I know that some of the regulars around here dislike McMansions in the idea of ‘bigger is better’ mentality is bad for the house market soul. This past Sunday, I watched 60 Minutes and they had a segment on McMansions.
As an example, they showed this neighborhood that was well into change in which small homes (on the order of 1100 SqFt) were being bought, torn-down, and replaced with homes almost three times as large. Some of the new homes that replaced older homes seem to mimic the original street-facing facade and got their increased suare-footage by simply entended the depth of the home.
Then, Morley Safer (show’s host) interviewed a couple of people. He first interviewed someone doing everything to in/prohibit the act. They wanted to maintain their neighborhood as-is. The first thing that came to my mind was ‘jealous’. Yes, I felt the old bat was jealous that someone could come into their neighbor, buy a property, afford to tear down said property, and build a bigger home. My basis for the ‘jealous’ identification was that because she probably couldn’t afford to do it, or that she couldn’t afford the increased property values (meaning increased property taxes), was jealos that a bunch of people were moving into her community that could afford this.
Then, Morley interview someone caught up in the process, but haven been trumped by the old bat. It seems that he bought an 1100 SqFt home for +$700K with the intentions of tearing it down and putting up a 3000 SqFt home in its place. But, activities by the old bat managed to bring to fruition a moratorium on construction in her neighborhood, and left the man sitting on a $700K POS. Now, 1100 SqFt may be fine for someone that was born/raised and have since lived within their ‘means’ that is spelled out in 1100 SqFt, but I was amused when morley asked the man what he believed to be the ‘problem’ the old bat had in the changing community: jealosy.
God, we young’ins really know how to label old bats. So, the initial identification of a neighborhood changing on the street-facing was comletely ignored when some properties active accomplished retaining the street-facing facade and just extended back into their respective properties. Yet, Morley never asked the old bat if she were jealous or not.
And then the show’s segment turned to introspective of housing in America as a comparitive example between 1950’s and today. They noted while houses, on average, have increased in square-footage by 50%, the size of ‘families’ have gone down by almost as much. So, instead of 1100 SqFt we are now seeing the average around 3000. Instead of a mom+dad+2.5 kids (~4.5 members/household), the current average family size is 3.6 members.
I have to say that being that I have no desire for children, I think I am better able to afford more house as a result.
Replies
what you are saying rings so true with me. As a home designer, I am currently designing a 10,000 square foot mansion for someone who tore down two adjacent houses on two adjacent lots to make room for their big #### house. Totally custom and going to be built by the best custom builder I can think of.
So the builder and the surveyor and the excavator are on site having a meeting. Enter the "old bat". She walks over to ask some questons cause she smells something cooking. She gives the classic line "oh I'm so glad someone is going to finally fix up this old house - ahem bulls**! Then she starts probing with, "I hope their not putting up one of those huge houses. This neighborhood doesn't need that." her anxiety is met with nervous smiles and silent awkwardness. Then the subject is changed.
The worst part is, the site is all ledge, and they will be blasting out most of the basement, which has an 8,000 s.f. footprint. I can see this one is going to get off to a bang (sorry I couldn't resist that)
For the record, I think a 10,000 s.f. home is unnecessary, but we are not in the habbit of turning down 100,000 design fees. Does that make what I do wrong? I don't think so. If they don't get it here they will go somewhere else.
Maybe my stance is a little harsh, but I think if its there money, and they can afford it, and it isn't illegal, then everybody else should keep their nose out!
I mean, I just built a 4 thousand square foot addition last spring on a home that was already 3000 square feet.......All custom, beautiful house! I will never ever be able to afford that home, nor would I ever want to live in it! Basically because I believe in living within my means, and I don't have any desire to be super rich.
But.........Those people who do have the money to do that, and are doing that are providing a lot of other people with work--- And in the situation of the neighborhood being redone, they are increasing property value by leaps and bounds, and making the old bats portfolio a LOT richer! So the old bats should shut their mouths and consider their good fortune that their property value on their sad 1950's house just cuadrupeled without them having to do anything!
When in doubt, get a bigger hammer!
Just the other day, I got a notice from the zoning board that a guy in our township is applying for a variance to build a 60x40 garage. Zoning regulations prohibit garages that are larger than the principle dwelling (his house is 1900 sq ft). The notice was for a hearing.
My thought is why do I care? What buisiness is it of mine if a guy wants to do that? What guy doesn't dream of a 2400 sq ft (or bigger) garage?
I attended a zoning meeting once. Someone in another neighborhood had filed a complaint about his +24 automobiles on his personal property. No, we are not talking someone with acreage, but someone with 2-3 acres at most. During the meeting, he explained he collected cars. As a compromise, he said, he would like to build a 14-car garage. Hahahahaha
The committee looked at him, the pictures taken by his annoyed neighbor, and the concluded that an additional 6-car garage was all he was going to be permitted to, with 2-4 cars in his existing driveway, two more in his existing attached garage, and anything else towed. I found it especially amusing when they asked about what appeared to be a beater-car (late 1970's stationwagon looking like it was a cross between flood victim and highway accident) he said it was a collectors car he drove daily.
Now, there are instances in which I can see someone being concerned with their property being lowered in retail value by the neighborhood surrounding them, such as was this case. But the news segment was actually the opposite as that neighborhood's average property value was destined to climb.
Now, I am not sure its so much as living beyond one's personal means. The old bat is probably the case since if her property values double and her income doesn't accommodate the increased property taxes, then she would be virtually forced into a condition of living beyond her means. BUT, this was never expressed by her. So, I am doubting that was the case.
I have to give kudos for those renovators and builders that sought to maintain the street-appearance of the renovated properties. Drive-by viewing was unchanged while living space tripled.
In my last home my neighbour was a bona-fide car collector, and a great guy. He had a 2-car wide garage, 4 cars deep with a workshop on the back where he did engine/off frame work. Often you'd hear an oldies station playing as he tinkered with this or that. Rarely did you hear more than that.
When the time came for him to move out of town, his house was sold to a 20-something welder who used the garage to host all-night parties, and make odds and ends out of sheet metal. Hammering plate steel and pounding base was a lot different than the oldies stations we had hear before.
The problems were not the result of the garage, they were the result of the person with the garage. I agree with the "keep your nose out my business, and I'll keep mine out of yours" thinking, but if human decency can't prevail, then these zoning ordinances do have a purpose.View Image
I have to give kudos for those renovators and builders that sought to maintain the street-appearance of the renovated properties. Drive-by viewing was unchanged while living space tripled.
Yeah, that would be a nice touch. And 3k sq ft isn't really huge. Not like the 10k someone else mentioned.
I looked at a small cape cod a couple months back. Maybe 950-1k sq ft. The owner's aunt had raised her family there (wife, hubby, FOUR kids). Nowadays that's a dinky little house, but I suppose back in the 40's & 50's, it would have been considered a comfortable house.
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
Edited 12/1/2005 4:48 pm by JohnT8
Kim and I raise 5 kids and 5 pets in a 1925 sq. ft. home quite well. We may be relocating and we have looked at houses even a little smaller. My sons best friend lives in a home of 976 sq ft with his brother, sister, and two parents.
You don't need a lot of sq ft to raise a family.
Kim and I raise 5 kids and 5 pets in a 1925 sq. ft. home quite well. We may be relocating and we have looked at houses even a little smaller. My sons best friend lives in a home of 976 sq ft with his brother, sister, and two parents.
Just because we can live in a sardine can doesn't mean we should force thy neighbor to. Prisoners can live in a 6'x8' room. Maybe we should force the same on everyone. Personally, I'd rather see constraints in other areas of societ and less on where I eat and sleep in private. I take much more offence with the sofa-sized vehicles on the road--like they need a livingroom to take with them on their solo morning drive into the office.
BTW, I cannot believe how big this thread has gotten. +120 replies since I last looked. WOW
Just because we can live in a sardine can doesn't mean we should force thy neighbor to. Prisoners can live in a 6'x8' room.
Possibly one of the best reponses I've seen on this board to date. This was my 4th or 5th chuckle of the day...but definitely the biggest.
Thanks, Rob
Prisoners can live in a 6'x8' room.
Possibly one of the best reponses I've seen on this board to date. This was my 4th or 5th chuckle of the day...
Sure hope so, other than in Maricopa Co, a 6x8 cell is probably "unconstitutional" <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Just because we can live in a sardine can doesn't mean we should force thy neighbor to."
Interesting article/video on The New York Times web site today, about a woman who feels EXTREMELY lucky to have snagged up an undecorated 300/sq' studio for "only $310K in Manhattan. Are people nut's?
With people paying that, the McMansion trend looks like a bargain.
WSJ
Edited 12/5/2005 6:08 pm ET by WorkshopJon
>Kim and I raise 5 kids and 5 pets in a 1925 sq. ft. home quite well.And in Japan and Germany, that'd be palatial for most people. It's all a matter of perspective.###I think it was best said by whomever posted...a McMansion is any house bigger than my own.
Somehow a garage that size attracts broken-down cars, motorcycles/snowmobiles at 3AM, etc. The larger the garage, for some reason, the more cars have to be parked outside.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
Couldnt agree more. But understand that in the case of the old bat, they are usually on fixed income, and living with no mortgauge. What they do have to pay is taxes, which will increase with their property value. In some cases it forces them out. It is sad, but maybe just the natural order of things. Maybe their assessed value could be grandfathered, allowing them to keep their homes.Soultrain, I just read your message. I diddn't realize some jurisdictions were freezing taxes for the elderly
Edited 11/30/2005 12:01 pm ET by xosder11
> Maybe their assessed value could be grandfathered, allowing them to keep their homes.
That's what we've had here in California since 1978. It was a landmark initiative, still known as proposition 13.
-- J.S.
>That's what we've had here in California since 1978. It was a landmark initiative, still known as proposition 13.See that. I learned something on Breaktime again today so my time wasted was actually time well spent. I admit that I still have very much to learn. That comes in time. ####, If I were only govener of California in '78 I may have been onto something. Also, for the record; in my first post in this thread I mentioned I was in the process of designing a 10,000 s.f. house. I want it to be known that it will not be a cheaply built vinyl clad monstrosity. I'm talking about top of the line, no corners cut, no expense spared. Copper and slate roofs, cast stone accents a 11' tall segmented arch windows, a 4 stop elevator...etc.Should be pretty nice, though admittedly rather large. Programatically however, it required the square footage. The individuals have large functions where they entertain massive amounts of people, the govenor has been known to attend.Think of it this way, the dining room table is going to seat 20 people. now imagine the scale of that Room.
In my opinion, Prop 13 is a bit of a complex issue and no panacea for anything.From the perspective of the older, previous resident owners of property, the moment you institute Prop 13, you insulate them from property tax increases---but that also means, you deprive the community of the increased tax revenue to pay for services that appreciating property generates. You make sure that the people who owned property the day the law was passed are somewhat enriched by a community subsidy to them from everyone who buys a house or moves-in after them---I mean, the firemen and police guys still need to get paid from somewhere to protect everyone's house and they sure the heck haven't frozen their salaries just because you froze property taxes. The practical effect in California, which continued to attract immigration from other countries and the rest of the United States ever since Prop 13 was passed was that the mostly white, older property owners have had their "share" of the property taxes subsidized by everyone around them who buys a house and pays the new assessment--everyone turning out to mean people from other states, Hispanics, Asians and what-not and so forth; sort of like a tax on coming to California and having the audacity to buy property here from someone who was here before you. More specifically, it ensures that on every block, even with $2 million dollar Victorians, everyone will have at least one non-functional neighbor, usually like a cat lady, a collector of junk cars, etc, who can stay only because their taxes are always the same; their house gradually decays and rather than making the economically logical decision to sell the house, take the gains and stay in an apartment or a another smaller house, or even move to somewhere else where the sale of their California house buys even more....they stay, with their decaying, rotting structure presenting an ever present eyesore. I know it sounds improbable, but it's true.From the government point of view, Prop 13 makes budgeting nearly impossible. Why? Because the government has to turn to sales taxes and what-not for it's revenue; remember, there's still a demand for police, fire, schools, water etc after you freeze property taxes, but now, as the community needs all of those, or as inflation hits, you can't get more from the property tax pool; the assessments are essentially frozen.Therefore, a place like California ends up trying to budget from things like personal taxes on stock options. During the upswing of the Dot Com boom, that meant there was too much money sloshing around; silly things get funded, lots of pork mills around and there are still surpluses. However, once the personal incomes stop growing, as they abruptly did in 2001, you've got a problem; the state has obligations, but no income to pay for them. Craziness ensues and we the voters get zapped.
Argh.So, in my opinion, even though I am the bizarre beneficiary of this law (my house is now conservatively worth 300% what I paid for it 12 years ago, but my taxes have only gone up by 2% per year), Prop 13 is no panacea.As a note, in reference to the Fine Homebuilding spin on this, I think things like Prop 13 affect people's decisions in choosing construction methods and in deciding to do maintenance. In California, I think even more so than elsewhere (I have no practical experience to determine this is true, I just think this), maintenance is deferred by older homeowners, sometimes to the point of complete decay, because the incentive for them to maintain the property so that they can sell it easily, is decreased. After all, if your taxes are frozen and you have a limited income, you can stay forever in once place---if you overlook the the fact that even a house with no property taxes assessed against it, still takes 1-3% of its real economic value to maintain each year, and there's no way around that as far as I can tell---and that means that a house bought for $20,000 in 1952 can't be maintained by the $200-600 that the fixed tax value implies; since it's now worth $950,000 or more, it really needs $10k-20k a year to be kept up...The older owner, paralyzed in the headlights of the Prop 13 tax freeze and pinned by their fixed income, never sells---instead, it passes in the estate and is sold out of estate.It removes from the features of life the way a block and neighborhood usually rolls over, the way my parents block in another state is rolling over----all the families start together, there are lots of kids, we grow up, we move away, time passes, it's mostly older families, then, faced with rising tax assessments and large, mostly empty houses, the block suddenly turns over in the space of 5 years and new swing sets are installed, lots of kids are milling around, the grass in the front corner of my parent's yard starts to get a rut in it again from all the bicycles that are cutting the corner...Anyway, for what's it's worth.NotAClue
why did you not mention millions of illlegal alliens sucking up free education and a very limited health-care. More taxes in California?..yup that will bring in more jobs.
Should be pretty nice, though admittedly rather large. Programatically however, it required the square footage. The individuals have large functions where they entertain massive amounts of people, the govenor has been known to attend.
Think of it this way, the dining room table is going to seat 20 people. now imagine the scale of that Room.
In my mind, there is a difference. the folks you are describing are building an actual mansion, not a McMansion. A McMansion (with all the negative associations) Is middle-class folks playing rich-wannabies. It is a 10k sq ft monstrocity that 2-4 people will live in...and will likely never have more than a handful of people visiting at any given time. A waste of resources and money. But it's their money, so more power to them as long as they don't build it by me.
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
I think this definition is exactly right. What I am seeing is a lot of these young families that are house rich and pocket poor because of the wannabe mentality also known as the "Jones" syndrome. I have a friend who is in property management and appraisals and he was telling me the other day that the rate of foreclosure in these types of suburban communities is higher than it has ever been. Some of it is the general economy as a whole but a lot of it is the wannabe trap, one of the baits being the McMansion defined as a voluminous structure with little individuality, quality, or attention to detail either in design or materials.
I think Propostiton 13 was a huge mistake, and the state of California is paying for it through the nose. Every house in Santa Cruz is worth at least $500,000, just because of the value of the land it sits on. There is no incentive to keep property values down. Everyone wants to see them go up. I have two friends who both bought houses about 4 years ago, and both paid around $280,000. Both are out in the county. They both constantly watch how much houses are selling for in their neighborhood, which are up around $450,00 now. They pay taxes on what they paid for the house. They love to see prices going up around them, and seeing their value go up, because they bought the houses for investments as much as to live in.Back in Georgia, where my mom lives, you can bet she'll call raising cane if they try to raise her property value, because she knows her taxes will go up. Every house in Santa Cruz worth at least half a million, and they are closing schools they can't afford to keep open, and charge kids money to ride the bus to school. Proposition 13 wasn't the only cause of this, but it is one of them.
Allen in Boulder Creek
I just paid $11,696 in property taxes. So, I'd be hard pressed to agree that low property taxes are the big problem. ;-)
BTW, where'd all that money go?
-- J.S.
Back in Georgia, where my mom lives, you can bet she'll call raising cane if they try to raise her property value, because she knows her taxes will go up.
Every house in Santa Cruz worth at least half a million, and they are closing schools they can't afford to keep open, and charge kids money to ride the bus to school. Proposition 13 wasn't the only cause of this, but it is one of them.
This is interesting. I did some research a couple of years ago and learned, to my dismay, that the Gwinnet County tax revenues are consumed majorically on public education. Ok, I probably knew that well before doing any research, as public education is the biggest expenditure of any country/state.
But, between 1960 and 2000 the percentage of county tax revenues going to public county schools wen from 45% to 77%. I think I can redneck-conclude that by 2040 all of the county tax revenues will go to public schools (people: b i r t h c o n t r o l) and we can revert back to horse-wagons since no public works will be available. :)
Someone wants to talk about the birden a bigger home has on the resources of the county, but they seem to think the burden of the public school system is O K.
Nuke: It does not have anything to do with birth control. Schools take an increasingly greater percetnage of state revenues because of the teacher's unions and the great job they do selling the notion of underpaid teachers and the need for smaller classroom sizes.
Is $50,000 for a part-time job (8 months out of the year) underpaid? Really? Sure that is not the starting pay, but I bet you did not make your current pay right out of school either. Doubt the figure? Do a little research. My brother-in-law is a teacher and makes over 60k, spends two weeks over Christmas in Mexico, the summer touring and sometimes bring-in an extra 13k working for the park service.
Class sizes? More power to the union. Their job is to expand their power by expanding membership. WHat better way to do it that smaller class sizes. I am sure teaching quality goes up a bit, too, but that has limits as well.
Me envious? No. Just the facts. Me complaining? No, what would be the point.
Just the facts.
But, between 1960 and 2000 the percentage of county tax revenues going to public county schools wen from 45% to 77%.
Can you say "baby boomers" and "baby boomers' children?" LOL. More children to educate means more dollars required to educate them, after all.
I think I can redneck-conclude that by 2040 all of the county tax revenues will go to public schools (people: b i r t h c o n t r o l) and we can revert back to horse-wagons since no public works will be available. :)
Did you know that the birth rate in the US is now at an all-time low? According to the CDC, "From 1990 to 1999, there was a 9-percent decline in the birth rate (from 70.9 to 64.4 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44)." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm
At that rate I doubt your model will hold up unto 2040, thank goodness. ;-)
For all the information you ever wanted to know about US birth rates, check here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm
Leigh
edited to fix wacky font sizes.
I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers). . .
Edited 12/1/2005 1:32 pm by Aberwacky
Prop 13 was a huge mistake, but I don't begrudge anyone for voting for it.
There where better written propositions that year but 13 was better funded and got all of the attention. The problem of escalating property values and resulting tax increases forcing many out of there homes was ignored by our wonderful state legislature until they realized that 13 was going to pass. The problems caused by prop 13 are many and too numerous for discussion here but its basic premise to protect the fixed income property owner worked. It also protected the commercial property owner and apartment owners who got there tax rates fixed but where still allowed to increase rents as they wished. Unless you lived in the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica who passed a stiff rent control ordinance. The state politicians in Calif still are out of touch with what the people want and don't understand when they get pissed off and vote some out or in or make there own law through the initiative process.
"Couldnt agree more. But understand that in the case of the old bat, they are usually on fixed income, and living with no mortgauge. What they do have to pay is taxes, which will increase with their property value. In some cases it forces them out. It is sad, but maybe just the natural order of things. Maybe their assessed value could be grandfathered, allowing them to keep their homes."
Around here, teardowns LOWER taxes for everyone else. If the McMansion triples the valuation of the property, the town is collecting more taxes, and is less likely to come back to the rest of us for a bigger bite.
In MA, we have a property tax increase cap of 2.5% per year, but 'new growth' is exempt from the cap, so teardowns can be a boon to a town's finances.
Plus, these are 'voluntary' taxes, meaning the McMansion folk CHOOSE to pay higher taxes, since they know the tax consequences coming into the deal.
I say teardowns are a win-win. Besides, it's not my property- they should be free to use their property as they see fit.
Around here, teardowns LOWER taxes for everyone else. ",
CS,
I doubt it over the long term, as those people also demand more services from the municipality. vs. the old lady that lived in the tiny ranch.
Jon
"I doubt it over the long term, as those people also demand more services from the municipality. vs. the old lady that lived in the tiny ranch."
Maybe, maybe not. 3 times the taxes can pay for a whole lot of services.
I know what you mean though. The wealthy newcomers often have higher expectations for libraries, schools, recreation, etc.
"they are increasing property value by leaps and bounds, and making the old bats portfolio a LOT richer!"It's also driving up her property taxes. The assessment on her property goes up, and a potential result might be having to sell because she can no longer afford the taxes to stay. It ends up being a subtle form of eminent domain.
I completely disagree with the if they can afford it rationale. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not there is a larger societal use of resources issue here. Yeah, maybe you can afford to do this or that but your rights stop where mine begin. Nonrenewable energy and resource usage, waste management, evironmental impact in general is germaine to this debate. The argument that someone should be able to do something because they can ie: afford to do so is nonsense.
It may be idealistic but we have this one planet that we all have to share. I'm by no means an environmental nut but when I see the 10K sq. ft. homes and the Hummers being driven by the Debs in the suburbs the conclusion I come to with regard to why they need homes and vehicle so large and wasteful is to have somewhere to put their giant egos.
"Yeah, maybe you can afford to do this or that but your rights stop where mine begin. Nonrenewable energy and resource usage, waste management, evironmental impact in general is germaine to this debate."does this include telling people how many children they can have? after all, if you have 4 kids, and I have 1, your family will eventually ise 4 times the energy/resources than mine?
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
Most points of view can be taken to the extreme, but I would say yes, people should consider the impact of an increasing population. There is only so much carrying capacity. I would never be so arrogant as to tell someone what they can and can't do in this regard but I would hope that people would consider the long term consequences for decisions such as this.
"taken to the extreme"extreme is somewhat subjective.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
point taken
bobl.
You nailed it! But I believe the debate is about ego! It is the other guy, not me who does all the bad stuff. My cell phone, hot tub, and third car are ok, it's that guy's "wasteful" car. And by the why, my fourth child hardly eats anything so he's ok too.
I completely disagree with the if they can afford it rationale. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not there is a larger societal use of resources issue here. Yeah, maybe you can afford to do this or that but your rights stop where mine begin. Nonrenewable energy and resource usage, waste management, evironmental impact in general is germaine to this debate. The argument that someone should be able to do something because they can ie: afford to do so is nonsense.
I find this amusing. Very amusing. My community developer consumes more water-for-irregation than the rest of the community combined. They can run lawn-watering activities 24x7 without restriction. They frequently leave lights on throughout the 5-10 model homes 24x7, and allow subcontractor tap-ins for power 24x7. On several occasions I've called the police >1AM becuase onc noise from power tools by men at work well into the wee hours of the morning.
Simply put: they have rights that I do not, because they are a 'business' and I am not. Where is the 'sharing' in this aspect of life in my community? My household has two a$sholes, literally. The one ones adjacent to me have 2-4 times that number. They all individually (per household) consumer more water and electricity than I do, but the rates of consumption is in their favor.
Next we'll see "concerned" citizens in communities saying no more than 1 Value meal per week, per household. I want my McDonalds Value Meal, too.
rip, and why do you "need" that cell phone, hot tub, second bathroom. Why do you need that snowblower, power mower, and weedwacker. I don't have any of those things., so am I entitled to think you are distroying my planet?
Frankly, yes. I'm not an environmentalist and lord knows I have my wants vs needs but the mentality that says I'm going to take and do what I want and **** the rest of you does have an impact on the rest of us and more importantly on our children, grandchildren, great grand children...........
rip: I must say that is a very strange response! You are condemning people for distroying the planet and then admit to ("Frankly yes") doing the same yourself. I think most people call that hypocracy, and that us typically not a compliment.
I'm not condemning anybody. All I am saying is I wish we as a species myself included would give more thought to issues such as this. Knowing what one should do or aspires to yet recognizing their own shortcomings doesn't make them a hypocrite. The hypocrite either doesn't even recognize it or doesn't care. There is a difference.
rip: Seems pretty thin to me. You condemn (although you prefer a different word) people who do xyz. You give me a better word if you don't like condmen. Critical of? Clearly you are critical.
And for you to start out critical of people who do xyz and later say you do the same thing is bizzare if not hypocritical. Clintonian wordsmithing comes to mind.
At any rate it is pretty hard to take anyone seriously when they are critical of X and admit to doing X. Are you leading by example?? Condemn? Critical?
I am a bit unusal in that I think words have mean.
But fair enough. You wish you were not wasteful. How ever you define waste.
Whatever.
I like words too. You can see it as you like. Your tone however is a poor substitute for a cogent argument.
Well, I guess if you have no facts or arguement yourself you can always scream foul. Typical.
I recall giving a speech in college. It was a controvesial subject and after the speech the instructor asked for comments. One student was enraged and said, "it's not fair he obviously knows more than I do on the subject". I said to myself, what?
Typcial, you have no facts and no arguement, so you just dismiss knowledge adn facts and go on your ignorant way holding your head high and desires of your heart intact. Happens everyday.
The issue IS all about economics and "if you can afford it". The fact is that economics drives it all. How many more hybrids are being built and sold as a result of $70 barrel oil? Cars got smaller in the 70's. Why? Economics.
If land and building materials are truely scares the price will be high and people won't build McMansions. Economics does drive all markets. And will and does drive them to a point far short of distroying the planet. IT is popular to say differently, as it gives the human heart and mind a platform to blame others and to pump our egos. "I am not like that!" "My hot tub and second bathroom is not hurting anything, but that guys third bathroom is distroying the planet" OK . . whatever.
You are absolutely correct but there is more to economics than a simplistic recitation of immediate supply and demand dynamics.
No one said anything about IMMEDIATE supply and demand. It is actually the long term picture which unfolds slowly which drives the action. I suppose the problem is that some, not you I would guess, see anything other than an planet with half a billion people living in harmony in small grass huts as a problem.
Supply and demand will solve the energy problem! Trust me it will. It likely will be somewhat painful if the shift is fast. If Oil were to hit $200 a barrel tommorow, it would be painful. If it moves steadily to $200 over the next ten years, supply and demand will bring hydrogen to the table.
Heck, forget hydrogen. Did you know that Canada has some 200 years worth of oil in tar sands and oil shales? Did you know that at $50 or so bucks a barrel it is easily profitible to get the oil out? Supply and demand! We will not see $100 a barrel oil in five years, not with all that shale and tar sands. AT $50 a barrel the supply of oil just tripled, in economic terms. It will not solve the threat of $100 a barrel oil tomorrow, but over the intermediate term you bet it will.
So go ahead, build the house, drive the car. You run the risk of very painful shocks as we saw this fall, but the fuel will be there.
Just one example.
I suppose the problem is that some, not you I would guess, see anything other than an planet with half a billion people living in harmony in small grass huts as a problem.
No, I'm not in to Huts so your supposition is wrong. I agree with you that technology and entrepeneurial spirit will bring about the next energy revolution, and/or replacement of fossil fuels as our main source of energy but that doesn't relieve us of any responsibility as stewards of our environment and other types of resources ie: lumber. I'm all for capitalism being the driving engine behind technological development. There is no better system. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of the various consequences of our use of resources.
I'm all for these McMansions
Here is a picture of a place here in Austin that is supposedly going to cost in the neighborhood of $100 Million!!!
I love them, more nice work for me, I don't want to go back to trac-homes.
Doug
rip, are you having trouble reading again?
You quote me correctly as saying "I suppose the problem is that some, not you I would guess, see anything other than an planet with half a billion people living in harmony in small grass huts as a problem."
Notice the phrase "NOT YOU I WOULD GUESS"!
Then you say "No, I'm not in to Huts so your supposition is wrong."
So I said NOT YOU and yet you say my supposition is wrong. So either you are having trouble reading or I would conclude that you are into huts? AS my supposition that you were not into huts is wrong per your statement.
I guess we will just have to end this. Between reading or comprehension error and definitions of waste, hypocracy, critical, condemning, . . . . just a bit much.
As for lumber, it is a fact that more wood is rotting in the American forests even excluding protected lands than comes even close to what is harvested. Secondly, it is renewable! Great stuff.
Most people go to the forest have no idea that much of it is either stagnate or dieing! The Serria Club has done a great job with disinformation.
As for lumber, it is a fact that more wood is rotting in the American forests even excluding protected lands than comes even close to what is harvested. Secondly, it is renewable! Great stuff."
Shaken,
Pardod the pun, shaking my head at that comment. Yes, if you are talking about 2x crap they sell nowadays. But lot's of it isn't (at least in a lifetime.) Quite a bit used is still old growth. Their is a reason why it is coveted.
Why is rotting wood a bad thing? Natural mulch.
WSJ
I live and work in the most Republican county in the US (there are no local elections since there is no Democratic party), sixth from the top on the national income list. McMansions are thick, and getting bigger, more aggressive and uglier. Teardowns are spreading from the adjacent city/county up into this area. No regard whatsoever for history, design, style, etc.
A sad commentary came to light when a local couple notified the police their 15 yr old son was missing. They tried all his friends, etc and could not locate him. Police insisted on searching the house for clues. They live in a 14,000 s/f house with parent's wing, kids wings, party rooms etc. The police finally found the young man in a back utility room beyond all the bedrooms, closets, baths and endless boxes. He had taken his life and been dead for 6 days when found. The parents claimed they didn't even know the room existed, and the house was so big, it was hard to look everywhere. They didn't even know he was dead for close to a week, nor did they miss him.
Another tale relates to motivation for these houses. I was invited to an open house for a large house (12,000 s/f) in which we had done some pretty nice work. The centerpiece - for us - was a Mahogany library. The guests were all over the house, but typically walked into the library and and dropped their jaws. The Host stayed in the library since it had the desired wow factor that he enjoyed.
As one of his close buddies asked him how much the room cost, the Host sipped his martini, rocked back on his heels and calmly gave a figure about twice what he really paid for the room. At the same time, he saw me, within earshot, out of the corner of his eye. He glanced my way and shot me a look that "included" me into his little exaggeration. At that moment, I realized why someone would not only desire such a room, but then exaggerate its cost. Money means very little to these people- it is only a means, but their behavior says it all.
Sure been there. I lost a kitchen remodel a few years ago because 160k was as high as I could go and not feel like it was robery. Her neighbor had just spent 230k and she needed to spend more. I did get the call 6 months later when none of her new electric worked right in the 'new' kitchen. Oh yea I'm a softie I stopped buy a few days later, took about 2 or 3 hours of chasing miss-connected 3 and 4 ways switches and all was well electricaly. Because she lived behind a locked gate and far from the view of the road no permits had been pulled or anything been inspected. When she asked what my bill was I just told her if I took money it would make me part of the job and the workmanship was just too poor but I hated to see anyone get hurt and the wiring fix was on the house.
>I lost a kitchen remodel a few years ago because 160k was as high as I could go and not feel like it was robery. Her neighbor had just spent 230k and she needed to spend more.It's not just homeowners. The insulated concrete domes I do are also great for gymnasiums. The guys who do them tell me they've lost quite a few be/c our shells cost so much less than the alternatives, but the school board wants to build bigger/more expensive than the neighboring schools, and that carries the day.
"the school board wants to build bigger/more expensive than the neighboring schools"then come to Ohio, where the state school commission will cheer about the cost and then tell you 'no' because a hundred other schools have'nt done it already (at least it's a different excuse . . .) ;)
It's called "bragging rights" and it plays a huge role in consumer behavior.
Work, you say crapy 2 bys. You bet! Once again, lack of management. You can grow a 100 twenty-four inche trees on an acre in realetively short order. If you let nature do it, it trys to grow 500 trees on the same acre in twice the time. Then you cut the crapy dying trees and saw crap. Sure, give nature another 100 years and out of thse 500 trees fifty will live to grow to 24 inches.
It is all about management. What our nation's forests are now are mostly dying crap. Good for a big fire!
Most people go to the forest have no idea that much of it is either stagnate or dieing!...It is all about management. What our nation's forests are now are mostly dying crap...
ya - it is amazing how it got along all those years without us, growing that coveted old growth, straight/tight grained lumber - "there's enough for everyone"
David, you must have missed the rest of my post. Sure nature grows old growth trees. 30 inche trees in 300 years. OK, the fact is that to get there 90% of the trees on the site are stunted and die. Just a fact. You can grown five to ten times the twenty to thrity inches trees in the same 300 period if you do some fittings. Doubt it, well most people are ignorant of reality.
You can grown five to ten times the twenty to thrity inches trees in the same 300 period if you do some fittings....
sure - but don't pretend it's the same wood - and don't presume anything like that has been done on but the smallest fraction of wooded acreage - it's alway been pillage and move on - and it's still happening - next quarter's profit and all -
"there's enough for everyone"
No one said it was the same wood. However, the point is pointless! You can't afford, society can not afford to grow wood in teh wasteful manager nature does it. Grow too many trees on an acre, burn it all down, start again, grow too many trees, stunt 90% of them, let them die, burn it all again, maybe ten dominant ones live, . . . 300 years later cut those ten trees. Great plan.
Pillage? Myths and Pablum for the masses. Information Cascade. If the forests of the west were being pillaged they would not be dying in mass. The fact is they are. The facts are that the false information cascade of teh Serria Club in NEw York state insures that it will continue to be the reality.
Why is it that privately owned land consistantly out produces public land by a factor of three or four? Not because I in my 300 acre woodlot is pillaging anything and not because Weyerhauser is shoving a sharp stick in their shareholder's eyes and pillaging their 11 million acres. I and they manage the land!
Most people live at their desk and bitchh about the pillaging. They never see it. If they say they see it, in reality they don't know what they are seeing and don't see it in relationship to what is really happening.
Do you know that you CAN'T NOT regenerate most forests in a selection cut? Most species require clearcuts! Fact! If you doubt it you can even look to nature to prove it. Nature almost always clearcuts a forest when it regenerates itself. It burns the whole mess down. And when it does it, it does not do it 100 acres at a time but 100,000 acres or 1,000,000 acres at a time. So is a man-made clear cut pillaging?
I limit my clearcuts to about 3 acres maximum. Because I can afford too. But I will tell you that if the forest on the edges of those clearcuts is more than thirty feet tall, the new trees in the clearcut area within fifty feet of the edge will never be anything like the trees in the middle. They will be stunted their entire life.
not because Weyerhauser is shoving a sharp stick in their shareholder's eyes and pillaging their 11 million acres. . .If they say they see it, in reality they don't know what they are seeing and don't see it in relationship to what is really happening.
We have property that borders on Weyerhauser land (they own/lease 727,000 acres in Arkansas). I don't know what part of Weyerhauser's forest management you've experienced, but around here the process is:
Buy several hundred/thousand acres of mixed hardwood forest. Clearcut it. Push the trees into piles and burn them. Plant it with pine. Clearcut pine 15-20 years later. Repeat.
This is not false information from the Sierra Club. Factual information from a Weyerhauser neighbor. Not gleaned while sitting at my desk but seeing it every week.
The "pillaging" that you refer to is the removal of a diverse environment and replacing it with one variety of tree. When nature regrows after a fire (and, by the way, most natural forest fires don't clear-cut the forest, only thin it out) it regrows with a variety of plant life, not just pine.
Most species require clearcuts! Fact!
Interesting--where did you find this fact? In the oak/hickory/pine mixed forests near me, regeneration happens one tree at a time, and none of the varieties seem to be on the verge of dying out. Squirrels, birds and gravity do most of the planting.
Why is it that privately owned land consistantly out produces public land by a factor of three or four?. . .I and they manage the land!
You're right, but your comparison is a little weak: privately owned land is treated like the farm that it is. Publicly owned land isn't solely managed for lumber production--that's just one of it's many uses, which include recreation, wildlife management, hunting, fishing, etc.
Along the same lines, you can't compare a natural forest with commercially grown agricultural forests any more than you can compare natural prairies with wheat fields. Nature doesn't create monocrops.
I don't have a problem with lumber as an agricultural product, but we need to treat it that way and not pretend the lumber companies are doing something great for the environment anymore than megafarms are.
Leigh
I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers). . .
Well, aberwack, I was a forester for the first twenty years of my life and own and operate a 300 acre tree farm today.
As for Arkansas, funny that you would mention Arkansas. I had an internship with Weyerheauser out of Hot Springs and worked on some wildlife projects in ARkansas and Oklamoha. YOu may not like clearcuts for asthetic reasons, but that does not make them bad as much as you may wish for them to be a bad thing so that you can oppose them on a basis other than "I don't like them". Not that you are not entitled to that opinion, but jsut be clear to say so.
Yes, Weyerheauser does attempt to manage southern forests as monocultures. The facts of numerous studies have shown very little impact on turkey, deer, and even Cacade (speeling) woodpeckers (if snags are left standing).
Most species require clearcuts. YEs it is a fact! Well, I suppose require is a very strong word, but attempting to grow many species under the canopy of a dominate tree is very very pointless. Is it that hard to imagine that some trees are shade intolerant? Really, that hard? Do you have a garden? Do you grow flowers? Heck, does your lawn grow well under the shade of your house or trees?
Most trees are shade intolerant. They jsut are. Secondly, even if you have a wall of trees on the north side of a cut and plant young trees in full sun to the south of those trees they just don't grow the same as trees fifty or one hundred feet out from that wall. Nutrients and water are just sucked away from the smaller trees.
Oh, you can grow trees in selection cuts, but they will grow at a much slower rate, will have a much higher rate of deformation (and you bitch about the quality of wood today?), and many trees jsut plain can't tolerate teh shade and die.
There is not a year that goes by, when I don't walk through my woods and see white pine which have been growing in the shade of worthless aspen or birch putting on 4 or 6 inches of growth, while open grown white pine are putting on two feet if not three feet of growth. I say, I need to get in here and open those pine up adn get rid of the aspen. Three years later I walk by the same spot and see brown dead pine.
Oak, hickory, pine, etc. Well, if you were to study that ecosystem over natures two hundred year cycle or so, you would find that the site would gravitate to one of those speices. They call it the climax type. The fact is that one of the speices tolerates teh presence of other trees better than all the others. You don't see this by visiting a site once, or even over a twenty year period, but it is happening.
And again, your Oak, hickory, pine forest may not be putting on any net growth of timber, which is what we are talking about. If that is not what we are talking about, go to a park or wilderness area. There you can see plenty of large old growth trees and stunted dying trees. And oh yes if there has not been a fire in fifty years, you can't even walk through the forest for all the dead downfall. Then of course you can have the old growth of Yellowstone. Oh, I forgot nature burned 40% of it in one year.
YOu say "
You're right, but your comparison is a little weak: privately owned land is treated like the farm that it is. Publicly owned land isn't solely managed for lumber production--that's just one of it's many uses, which include recreation, wildlife management, hunting, fishing, etc.
I would correct you when you say . . . solely for lumber production, and say it ani't managed for lumber period. Cutting is way off. Almost impossible in the west. Every cut takes nearly ten years of enivronment impact statements and review. Again, to the knowing eye, the forests of the west are dying. They just are. They are the most unhealthy they have ever been. I am not saying that every tree will be gone, but the bark bettles are finishing the job on millions of acres that the lack of thinning, whether man-caused of natures fire, ould have prevented.
People think that trees live forever. People think protect them from fire and I can walk through a park of three foot diameter trees. It just ain't so.
Even the indians know that when they lit them on fire every twenty or so years if nature did not beat them to it.
As for tree farming vs. the enironment. Well, most people don't know what they are talking about and most people hate all businesses if not only suspesus of them.
I will promise you one this, you will have far more deer on one hundred acres of managed forest than one hundred acres of an unmanged natural forest. Shocking! Just another fact. You or others will say, but nature did a pretty good job of this or that. But people forget. Nature burns the forest down! AND when it does it makes a Weyerheaseur clear cut look like a scab! And yes then you will see big deer in that "forest", except that forest don't have no trees in it.
There is nothing environmentally unfriendly about a managed forest.
Ever read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? It says much the same as you have, plus a whole lot else. Just finished it, saw all the footnotes, and wondered how factual it was. Now I know at least one other person believes as he does. :)
Cloud, actually I have read the book. Of course it was about "agenda" based psuedo science in regard to Climate change and not totally sure what you see in common with my discussion. I suppose you are referring generally to the fact that people easily grab hold of things they like to hear and reject those things which they just plain wish were true. There is also something called the information cascade which is the tendance for people to believe something to be true for no reason other than they have heard others say the same thing. Then naturally it becomes "fact", when in reality it is completely bogus.
With regard to forests, how many people actually watch a forest grow and die? Most people see a forest one day and never see it again. So they think status is reality. The think all is well, no trees fell down while they were watching it for that twenty minutes. And naturally, no one can see that the thousands of seeds which fell to the ground in the fall never survive the first year becasue of teh shade of the canopy. How do you see a negative or a never-was?
They gave exactly the same description of forests as you did, for example.
I've been too busy to properly respond to your post - and I've been thinking that it's off topic for this thread - would it be all right with you if I start a new thread on the subject by pasting the relevant posts into an introduction and we'll see where it goes?
regards, DOUD
"there's enough for everyone"
I wish you would. I find the subject of forestry facinating. For a city boy and all.
Sounds like a great plan. I live in an 8,000 sq ft home but have 60 acres of trees as insullation. So I find both topics interesting.
Re: "Do you know that you CAN'T NOT regenerate most forests in a selection cut?"Actually many forests have generated for millennia without clear cuts."Most species require clearcuts! Fact!"Only if by the term "require" You actually mean that it is required if a forestry operation is to be economically viable growing softwoods as rapidly as possible. It is 'required' for business reasons. The forest itself has no such requirement and free of economic imperative can take its own sweet time. "If you doubt it you can even look to nature to prove it. Nature almost always clearcuts a forest when it regenerates itself. It burns the whole mess down."Actually most forests didn't historically "burn down".Fires tended to be frequent and localized to the forest floor. Which clears brush. Ground fires also germinate some species of seeds. Your correct most will eventually die but some small proportion will get enough light to grow. Older or unfortunate trees eventually succumb to rot, insects or weather. When they fall a clearing is created. Rarely there are crowning fires that do kill trees but even within wide swaths of destroyed trees there are survivors. When Yellowstone burned there remained a web of healthy trees. And Yellowstone was not a natural forest. Of course you relate a reluctance to burn with environmental movement but the origin of the 'no burn' policy was started and was promoted by the logging industry. They saw trees burning as a loss of a salable resource. The forest service was, and still is, largely a tool of the logging, paper and related industries."Why is it that privately owned land consistently out produces public land by a factor of three or four?"The forest are multiuse. Public lands too could get such results if they were run a monoculture farms to produce pulpwood or any other specific product. Of course no one wants to fish, camp, bike or otherwise spend time in a pulpwood monoculture. Not even animals. Public land are also calculated to run longer term using fewer inputs. Weyerhauser heavily sprays and fertilizes its land to maximize growth rates. No matter that the fertilizers and poisons flow off the land and destroy waterways or that the fertilizer, and mechanical harvesting, can destroy the soil structure. Of course in some ways they have to simply because the trees are genetically identical. Any pest or disease will spread through such a forest uncontrolled. So their crop needs to be coddled.Nature, without man's intervention, can do it all quite well on its own. Old growth wood is straight and tall because it competed every step of the way. You describe this wood as "stunted their entire life". It is very tight grained because it grew very slowly. Which means that method is not economically viable short term. But given a few hundred years you can get some really nice wood.Ecological and economic imperatives don't have to be diametrically opposed but just because business requires one thing it is not the same as saying forests are better off under the loving ministrations of a business plan. Those forests were around, and doing quite well thank-you, long before anyone had ever heard of a bottom line.
Thanks--you said (much better) what I was trying to say. There's something about being mother to a six-month-old with a cold that interferes with your sleep, and thus your ability to communicate clearly. . .
Leigh
I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers)! I am a domestic goddess! I deserve three ovens (and two dishwashers). . .
4lorn1- you certainly can write, and make a convincing argument.
Deadfall in a forest also serves a biological purpose. In the west coast temperate rainforest as an example, fallen trees serve as nurseries for new seedlings. The heat provided by the decomposition increases the mean temperature a degree or two, and the decomposition releases concentrated nutrients right where the seedlings need them. You can see rows of mature trees which sprang up from the same "nurse log". If you remove all the mature trees by selective cutting, you alter the forest significantly by exporting the nutrients tied up in the trees and by reducing the number of nurse logs. So even selective cutting has an impact.
We do need lumber, and wood is a fine renewable resource. Working with wood is one of the joys of my life. But like all resources, we need to manage it, use everything wisely and minimize waste, and price it in a way that deters wasteful consumption AND funds the total cost of our use of this resource.
The Black Forest in Germany is dying, and many authorities believe this is in large part due to forresters employed there for the past 100-150 years who made a practice of cleaning up all deadfall.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
DanH, Rrrreaaaalllly!
Hmm, ten years ago they credited to Acid rain. And ten years before that . . . .
Remove nutrients? Less than 5% of all nutrients are in teh bole of the tree (trunk).
How much nutrient is lost when nature burns the forest down? Far more organic matter is removed in a fire than in a harvest operation.
Yep, fire returns a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, but it returns most of the mineral ash to the soil. Natural, periodic fire also regenerates the undergrowth, culls weaker trees and causes transitional species to sprout. Some seeds don't germinate until they've been through a fire.
One of the benefits of constructing with wood is that it "sequesters" CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it for a long period of time- perhaps even a longer period of time than nature would have if we'd have left the trees standing. But good-quality lumber is forest-grown, slowly, not in a clear-cut.
Removing 5% of the nutrients in the form of the bole of the tree is still removing 5% of a substantial fraction of the nutrients in the system as a whole. Remove those nutrients faster than nature can replenish them and the forest changes. Maybe it doesn't die, but it's altered to something which tolerates lower levels of nutrients. Perhaps there's a "crop rotation" scheme you could use on a woodlot to provide the ecosystem a chance to regenerate itself, but I doubt any of us will live long enough to see such a scheme through. Nature does it through fire.
I don't claim to know a tiny fraction of what you know first hand about forests, but I absolutely want to learn. One day I hope to own my own little stand of hardwood and manage it like my dad and my grand-dad before me. They cut ironwood (hop hornbeam), cherry, ash and maple from the family farm's woodlot. I do know that a managed woodlot where trees are selectively harvested can be a lovely place to be, a good home for wildlife and a great source of high quality lumber. But dad and grand-dad knew that "you cut the interest, NOT the principle"!
"Some seeds don't germinate until they've been through a fire."
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya do you know how many speices that would include? Hint not many, and those speices that I am aware of are commercially least desirable. Lodge pole pine comes to mind a few other related speices. Can't say that I know all others, but then so what is the point. You don't need fire to regenerate a forest although that is one way to do it! A bit extreme, I don't think I will try it on my woodlot and I think my neighbors prefer my harvesting techniques.
And more than CO2 is lost in a fire tons of the most critical N is lost as well. In Yellowstone, many areas burned so hot that only steril mineral soils was left. I was in Yellowstone three years after teh big fires (1990?). Even after three years there were areas with only raw ground exposed. Talk about an erosion issue? Think a logging job causes erosion? Nothing by comparison.
Not suggesting logging Yellowstone, but removing 5% of nutrients would have been gentler. And again had a normal fire cycle been allowed in Yellowstone over the past sixty years, the fires would not have been as hot and more soils would ahve survived.
"Removing 5% of the nutrients in the form of the bole of the tree is still removing 5% of a substantial fraction"
Still far less than fires.
> still removing 5% of a substantial fraction of the nutrients in the system as a whole.
Think of it like taxes. Does a 5% sales tax totally kill retail? ;-)
-- J.S.
4Lorn1:
Very nice post and I would agree with most of it.
The topic is very broad and complex and therefore pretty hard to address in a message board and even a "term paper" is too short. Therefore, you take short cut and damage the true intent of the post.
"Only if by the term "require" You actually mean that it is required if a forestry operation is to be economically viable growing softwoods as rapidly as possible. It is 'required' for business reasons. The forest itself has no such requirement and free of economic imperative can take its own sweet time. "
Most of what you say is true. OBVIOUSLY, forests can sustain themselves and never have to start from zero. One tree dies, falls down and some seedlings sprout. You are in error to assume that those seedlings will be just any old species. The fact is they will not! Most speices are shade intolerant and just will not sprout or if they do will die within a few years. Therefore, most speice "require" relatively large spaces to thrive if not just survive.
I think people need to keep some objectives involved. Do people really want dead and dying forests with mountains of deadfalls on the ground? This is the state of most natural forests. Secondly, you don't need steril monocultures in order to grow timber, as what as you would like this to be true in order to malign the private woodlot owners. And what is the point of talking about how nature operator so ineffiecently, do you want paper and books and houses or not? And you can have it and be environmentally friendly.
Weyerheauser surely loves to grow it's Douglas Fir plantantions, but grows several other spieces as well. It now grows alder which, you were correct in saying they once sprayed to kill. But even if they grew exclusively DF, you should know that the DF is that ecosystems CLIMAX specie anyway! In otherword, nature left alone would grow near monocultures of DF on those sites anyway. People don't know this, because people almost never see climax ecosystems. For that matter nature almost never gets there. Althought in the Cascades were rainfall is high and fire danger lower, nature got to Climax more often than not.
"Fires tended to be frequent and localized to the forest floor. Which clears brush." Comforting myth. It is true that many Ponderosa Pine forests had fire frequencies as high as every three to five years and as such most brucsh and small trees were consumed adn thus avoided crown fires, but every one to two hundred years they crowned out.
"Of course you relate a reluctance to burn with environmental movement but the origin of the 'no burn' policy was started and was promoted by the logging industry."
SURE! Obviously the EVIL timber industry is against fires to feed there wicked greedness. But you don't think most people are against burning there forests down? Heck millions of those people now have homes built right in the middle of those forests. ANd you are right, environmentalist do say "let it burn". I say if it is a wilderness area or national park, let it burn. If you are not going to mimic natures fires by logging and thinning, you better let it burn.
""Why is it that privately owned land consistently out produces public land by a factor of three or four?"
The forest ( you refer to federal forests here) are multiuse."
I disagree. First my 300 acres and the vast majority of private non-corporate lands are not monocultures and out produce even corporate lands. And they are not monocultures, myths again. Secondly, private lands are not just producing more, the federal lands are DYING. You bemoan monocultures (which is not as dominant as you suggest) and claim multiple use on federal lands as a defense. Well, multiple use includes everything BUT FOREST MANAGEMENT. At one time, you may have been correct that timber production was high on the list of federal goals, but the fact is that the forest are in major decline and logging is way way down.
Where are the major insect desasters wipping out millions of acres of forest? ON private lands? NO, on public lands. Healthy trees repeal beetles and budworms in all but the worst of cases. Sick and weak trees are teh targets of the bugs and they are on federal lands. Proof the the declining nature. In fact some private firms have tried to sue the government over the fear that the millions of insect infested acres could produce populations of insects so high as to overwhelm even healthy trees on private lands.
"Public land are also calculated to run longer term using fewer inputs.Weyerhauser heavily sprays and fertilizes its land to maximize growth rates. "
I don't know if the feds are making any "calculations", they just don't manage for timber!
"No matter that the fertilizers and poisons flow off the land and destroy waterways or that the fertilizer, and mechanical harvesting, can destroy the soil structure. "
Bull, show the documentation. You can't it anit happening. Information Cascade again. Say it , say it, say it and we all beleive it. There are many many laws governing such as Washington STAte (Weyerheauser owns about 2 million acres in WA) has the strictest in the country. There are buffer strips around streams which prohibit cutting and spraying near streams. And the quantity of fert is so low.
You know those greedy timber companies are just iching to pisss money away by adding more fertilizer to the soil than can be taken up by thier tree, so as to posion those streams. yes.
Distory soil sturture with a skidder? Distory it with cable loggin? Get real. Another myth to build a false case.
"Ecological and economic imperatives don't have to be diametrically opposed but just because business requires one thing it is not the same as saying forests are better off under the loving ministrations of a business plan."
I never said anything of the kind. The only reason I can think of for you to say such a thing is because your case is thin and it is easier to malign may position than to build a case.
" Those forests were around, and doing quite"
Sure can complain about nuture, but that is not necessarily the definition of "quite-well". I think of my woodlot. There are places that are too steep for me to work. They are thick as snot and I have watch over the past thirty years as tree after tre has die and fallen down. I can no longer hike up through there for all teh down falls. I my other areas, when trees are in decline I cut them rather than let them fall. I still have dying short lived alders and such die and fall. The forest looks pretty natural. Nature on the steeps doing "quite-well"? Ok if you say so. It anit worth nothing to anyone not even the deer. So dense nothing grows in on the ground. Can hike throught it.
Ok, nature does quite well. . . by natures definition I am sure it does.
Shaken, yours is obviously one of the very few brains worth picking on the subject of trees. But getting back to the original McMansion topic, what can you tell us about trees in the city, in residential areas? Are they "McTrees"?
What should we be doing to have healthy, good looking trees that won't fall over in the wind and crush the McMansions? If we're smart about it, can we grow trees in the city that can later be harvested and milled for lumber?
-- J.S.
Well, John I ani't no urban arborist.
I can tell you that if you go into a natural forest and try to cut out trees to build houses you are often asking for trouble. It is very common in a natural forest for trees to grow tall very rapidly, and not put on much girth. In addition the trees can be weak adn only have about 15% of their hieght in live branches. A recipe for windthrow.
This another reason that clearcutting often is a requirement. If this is the state of the forest and you thin it out. First of all, many of the trees just don't have sufficent live crowns to benefit from the increase in light and water. It is just too late and secondly the whole mess can just blow down.
I live in the west, but I hear that many people cut down urban trees like black walnut and make a pile of money. More often, people don't know the value of what they have, and someone offers to cut it down free and cart it away. Sometimes the logs are worht several thousand bucks.
I think people could plan ahead in an urban setting to harvest trees, but people ahve short horizons particular in regards to their houses. So people just planet what they want.
Re: ..."they just don't manage for timber!"LOL.They just don't manage for timber to the extent you would. You have made my point for me. "Nature on the steeps doing "quite-well"? Ok if you say so. It anit worth nothing to anyone not even the deer. So dense nothing grows in on the ground. Can hike throught it."If you had maintained regular burns you wouldn't have this problem. Of course you would need to be careful. Small burns and rapid planting of ground cover to deter errosion. Nature doesn't care if the mountainside takes up residence in your living room but you might.Some of your objections are simply because I'm in the SE while your out west. Paper company spraying and fertilizers have been well documented as pollution sources in this area. The fish kills a few decades ago were a big clue. The paper companies promised not to do it again and they made a show of keeping the fertilizers away from the streams.Now there is just generalized algea blooms with a fish kill every few years. While some of the nitrogen and poison levels are clearly coming from paper company land some of it is coming from dairies, golf courses and pretty green lawns that are so popular. Aside, I never understood the imperative to produce an artifical environment, with its origins in the fashion preferences of French royalty, that they are then required to do battle with weekly with mower and whacker, poison and watering. Was the point of the 'Ledgend of Sysiphus' lost on everyone?But by hiding among other polluters the paper and lumber companied get away with their contribution. The 'Alices Resteraunt" version of pollution control. None of it is doing the groundwater or waterways any good.And yes there are vast areas of genetically identical loblolly pines in the SE. Monocultures. Most set up to become pulpwood or light framing if you don't mind a knot every 4" and some bark. This is tree farming. No diffenrent than growing corn. These are not ecosystems in any conventional sense. I have hiked through miles of them. Not much fun and there are few birds or other wildlife. Public lands have been mismanaged. From either an ecological or forestry as business model. The central tenent in this mismanagement was the 'no burn' policy and it is true, like it or not, this came from business side. The US Forest service has always been centered on business with a revolving door between the service and the wood industries. Only in the 60s was anything like real environmental science applied to any forests outside of remote areas and the few isolated cases of enlightened owners or managers.In fact the industry mandate of not burning was taken as environmentalism simply because there was no major alternative voices available. Smokey the bear's message, at the most trivial level, made sense and few people looked any deeper. The forest service claimed to know while not even bothering to study the questions. It was also an age when 'what is good for GM is good for America' was taken as gospel.Which lead to absurdities like loggers whining about small sections of land being off limits because without these area 'there aren't any trees left to cut'. Gee wonder why that is. If you cut them faster than you grow them it would seem logical that you might run out eventually.Public lands have burdens in mamagement not seen on prvate lands. The US government finances the building of roads and in its self this is a business. The overlay between those who cut roads and those who do the logging is no coincidence. I have seen roads cut 10' feet away from an existing road. Someone had a boat payment to make.And, of course, we can't overlook the southern tradition of mud bogging, dirt bikes, management to bolster deer and turkey and dove stocks or make sure they have their god given right to kill something cute and fuzzy. And the fishermen who, less than thrilled by the native species, insist on bass and the structures to bolster their god given right to get a fish. Everyone has a hand in the forest. Private owners are less conflicted.
Well there is an old saying, a man will believe what a man will believe.
And sorry to inform you but fire anit narvania. It just ani't.
Not to mention the fire cycle you love to call "natural" wasn't natural at all. Most fires in the America for thousands of years were set intentionally by . . . men! Yes, the red variety. Damn those indians anyway interferring with nature like that!
LOL. No kidding. Take that as a clue.And the prairies were largely a result of a few thousand years of buffalo eating, tramping and dumping. And the fertile black soils they created are largely gone. Overdriven and abused because of greed and arrogance. Same reason the forests are largely gone.Go figure.
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, clueless one, but there is more forest today not less than there was in 1492!
Typcial, just believe any myth that feeds your view of the world. Brainless, but typical!
Typical short-sighted and vacuous response. Right out of the Rush Limbagh talking points book. Easy answers for complicated problems.Total number of trees up. Total quality of tree and ecosystems down. A pulpwood farm with a tree every two feet has a lot of trees. But the general quality is poor. The number of species, outside invasives, in many forests is down. What your confusing is forest, an interactive ecosystem, with the trees.Deer the same way. Number of deer up. Quality, in long term heard health and viability and number of species, down. Used to be enough land and predators to keep it all in line but both are gone in all but a few national parks and reserves. Hunters don't kill the weak and sick. They kill the largest and healthiest specimens. Nothing against hunters, they have a place in correcting the worse of the imbalances humans have created, but they are a poor substitute for real predators. Simple question of quantity over quality. I know this is a complicated concept, do try to pay attention, but unlike your general level of intelligence environmental health cannot be determined by a dipstick. Or any other simpleminded single category measure.
Should have been 1792. Article referred to was written in 1992 and discussed conditions of forests in teh Americans 200 years prior. 1792 reminded me of "in 1492 Columbus . . ."
There are more deer on the continent as well! Why? Because your prefect nature had stagant forests. No light hit the ground and nothing grew there. Just the facts, not that you are interest in facts, only myths.
I would suggest you actually get out of a chair once in awhile! If you were a deer hunter in the West you would know that in 90% of national forests there is no point in getting out of your truck. You can see from your seat that there is nothing growing under the canopy of those stagant trees, and there will be no deer in there. Again just the facts.
Where does a hunter go? Well, where the deer and elk are. They go to clearcuts and managed timber. Something actually grows there!
> Not to mention the fire cycle you love to call "natural" wasn't natural at all.
Neither was it a constant, regular cycle. There was no such thing as fire on earth for a long time. Then about 2 - 3 billion years ago, along come the stromatolites, and kerpow! Now you got an atmosphere with that newfangled oxygen gas in it.
The proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere isn't constant, but it does tend to self regulate. Let it get up above about 25%, and fires burn so fiercely that whole continents go up in smoke, oxygen goes down and carbon dioxide up. That makes things nice for the veggies that push things back the other way, removing CO2, adding O2.
Here's a little on where the oxygen came from:
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~tlay/eart80a/Lectures/lecture6.html
Bottom line, things change. A planet preserved in formaldehyde is no more "natural" than one used by its inhabitants.
-- J.S.
View Image
Jim W.Coventry Woodworking
Sorry, figured I'd add a little humor to this discussion.
Edited 12/9/2005 6:21 pm ET by jw0329
Need to add a Y , one direction for the forest and the other to the trees.....
Sorry, I got that one from another forum some time ago. I'll see what I can do though.Jim W.Coventry Woodworking
Theres that tone again. You are right I read that post quickly and thought that you used a double negative. My mistake. I try to admit my mistakes such as with your "hypocrite" diatribe. The Clinton reference was funny. I would add to that not admitting mistakes ala "W". I do agree this has become tiresome and unfortunately digressed from the original topic. Adios. :)
rip, seriously,
You are driving down the road, you complain about litter on the roadside and say that people should not litter. Then you throw your burger wrapper out the window.
What do you think I am going to think as a passanger in the car?
Are you serious? NOt a hypocrite? You get a pass because you say littering is not a good thing?
I suppose you could murder someone and just say it was not a good thing.
Bizzare.
I couldn't help but respond. Perhaps we have had a misunderstanding. All I was trying to say was that I think one can aspire to something yet recognize when they fall short of that aspiration. Perhaps that is being hypocritical, perhaps its just semantics.
Rip, you are kind to deescalate (spelling!!! help).
AND I agree totally!!!
As all Christians would say "I am a sinner, but asprie for the perfection of Christ". Some talk the talk. Others attempt to walk the talk, but as imperfect sinful men fail.
I guess only the man stating the goal in question can say honestly whether his is just talking the talk or not.
I do think that the more the stated goal is a matter of choice vs a matter of sinful human nature, we need to becareful in our statement of ideals. As in that case it is more a matter of JUST DOING IT! If you don't like littering, then stop talking about it and just stop littering. Otherwise, people can not take those kind of stated ideals seriously when coming from a practicing litterer. Man's desire for a Mcmansion and other mamman is further up the list from littering and more to the sinful helpless side.
Clintonian, ie what is the meaning of is?
I saw the 60 minutes segment and it got grotesque. The first few houses weren't unseemly big and kept with the style of the neighborhood. But as the segment progressed the houses got bigger and bigger. One couple was putting up an 11000 sqft house (yes, 3 zeros). One lady had a 3 story bathroom with marble up to the ceiling. For one thing there's something to be said about a little historic preservation, even if a neighborhood isn't full of 1800s Victorians. But that's a secondary point.The main issue is that after a certain point, how someone spends their money affects the people around them and to a degree everyone. I don't know how you heat an 11000 sqft house but I'm sure it takes quite a bit of gas/oil. I'm also sure no one needs a house that big. I have no problem with how people spend their money until it starts to hurt others. Houses this big (equivalently FedEx truck-sized SUVs, etc) are really wasteful and at that point its a problem. However, the segment didn't really address the excess issue in that way.
Bob, those grotesque homes were not in the same neighborhood and those homes were owned by people that could afford them and on open land. I think maybe we should change the White House to the White Condo and re-use the land for more parks. :D
I know they were in very different neighborhoods. Still over the top, still wasteful. I was trying to make two separate points about historic value, and about excess.Not sure I get your second sentence.
10,000 sqft? Tell me, what is in all that space? How many "living rooms"?
If I do a little math,
Say:
6 nice bedrooms (15 x 17 including closet) 1530 sqft
1 master suite including bath (25 x 20) 500
6 baths (excluding master) 7 x 10' 420
1 Den (20 by 20 ) 400
Dinning (20 by 20 seems huge!) 400
Living room/ great 30 by 25 750
kitchen 20 x 16 320
pantry 10 x 10 100
laundry 10 x 15 150
theather room 20 x 20 400
exerise room 20 x 20 400
Ok, we are up to 5370 sqft. and I think I was pretty generous with the dimensions.
So what is in the other 4630 sqft?????????
>So what is in the other 4630 sqft?????????Library
wine cellar
In law apt
game room
conservatory
2 big mudrooms (1 at either garage)
huge 2 story foyer w/ granite honymoon stair
dining room 16 x 33
living room -bigger
great room -bigger
every bedroom has dedicated w.i. closet w/ master bath seperate whirlpool and custom shower
cooks kitchen w/ seperate pantry
theatre bigger (seats 20)I don't have time to do the maththink everything you could ever imagine.
and don't get mad at me, it's not my house.
they ask and I give.
If you are in a position where you can go telling clients what they really want, then good for you.
Don't go around being the metaphoric "jealous old bat"Why does the size disturb you so?
most of the other customs we design come in roughly where you just calculated
this one is exceptionalPeople blame the size of houses on the designers but it's unfair and incorrect. Lets be honest, people already know what they want. this client is a developer, he came to us and literally said he wanted a 12,000 sq. foot home. We convinced him he could have everything he wanted in 10.
Edited 11/30/2005 3:18 pm ET by xosder11
How ironic that they have a "Conservatory".
I just died laughing. Haddn't thought of that one. I'll have to use that one at the office if ot's ok with you.
please do :)
xosder:
I am not sure you are capable of reading or you just enjoy leaping to intellectually challenged conclusions? So which is it? Or perhaps you can show me the post where I "have a problem with the size of people's homes"
I have never been in a 10,000 sq ft home and just can't imagine what could be in all that space. I can't imagine what it would be like to be on the moon either but that does not mean I have a problem with anyone going there. So, don't get your undies in a bundie.
"So what is in the other 4630 sqft?????????"
I don't know, maybe just one two many question marks for me. Sometimes it's hard to read peoples tone in these things so I may have misinterpeted. Not a big deal really, I just like being argumentative sometimes. While I was in college, defending my architectural design work in front of boards of critics whom I'd never met may have taught me to defend my work.
But... I don't feel like I was personally insulting, (intellectually challenged?) and again, I will refrain here as well. I like a good argument as much as the next guy, don't take it so personal.
Edited 12/1/2005 12:44 pm ET by xosder11
You say "I just like being argumentative sometimes. "
Well, I likely could make a similar confession! Can cause trouble.
Some of the houses on the show included something called a "bonus" room. Whatever you can think of. They did have conservatories, libraries, etc.Think of the game "Clue".
The bonus room is a foolish name for the finished attic space above a garage. There is nothing "bonus" about it. We laugh about that one all the time at our office. Just a spot to put a lousy pool table no one will ever use.
game of "Clue", cute!
I would think the people with 6000 sq ft plus houses would likely be into entertaining. It just seems odd to need six different rooms to sit and read a book. Now for those that have swelled heads and like to be critical, I am not being critical of anyone who wants six different places to read. I think a boat would light my fire more.
Hmmm -- just one little 10 x 10 pantry? Not separate cook's and butler's pantries?
-- J.S.
John,
You hit on a good point. In the old days, maybe not even that long ago, people had a "nice" house and they had a maid/cook. Now people have three times the house, but no maid/cook. They probably have someone come in and clean, but no maid or cook. SO no need for that butler's pantry you mentioned. LOL.
> SO no need for that butler's pantry
If the dining table seats 20, and they actually use it, where do you clean and store the place settings, silver, and serving dishes? The traditional butler's pantry has a sink, and all that is the butler's job. The cook cooks and cleans only the cooking equipment. If it stays in the kitchen, it's the cook's job to clean it. If it goes into the dining room, it's the butler's job.
Dinner for 20 is probably on the low end of where you might need two pantries and a traditional staff. We've had parties for 50 to 60 people, but they're pot luck. Everybody helps, everybody eats, mostly paper and plastic instead of china and silver. To do that the traditional way, you'd really need the big kitchen and both pantries.
Another difference between now and then is that travel was far more difficult a century ago and more. So, instead of two days in a hotel, people would have long term house guests, say at least a fortnight ....
-- J.S.
John, all true but who has a butler?
all true but who has a butler?"
Lol, we do...........Me
WSJ
WorkshopJon:
Well, then you likely know other people with butlers. I guess I run with a different crowd. LOL!
OHHHHH!! I get it. Me. Then I guess I have one as well! LOL!
> all true but who has a butler?
Yes, exactly my point.
The McMansion tries to sort of look like a cheap modernized copy of the Victorian and Edwardian real thing. But they're not used in anything like the same way. Nobody has a dozen friends come over to spend the summer in the country, served by a staff of four. 10 - 20,000 sq. ft. makes sense if you have 16 people or more living there. But designed for two or three, they tend to have the warmth and charm of a regional airport.
Oh, btw, don't forget the wine cellar. A real cellar, not just a dinky closet. After all, the very title "butler" is derived from the word "bottle".
-- J.S.
JOhn, I bet they are fun to build and fun to tour but live there? And I know what you mean by airport like. I personnally don't get into contempary styling and many large homes are modern. I would like a very large greatroom that looks and feels like a mountain lodge. That would be more my style.
6 nice bedrooms (15 x 17 including closet) 1530 sqft
figure closer to 1800 after allowing for stump hallways, etc.
1 master suite including bath (25 x 20) 500
No where big enough.
Mstr Bath @ 25 x 15; M. Bed @ 28 x 25; and a sitting area of 15 x 25
There's 1450 sf.
6 baths (excluding master) 7 x 10' 420
Again, too small (KBD could barely call those "powder rooms" <g>) Cipher up 5 @ 10 x 12; and 1 @ 8 x 10, for 680 SF
1 Den (20 by 20 ) 400
Dinning (20 by 20 seems huge!) 400
Again, dinky. Try 22 x 28 (and 12'+ tall), = 616 sf
Living room/ great 30 by 25 750
kitchen 20 x 16 320
You're being reasonable again <g> try 20 x 28 not including the breakfast nook, so that's 560 and another 140 for the nook, totaling out 700 sf
pantry 10 x 10 100
laundry 10 x 15 150
theather room 20 x 20 400
Only room for one couch, that small, go 18 x 26 instead (468sf)
exerise room 20 x 20 400
Ok, we are up to 5370 sqft. and I think I was pretty generous with the dimensions.
So what is in the other 4630 sqft?
Short answer? "Hallways"
Ok, so I bumped 1834 more in, that gets us down to 2796. Figure 1200 sf in ordinary hallways, that comes down to 1596. We need a grand entry hall (no where near where guests enter, but that's beside the point) that'll be about 18 x 25, for 450 sf. Down to 1146 SF "missing" now. Put in chases, coat closets, idiotic offsets & angles (for the architectural "drama" doncha'kno?)--that'll eat up that last dinky, insignificant 1100 SF. Shoot, the separate entry, kitchenette, & laundry for a MIL suite would do, subbed for one of the bedrooms.
No, the trickier thing is ciphering the space as a 4/4.5 (don't, the numbers stagger after a bit <g>).
Now, let's get the vinyl bids!Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YALL THINK
MY MONEY MY LAND
i think i will do as i please and its not anyone business but mine
you have your home owners meetings or whatever they are called
I prefer to host a cocktail party
bottom line is... who is to say what i do is wrong, just cause someone doesnt agree with me? i dont come to youre house and tell you ...blah blah whatever i dont like it so you shouldnt be able to do that
too many chiefs not enough indians is exactly why the country is the way it is
or as the dw said when i read this people should get a life and quit worrying about mine
Due to recent budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off until further notice.
Edited 11/30/2005 6:53 pm ET by mrmojo
Capn: I did forget teh Foyer!!!!
I did forget the Foyer
Might be because you were not dragged through one recently <g>. I was the first person to come through the front door since the movers, if the flotsam of toys on the fancy floor was any indication. (Huge, 22x28 "play room" upstairs, but it was not 'near' any of the family--gee, maybe a conncection . . . <socratic leading question with major satirical wink attached>).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
theater room 20 x 20 400
exercise room 20 x 20 400
I've worked in a lot of houses where those numbers are so low their ridiculous!
I worked on a place where the master BR had over 3000 sq. ft.
Doug
Edited 11/30/2005 7:47 pm ET by DougU
>I worked on a place where the master BR had over 3000 sq. ft.I can't find a belt I bought last week in my bedroom -- can't imagine what I'd lose in a bedroom that size!
After watching 60 minutes, I told my wife that I saw a new market emerging in about 10 years (after the oil prices hit $200/barrel). Tearing down all those gargantuan trophy houses that have minimal practical purpose, and replacing them with 2,000 square foot houses that can be run on the next generation of solar panels. The successful builders will be those who can salvage all the materials for the new house from the demo debris from the mcmansion. Common sense will prevail, it will just take time.
After watching 60 minutes, I told my wife that I saw a new market emerging in about 10 years (after the oil prices hit $200/barrel). Tearing down all those gargantuan trophy houses that have minimal practical purpose, and replacing them with 2,000 square foot houses that can be run on the next generation of solar panels. The successful builders will be those who can salvage all the materials for the new house from the demo debris from the mcmansion. Common sense will prevail, it will just take time.
Funny that you say that. When I was a kid growing up in the country during the 70's energy crisis, they were doing just that. Many of the old, huge, farmhouses were being torn down/burned/allowed-to-fall down. People couldn't afford to keep them heated and cooled, and couldn't find a buyer (or didn't want to sell the land). Talking to a lady who still lives out there (she's 50-ish) and she was talking about her grandfather's house... 20 rooms, 12 fireplaces, probably 6k sqft or better. They ended up burning it down after it went 20 years without a renter and the maint. got too expensive.
They were replaced with 1200-2600sq ft 'modern' homes. Maybe 1 in 10 of the big homes survived. Maybe 4 or 5 in 10 of the smaller farm houses (1970's was before the big renovation craze we're in now).
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
Doug: 3000 sq ft master. Can you explain how they use it? Does it have it's own kitchen? Are you serious? 3000? That is 50 % bigger than my entire house. What furniture do they put in there. I realize that King-sized beds are large but . . . LOL
I just can't imagine. Call my imagination small, but really . . .
I could see 20 x 20 for the beding area alone.
Say 20 x 20 for a sitting area
Say 20 x 20 for closet adn dressing room
SAy 20 x 20 for the bath.
That gets you to 1600 sq ft.
Again, I could give a flip what people do, but I am curious what they do. WOW!
8ft deep walk in closets around the perimeter shinks that down a bit.
'Nemo me impune lacesset'No one will provoke me with impunity
Shaken
Send me an e-mail and I'll send you back some pictures of it.
Prospero doesnt allow pictures to attach to an e-mail sent through here.
Doug
Doug: Do I need to post my email address here on line?
Shaken
No, or yes, if you want to. But, you can click on my name, a box will show up and there is a place to e-mail me. That will send an e-mail to me that I can respond to with attachments. I cant click on your name and send an e-mail with attachments, its a prospero thing.
Doug
Edited 12/1/2005 6:44 pm ET by DougU
its a prospero thing???
Shaken
I sent you an e-mail, respond back to me and I'll send you the pictures!
Doug
"3000 sq ft master. Can you explain how they use it? "trampoline, trapeseyou need space for thesese.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
"she couldn't afford the increased property values (meaning increased property taxes)"
I always shake my head on that. IMO, your house should be assessed when you build/buy it & then stay the same assesment until you make any changes to it (addition, garage, pool, whatever). Why should you be forced out of your home that you've lived in for years because the town decides to tax you harder on your residence?
People on fixed incomes are hit the most by this. I know some places freeze property taxes for the elderly which is definitely a step in the right direction.
I'm not advocating the tax situation. I know many individuals that lost their land because the increase valuations made it impossible for them to pay the taxes on it even though the property was paid off. On the fli-side of things, though, if we kept to your position then if one never changes the home in 50 years its worth nothing today in relative terms. Its because so many find buying a home an 'investment' that the industry has treated itself as such and the county parasitically agrees with it.
How would you feel if you inherited grandma's home after her death and were told the Manhatten lot was worth $10K when she bought it, but because she made no changes its only worth $10K now instead of $1 Million?
I'm not talking about sale value, I'm only talking about assesments for tax purposes. If I inherited my grandmothers home, it shoud be re-assessed at that point since it changed hands.
the perfect solution to all of this . . .the inflatable McMansion
That will never happen. Your reasoning is flawed.
Teardown neighborhoods in my area do not care what the house looks like inside or not. The things that makes a teardown work are land values and whether or not the area will support a new home worth 3x or more than the structure that is being replaced.
If you happen to live in a teardown area, it is better to have a home ready to be torn down. It isn't worth much less to someone looking for a teardown property, but the owner will spend a whole lot of money renewing the property for someone searching for a traditional home sale.
In one nearby area, vacant 50 x 300 lots sell for 300k. A 60x or 80 x 300 lot plus a 40 year old home in less than perfect condition sells for the same amount.
One thing not discussed yet is how people are affording these McMansions. Some might have actual capital to buy such a home. I suspect that more are making money flipping homes and working with interest only loans. The second group is going to be in real trouble if (when) the housing market falters.
I think the whole thing is wasteful. How much space and bathrooms are really needed? Most of them around here are built as cheap as cheap can get under the drywall, so how will those heating bills be?
IMO, your house should be assessed when you build/buy it & then stay the same assesment until you make any changes to it (addition, garage, pool, whatever). Why should you be forced out of your home that you've lived in for years because the town decides to tax you harder on your residence?
What about the increased expenses of the town/city. Schools are ever increasing their spending (while usually decreasing the quality of education), employees must get raises annually (or else they can not keep up with the increasing cost of living), roads and other utilities must be upgraded, and public service departments are expanding (we used to have 1 cop on duty 20 years ago, now it's a cheif, two officers, a dispatcher, and a secretary).
You can not look at a town neighborhood, or property as a static thing. I personally love old houses and wish more designers would properly mimic them with todays designs. But as the population grows, so does the sprawling effect. It isn't something new. 50 years ago my town was a little farm town with barely 1,000 residents. Today there are 4,800 and maybe three or four working farms left. It's the evolution of society. The rich usually work in the cities, but don't want to live there. So they move out here where it is quite, there is barely any violence, and the quality of education is better.
Personally, I'm on both sides. I hate to see old neighborhoods torn down and replaced with (in my oppinion) ugly monsters that have little in the way of proportion, style and details, but these "rich" people are providing me (and most of you) with a decent living and allow me to enjoy my job.
Jim W.Coventry Woodworking
Edited 12/5/2005 5:30 pm ET by jw0329
I know that some of the regulars around here dislike McMansions in the idea of 'bigger is better' mentality is bad for the house market soul. .................................
...................I have to say that being that I have no desire for children, I think I am better able to afford more house as a result."
Nuke,
If a house, based on scale doesn't fit in the neighborhood, it is bad. Law's don't always address this issue properly, because often someone who can afford one, can afford better attorneys than the municipality, that didn't properly wright the zoning laws.
WSJ
If a house, based on scale doesn't fit in the neighborhood, it is bad. Law's don't always address this issue properly, because often someone who can afford one, can afford better attorneys than the municipality, that didn't properly wright the zoning laws.
I agree with this. I live in a phase-1 section of a three-phase planned community. But this did nothing to stop the builder from inserting a 'castle' on the corner in the middle of phase-1.
Also, what constitutes 'fitting' a neighborhood. I agree if the street elevation is monolithic in comparison, but it seems that even those that succeeded in keeping the street-facing elevation the same it was deemed bad. Its no longer what goes on from the street, but also in the backyard, the basement, etc.
Saw that same episode on 60 Minutes (even mentioned it in a previous post). To play devil's advocate, I've grudgingly come to respect commissions and community groups that care enough about their neighborhoods to maintain a certain character and style. I respect someone's right to build whatever home they want, but there is a bigger aspect to this. It's how the community is affected. I don't think that woman was jealous at all. They mentioned in the interview that she and her DH were offered a Brink's truck full of $$$ for their own house, and they turned it down. And other neighbors obviously felt the same way, or there wouldn't have been any organized resistance.
I think these people simply wanted to keep their neighborhood. Some of those newer houses were clearly out of scale with the rest of the area and their lots. They also raise the property assessments, which means higher taxes for everybody. In some cases they may also restrict views, block lighting, overload existing sewer/storm lines, etc..
At my current job we have to present designs to community groups all the time. A lot of times it's a PIA, but these people take their neighborhoods seriously. They run these organizations on their own time (sometimes several times a week), at no pay, and often around full-time jobs. It's a lot of work. I may not agree with their decisions and sometimes there are cases of zealotry, but a neighborhood isn't just a collection of islands. It's a group of people who manage to work, live and raise their families together.
If that community on 60 Minutes feels strongly enough that those new homes were starting to infringe on their neighborhood, don't they have the right to do something about it (within legal means, i.e., not based on race, nationality, etc.)? Or do those rights only apply to the wealthy homeowner?
Edited 11/30/2005 4:03 pm ET by draftguy
jealousy ?
seriously ? you really think the old bat is jealous ?
i would call it a woman pleading for common sense.
most tear downs bother me for a variety of reasons. they are sometimes necessary when an old home is just plain worn out or an architectural disaster.
i guess the thing that chaps my butt most is when a beautifully styled home from the 1920's is replaced with a giant vinyl sided box simply because the old home wasn't "big enough".
i know this might give some of you shivers, but, when someone comes to me with such a request, they are politely encouraged to consider all of the ramifications of their decisions.
carpenter in transition
I agree with you on the plastic monster home. First, the home that got sold to the guy was sold for +$700K, and was by no means what it cost when it was built. The people that sold it were thinking of common sense in terms of money--it was their investment and they cashed in.
I'm not saying I am right and the old bat was jealous. I said it was the first thing that came to my mind. Was she jealous? I do not know. It wasn't addressed after that guy concluded the same thing I first thought about. Yes, I can see she would rather keep things unchanged until she dies. Change is often looked at as being bad, and as we get older we tend to take change with more difficulty.
But, how would the old bat now address her other neighbors that might have been planning on cashing in on their home investment when all of a sudden their maybe-for-sale home will never get bought? I wish I had TiVo-ed that episode, but it was unplanned watching. But, keep in mind one is a member of a neighbor, and not the owner of their neighborhood. When you walk the path of controlling your neighbor's destiny, especially when they think they are making their living better, its an emotional point of debate.
The style and size of homes in a community is something a community decides. Those decisions are written into zoning bylaws. Anything outside the bylaw in my area requires a trip to the Committee of Adjustment and the input of all residents within two properties in a circle around yours, plus the approval of the majority of the committee. Costs a few bucks and wastes a few months of schedule but makes sure that everybody can give their two cents. It prevents the very ugliest and most aggregious excesses in terms of both tear-downs and renovations. But it doesn't stop them completely, nor does it prevent the city from changing the zoning of a particular property or the zoning bylaws themselves as the needs of the city change.
Some of the re-builds and renovations in my neighbourhood are butt-ugly to my taste, but others are beautiful high-end homes replacing ugly postwar cookie-cutter insulbrick cottages- the tract homes of their day. Some history does not deserve to be preserved. In my case, we fixed up a derelict but character-rich house ill-placed on the lot, and then renovated once we outgrew it. In the process of essentially doubling the useable floor area we managed to make the new place suit the neighbourhood better than the old one had, while retaining some of its quirky charm. None of my neighbours even showed up to the committee of adjustment meeting. As far as they were concerned, as long as I didn't hit them up for a cheque for the amount I was raising their property value by spending my own money and effort, they weren't going to say a peep. In fact, many of them have lent a hand at critical times. In fact, our great neighbours were one of the reasons we decided to renovate rather than moving on.
I do feel for my retired neighbours on fixed incomes whose tax assessments go up as the neighbourhood turns over, but not that much. They'll get the benefit of their increased property value tax free when they sell, and if they want to realize that value now without selling out and moving into a condo or an old folks' home they can reverse-mortgage their property to pay the extra property tax. They'll still be way ahead because of what my project has done for their property value. Their kids may not have the same view.
> guess the thing that chaps my butt most is when a beautifully styled home from the 1920's is replaced with a giant vinyl sided box simply because the old home wasn't "big enough".
Something worse just happened next to me. A perfectly preserved 1920's apartment building was totally gutted, all the original hardwood floors, cornices, faux fireplaces, lighting fixtures destroyed. They turned it into the only butt-ugly modern in the neighborhood. It bears a remarkable resemblance to some of the bunkers that made up Hitler's Atlantic wall, but with a little less warmth and charm.
-- J.S.
in louisiana, the assessors are legally bound to regularly reassess property to insure that long term owners, or people who have added on, pay taxes based on the market value of the homes. of course, we have 70,000 homestead exemption and very lot rates.
recently, i was working in the yard next door on a sunday and saw a truck stop and back up to look at my house. with new orleans refuges buying everything in sight in baton rouge, i assumed i'd get a call from someone wanting to buy. instead, i got a call from my daughter the next day saying a man from the assessor's office was there and how many square feet of living area was the house? turns out that the vast majority of the house is garage and back porch.....as far as they know
is replaced with a giant vinyl sided box simply because the old home wasn't "big enough".
Or, and what may be a (not "the," just "a") telling point--it has to be clad in vinyl, it can't have decent trim (sitck them vinyl shutters on <cringe>), it can't have landscaping; all that was traded for some dubious value in "square footage."
I get asked "Why are houses so expensive?" I occasionally get goggled at for saying "Becasue people want them that way." For those that were actually interested in an answer and not small talk, I'll add that it's because they are built that way by builders.
Ok, in my perfect world, people would have an appreciation for design that would be reflected in the houses they want to live in. I'm not holding my breath for that, rather dubious, utopia.
Until "we" stop sticking rooms only RE types & (alleged) loan officers "require" in houses, "we're" stuck with bigger footprints. Going larger in plan begets going larger in other dimensions. Then, all of the sudden, we can't put anything but vinyl on . . . Or 10 year shingles, or the like.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"i guess the thing that chaps my butt most is when a beautifully styled home from the 1920's is replaced with a giant vinyl sided box simply because the old home wasn't "big enough". "
What I usually find is that the most militant 'preservationists' do not actually live in old homes. They just want to force those of us who do live in old homes to jump through their hoops to preserve their idealized "character of the community".
You hear people say things like "I moved to Idealsville because of the quaint old homes and historic architecture- I think we should force these people to paint their houses white with black or green shutters to preserve the New England Village look, and deny their application for an addition".
You can be sure anyone who says such things lives in a brand new McMansion in a new neighborhood on the edge of town.
What are you talking about?? My wife is the historic preservation person for the town here, and we live in an old house. Get a smaller brush.
My aunt lives in a three story 60+year old Victorian. It's a beautiful home in a beautiful neighborhood. It's surrounded by similar homes.
Guess what? It almost completely fills up a modest sized (50' x 150') lot. If (when) I were to tear down a house and build one like my aunts in my town you can just hear the howls.
Since I move into my house 5 years ago there have been 6 tear downs on my block alone. Everyone of those just about doubled the amount of taxes collected on each house. How can anyone complain about that.
When some of us buy homes, the character of the neighborhood (and the schools, and proximity to transit, etc) is as important as the home itself. When people buy an older home, tear it down, and put a vinyl box in its place, they change the character of the neighborhood, and some (including me) would say for the worse. Temporarily they inflate the property values, but in 10 years when that poorly built monster deteriorates and proves that homes don't always appreciate in value, the neighborhood will have more trouble recovering. You are living in a recently built home and have nothing but complaints about it - so how is replacing a solid, well-built smaller home with a big plastic box a property improvement?
From that lady's point of view, the neighbors are putting in the equivalent of a very large mobile home. Sure it's bigger than her house, but it's built like crap and will eventually drag her property value DOWN. However that's only if she can afford the higher taxes now. She was there first, she bought into a neighborhood with a specific character - can you blame her for wanting to preserve it? Why should she have to move to keep what she's got? She probably can't afford to move into a home as well-built as the one she has, so she'll get stuck in a piece of crap too. Better to squash the crappy new building before it is built.
It's too bad it had to go to the government, however. If people would just think about what they are doing and the effect it has on others, then the lady would not have had to fight the development at all - the crappy big new house would have gone in a development with other crappy big new houses.
With regard to changing character of neighborhoods and the world for that matter, that is why God so graciously allows us to die after 80 or so years. Otherwise we could not handle these changes. Remeber that cornfield in which you used to chase deer? Now a strip mall. Remember that stream you used to ride your bike to and try to damn it up? Now fenced off behind the post office. Remember the mountain view from your dinning room window? Now covered with houses.
Yes, 80 years is about all you can handle.
A McMansion isn't 3000sf. A McMansion (around here) is 4500-6000sf. The heating bills must be something else.
happy?
I live in an 8,000 sq ft home I built myself these past 2 years on 40 acres I'd purchased in 87. I don't consider it a mansion at all. My total cost was 240k with 110k going into the kitchen, I like to cook and it's all Subzero/Wolf. My heat loss/gain is 38/40,000 giving me a monthly utility average of $200. Here in central Va I couldn't have bought 1,500 sq ft on a mini lot for the same price. My biggest expense like many mentioned above is taxes, which this year are 5k.
Pete, if you ever want to sell that $240K home let me know.
A McMansion isn't 3000sf. A McMansion (around here) is 4500-6000sf. The heating bills must be something else.
Dan, it wasn't my classification. It was Morley's and the 60 Minute news segment, and that of the old bat's assessment. I would not have figured a family of 3.6 in 3000 SqFt was a mcmansion, either. Unfortunately, someone else thinks you should "do this" or "do that" because they want to force their ideals onto you.
While the trend to build large homes in old neighborhoods seems to be the norm, what disturbs me is when developers want to build subdivisions next to "older" developments. The "older" subdivision home owners then protest the new development based on increased traffic. The "older" subdivision might only be 10-15 years old! They don't realize that when their subdivision was being planned, their neighbors similarly protested their development.
It seems to be a case of "I've got mine and to hell with you" mentality. Unless everybody stops having kids, there should be more consideration for the younger generation. After all, the kids have the same aspirations as their parents...to become homeowners.
While the trend to build large homes in old neighborhoods seems to be the norm, what disturbs me is when developers want to build subdivisions next to "older" developments. The "older" subdivision home owners then protest the new development based on increased traffic. The "older" subdivision might only be 10-15 years old! They don't realize that when their subdivision was being planned, their neighbors similarly protested their development.
A lot of this activity is to be blamed on the county zoning commission. For instance, I chose the interstate exit and location because I thought I was getting away from urban-commercial development. Three years ago I went to a zoning meeting and debated about light polution that was going to increase, and traffic too, if they allowed a church to relocate from the inner city to my neighborhood.
Well, the zoning commission said they would place lighting constraints on them, as well as enforce the planned ingress/egress for traffic. They've done neither! And in addition to not doing what they have promised, they are allowing a Super Evil Mart at the interstate exit ramps (already bad traffic there), which will triple the traffic load, probably increase the light pollution 5-10 fold, and do this in the middle of communities with middle to high-low household incomes (meaning they can afford to drive one exit, ahem 5-miles, down the highway to another Super Evil Mart).
Yet, the county only thinks of one thing: how to increase tax revenues while keeping a straight face when the lie. And you want to guess how many of the zoning & development commissioners own grading companies?
--- I chose the interstate exit and location because I thought I was getting away from urban-commercial development. ---??? ???
Interstate exchanges are prime sites for commercial development. At least from what I've seen.Rebeccah
Re: "jealousy"
It is a handy term. A bit too handy.
Suppose your girlfriend, lets assume you have a girlfriend and not a wife to eliminate too much close range return fire, who has been away for six months suddenly showed up weighing 800 pounds. Sure you still care but the change is so great you stare. She turns to you and accuses you of being jealous of her additional weight.
You deny the charge and she claims your jealous because you couldn't afford the time off and dedication it takes to gain 700 pounds. She waddles around bragging about how good she looks. How much more desirable she feels. How much more you really want her now that she weighs 800 pounds.
Exactly how do you make yourself understood. Every time you claim your not jealous she claims to know you are. Every time you say the extra weight is repulsive she claims your just concealing your desire. Exactly how do you explain the situation? Simply put you can't in any meaningful way. The claim that your jealous of her weight has shut off debate.
Claiming the people who object to these McMansions are jealous explains nothing. It reveals nothing. It trivializes their objections.
That the people who object may not have the sort of finances which easily allows them to build isn't relevant either. Many who finance and build them can't really either. Witness the number of interest only loans and people who are sweating a downturn in the realestate markets.
Claiming anyone who objects is jealous is too easy.
Claiming the people who object to these McMansions are jealous explains nothing. It reveals nothing. It trivializes their objections. That the people who object may not have the sort of finances which easily allows them to build isn't relevant either. Many who finance and build them can't really either. Witness the number of interest only loans and people who are sweating a downturn in the realestate markets. Claiming anyone who objects is jealous is too easy.
The only thing I claimed was that the first thought that came into my head was jealousy. The man in the news segment had concluded she was jealous. I never said I felt my 'first thought' was correct, accurate, or anything else.
BTW, the objections by the old bat was that it was changing the neighborhood. If someone maintains the frontal facade (street view) then isn't it a little micro-managing if someone complains about how far back into your property, your backyard, your house goes a little controlling?
I would be the first one to agree that if I am walking down the street of an established neighborhood and see one small frontal facade and then one gaint one it would seem inappropriate. Inappropriate in what way is not for me to say, though. But, if I am looking at the fronts of houses in an established neighborhood and they all look the same and some of then just happen to extend 2.5 times as deep what is the social problem here?
Let me play Devil's Advocate, here. Let's say I replace one of those 1100 SqFt 1950's homes with one identical to it on the surface, but goes three floors into the earth and in the end quadruples the living space. How is this a problem? I've just built a 4400 SqFt home, its all living space, its taxed accordingly, it raises the average neighbor property value, yet nothing appears to have changed on the outside. Now what its its ten stories down and 11,000 SqFt?
Too bad Morley didn't have me at his side when he was walking the neighborhood with the old bat. I do not mean to put down the old women by calling her an old bat. I thought of amusement in this topic was necessary, and that most people doing personal building were more younger than older--especially in her neighborhood.
I have to say that being that I have no desire for children, I think I am better able to afford more house as a result.
Well at least there's one McMansionite who won't be reproducing.
THATS IT!!!
Convince all these tasteless Yuppies that they can afford more stuff w/o children.
then have them all fixed...
Stoopid peeps shouldn't be allowed to reproduce anyhoo...
:I
Mr. T.
"I YAM WHAT I YAM AND THATS ALL THAT I YAM"
-U.S. Sweet Potato Council
Well at least there's one McMansionite who won't be reproducing. THATS IT!!! Convince all these tasteless Yuppies that they can afford more stuff w/o children. then have them all fixed... Stoopid peeps shouldn't be allowed to reproduce anyhoo...
Is it your intention in replying only to insult me? My reason for not wanting children is because of the other end of life. My parents, which were poor, couldn't look beyond their hick/redneck ways to know better than to have 11 children. They were so poor they couldn't even afford a house. During my childhood years, we moved from rental to rental every 18-months on average. Its wasn't fun sharing a room with 3-4 others.
When I got old enough, I corrected my drop-out condition (6th grade drop-out) and removed myself from the blue-collar society that my parents and siblings seemed to be settled upon. I got my education and a desk job to where I could afford a home. I paid for my education, my car, and paying for my house. So if I chose to have 'space' you'll have to excuse me. BTW, I'd like to see nothing but low-income householes exist in America. Only then will they pay a 'fair share' into taxes.
And thanks for the vote of confidence in my life. Of course, you are not qualified to judge me as you don't know me.
Well at least there's one McMansionite who won't be reproducing.
THATS IT!!!
Convince all these tasteless Yuppies that they can afford more stuff w/o children
shoot, I see all these people talking about spending $700k on a freaking house and I think to myself: "I'd rather have a $100k house and a couple hundred acres."jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
shoot, I see all these people talking about spending $700k on a freaking house and I think to myself: "I'd rather have a $100k house and a couple hundred acres
The reason many houses cost that much is because there is little to no acreage left that is considered "buildable" by the municiplalities. The places that are most succeptible to McMansions are places with severe land restrictions. This means that since builders can't make money by volume, they need to build huge houses to turn a profit. Not to mention that areas with density restrictions or large sections of land that are declared off limits means you end up shelling out $200,000+ for a quarter acre.
"I'd rather have a $100k house and a couple hundred acres"
I've thought that same thing, more than once, too.
I've learned (finally, the slow way) to not think that out loud near bankers, though. Finding one that would lend you the money to buy more land than house is not in their "book." They want that "flippable" house, which tends to be a maximised house on a minimal footprint. Why? Because a high density of maximized "worth" structures means more loans. Which is a very mercenary attitude on my part, and cannot relfect all lenders, or the intents of all lenders. So, lenders, I appologize for using a broad brush, but I'm painting the scene I see.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I guess it depends on where you live and the type of loan structure that the borrower will be happy with.
Most banks, and all mortgage companies, "sell" their mortgage loans to one of the big mortgage companies, Countrywide, Washington Mutual, ABAmro, Wells Fargo, Chase, etc. because the borrower wants the 30-year, low fixed rate mortgage. Most local banks can't loan money out for 30 years at a fixed rate (unless we could charge 10-20%!) due to interest rate risk, so we sell the loan because the customer wants the long-term fixed rate loan. Also, there are more products available with these secondary market loans, such as 80-20s, 97% of purchase, 100% of purchase loans, etc, and most homebuyers don't have that kind of $ to inject. But if the loan gets sold to one of these mortgage companies, you have to play by their rules, and one of their rules is that the land value not be more than 25% of the overall appraised value.
If you're happy with a 1-yr adjustable, or a 3-1 ARM, have the 20-30% down in cash, have good credit, and can afford the payment, (house payment not more than 30% of monthly gross income/total debt to income less than 40%) most banks I know of, and the 3 I've worked for, would be happy to make a loan on a house with that much acreage. But I've always worked in SW Missouri, where there are farms of this size, fairly close to cities.
You forgot that other option that all bankers hate. Someone could actually save a few bucks and pay cash for property. Saving money these days is something that all forms of advertisivg discourage but it sure makes life a lot easier and is sure simple if you forget the Joneses and just decide what you want and go get it.
You forgot that other option that all bankers hate. Someone could actually save a few bucks and pay cash for property. Saving money these days is something that all forms of advertisivg discourage but it sure makes life a lot easier and is sure simple if you forget the Joneses and just decide what you want and go get it.
Ain't that the truth though. They try to make you feel un-American if you don't spend-spend-spend and go in debt up to your eyeballs.
I once set up a comparison for someone that showed the difference between paying cash for that new car and financing. Which was them compounded by the next car and the next. Astonishing amount of $$ wasted!
Their response was, "but I don't have $25k in cash." My reply, "so hold on to the current car longer and continue to make payments...to yourself." Best case would be to hold on to it until you had the $$ for the new one, but even if you can just make a massive down payment, that will shorten the payment period on the next one. And if you make the extra payments to yourself, you've got even more saved up for the next one.
Keep it up and 2 or 3 cars later, you DO have the $$ to pay cash for a car. And then that $2-5k in car payment interest you can keep and make interest of your own.
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
Edited 12/2/2005 10:07 am by JohnT8
Re: "They try to make you feel un-American if you don't spend-spend-spend and go in debt up to your eyeballs."Currently consumer spending is approximately 2/3rds of all economic activity in the US. If people start to acting in an economically coherent and intelligent manner, as opposed to the mad, drunken spendthrift behaviors being promoted by the banks and others, the US economy would shake, rattle and roll. The music would stop and the madness would stop. And as with all drunkenness the hangover would be painful as the economics of mirrors and smoke make fools of virtually all of the economic optimists. Credit card companies, banks, realestate speculators and market mavens would be facing the simple fact that their on paper fantasy land has been foreclosed and they are not worth what they had assumed. Lots of pain without an asprin in sight. Ironic because it is exactly the sort of bitter medicine that would return the real, as opposed to the fairy land of mists we are presently counting on, economic stability.If we are going to return the US to stability we are going to have to be "un-American" ,cutting unnecessary spending, reducing expectations and living within our means, to save the country. If enough of us do it it will lead to hard times. But it is the pain of lancing an economic boil. Shifting the economic center away from speculation and into production. A necessary step to real healing and economic soundness.
Don't use your own $!!! Hire a professional... ; )
> spending $700k on a freaking house
It depends where. Here, that's a minimal shack in the valley. In New York, you might not get a 700 sq. ft. condo that cheap.
-- J.S.
I'm of mixed feelings on McMansions... Personally, I'd never want to live in one, but there's the thought that folks should be able to do what they want with their own money (within reason).
Just started reading this thread, so someone has probably already addressed this, but...
You get old folks with modest retirement funds. They've paid the house off and are getting by OK... until they start putting up McMansion's in their neighborhood. Then suddenly the property values shoot up through the roof. That $2k/yr tax bill turns into $4-6k.
That can be devastating for someone on a fixed income. And people might say, "well, they can sell their home and move elsewhere." But sheeeeeze, if these folks have been living here for 40 years why should they be forced out of their homes just to feed the McMansion craze?
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
We've had this sort of thing take place in my community in a way. Not so much because of McMansions but because of rapidly rising values in general. The argument that its a burden on the elderly may be true but in the case of my community those same elderly have benefitted tremendously from the substantial rise in their equity. Assuming that most of them own their homes outright I would argue that they should tap that equity in order to meet their tax obligation.
"Assuming that most of them own their homes outright I would argue that they should tap that equity in order to meet their tax obligation."
How is that different from selling their home to pay taxes? And if they outlive the reverse mortgage and end up homeless without any assets, who will care for them?
Here is how I see this: These people worked their whole lives to buy a home. Paid off the mortgage, and now own real property. In order to pay the government the increased valuation on their home, they now have to sell that real property. They have to move somewhere else, away from their friends, when they are just too old to pick up and start over. When my grandparents-in-law were aging my mother-in-law wanted to move them into her home so she could take care of them. They refused. They didn't want to have to change churches. They didn't want to be living in a friendless community when they were too old to drive - they could walk to their friends' houses where they were. They didn't want to adjust to a new grocery store. They didn't want to have to find new places for their things. They didn't want to have to give up any of their things. And I can't fault them for those feelings. Why should people who've worked and saved their whole lives be forced into poverty because their house is in a desirable area?
I'm not saying its right, just a possible solution.
How is that different from selling their home to pay taxes?
Well, the difference is they stay in their home. I'm not saying its right or wrong just a possible solution. As far as who is going to care for them I think it best we don't open that can of worms ie: SS, medicare, Rx. Thats a biggie.
I would argue that they should tap that equity in order to meet their tax obligation
"Tapping" equity is a term for younger folks, not retired folks. Tapping equity is a euphamism -sp- for going into debt. The last thing retired folks need is debt (not that you can take it with you, but you sure don't wanna run out of $$ before you run out of life).
jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
thats right, you can't take it with you.
That $2k/yr tax bill turns into $4-6k."
John,
McMansions are going up like crazy in my parents neighborhood in Westchester, NY. Knocking down ranches, and putting up three story homes with 10' setbacks.
When my Dad bought his place in '76, taxes were $3K, Now they are over $30K with minimal improvements to the house. (carpet and wall paper)
Are the 30 years of family memories they have associated with the place worth the tax bill? My Dad seems to think so, but it still sucks.
Someone said earlier to sell or take out a reverse mortgage. That's not the point. Greedy/incompetent, well connected politicians are allowing this to happen.
WSJ
I feel bad for your folks Jon - what chaps my a$$ is that I doubt your folks have seen a 10-fold increase in the services rendered for their taxes.
It's like the towns here in WI that are including the interior in the assesment. As if a nicer interior will require more policing, fire service, or schooling. It don't make no "cents". . .
I feel bad for your folks Jon - what chaps my a$$ is that I doubt your folks have seen a 10-fold increase in the services rendered for their taxes."
Jim,
You're right, but at least they can say (according to Newsweek) they have the #1 public school system in the Nation. (comes in real handy for retied people) That's where it's going. Wealthy people kept moving in for the school system, and kept demanding more and more.
Jon
No significant land shortage here, so the McMansions are going up on new lots in the far suburbs. The ones a few blocks away (cheapest about $500K, going up to something like $1.2M) are next to a new golf course.
They're actually lowering our taxes, by paying a bigger share themselves.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
They're actually lowering our taxes, by paying a bigger share themselves.
Maybe now, but not later....................
WSJ
For the foreseeable future, I don't see how they could raise our taxes. Half our tax load is schools, and these folks tend to be older, with their youngest kids in the last year or two of high school. They'll pay several times the school taxes I pay, and not put nearly as much demand on schools as folks in my income bracket and lower.
In terms of other services they could "demand" there's not much. Given the slightly wider house spacing, their snow-plowing costs will be a hair higher, but they won't need as much policing as my next-door neighbor (may he rot in heck) or the folks in the apartment buildings a few blocks away. Roads and sewers are already in and are paid for by the developer.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
these folks tend to be older, with their youngest kids in the last year or two of high school. "
Dan,
Not from what I've seen............If the kids are clearing out, why the need/desire for a bigger house?
Jon
> If the kids are clearing out, why the need/desire for a bigger house?You tell me. I haven't the foggiest why a couple in their late 40s/early 50s, with one kid in college and two just finishing high school, would go and trade in their 2000sf 4BR for a 5000sf 6BR that you could herd cattle in. But they do.The other interesting thing is that these homes are rarely designed with any features to make them accessible, even minimally -- fancy step-up entrances, step-downs to the living room, all BRs up or down steps from the main floor, long, narrow hallways, etc. This is pretty silly given that many of these folks will face accessibility problems within 15 years or so.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
When my Dad bought his place in '76, taxes were $3K, Now they are over $30K...
Jon, $3K in 1976 is the equivalent of $10,300 in 2005, so in real terms, your fathers taxes have increased a little less than 3X -
so maybe he's seen a three-fold increase in services? -
carry on -
"there's enough for everyone"
so maybe he's seen a three-fold increase in services? - "
David,
Nope, hardly any change other that the school system went from a top 100 ranking to being ranked #1 in the country. Hardly something that is a benefit to them, just a tax burden. We're talking about Scarsdale NY (Edgemont Schools), not the sticks. People moving in want "the best".
WSJ
Wow! You really started a hornets nest of opinions here. I am of the "you've got to be kidding" camp with 10k sf homes but folks in the country -or sterile new suburbs- should be able to build whatever the hell tacky huge homes they want but I bought into a neighborhood-NOT just a house. I am not at all jealous of these homes that turn their back on the neighborhood while spilling out to every corner of the lot.
Though there is definite pressure to tear down and rebuild in my 100 year old neighborhood with fixers going for $600sf we fortunately we have a very strong, detailed PDO (Planned Development Ordinance) that lays out zoning, density, architectural guidelines and such to keep the nature of the neighborhood intact. It is laid out like a village with denser urban cores radiating out to SF homes and protecting canyon areas.
As a designer I have doubled the size of more that a few homes but that means going from around 1000sf to 2000sf- I love the challenge of transforming the feeling of a house with great details and really livable space in that context. I find huge houses terminally boring but that's just a personal opinion.
I'll take my small sweet house and big garden any day.
Personally, I too would rather work on a project where I may be expandnded someones home by about 800 to 1000 feet and maybe revamping some of the existing spaces and details. I like working with the more down to earth clients. They are easier to make happy, and that is most rewarding. They actually use the term "thank you". Funny thing as a side note is it seems easier to collect a fee from the ones who you can tell are just making it, and need the extra space because of en expanding family. Yet we are always trying to get money we are owed from the blowhards who are too busy spending the money they owe us on a new convertable mercedes.
Here was a great project for me. Young family, VERY tight budget-had to come up with a very simple building form that would give them the biggest bang for the buck. Simple shed roof addition with clerestories and lofts gave them the volume, light and additional needed space without breaking the bank. The rear of the house has all openings down from 8' so the few but large windows and doors make a big impact. They love the house and the toddlers are already exploring the lofts. Still a very modest sized house that fit in well with the surrounding 60s small ranch style homes.
I know its not great architecture but it transformed the lives of these folks that became great friends so that is very rewarding to me. Not the clearest file.
>I know its not great architecture but it transformed the lives of these folks that became great friends so that is very rewarding to metransformed the lives of these folks...(for the better)In my opinion, that is great architecture
Re:transformed the lives of these folks...(for the better)"And further:"In my opinion, that is great architecture"Amen. This is, IMHO, the purpose behind a house, a machine for living. I relate this to the commentary from one of the best knife makers ever: He lamented that his knives so often ended up as collector items then he got his greatest joy in a knife he made be used, and used up, as the tool they were intended to be. He related a story where a knife he had made decades before was brought to him by a ranch hand who used it every day for fifty years. The blade had been sharpened down to the size of small pocket knife. He happily gave the hand a new knife for free. Homes are best when they are built to fit the real and long-term, multi-generational, birth to death, life-cycle needs of a particular family and not as financial tokens intended to stimulate the erogenous zones and Pavlovian drool response of a wanton, greedy and fickle 'market'.The difference is similar to the differences in a Lamborguini and a mini van. Drool over the sports car all you want it won't make it any more effective when it is time to tote 18 bags of groceries and three kids.
some of you guys are braindead..if you think large home are the only way wealthy people squander their money you are hopeless. Some moons ago I was working for a customer who was taking his family to Florida for the x-mass season, We were talking about flying commercial airlines during this season when he started to blush.
Well to make a long story short he owned a small jet. He preceded to explain the fuel consumption at mach .65.
Don't get pissed off at these people. Love them, they pay us.
Edited 12/2/2005 6:59 pm ET by stinky
Re: "Don't get pissed off at these people. Love them, they pay us."First, McMansions are going to be a physical, visual, land use and energy waste for decades. Sixty to eighty years likely. Most ways people with too much money waste it are less long lived. Even more than SUVs America will be carrying this burden for a long time.Second I mostly do service work, repairs, troubleshooting, small upgrades on residential, commercial and some industrial properties. Give the general shoddy level of what I have seen of the MCMansions in the last five years they will be on my list of service calls in a year or two. I can wire new construction. Have done my share. But, seeing as that not everyone can effectively do troubleshooting, I make more money working service calls. A bit tougher work and way more complicated than new but more rewarding. It is a calling that can't be moved offshore and is largely immune to economic downturns. Good times or bad daddy's TV has to work.It is also worth noting that historically it is the "wealthy people" who tend to have issues paying bills in full and on time. So I feel no great need to "love them". Beyond the need common to all people. Given similar jobs in difficulty and value I would rather work for poorer folks. They have, IMO, better attitudes. I also have more sympathy for their hardships.Of course, or so I gather from your concerns, that you are more dependent on remaining in the good graces of richer clientele. Makes sense for you to "love" those who have you by the short hairs. I don't play that game much, I generally work FIFO without regard to wealth, but but I can understand your motivation.
It is also worth noting that historically it is the "wealthy people" who tend to have issues paying bills in full and on time.
Curious as to your sources. Given an article I read in the Wall Street Journal in the last week this is not accurate. They had a bar chart showing the percentage of people with credit scores over 700, by income level (presumably an indicator of wealth, though certainly not an absolute indicator; but again I'm interested in hearing/seeing your source of info). The percentage was >80% for those with incomes over $100k. The percentage was less than 50% for those with incomes under $30,000.
Another good source would be the book "The Millionaire Next Door" which clearly shows that most people with a net worth north of $1M are pretty good about paying their bills on time.
- Rob
>Curious as to your sources.This whole thread is filled with generalizations and stereotypes...doubt any of them have been the subject of serious study...but we needn't let that stop us from disparaging some group or another, as long as it's not people like us, huh?! :)
Re: "Another good source would be the book "The Millionaire Next Door" which clearly shows that most people with a net worth north of $1M are pretty good about paying their bills on time."I do service work. Typically the bills are under a thousand dollars. Often just a few hundred. Wealthier folks are far more likely to beg off writing a check at the time of completion. And when they do they are more often to be slow in payment. Often making the the process as difficult as possible so that the last payment is never seen.If taken to court they are far more likely to materialize previously unheard of complaints, inadequacies and miscommunication as a defense. Assuming the contractor bothers to take them to court at all, most know when they have been unrecoverably boned, there are sure to be delays. And in the end a settlement is typically a useless piece of paper because the person requesting, and responsible for the work, has no assets. Not many poorer folks have the sort of cynical sophistication needed to make themselves 'settlement proof'. I have worked for contractors with a row of file cabinets filled with settlements that isn't even worthy as toilet paper unless you like it rough. With all due respect to the Wall Street Journal small contractors and their bills are not the sort of businesses which 'show up' in such studies. Key is that these folks know which businesses they can screw over and which have the sort of resources available to extract payment or retribution if they balk.The repairs that motivate service calls seldom come when convenient or according to the calendar. It isn't like a renovation which can be scheduled ahead of time. When the money is available. Many on the lower end of the SE scale are living hand to mouth. Any more a lot in the middle are too but they never want to admit it. Service work means you have to be flexible, negotiate, work with people. But some abuse the privilege. And most of these are not people living in tract housing and driving old cars. They are people with large, new houses with three cars and a boat in the garage. Often businessmen. While some on the lower end of the SE scale can and do default the percentage is far smaller than their relative poverty would indicate. I have seen many a job for poorer folks start with the HO telling us up front they don't know how they can pay. They are mostly honest and concerned. If the business owner approves, his choice, we do the work and payment comes or doesn't. Mostly it comes a bit at a time.I have seen an older couple living off of Social Security pay off a $700 debt at $20 a month. Each monthly payment delivered in the form of hand delivered $20 bill on the first of each month. They never had to reminded or hunted down to extract payment. Those better off seldom are up front enough to tell you they don't have money available and let the contractor make the call. Job gets done, bill comes due and 'we have a check coming in a day or two'. Later we find out they had nothing coming in. If they pay at all it is slow and only after dire threats and foul oaths being laid on. And then only a bit at a time with the final payment a distant mirage. Difference being that what amounts to charity is sometimes willingly entered into for the poorer folks but only revealed after the fact with the better off.
4Lorn1, Do smaller contractors use the credit reporting services? Both going into a job and at completion? Seems that if they did report non-payment the next guy would know what he's getting into. And the homeowner would have a ding that would lower his credit rating and affect the rates he pays. Might up his/her interest a little bit.Just speculating.
Wealthier folks are far more likely to beg off writing a check at the time of completion. And when they do they are more often to be slow in payment. Often making the the process as difficult as possible so that the last payment is never seen.
This would beg the question, what have you done to change your clientele and/or your payment collection process? As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
- Rob
Strokeoluck,
I have no stats from any official studies done on the topic, so you may easily find information that could dispute what I am about to say. I find that people with less money, not poor people, but people who don't have large amounts of disposable income to buy a toy car or put a jaquzzi and a waterfall in their back yard are the ones who are more likely to pay thir bill on time. I don't know why exactly, but that is just my personal experience. They seem more proud to be able to pay you on time. On the other hand, I find the people with more money than they know what to do with seem to always want to make a power play. They hold back money when they have no calid reason-one guy even took it upon himself to restructure our contract from three payments on three points of project completion to 12 monthly payments. Why? My guess is that they like to be in controll. So I would personally never extend myself more to someone who had more money because I felt "they were good for it" because more often than not you have to work harder to get these clients to pay.I don't mean to generalize, and I don't mean to stereotype because it's not always true. I have seen cases to the contrary. Thats jsut my experience.
You hit it on the head. Driving up to a 500k house with 2 Jags in the drive scares me away 98% of the time. Those are the only 'stereo type' I've ever had trouble with paying the whole bill on time as agreeded.
"Driving up to a 500k house with 2 Jags in the drive scares me away 98% of the time."In my younger days i used to work for a sole architect/former contractor. Great guy, still stay in touch. Used to say that he'd never do another house for a doctor or lawyer. No stereotypes intended for either category, but he had so many horror stories from past clients in those professions. Something about a ratio of the size of their wallets = size of ego/mouth/# of change orders, etc..
I forgot to add that I don't think it's a control issue as much as a don't have the money issue. The times I've had to go the lien route I've often found I was 4 or 5 in line.
Living beyond their means as so so so many people are today in this country.
Well to make a long story short he owned a small jet. He preceded to explain the fuel consumption at mach .65."
That's only ~480MPH. Even Scheduled air goes 550MPH, and can go close to 750MPH with a good tailwind if they don't care about fuel consumption. Guess he had a low end jet........at least he could brag to people about it.
WSJ
His jet will have the same tailwind -- but he'll walk up to the plane without going through a huge terminal. He can plan on being to the plane five minutes before takeoff instead of one to two hours.Might even drive his car up to the plane to have the copilot load the baggage. I'm assuming the plane is too small to have a flight attendant.I've got to start buying lottery tickets (and winning) to get on that plan.
His jet will have the same tailwind
Ken,
No, depends what air corridor ATC assigns him to.
-- but he'll walk up to the plane without going through a huge terminal. He can plan on being to the plane five minutes before takeoff instead of one to two hours."
True, the walk through is quick........But, so he doesn't pre-flight the plane himself, (major no-no) assuming he's the pilot in Command? Usually takes at least 20 minutes minimum.
Might even drive his car up to the plane to have the copilot load the baggage. "
I fly out of a mid size regional airport myself KUES ( ~20-40 business jets daily + another 80 props.) (I'm a pilot BTW), no way can you just drive up to a plane on the tarmac, no way, unless you own the airstrip, or pass additional security.
WSJ
WSJ,I, too, have a pilots license and I was assuming a couple of things. One, that an airplane measuring speed in mach numbers is a jet. If so, it would be using the same jet routes and so would get the same winds. That part isn't an assumption, I see them on the same routing all the time. Unless, of course, it is a Gulfstream and then he'd be above the airliners.<G> I don't know of a Gulfstream that cruises at less than .80M usually -- so I'm back to assuming and picture a Cessna Citation. There are other slow jets, that's just the one that comes to mind.Two, that he wasn't the pilot. Definitely an assumption, but there aren't too many jet owner-pilots. John Travolta is one, so they exist, but jet owners tend to have paid pilots. Which makes me wonder: How many jets are owned by individuals as opposed to corporations?I know each airport is different but I've seen corporate FBOs and fields where you can drive up. If not, there's a covered area right in front of the lounge, goes on a cart or tractor, and right to the plane. Probably stricter anywhere there's scheduled traffic these days. I know you can't do it at Dulles or Reagan National.If he's an owner-pilot, great! That's living my dream. Make enough money to afford an airplane without it being a drain. And get to fly places without walking through a huge passenger terminal.Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread but saw airplanes mentioned and it piqued my interest.
I can't remember the type of jet this customer flew. He was actually the owner pilot, and he did mention it was an older model (new engines) but a real gas pig. I was really kissing this guy's arse for a ride...maybe the killer babysitter but not this grubby painter.
Keeping on track here, again my point, loaded people spend money and lots of it in many strange and peculiar ways. We just see these huge homes and think of the waste of resources.
Oh..I would love to be able to afford one of those "slow jets" stinky
Some the older jets are cheap but real gas hogs.The prop guys talk about flying somewhere for a $100 hamburger -- maybe you can talk him into a $1000 dollar burger? <G>
"One, that an airplane measuring speed in mach numbers is a jet."
KEN,
Very true, no prop plane can hit that #mph, ( though we should be talking knots) in anything other than in a steep dive/decent.
"Anyway, don't want to hijack the thread but saw airplanes mentioned and it piqued my interest."
Hey, love to converse with fellow pilots, That's why I go to EAA AirVenture every year.....only a 50 minute drive.
"I know each airport is different but I've seen corporate FBOs and fields where you can drive up."
Heah, the company my wife works for has one at The Grand Geneva Resort (former first PlayBoy Club) Haven't flown it yet, but I think it's 4,800 ft paved.
Jon
Edit: Must be almost impossible to fly out of any airport by you with the FAA rules.
Edited 12/3/2005 6:45 pm ET by WorkshopJon
Edited 12/3/2005 6:53 pm ET by WorkshopJon
Edited 12/3/2005 6:53 pm ET by WorkshopJon
Jon, You're right, knots for airplanes, until you get to jets and then it's frequently mach for the higher numbers. Have seen limitations in knots, mach, or both. If you're selling them to passengers, they know mph. And it's a higher number.You're also right about flying around here. I'm not going to fly light civil in this area. I'm pretty sure I can avoid flying over downtown, but I'm just thinking there's too many things they can throw up to get you in trouble. I know a guy that does it, and it just didn't look like my kind of fun.Had to get my license updated at the FSDO at Dulles, even that is a security lesson. They're allowing corporate guys to fly into Reagan National now, but I think they have to stop somewhere outside the immediate area and get searched. I think they may have to have an air marshall fly with them, but I could be remembering wrong.I went to Oshkosh once. What a blast. Talked to the reverend who'd built his plane from scratch. Said the prop shaft came from a large truck driveshaft. Camped out of the back of a car. So tired from walking around looking at airplanes that it didn't matter. The lectures are fun, too.
Ken You'll find that as you fligh a bit higher you will use mach numbers in a Cessna 150 if you can get one up there. Mach speeds are used at FL assigned altitudes. As you know your airspeed indicator needs to be corrected for DA to get a true airspeed. Mach numbers are used, even with todays GPS, as a means of having uniform airspeeds for traffic assigned different FLs. There are many props bumping around up there reporting speeds in mach numbers. Also as the speed of sound varies with DA mach .45 is a different speed at each altitude.
Now if you ever get a chance at whole mach numbers at 50 feet, take it. Just pray that the autopilot wasn't made on a Monday or Friday. Sure beats any IMAX you'll watch.
"Now if you ever get a chance at whole mach numbers at 50 feet, take it. Just pray that the autopilot wasn't made on a Monday or Friday. Sure beats any IMAX you'll watch."Been there, done that. Wouldn't have turned the autopilot on, though, not at that speed and altitude.
View Image
"there's enough for everyone"
Cool,What's that from? And is it starting at .4 mach or 4.0?
surplus from the shuttle program -
think it might be G-force -
"there's enough for everyone"
Hard to tell without more reference, but I'm with DanH in that it looks like it has something to do with the airstream.
ya - it's a speedometer (aerometer?) off an airplane - don't know the details, belonged to a friends father who was a plane builder back in the good ole days -
"there's enough for everyone"
So it definitely wasn't a mach meter -- unless going straight down!
Looks more like an angle of attack guage.
If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people
happy?
Kinda does, but wouldn't the doohickus it's anchored to have to be oriented different?
Wow cool!!! never knon a pilot who could handle mach 2.0 at 50 without an auto pilot. We lost a few F-111 fellas years ago who tried it 500 feet.
Only did it once. Decided there was no need to keep doing that <g>Have to note I didn't get over 2, just into the 1s.
Now if you ever get a chance at whole mach numbers at 50 feet, take it. Just pray that the autopilot wasn't made on a Monday or Friday. Sure beats any IMAX you'll watch."
VA,
Like this? [broadband only]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/43358/extremely_low_altitude_flying/
WSJ
Jon
That was cool, gotta watch big mamma kick some azz, to damn funny!
It's interesting that there's such vitriol directed at "McMansions" on a site dedicated to fine homebuilding. Does "fine" mean the house must be less than 1,000 s.f.?...less than 2,000 s.f.? My boss lives in a 5,000 s.f. house that is absolutely gorgeous, containing details I'd kill for.
I grew up in a 700 s.f. apartment for the first 20 years of my life. My wife grew up in a 1,100 s.f. house with four other siblings that were close in age. We lived in a 1300 s.f. home for the first 10 years of our marriage while having two kids. We debated keeping that house and buying a small cottage. However with schedules the way they are (not to mention my wife didn't want to have to cook and clean at TWO places; one was enough) we decided to scrap the cottage idea - we take enough day/weekend trips to keep us all happy. So we decided to build a custom 3,500 s.f. home. It's the house of our dreams and sits on one acre of land in what is now "the country" (soon to be changing of course; though our lot overlooks 50 acres of woods/wetlands).
Initially I was a little embarassed by the size and quality of the house. Is it bigger than we need - probably. But in general the rooms are a little bigger than normal but we don't have any "wasted" space. For instance we don't have a "formal living room" that only gets utilized once/year for x-mas pictures. I will admit that I now wish we hadn't done the two story family room - too much echo in the room and we always have the fan on in reverse to drive the heat back down!
But darn it, I work hard and we've sacrificed for quite a while. We absolutely love our house, it's fun to entertain inside (and outside on the deck/yard) our house and it's very comfortable to live in. We easily afford the mortgage payments and doubled our equity by upgrading. When the mortage is paid off the house will likely be 25-30% of our overall assets so I also see it as part of our long-term asset allocation strategy (no, we don't live in a high-growth; crazy appreciation market; I'm counting on 2-3% annual increases).
So to those that ridicule "McMansions" I say go knock something else. If someone can afford to build it, and someone WANTS to build it (don't see many tradesman on here that are saying they'd refuse to work on such houses) more power to them.
- Rob
You said it in your initial sentence. I may be wrong but most see a "McMansion" not being fine homebuilding because for most the definition of McMansion is the cookie cutter house that pays little attention to detail and quality as a sacrifice to size. You can have a mega house that is fine homebuilding or vice/versa. I just think that too many people have bought into the big is better illusion. This is all pretty subjective and of course you know what they say about opinions being like.
strokeoluck, you're being too sensitive. Doesn't sound like your house qualifies as a McMansion.
They typically have MASSIVE amounts of wasted space. how about a 1k sq ft entry... that no one ever uses. Or the formal DR that gets used 1 or 2 times a year. Or the LR/family-room thing that you were hinting at, where they have the LR just for 'special occasions' while the 'family room' is the real room.
I've even seen them with LR/Family-rooms.. where neither one was used, because the kitchen area was so big they spent all their time in there.
So you end up with a 6-10k sq ft house with maybe 2k ft of which is really being used. So why not just compromise and settle for 3k-ish? Which is what you've got. Just just about right to me (as long as there's plenty of workshop area).
Personally, as I've already said, it's their money and they can do what they want with it, but it is just an obscene use of resources to build a bunch of 6-20k sq ft homes for 2-4 person families.jt8
"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke." -- Will Rogers
Sounds like a great place. But I think the current topic was addressing people who tear down existing houses and put up enormous houses in their place, within established neighborhoods that don't accomodate them easily (functionally, aesthetically, financially, etc.). Those are not 1-acre lots. A house of your size on a typical city lot might be considered intrusive. On an acre though, it probably doesn't cause the same reactions.Am not a fan of larger homes in general, but that's the architect in me knowing how spaces can often be wasted or work better. As an example, just drives me nuts seeing kitchens with gigantic distances between counters and islands (costly, and unproductive to boot). There are creative ways to make a space 'feel' larger than it is, find unique storage solutions, etc., and focus budgets instead on better details and better quality materials. Have often quoted Sarah Susanka's book "The Not So Big House" as a good example. Unfortunately, many people want what their neighbor has, so it's a tough sell.
Edited 12/2/2005 12:57 pm ET by draftguy
Thanks for the clarification. I would agree it always looks pretty odd when you see gigantic homes on small lots. Doesn't happen much by me so I'm not real familiar w/it.
I love that book, "the not so small house". When our kids leave the house that's the kind of home my wife plan on buying or building.
- Rob
a custom 3,500 s.f. home. It's the house of our dreams and sits on one acre of land
So to those that ridicule "McMansions" I say go knock something else.
That's not a McMansion. A McMansion, in the 'classic' sense, is when you take a 75'x150' city lot, scrape the 1100sf 3/1 off of it, and put a zero-lot-lined 5000sf 4/4.5 on it (trading items like trim or exterior finishes for vinyl & j-bead to get that just adds 'insult' to the 'injury' . . . )
Jamming 3-5 houses, built to sf maximums per lot, with a lot of fancy veneer, and fussy-looking roof & eave details, to the exclusion of things like flashing (can't finish 10 a week & expect perfect flashing) or sensibly-scheduled interior spaces (of course you need a 27" wide, 18", 120" tall coat closet in your 15x17' two-story foyer)--that's McMansion. (Trimming a 24' tall twostoru wall with 4" flat base & 4" bed mould would be another--particularly in white-on-white laytex paint.)
You built a house sized to the lot, with a designer (I presume) who scheduled your interior spaces to fit your needs--that's an anti-McMansion by several degrees.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I feel much better. Can I now say I'm "one of the guys"? :-) I too abhor when people squeeze gigantic homes on tiny lots, though it's a free country I guess.
- Rob
Can I now say I'm "one of the guys"?
Probably <g>
One of my peeves is when even the model home clearly has unusable spaces built right in (but that may also have to do with my experiences "set dressing" the silly things . . . ).
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
My only beef with these houses is the amount of fuel that they use to heat/cool because you know they are not built with energy effencicy in mind.
No wonder my gas is 2$ plus per gallon.
Those houses are a huge waste of natural resources unless they are concrete and use solar/wind power. It's pretty gross to use that much energy to heat/cool such a huge waste of out of scale space. I guess they have no concerns for the environment or future generations. It's called greed and selfishness. But it's mostly foolishness, IMO.