US homes. But while large homes in the United States are sometimes derided as greedy, unnecessary, wasteful, and simply status symbols, data from one Australian survey suggests homebuyers purchase such homes because they want or need the space:

Homeowners are also increasingly happy to trade the traditional back yard for a larger lounge room and home cinema, according to a survey of more than 2500 people by removalists Grace Removals.

Space trumps neighbours and location, with 19 per cent of people saying the best thing about their home is its size, ahead of the suburb they live in (12 per cent) or being close to family and friends (7 per cent). The toilet was named the most important item in the home by 62 per cent of respondents…

But it’s family considerations, rather than status or greed, that is behind the popularity of so-called McMansions, McCrindle Research personal demographer Mark McCrindle says.

“We have a lot more going on in these larger homes,” Mr McCrindle said. “We are trending towards multi-generational households, where you have children living well into adulthood in the family home. We are also seeing more people work or run a business from home.”

I wonder if such an explanation would fly in the United States. It might be hard to make this case as the average size of the American family has decreased even as the average new house size has risen since World War Two.

Will future historic preservation districts include McMansions?

Posted on by

From the concluding portion of a recent column, it appears columnist James Lileks does not like McMansions. But, he also brings up an idea I recently described in discussing how a 1920s suburban home could now be considered authentic and worth preserving:

Everything is historic. Doesn’t mean it’s good; doesn’t mean everything must be preserved ,without exception. But what’s contemporary to you is history to your kids, and hence boring — and a relic of a golden past to the generation after that. Ah, to live long enough to see them fight for the preservation of a ghastly overscale McMansion. It’s the only example of substandard poisonous Chinese drywall we have left!

Just how long might it before McMansions are considered historic homes that are worth saving? And if they are not worth saving, what else might be done with them?

A Houston Chronicle editorial pushes for historic preservation districts

Posted on by

When sociologists talk about urban zoning, Houston is often cited as an example of a city that has had and has little zoning. However, there is a recent debate about instituting the city’s first six historic preservation districts. The Houston Chronicle wrote an editorial supporting these districts as they only affect a small part of the city:

In a council meeting earlier this month, one council member compared city restrictions on property rights to Gestapo tactics.

People, please: We’re not talking about seizure of private property. We’re talking about bungalows, Victorians and Dutch colonials. The new rules don’t say that you can no longer build McMansions or townhouses in Houston — just that you can’t plop them into a historic district. That leaves 99 percent of Houston wide-open.

Tomorrow, council will vote whether to accept the maps for the six most controversial districts, all of which are in the Heights and Montrose.

All six districts survived a postcard referendum that could have obliterated their historic status completely; the only change to the maps is the removal of a single commercial property from Montrose Commons.

Opponents have argued that historic designation will hurt neighborhood property values, but that strains credibility.

It sounds like this battle over historic districts is quite similar to other historic district battles: are there limits to what property owners should be able to do? And as is often the case, these historic districts are proposed because some of these older homes are being torn down to make way for newer homes, the larger ones which are dubbed McMansions.

But the larger issue may be neighborhood change: just how much should any neighborhood be allowed to change in a short period of time? Buildings in a historic district are protected because they are older (perhaps at least 50 years old?). But these questions can also pop up in newer neighborhoods: should a religious building or a park or a gas station be allowed to be built on the corner at the edge of the neighborhood? Should a set of townhouses be built the next street over? What happens if more traffic starts driving down the main street in the neighborhood? The same people who would want the right to build a McMansion in an older part of town after tearing down an old home would also probably not desire an apartment building constructed next door or a garbage facility built a block away.

Where exactly you draw the line between these competing interests is not an easy decision but one that must be made by individual communities.