Tag Archives: single-family home

Unusual 60,000 square foot house in northern Ohio

Posted on by

Big houses tend to draw attention but particularly eccentric big houses. Here are some of the features of an unusual 60,000 square foot home in northern Ohio:

A wealthy inventor conceived of a home with whimsical, underground ‘streets’ built to scale and inspired by those he’d seen in Georgetown, Paris and Savannah. Above ground, it featured a private beach and marina sculpted into the shores of Lake Erie. And a helicopter pad…

“It takes four-and-a-half hours to show this property,” said Scott Street of Sotheby’s, the listing agent for the Waterwood Estate, which is now listed on the Vermilion real estate market for $19.5 million.

The property sits on 160 acres, boasts three-quarter miles of frontage on Lake Erie and contains a series of “pods” connected by glass corridors that were navigated by scooters and golf carts…

Jacobsen used his trademark “pod” style design to give the design more flexibility and allow it to evolve as Brown wanted other things added. The entire home is a series of 20 castle-like concrete buildings connected by glass corridors and each structure is topped with a slate pyramid.

Perhaps one could argue that any 60,000 square foot home is unusual but this has many intriguing traits.

Why build this property on Lake Erie?

“Home is where the hub is”

Posted on by

A recent study looks at how being connected through the Internet and other gadgets at home changes what home is:

What the web has inspired, then, is a postmodern understanding of what “home” is: a de-physicalised, conceptual and psychological phenomenon that externalises its invisible meanings. And interaction designers recognise this: the web is another castle that the Englishman can live in, and he seeks to create virtual places that have as much effect on pride, self-esteem and identity as the bricks and mortar version where he sleeps…

I am constantly connected when I’m at home. It is my companion when watching a movie, it is my entertainment system when listening to the radio, it is my connection to the family and friends I speak with on VoIP. Sociologist Kat Jungnickel and anthropologist Genevieve Bell suggest that my over-networked experience isn’t unusual in Home is Where the Hub is? Wireless Infrastructures and the Nature of Domestic Culture in Australia: “Some read their emails and Google for news in front of the TV while others breastfeed while surfing the net. In the kitchen, they look for recipes or talk with friends via IM. In bed they write emails or shop on eBay.” The rooms once allocated for specific purposes have been co-opted by other (digital) tasks.

This isn’t always welcome. In one of Jungnickel and Bell’s case studies, a participant describes the conflicts that arise from home-multiplicity: “Sal tells of the congestion zone caused by the chameleonic characteristics of the kitchen table,” they write. “During the day it is her new computing space, and at night it is the social, cooking washing-up space for both of them.” Each online activity has imposed itself on our home-practice. We are experiencing a domestic transition as the web collaborates and competes with old “new” technologies such as the TV, the researchers argue. It “complicates” characteristics of the physical space.

We are adaptable creatures and will work within the confines of our existing homes to integrate this new creature into our lives. We have already made the web part of our domestic ecologies and we continually imbue it with a sense of place. Perhaps its malleability is why it has been so successful and why we are willing to bring this interruptive technology into our most intimate worlds.

In recent decades, commentators have suggested that Americans have retreated into their large homes and lost their connection to their communities. But this may be suggesting that while Americans may have withdrawn, they are still interested in being connected. However, this connection looks different than it has in the past. The connection now happens at the times of the individual’s own choosing, it is done at a distance, and it is unclear how much this translates into offline world action.

I don’t think we should be too surprised that the concept of home is changing. Our current understanding dates back roughly to the mid 1800s when homes were built with separate rooms to separate uses: sleep in one room, eat in another, cook in another, etc. Before that, homes were more multi-use as more people used their home for work as well as family life. It would be interesting to think about how the quick expansion of Internet connectedness might lead to new designs for homes or introduce interior spaces that enhance this connectedness. Already, we have more static gadgets that have been adapted, such as televisions including Internet apps, so why not dining rooms, bathrooms, and front porches plus back patios?

McMansion defender claims to be fighting against “green jihadists”

Posted on by

McMansion is a term that can be used pejoratively. And in response to a proposed “mandatory energy star ratings” for Australian houses, McMansion defenders can use their own pejorative terms like “green jihadists”:

It seems rarely a month passes without some new assault on the lifestyle and housing choice preferred by the overwhelming majority of Australians – the detached suburban home.

Denigrated by a careless media as ‘McMansions’ or attacked as some archaic form of reckless housing choice which is ‘no longer appropriate’ (according to some planning or environmental fatwa), the detached home is under a constant assault of falsely laid allegation and intellectual derision…

But you get the strong impression, reading the constant digest of anti-suburban living which parades through mainstream media, that mainstream Australians are a reckless bunch of self-interested misfits whose behaviour and choices need to be controlled by people wiser than them.

And there’s one of the great ironies in all this: those who advocate denying housing choice and enforcing apartments over detached homes, public transport over private, inner city density over suburban expansion, invariably seem to do the opposite of what they preach. Next time you come across one of these green jihadists waging war on the suburban home (and the people who live in them), ask them if they live in a house or a unit, how many children they have, ask how many cars they own, and ask what their power bill is like.

Perhaps those using these terms might consider it fair after the way “McMansion” has been used over the years. Or perhaps some feel that this imposition on their preferred homes is simply crossing such a line that it should be equated with one of the most negative images one can throw around.

While I’ve written before on the meaning of the word McMansion, this might indicate another possible area of research: what sort of discourse McMansion defenders use. I would guess that a common argument, expressed in this piece, is that people are simply buying homes that they want and they shouldn’t be restricted from pursuing their tastes. Additionally, just like this piece, defenders will point at the hypocrisy of the other side.

“Mandatory energy star ratings” for Australian houses

Posted on by

I’ve asked before whether McMansions can ever be green. Australia is proposing energy star ratings for homes and such regulations would especially affect McMansions:

The Federal Government aims to introduce, by as soon as next year, mandatory energy star ratings for homes being sold or rented out…

Housing experts said most McMansions would score very poorly on the ratings system, which would be similar to the methodology used to identify the energy efficiency of whitegoods…

There are significant financial implications for owners of these homes – and most older dwellings which are also likely to rate lowly.

Owners would need to either spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.

This is one way to push homeowners to improve the efficiency of their homes. This isn’t terribly surprising considering that many consumer goods or appliances these days are rated along these grounds (from electricity cost to miles per gallon). But at the same time, I can’t imagine these sorts of regulations being instituted in the United States anytime soon unless it was solely limited to new construction.

Just how costly is a green, customized home?

Posted on by

You can find plenty of opinions about the long-term costliness of the typical suburban McMansion (waste of resources, dependence on automobiles, etc.) but I’ve often wondered whether the alternatives, a smaller customized home or a greener home, are really cheaper. And if American home buyers seem pretty motivated about cost, how would this affect whether these would purchase these alternatives? Here is an anecdote about building a green, customized home that suggests they can be costly:

As readers of Green House know, we started our journey to a right-sized, energy-efficient home in Falls Church, VA., nearly three years ago after selling a McMansion a few miles away. We never expected it would take so long or cost so much…

We’re acclimating. A modern home in a traditional neighborhood brings lots of stares, especially when you haven’t had a chance to order shades for the 16-foot wide, 10-foot tall sliding glass doors to your living room. Cars slow down as they go by, and walkers sometimes wave. We wave back, even if we have no idea who they are…

We’re preparing paperwork to have the house certified by the U.S. Green Building Council and the National Association of Home Builders. We’re shooting for the top rating, but having gone through the exhausting process of building a custom home, we’re all too aware of Murphy’s Law.

I wish the story was more clear about the cost of the building the home plus the utilities. Just because the home is smaller and more energy-efficient does not necessarily mean that it will be cheaper up-front. Is this like purchasing a hybrid car where you have to operate the car for a certain number of years before you realize the gas savings because of the premium for the car?

It looks like a nice house from the pictures posted with the story. But why exactly did they design a “modern home in a traditional neighborhood”? What happened to trying to fit into an existing architectural milieu?

A possible future of McMaisonettes

Posted on by

At the end of a review of Harvard’s Joint Centre for Housing Studies 2011 “State of the Nation’s Housing,” a commentator speculates on the near future for American housing:

But if there is a rebound, the JCHS analysis of American demography suggests where things will be most bouncy. At one end of the age spectrum, there will be pent-up demand from younger adults who have deferred setting up on their own because of economic and financial constraints. At the other end, the ageing of the baby-boomer generation will mean an increase in sales of homes by older people looking to downsize into smaller residences. That, and the limitations on mortgage financing, indicates that a revival in housing construction will focus on smaller houses. Fewer McMansions, in other words, and more McMaisonettes.

And I’m left waiting for the next paragraph which will then provide an explanation of future McMaisonettes. Because there is a “Mc-” prefix attached to the term maisonette, defined as a “small house” (also “an apartment often on two floors”), I assume this refers to the mass produced nature of these small homes. This is typically not complementary as critics suggests McMansions either all look the same or they mix-and-match authentic architectural themes or motifs into an mishmash. So will smaller homes be regarded as better because are more within people’s economic reach and are less wasteful or will they be knocked for their mass-produced nature just like McMansions?

Highlighting the isolation and independence of McMansions

Posted on by

A feature of McMansions that sometimes draws criticism is the possible isolation they offer their inhabitants. Neighborhoods of these homes are sometimes envisioned as wastelands where neighbors don’t know each other and really don’t want to have any interaction. Here is an illustration of this idea within an article about the “peer-to-peer economy”:

The mentality peaked during the ’90s and first half of the last decade. Heaven was a safe job, a McMansion, a Target (TGT) in your city, a Starbucks (SBUX) down the road, a credit card with no limit, and a seven-figure bank account. No need to ever interact with strangers! The perfect bliss of isolation, err, “financial independence.”

The general idea here is that the goal of life during this time period was to have so much money that people don’t have to interact with others that they don’t want to interact with. While this may be in the name of being “financially independent,” it is really about becoming self-sufficient and not having to depend on anybody.

Several thoughts about this:

1. Even with this so-called “financial independence,” it is hard to escape the need for other people. I’m reminded of Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity where people are more interdependent on others than ever due to the division of labor but also feel more independent. This seems related to American cultural ideas of individualism: the goal is to become a self-made man/woman who can do it all on their own. Can we then interpret advice from people like Dave Ramsey as promulgating American individualism more than fighting debt?

1a. This fear of strangers is an interesting idea. It is often invoked when talking about the formation of American suburbs (white flight out of cities) or gated communities (trying to keep certain people out). I wonder if there is survey data that would suggests Americans are more afraid of strangers than citizens of other countries.

2. Is a single-family house more of a place to avoid people or to build up the individual and the family unit?

3. I understand the idea of a McMansion and a large bank account fitting the theme of isolation but what do a safe job, Target, and Starbucks have to do with it? In all three of these settings, people interact with others, particularly on the job. With money, one can purchase a customizable experience at Target and Starbucks but this would be true in a lot of commercial settings.

Another article on declining homeownership rates

Posted on by

Bloomberg Businessweek highlights how American’s view of home ownership has changed in the last few years:

The most affordable real estate in a generation is failing to lure buyers as Americans like Pauli sour on the idea of home ownership. At the end of 2010, the fourth year of the housing collapse, the share of people who said a home was a safe investment dropped to 64 percent from 70 percent in the first quarter. The December figure was the lowest in a survey that goes back to 2003, when it was 83 percent.

“The magnitude of the housing crash caused permanent changes in the way some people view home ownership,” said Michael Lea, a finance professor at San Diego State University. “Even as the economy improves, there are some who will never buy a home because their confidence in real estate is gone.”…

“If we’ve learned anything from this mess, it’s that housing is not a risk-free investment,” said Michelle Meyer, a senior economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research in New York. “Everyone knows someone underwater in their mortgage or struggling to sell a home.”…

The U.S. home ownership rate dropped to 66.5 percent in the fourth quarter, the lowest in more than a decade, according to the Census Department. The rate probably will retreat another percentage point by 2013, according to Meyer, of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and Lea, the finance professor. That would put it back to a 1997 level.

“People will still aspire to own their own homes,” Lea said. “They’ll just be a lot more practical about it.”

This article tends to focus on the money side of things (housing as less of an investment, tighter credit, lots of people with underwater mortgages, a future with a reduced or no involvement from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.) but I think the key (or exciting) information is in the last two paragraphs I cited above:

1. The homeownership rate has dipped but not a whole lot. Even in the housing boom of roughly the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, the US homeownership rate increased from 63.6% in early 1993 to 69.2% in late 2004. So over an eleven year stretch of relative prosperity and increasing home values, homeownership rose about 6.5 percentage points. From this peak in late 2004 (69.2%), the homeownership rate had dropped to 66.5% for the fourth quarter in 2010. In a six year stretch, the rate had dropped 2.7%. If you look at the historical data since 1965 (all of these figures are from an Excel table on the Census website – Table 14 on this page), before the 1990s, the homeownership rate moved fairly slowly either up or down. Perhaps what is not so unusual about homeownership is not that it has fallen in recent years but rather that it rose so much between 1993 to 2004.

2. Additionally, this is all tied to American aspirations: do they still aspire to own their own home? While this article (and many others) highlight how this might now be more difficult, this key part of the American Dream still seems to be intact. Even if future neighborhoods or suburbs look different (like this article suggests they might), the interest in owning one’s property still appears to be high. While there is no guarantee that more and more Americans will be able to own their own homes (how high might the American homeownership rate realistically go anyway?), it will likely take more than this what has happened in this particular economic crisis to cast a new vision of American fulfillment that doesn’t include a single-family home or space.

A commercial reminder of the importance of the American lawn

Posted on by

There is little doubt that Americans pay a lot of attention to their lawns and a green lawn is pretty much a necessity in front of the American single-family home. On the way to work today, I heard two grass seed commercials within the same commercial break and they reinforced this interest in lawns.

First, I heard about Pennington Grass Seed. Pennington claimed their bags included all seed while their competitor Scotts only had half a bag of seed and half of bag of filler. Additionally, their seeds required less water. I was invited to go online and check out the science behind the seeds. Second, I heard from Scotts which didn’t name Pennington but went through their claims: Scotts seed doesn’t need more water (actually, it retains water much better than Pennington’s) and it has a special filler whereas Pennington simply uses paper for filler.

Three things struck me about these two commercials:

1. Both ads referred to the science of grass seeds with both claiming they had the better mix. Are consumers really going to pay much attention to this?

2. It was interesting to hear how the two companies approach each other. Pennington went right at Scotts while Scotts didn’t used Pennington’s name (though it wasn’t hard to figure out who they were talking about). From this, can I infer that Scotts is the market leader and Pennington is looking for some way to gain ground?

3. Referring back to my first point, how much of this just really comes down to price and brand recognition? When I go to the store to buy mulch this weekend, would I buy seed based on the science or the price?

The evolving American Dream: more dense but still private

Posted on by

I’ve written about several aspects of the American Dream including unhappiness and how the American Dream might now be about perfection rather than acquiring goods or status. One key aspect of this Dream is housing, often viewed as a single-family house in a suburb. A new report from the National Association of Realtors suggests homebuyers now have some new preferences:

The 2011 Community Preference Survey reveals that, ideally, most Americans would like to live in walkable communities where shops, restaurants, and local businesses are within an easy stroll from their homes and their jobs are a short commute away; as long as those communities can also provide privacy from neighbors and detached, single-family homes. If this ideal is not possible, most prioritize shorter commutes and single-family homes above other considerations.

1. The economy has had a substantial impact on attitudes toward housing and communities…

2. Overall, Americans’ ideal communities have a mix of houses, places to walk, and amenities within an easy walk or close drive…

3. Desire for privacy is a top consideration in deciding where to live…

4. But, having a reasonable commute can temper desire for more space…

5. Community characteristics are more important than size of home…

6. Improving existing communities preferred over building new roads and developments…

7. Major differences in community preferences of various types of Americans…

All of these points are from the executive summary which also has some key percentages for each point.

The results of this survey seem similar to a recent report (see here) earlier this year from the National Association of Home Builders that suggested Generation Y wants more urban settings and more social (and smaller?) homes. In the long run, it remains to be seen whether these changes are broad cultural changes, generational changes (driven by younger generations), or opinions changed primarily by recent economic conditions.

Richard Florida sums up the report this way:

We’ve come to a crossroads that neither dyed-in-the-wool sprawl advocates nor crunchy urbanists dreamed of two decades ago, in which the choice isn’t between urban and suburban but between neighborhood and subdivision. A great neighborhood is a great neighborhood whether it’s in the city or the suburbs. It’s not an either/or, between crowded apartments or Cape Cods on cul de sacs, it’s more of a blend. Developers and planners take note: there is a potentially enormous market in cities for narrow single-family houses on small lots, like you see in places like Santa Monica and Venice. And as I wrote in The Wall Street Journal not too long ago, there are countless ways that our suburbs can be densified and reinvigorated. The American Dream hasn’t died–it just looks a lot different than it did in the 1950s. It looks a lot different than it did a decade ago.

So this report may not really be a repudiation of the suburbs but rather a new vision for suburbia: private yet dense (with still a clear 80% preference for single-family homes) and with neighborhood amenities. I am a little surprised that there aren’t more specific questions about preferred housing size or housing costs. Additionally, the survey seems set up to ask a lot of questions about smart growth with little explanation why this was the main focus.

(A side note: the study was a web survey:

The 2011 BRS/NAR Community Preference Survey is a web-enabled survey of adults nationwide using the Knowledge Networks panel. Knowledge Networks uses probability methods to recruit its panel, allowing results to be generalized to the population of adults in the U.S. A total of 2,071 questionnaires were completed from February 15 to 24, 2011. The data have been weighted by gender, age, race, region, metropolitan status, and Internet access. The margin of sampling error for the sample of 2,071 is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence. A detailed methodology can be found in Appendix A.

Knowledge Networks (KN) is a firm that gets around some of the common problems of web surveys (typically having to do with having a representative sample) by having representative panels who take web surveys. In order to get a representative sample, KN employs this technique:  “Since almost three in ten U.S. households do not have home Internet access, we supply these households a free netbook computer and Internet service.”)