defend the indefensible: MCMANSIONS

I also hate faux shutters on American brick homes.

!!

I read this in the newspaper the other day. Hardly surprising:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/housing-blamed-for-poor-health/2006/09/03/1157222007440.html

It's bad enough in middle america (or equivalent), but if you're going to pay millions of dollars to live on reclaimed land shaped like a palm tree in the sea by the UAE, do you really want a quarter acre block?

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/images_of_the_week/20041207_072013_HRC_14776_Dubai-Isl-Palm_H.jpg

The image isn't great but google maps hasn't been updated there for a while.

As houses get larger, gardens are getting smaller. In days of yore, the front garden was seen as a public display of morality and status, while the back yard could have all the utilitarian implements like the compost heap and clothes line (incidentally, he also dispelled the myth that the Hills Hoist is NOT an Australian invention! An Aussie simply coined the term).

So it seems that there has been a reversal - now it is the house which is a statement of status, while the garden shrinks. This is prob. also related to water restrictions. But, "the leafy suburbs" still refers to wealthy areas because there continues to be more greenery in these regions.

On topic: it is difficult to defend McMansions because they have no character. They are aesthetically unappealing and are springing up everywhere, causing immense NOISE POLLUTION, making certain developers v. rich and creating who knows how many future problems.

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), September 5th, 2006 4:26 PM. (later)

Hope the squatters and artists have cars and plenty of gas. None of this shit's ever built remotely close to any public transport.

"this is my spot, where i ya know reflect and pay my respects to god and shit"

Come on you bastard, SAY SOMETHING DAMMIT.

the arguments AGAINST both (a) and (b), though, are that i'd like to think that i DO know better (and hopefully, some other people do too). the home where i grew up is over 100 years old (built circa 1880) -- so i have some idea about how much money it takes for the upkeep (esp. heating during cold northeastern winters) as well as a vague idea of the workmanship, materials, etc. for the "real deal" as opposed to these slapped-up new constructions. my parent's older homes not only had the older, sturdier construction, but also doesn't have some of the really wasteful and (IMHO) pointless standard McMansion features -- such as needlessly high ceilings (which, besides being ostentatious, makes these places much less energy-efficient), for example. and we also had a REAL yard -- close to an acre -- as opposed to these McMansions on postage-stamp sized lots or (worse yet) attached to another McMansion (which makes them more like McCondos, if you ask me).

also, i may sound snobbish here -- but while i understand the desire for a large house i don't understand the need for a McMansion when you can get large-sized OLDER houses.

drove and walked past some incredible -- and totally indefensible -- MCMANSIONS while visiting my wife's family in LA next month. like building the Taj Mahal or Monticello on a half-acre lot. bizarre.

- Many people hate McMansions because they're oversized in proportion to their lot size and surroundings. However, if the owner was going to buy a house that size anyway it's better that they get one on a 1/4 acre lot than a 5 acre lot.

- In established communities, owners who buy small houses, tear them down, and build large houses in their place are preventing sprawl.

- New homes are, in general, much more energy efficient than old homes. Insulated ductwork, double glazed windows, tighter building envelope, etc.

- There are arguments to be made from an aesthetic and embodied energy standpoint for standard McMansion construction, but overall McMansions aren't really any worse than typical suburban development.

yes, and those of us who choose to live in the city don't want the suburbs moving in next door.

here the 'burbs are a good 15-30 min drive up the freeway. I don't care how many cheap, big houses they build up there. I live about 5 minutes from downtown in an area that was considered suburbs when it was built in the 1940's-1950's. Now it's inner-city and we bought our 1950s home there b/c that's the type of neighboorhood we want to live in. We don't want someone building some (as we call it where I come from) "North Dallas Special" on the small lot next to ours. If we wanted that we would live 30 min north instead.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/b59c5629/pols_feature-34470.jpeg

No, I'm content to see them all burn.

but how much more energy do you need to crank out to heat/cool a monster home?

It's completely advisable for area residents to lobby for changes to local zoning laws! But it's also important to understand what the existing laws allow before moving to an area. Areas should be expected to change in character by default unless mechanisms are put in place to slow it.

Understand that I'm making this argument as a carless person who lives in a studio apartment.

I live in a one-bedroom apartment and frankly living any place larger would feel ridiculous. Living with another person, I'll grant, is another matter.

Read any ballard?

I dunno, some people don't care about style...

So, has all this additional space helped make a happier American home?

Perhaps not quite. Twenty years ago, nearly six in 10 homeowners reported high satisfaction in their houses. Last year, five in 10 did.

but that's just me. i like old stuff.

If it's desireable why not build new homes that way? Every new architect-designed house that I've seen seems to use open plan and they all look great.

I'll just post this, though, for the time being: http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/

xp - I also like old stuff. My parents' house (where I grew up) is about 100 years old, a constant struggle to maintain, but it's a hobby for my parents, so they don't care.

In Bozeman, there's a huge reluctance to pursue intensive, mixed-development in the downtown area, because that would require tall buildings (block views of the mountains), and the destruction of the city's carefully maintained "small-town" charm. Not that anyone wants to knock down all the old Victorian storefronts or anything. It's just that a lot of native Montanans see tall buildings as being too urban, and the recent transplants want to keep pretending they live in A River Runs Through It (filmed about 15 mins outside of town, incidentally). So, the development aprons out, and gobbles up all the ranch/farming land in the surrounding area. Then, everyone complains about sprawl, and blames it on the second-home owners and people from California, nevermind the fact that the loudest critics are those that moved here only 5-10 years ago.

Interestingly, New Urbanism and mixed-development cropped up in a recent local op-ed, and were referred to as "revolutionary new ideas in urban planning."

Basically, people here, and in a lot of other Western towns, are afraid of the inevitable: growth. It's gonna happen eventually, and it's guaranteed to be awful if everyone pretends it isn't happening, and lets the developers run the show.

(ps - I'm still interested in some urban planning book recs, jbr! ....if yr willing)

Basically, the pressure to build out and up and accept oversize as the norm ignores a lot of life-quality sort of enduring human considerations. Please excuse the over-idealization/romanticization/etc but I really, really don't want to live in a house that encourages me to be deaf and blind to myself, if that isn't completely ridiculous.

there are some usc guys that have written great stuff about california history and planning: greg hise, william deverell, kevin starr. james kushner has a terrific casebook called land use regulation that explains everything you could ever want to know about important precedents, zoning, the subdivision process, impact fees and conditions and assessments and so forth. tridib-banerjee co-authored an interesting book about downtown redevelopment, public/private partnerships, BIDs, the nature of public space, urban spatial analysis, etc -- called urban design downtown: poetics and politics of form. dowell myers has interesting, often unconventional ideas about demography, the future, and the public good.

dunno why i put that hyphen in there.

what is in store for mcmansions over the next 25 years?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

McMansions: now on the $1 menu

what a very timely thread revival, in light of this news story.

http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5hiLgxywBn_qaNgD1gUsYMbjA25sA?size=m

actually, this is a pretty nice visual metaphor of the american economy these days ...

dude, fuck the ELF

maybe if those guys had squirt guns

xpost - im sprry, that just looks funny ("fuck the elf" not the fire)

*sorry

dude, fuck the ELF

i agree ... i just saw the news story, and remembered that this thread was revived.

I feel the same way about the ELF (oh the lawls of that acronym).

Part of me, though, thinks this *may* have been a self-job i.e. the project was doomed because Woodinville is going down teh toilets as an exurb so it was a cash-in on the damage insurance money.

Then again, I wouldn't put it past the ELF to mark themselves this way, either.

tom fucks dudes elves

go fuck your own dudeself

or whatever. Mackro's version is the best so far though

Part of me, though, thinks this *may* have been a self-job i.e. the project was doomed because Woodinville is going down teh toilets as an exurb so it was a cash-in on the damage insurance money.

Then again, I wouldn't put it past the ELF to mark themselves this way, either.

-- Mackro Mackro, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 02:54 (3 minutes ago) Link

My thoughts EXACTLY

I mean wtf why would ELF choose random luxury houses to target - do they have any history of doing that? I thought they just, like, wrecked industrial agricultural machinery and shit.

i seem to recall them doing stuff like this before - as well as targeting a lot full of suvs and a ski lodge maybe?

yeah the ski lodge was the kicker. "ok, you don't give a shit about the planet, you just hate rich people."

not that there's anything wrong with that

Over time after those that could afford to abandon the stranded suburbs and return to the center will the mcmansions be bulldozed or converted into multi-family dwellings? Are they large enough to fulfill that function?

They aren't well constructed enough to undergo conversions. Most will rot where they stand if not lived in and moderately well kept. (see past threads on decline of the suburbs)

not just for exurbia
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/nyregion/05forest.html

seems like a variation on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_palace

Some have suggested that abandoned McMansion suburbs will be the slums of an energy starved future.

The emphasis placed on the extended family by most Middle Eastern cultures, including that of Persia, means that Persians' houses are typically far larger than those built by Americans in the 1920s and 1930s.

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words racism, which can allow the implication of unsourced information.

None of the above is as egregious as what you can find driving around or using the local listings.

For example:

<a href="http://s35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/richhunt35/?action=view¤t=sc0110b186.jpg"; target="_blank"><img src="http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/richhunt35/sc0110b186.jpg"; border="0" alt="Cloud house"></a>

oops.

<img src="http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/richhunt35/sc0110b186.jpg"; >
Sorry about the messed up link.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/richhunt35/sc0110b186.jpg

DUH. Sorry.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/richhunt35/sc0110420f.jpg

“Don’t be upset with our people because we like to be large,” pleaded Boris Kandov, president of the Bukharian Jewish Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada

-----------

lol every line in that queens mcmansion nytimes story is a money quote

one lol not mentioned tho: outer borough mcmansions tend because of scarcity of space to be scale replicas. u look at them like oh wow then realize theyre using all sorts of werido perspective tricks like low ceilings small rooms and teeny balconies to trick you into thinking theyre anything but the smallish homes they actually are

McMansions Return: Why Big Houses Are Coming Back

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321206