Interesting article… where I am (CT) the McMansion thing is just unbelievable. It’s hard to believe there are that many people with that kind of money…
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=418653>1=8012
Interesting article… where I am (CT) the McMansion thing is just unbelievable. It’s hard to believe there are that many people with that kind of money…
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=418653>1=8012
By considering things like energy-efficient mechanicals, window orientation, and renewable energy sources, homes can be evaluated to meet the energy codes. Here's what the IRC has to say.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Fine Homebuilding
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
© 2024 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start Your Free TrialStart your subscription today and save up to 81%
SubscribeGet complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.
Already a member? Log in
Replies
I like some of the labels they came up with - Like "garage mahals," "Hummer houses", and "starter castles".
Although I can see where "Hummer House" could be taken wrong. (-:
.
The point about people wanting to downsize once their kids move out is a good one. Although people don't seem to want to downsize MUCH. The first house plan I drew this year is for some older empty nesters who want to downsize.
The house they live in now is about 3,000 square feet. And they're thinking about spending $300,000 to downsize to a 2,750 square foot house.
.
I wonder if the demand for homes will change over the next few years. The baby boomers who have driven this big housing boom are aging. And a lot of them have money and/or good credit.
Maybe the demand is going to shift from McMansions to not-quite-so-big McMansions that are more accessable. Like fewer steps and such. There seems to be a demand for houses like that around here now.
I dunno, maybe it's just sour grapes but I find the state of real estate just unbelievable. I "invested" a considerable (200K) in my business 25 years ago, and rode the market right into the ground so now I'm trying to start over at 48 from scratch. To me owning a home has become the equivalent of a Lotto fantasy. I just find it unbelievable that people are paying what they are for homes in CT ... hard to imagine that the trend can just go on unabated.
It's kind of hard for me to imagine, since home values around here don't change much. It's pretty easy to spend $200,000 building a house that's only worth $150,000. House prices around here have appreciate roughly 3% a year for the past 15 to 20 years.
Always glad to share my ignorance - I've got plenty.
>House prices around here have appreciate roughly 3% a year for the past 15 to 20 years.Our assessment (based on market values) literally doubled in 4 years. It's nuts in some parts of the country.
CT is just insane, truly. I know a number of people whose homes have doubled in value (we're talking 300K to 600K) in several years. And these aren't mansions by any stretch. One of my brothers is always trying to talk me into moving to MI, easy to see why.
PaulB
Ah, central Illinois.I consider myself lucky to have left *before* I started building on my property. I never would have been able to sell the house, so I would have been stuck there through the local economic downturn and personal issues. As it is, I got off with only a $4000 loss on my land after 9 years.Now I'm in California, and managed to catch the tail end of the housing boom with the money I was going to spend building in Illinois.No McMansion here: just an old 1919 bungalow (1351 sf), but despite the ongoing strain on my budget, the best investment I've made.Rebeccah
Where were you from?
Wife's parents paid $5k for a house in Decatur in 1931, kept in good repair (5 yo roof, etc) and 'sold' for all of $12K in 1999. Location.
My parent paid about $6K for a house in Spfld in 1946, maybe worth all of $40K now but it's the best shape house within blocks.
Could sell my house in Seattle area (built for $15K in '74) and buy 2 whole blocks (40 houses or so) in area of Spfld where I grew up. New houses in the 'tony' westside areas of Spfld do go into the $500ks..
What is being built near me now are the slums of the 2070's - $500K 3000 sq ft houses on 4000 sq ft lots, yet not quite row housing.
Another neighbor just sold out, had built nice new approx 4000sq house on 7 acres in 1992 - being bulldozed to put in 60 or so of the future slum houses.
Hi, Junkhound.For the 5 years before I moved out here to Oakland, I was in Jacksonville, IL. The bottom fell out of the economy when Capitol Records closed up their plant there. The hospital has been steadily losing business to Springfield for the last decade, so there's no longer any appeal for a certain subset of higher end buyers, either.My parents move to the west side of Springfield about a year ago, to a very nice home in an older (relative to the others on that side of town) neighborhood and paid probably about $200K. They wanted nothing to do with Panther Creek.Rebeccah
Rebeccah, where did you live in Jacksonville, and what did you do? Just curious - our paths may have crossed. I grew up on a farm between Jacksonville and Virginia, went to JHS, etc... Now living in Racine, WI...
I didn't grow up there - I lived on the west end of town (first in West Winds, then the subdivision just east of it on Gardendale, one block from the Friday night races) from 1994 to 2000. I was a solo practice orthopod.The lot I bought and finally disposed of was in Applebee Farms (first addition), one block from the hospital. The first addition still had several unsold lots, last I knew.If you grew up there and are now an adult, then both West Winds and Applebee Farms may be unfamiliar to you.Rebeccah
Ah, yes, Applebee "Farms". The only thing farmed there is little white orbs that tend to sprout up on lush expanses of manicured grass interspersed with pockets of sand and water... That was all just starting as I was leaving for college. I love the juxtaposition of Applebee Farms just across Sandusky from the trailer park.I spent the summer of 2007 as a security guard at Passavant, but it was night shift, so I doubt our paths ever crossed.I can remember growing up when Eisenhower School pretty much marked the west edge of town. Now it's well beyond that, and the homes unfortunately don't bespeak much in the way of creativity on the part of their developer...I never really envied anyone living close to the track. With my bedroom window open during the summer, if the wind was right, I could hear the races, and my parents' house is 7 miles north of town...
if the demand for homes will change over the next few years. The baby boomers who have driven this big housing boom are aging
I really wish we could divorce the size from the McMansions; my complaint with the genre is more with their being bloated with useless space wrapped in substandard construction (or marginal construction).
I'm concerned that the children of the boomers will get "stuck" with these mostly-on-paper-valuable pigdogs, and the badly-probated & intestate estates will be hit hard with entire neighborhoods of junkers (and not Junkers, which might, at least, have some value).
I'm also thinkign of the generation of people out there who are in Construction Management, who will have spent their professional lives working for the big builders, and only developing a skill to build kncok-off, built fast--not well, structures. That, that generation will be the ones to teach, mean to or not, the next generation . . .
Here's a thought--suppose the kids we "bring up" in the trades already "know" house don't last 20 years, why bother with details like flashing, or weatherproofing? By the time they get to being old and lamenting "back when a house might last 20, 25 years", how long will construction be "good for"?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
What do you guys think about the "upside to McMansions" mentioned in the article.
The guy Lang seems to think that existing owners are better off 'cause if they can't afford the higher RE taxes they can sell and "downsize." Great upside to McMansions coming to your neighborhood . . . get taxed out of your lifelong home so you can go move somewhere else into a "downsized" house. Oh, if you can afford to pay and don't actually get forced out, your upside is higher RE taxes.
I think he's smokin' crack.
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
I think the upside would depend on the area and your perspective. If property values go up and you can sell your home and make a nice profit, it's great. If your taxes just keep going up and up and you want to stay where you're at, it can be bad. No situation is all good or all bad.
Bumpersticker: Thank you for not breeding.
'cause if they can't afford the higher RE taxes they can sell and "downsize."
I think he's smokin' crack.
No lie. The only people who think those sorts of things never seem to have actually done them (or even tried).
When my property taxes went up 16% four years ago, I ran some numbers--nothing did not get me upside down in a bad way. (Although, there ws a tiny window using a maximum-permissible mortage to get "back" some mortage interest credit--but that mortgage also exceeded my net income, too . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'm 20 minutes from you in Ct. Around here (Oxford) 2400 sq.ft. is tiny.
I think we're going to see a repeat of the S&L failure of the 80's. Banks are lending huge amounts to anyone who wants it. wait until those people have to put out mega dollars to heat those houses - things are gonna change
Oxford CT, Mav? I grew up in Newtown. My father keeps trying to convince me I could afford to live in Newtown... yeah at 400K for a fixer upper...
Is Oxford airport still there? I remember watching the Prez (I think Bush the 1st) land there believe it or not. The wildest part was the C130 (?) landing and disgorging the presidential limo. You'd never believe planes that size could land there but they did.
PaulB
over a thousand planes a day, 2nd largest runway in the state and they're expanding.
I work in Newtown often, great town, a little pricey though. 400K will get you a building lot if you're lucky. I would move there if my wife did'nt work in west haven. now she has a 25 minute commute and Newtown would add another 20.
for now we'll keep our own McMansion
Re-C130 unloading prez's car. Most likely was a C-5 Galaxie, they hold about 500,000 lbs of just fuel and burn it up at a pretty fast clip, wonder it it's in the air today??
> wait until those people have to put out mega dollars to heat those houses -
Maybe like the real mansions of old, they'll go pretty much unheated. Dress warm, gather round the fire in the great hall.... ;-)
-- J.S.
It's hard to believe there are that many people with that kind of money...
And there in lies the real problem. More and more I hear friends talking about some very sketchy financing plans for big houses. Many of them make less than my wife and I and I am often wondering how they make the payments. Then I hear about things like Interest only mortgages or two seperate loans to eliminate PMI or adjustable rate mortgages with very low initial rates but the potential to go thru the roof in short order.
It's gonna catch up soon.
Even IF they can genuinely afford it, I just can't see the sense of living for the sole purpose of paying your mortgage. I think many people are looking at it as a retirement plan, where the value will climb so much that they can live on the gains in their "golden" years. Great plan, I guess... unless it doesn't happen.
I think many people are looking at it as a retirement plan, where the value will climb so much that they can live on the gains in their "golden" years. Great plan, I guess... unless it doesn't happen.
I'm with you.
Plus, even if it does happen, great plan unless you need a place to live. If yours goes up, so does everything else you want to live in. All you get is the difference in price between the big house and the smaller one you have to move to. It's something, but no lotto ticket.
The value of a home in retirement is you pay off the mortgage in your working years and then have a place to live without mortgage payments ('till you get taxed out it would seem).
Rising home values only really work for investors.
Moral of the story, be an investor I guess. ;-)
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Edited 4/19/2006 2:11 pm ET by philarenewal
Paul,
I have struggled with the Mortgage issue myself. For now I'm gonna stay put a little until my son is out of school.
A month or so ago my wife and I were shopping and had talked to a few places about mortgages. I got "PreQualifications" of anywhere from $310K to $495K depending on the broker. Funny thing, using the same numbers as we provided them my wife and I figured we could handle about $325K safely.
No way in h&^% could we swing $495K but that didn't seem to bother the broker. He had a "Plan" to make it affordable.
I'm gonna stick with my $823 a month mortgage for the next two or three years and see what happens.
some very sketchy financing plans for big houses.
A lot of people are starting to feel the pain of those creative plans. I heard on the radio foreclosures were up 68% across the country last month.
I have a co-worker who couldn't sell fast enough when his rate adjusted to a realistic rate, he is now living with his inlaws. Mike
Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.
Then I hear about things like Interest only mortgages or two seperate loans to eliminate PMI or adjustable rate mortgages with very low initial rates but the potential to go thru the roof in short order
No lie.
It is no accident (in my opinion) that there's a big advertizing "push" right now for "ARM-breaking" notes. One of the ones I saw only mentioned in the fine print that it was really a HEL (home equity loan) which is a mortgage against your presumed future profit on selling your house. Oh, and you could not have already mortgaged your equity in any otherway, too.
Some of the offers are scary close to being bait-and-switch, too. They quote savings against ARMs with late-80s rates. Well, gee, yeah, if your ARM reverts to 12.9%, you ought to be able to refinance anywhere for better than that (unless you've max-ed all the rest of your credit out--but that's a separate problem). I've an associate who is all worried about their ARM going up to 8.9%, all while being rather blasè about that balloon payment they're going to have to soak up, first. Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I think McMansions are a fine trend.
They are built because buyers want them. Supply follows demand. Semi-free markets=semi-free people. I say semi-free because zoning regulations are a huge McMansion factor.
Building them creates a lot of economic activity and a ton of jobs. Also more tax revenue for the collective.
To busybody opponents, I say it is not on your land, so go away. Hey, I think many of them are ugly too, but again, not my land. Maybe I do not care for your house either, but I will argue for your property rights.
So why do they exist?
1) Zoning. Large minimum lot sizes mean that McMansions are the highest and best use a developer can get out of a lot. Much open space has been taken offline for conservation, squeezing supply further. This means that existing houselots are worth a lot more. A fully depreciated 50s ranch sitting on a $500,000 lot makes little sense. That is why teardowns are so popular. Town governments love teardowns because they increase property tax revenue relative to services provided.
2) Age wave. Many baby boomers are at their peak income generating years. Many are also carrying forward a lot of real estate profits from prior homes.
3) Technology. Everything from nail guns to all-terrain forklifts has increased builder productivity. Houses go up faster with less labor. Engineered lumber allows for longer spans. It's just easier to build a large home than it used to be.
4) Fixed overhead. There is a lot of fixed overhead in building a home, regardless of size. This includes the land, landscaping, hardscaping, power/water/sewer/comminications, and all sorts of permits and fees. Once you bring in the subs, having them layup more framing of wallboard is going to have diminished overhead due to efficiencies of scale. Realistically, you can double the size of the home itself for a relatively small increase in overall cost. Raw space that does not include kitchen or bath space is relatively cheap at the margin.
Will they last as a trend?
Tough question. In my region, the greatest appreciation rate by far has actually been for condominiums as the leading edge of the baby boom goes downsize. Many folks are downsizing to condos locally and using the difference to fund a retirement home elsewhere. Zoning has recently been more kind to dense development so long as it is "age qualified" (like 55+), because they bring in tax revenue without the expense of more school children. Appreciation of homes in 'vacation' regions have far outpaced 'commuter' regions. Pricey suburbs could become less desirable (and less pricey) as the retiring boomers no longer need to be proximate to employers.
Edited 4/21/2006 9:17 am ET by Snowmon
Snowman:
Excellent points!
Allen
Something you said reminded me of the situation I encountered in the Gulfport area--guy retires to MS, sinks most of his life's savings into a half million dollar McMansion on a gulf course in a tony neighborhood. Hurricane wipes out the house and insurance says they'll give him $50,000! Now what? Build smaller on the same lot? Can't--deed restrictions. Big problems.
sinks most of his life's savings into a half million dollar McMansion on a gulf course in a tony neighborhood.
Wow, I'm not sure you could even get a TB or Pulte on the landward side for only a half-mill.
It was a half-mill to get a 3/acre on the back, back nine (on the 27's) a decade ago. The restrictions just about required you to get profesionals in to do the work.
That did not stop some of them from being gaudy and ugly, mind you. The sf/lot restrictions for being on-course meant that the houses were not inclined to be 'lean' in total SF. Which is what happens when you divy the lots into half-acre sizes and insist on a minimum of 4000 sf per lot--but that's Country Club Excess, not the scourge of McMansioning <g> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Guess I'm used to Midland prices on houses! (Oh, and I do know that golf is spelled with an "o"--guess I was thinking of the Gulf).
Guess I'm used to Midland prices on houses!
I'm guessing the tract buildres are only charging 1/4 to a 1/3 mill for the brand new subdivs out yonders--it's been too long since I was even near to the Permian basin <sigh>.
Haven't been much east of Madisonville, either; so it's not really like I'm slighting the west. Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"It's hard to believe there are that many people with that kind of money..."
Paul, here's some Newtown news for you; a devloper has bought a 20-25 acre parcel on our road, and is building a neighborhood for "equestrian" folks. Houses start at $2.5MM. There goes the neighborhood!
Check it out: http://www.newtownheights.com
On the one hand, I guess this increases our propety value, seeing that our house cost a small fraction (literally!). On the other, we'll be seeing more traffic to our quiet street.
Stace
Edited 4/19/2006 4:50 pm ET by SCaseria
That "chatham" house they're going to build is really nice. They built it for the seattle street of dreams show last year.
http://www.architectsnw.com/plansearch/individualplan.cfm?planno=M7550A4S-0
so you can see the floorplan. I think it sold here for about 3.5 to 4 mil on an acre or two. If they have open house on that, definetly check it out. sounds like your neighborhood is inproving.
Don't let Stace kid you crying poormouth, they're building there because he put the neighborhood on the map, I grew up in Newtown, I heard the talk when he bought...
If they're building that house down the road from him, I don't feel sorry. And if he's on the same road as 6-700k lots, I really don't feel sorry for him.
I've been looking at the Architects northwest site for plans for my next house. Thought it strange to see their stuff on a site clear across the country. But, a very pretty house, if you get a chance to see it, go.
I was under the impression that prices here took off when you moved out. I stand corrected.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Touche...
You're right, looking at the plans, these aren't what I'd call McMansions. These are thoughfully (though extravagant) designed homes. They are Mansions proper. We plan on looking at them when they have the open house. I'll be sure to put on a clean shirt so they let me in the door.
Just happened on this thread. Are you saying that people are paying 7 figures for a house that has been built before? Unbelievable. For that kind of green I'd want a custom home right down to the toilet seat that's molded to my fanny.
In my area of the country water is a real problem. So while I don't really have a problem with McMansions per se (if you want a big shoddy house, it's your business), I do have a problem with them getting more than their fair share of the water. If my township (and those surrounding) had any brains at all they'd limit services based on lot size - you get y gallons per month per acre. It used to be that way - each property had so many shares (or fractions) of water, period. But as the farms have been sold off, they just plunk thousands of houses down, totally blowing away the amount of water that same property used to need. Our greedy city council sees the tax dollars but not the fact that there is only so much water here.
I get these notices in my bill that I need to do every thing I can to conserve water. Yet they (in the same notice) also enjoy telling me about a new 2000+ home subdivision that's been approved down the road. And they foster water waste. My bill includes an item for irrigation water (non potable water for plant use). I pay the same whether or not I use a single drop - it's keyed to my lot size instead of my usage. There's no incentive from the city to xeriscape.
Equestrian homesites, Wow, wonder where the horse lives? My daughter lives out in Canyon City, eastern Oregon. They have a lot of equestrian homesteads right near and sometimes in town as well. Oversize lot, mobile home for people, small pole shed for horses, one ton dually for riders, nice fifth wheel trailer for horses. I think the entire spread would come in under 150K. I visit out there once or twice a year. Nicest folks you would ever want to meet. Roger
Ah!!! We can all have the homes of the Rockefellers, Hollywood stars and the like- inefficient, too big, far away from amenities (more driving), 5-10 acre manicured lots (oh! right for the horses).......anything but environmentally friendly!!!
And these are the homes that others eventually aspire to also. Our successful community and economic leaders have no idea what they may be leading us into.
5-10 acre manicured lots...
That's why we need all the illegals--to manicure those lawns!
Geez Danno:
You must have been watching the CNN special on illegal immigrants that was on as I was typing my message. I never really thought about it! A new dilema for the US: Let's throw out the cheap workers (10-16 hours per day) that are keeping the cost of housing/food/services down or make them legal..
My feeling is that if you can afford a McMansion, you can afford to pay anyone a decent wage. If you're relying on making it on the backs of illegals who work for nothing, I think you need to adjust your priorities. Just because there are people out there who are in dire circumstances doesn't make it right to exploit them. On the other hand, if you expect to enjoy the North American way of life, then live by the rules, become a citizen and pay into the system like the rest of us. I guess I'm just an evil SOB.
We'll probably be hearing more fraud stories like this one
TAMPA - After struggling much of his adult life with unemployment, homelessness and drug addiction, Johnny Moon Sr. died last year on a dirty mattress on the floor of a small home near Tampa's College Hill district.
Moon, who looked far older than his 56 years, died of pneumonia brought on by malnutrition. He left behind a watch, a flashlight and a wallet containing a solitary dollar bill.
And more than a half-million dollars worth of real estate.
In the last months of his life, Moon left his signature scrawled on a variety of deeds and mortgages recorded at the Hillsborough County courthouse.
A high school dropout with no job history who got by on food stamps, Moon morphed int o a real estate investor. Within a year, he bought five properties and signed for mortgages in excess of $614,000.
Moon appeared to be an astute picker of properties, finding value others did not see in Tampa's older neighborhoods. He paid well above market value yet managed to get loans to cover all, or nearly all, of the purchase price.
Three months before his death, Moon sold one home for $180,000 - $75,000 more than he paid 17 months earlier.
Those familiar with Moon's background have doubts about his abrupt transformation into real estate investor
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/09/Hillsborough/Investor__or_pauper_o.shtml
Driving around the suburbs of Rochester, NY, it's hard to believe the number of large, new homes still being built. This is supposed to be one of the worst economies in the country, and with a decreasing population, too. And high taxes.
Even with all the creative financing plans, it's beyond me how so many people can make the numbers work.
Allen
Interesting article and IMHO, potentially disturbing from the viewpoint that there seems to be a bit of a "wealth envy" slant to the article.
I believe that if people can realistically afford such homes or cars, then that's their business. Who are we to say how much home is too much? (Or our cars are too expensive?) When do we as a society, through legislative pressure, building ordinances, etc. start putting limits on affluence? In other words, are we getting to the point where we say "Sorry, that's more home than your family needs - you must build something smaller"? Last I knew, this was still America where we have the freedom to pursue our dreams. And I for one am getting more than a little tired of the growing trend of penalizing achievement and rewarding mediocrity.
Now, I can understand certain circumstances where a community of big houses could overtax an already burdened infrastructure such as a water or sewer system. And I don't really advocate these large homes driving up tax rates to where established homeowners can no longer afford their properties. So I would be mindful of that and act accordingly. But at the end of the day, if someone can afford to build their 12,000+ sq. ft. dream home, I say go for it.
"Now, I can understand certain circumstances where a community of big houses could overtax an already burdened infrastructure such as a water or sewer system. And I don't really advocate these large homes driving up tax rates to where established homeowners can no longer afford their properties. So I would be mindful of that and act accordingly. But at the end of the day, if someone can afford to build their 12,000+ sq. ft. dream home, I say go for it."
I design water/wastewater treatment plants for a living, and those large developments of large homes can indeed be a real issue for the infrastructure. A lot of small towns around here (the Minneapolis-St. Paul area) are seeing huge amounts of growth as people move further out and buy larger and larger houses. When the population of a town jumps from say, 2,000 to 20,000 in the space of only a few years it's all the town can do to keep up with the growth. On the other hand, it means plenty of business for me so in that respect I can't complain.
The whole McMansion concept doesn't make much sense to me personally (I live in a 95 year old house in an inner city neighborhood) but if people want to buy those things it's their money. I think a lot of them are looking for life in a small town, but having grown up in one I think my neighborhood here in the middle of the big city is a lot closer to the real thing...I know all my neighbors, and I can walk to the store or park or movie theatre instead of getting in the car and driving to the mall.
>and those large developments of large homes can indeed be a real issue for the infrastructure...When the population of a town jumps from say, 2,000 to 20,000 in the space of only a few years it's all the town can do to keep up with the growthWhich, in your professional opinion, has a larger impact on the water/wastewater infrastructure of a municipality: the influx of 1000 new homes of 5000 sf each occupied by 3 people each, or the influx of 1000 new homes of 2000 sf each occupied by 6 people each?
"Which, in your professional opinion, has a larger impact on the water/wastewater infrastructure of a municipality: the influx of 1000 new homes of 5000 sf each occupied by 3 people each, or the influx of 1000 new homes of 2000 sf each occupied by 6 people each?"
Well, 1000 x 3 = 3000 people, and 1000 x 6 = 6000 people, and the more people you have the more often the toilet gets flushed... ;-)
There are a lot of other things to consider. Everyone wants a big lawn that takes plenty of water to keep green, so in the middle of July all the city wells are pumping 24/7 just to keep up. Urban sprawl require long lengths of water and sewer mains, along with expensive water towers, water booster stations and wastewater lift stations to deliver the water out to the homes and to bring the wastewater back. The treatment processes for both water and wastewater get more complex every year and there are more and more state and federal standards to meet, so sometimes the existing treatment facilities can't simply be upgraded and completely new ones have to be built somewhere else (and no one wants to have a sewer plant next door, so you have to find a place to put it.) It goes on and on.
I'm an electrical engineer, so fortunately I don't get as much into the planning as do the civil engineers. I just have to figure out how to power, control and monitor the stuff the civils come up with.
>the more people you have the more often the toilet gets flushedThat was part of my point. McMansions usually get a bad rap for having too much space for too few people. But one rap they shouldn't take is causing wastewater problems in and of themselves. That's a function of the number of people using water, not of the size or ugliness of the house. Saying "no" to McM won't lessen the wastewater infrastructure needs...if the people are moving into the municipality, they're moving in and using water regardless of the size of the house in which they'll be living.
"That's a function of the number of people using water, not of the size or ugliness of the house. Saying "no" to McM won't lessen the wastewater infrastructure needs...if the people are moving into the municipality, they're moving in and using water regardless of the size of the house in which they'll be living."
True enough. The average square footage per capita has gone way up since the 70s. Smaller families, larger houses. You could make an arguement about irrigation water, but realistically the size of the house does not predict the size of the lawn. More the other way around with the large minimum lot sizes that are prevalent in suburbia.-The poster formerly known as csnow
"But one rap they shouldn't take is causing wastewater problems in and of themselves. That's a function of the number of people using water, not of the size or ugliness of the house."
I would have said that myself a few months ago. However, a few studies are starting to show that water use and sewage flow are correlated, in part to the size and amenities of a home, independently of the number of residents. I haven't read enough to know why, but it does seem at least somewhat intuitive that "upper-scale" lifestyles would lead to more water use from items like spa tubs and perhaps even laundry and garbage grinders.
Still, it isn't actually the floor area of the house that causes the water use, it's the lifestyle of the typical large-home residents. I'm not totally disagreeing, just pointing out an interesting phenomenon.
> it's the lifestyle of the typical large-home residentsYeah, I'd buy that the per capita usage of wealthier families is more than the per capita of less wealthy families. As would be the per capita energy usage. But that's not a sin to hang on McMansions per se. It's a function of what people choose to put into them--jetted tubs, body showers, spas--and not the style of housing. I'm not a fan of them in any sense. For the size, one can do better architecturally and in the energy profile.
I agree, absolutely.
Even when very well done, very large homes don't really attract me. But it's a matter of personal taste--or sometimes lack of taste, I suppose.
The question is can people afford to build their 12,000+ sq. ft. dream home? There are more "creative" financing options available, and as some have mentioned, the ability to swing the loan isn't always taken into due consideration by the lender, as they'll find a way to make it work on paper.Someone who can legitimately afford the note isn't a problem - you're right, it's the American dream to work hard and be rewarded. But people living beyond their means don't do any of us any favors. If economic growth is fueled by escalating property values and purchases made on equity, we're in for tough times if/when the center can no longer hold. However, I don't think the sky falling (yet).Stace
"If economic growth is fueled by escalating property values and purchases made on equity, we're in for tough times if/when the center can no longer hold."
Over 50% of all homes sold in the SF Bay area over the last several years have been interest-only mortgages. Tick Tock Tick Tock....
Yikes!
I don't know about wealth envy. In my area people are paying obscene prices for homes not worth what they are paying.
The result is the assessed values of our homes rise to the new sales prices. The taxes are getting harder to pay.
Well, there is more to it.The more these people who can "afford it" guzzle energy like there is no tomorrow, the higher the energy prices go, and the less energy those who can't afford it can use.To some degree, that's fine. Wealth confers some benefits and always will. But I personally feel that with great power (money) comes great responsibility, and if you have the money to use energy efficiency building methods and energy saving products and DON'T so you can inflate the square footage of your home, then you are a self-centered, selfish jerk that is basically screwing everyone less fortunate for your own ego.And that, I have absolutely no respect for whatsoever, and I have no problem with a community of people deciding for themselves that they too have no respect for it and no desire to put up with it.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
"And that, I have absolutely no respect for whatsoever, and I have no problem with a community of people deciding for themselves that they too have no respect for it and no desire to put up with it."
There has been some comment through this thread along the lines of "if they got the money, they can do what they want on their land (well within the local laws)". A couple years ago, a Harvard professor gave a series of talks in Canada generally about "Democracy, individual freedoms and the American constitution". I seem to remember that she mentioned something in the constitution or preamble to it about "the common good" and now the rights of the individual or special interest groups are overwhelming the ideal of working for "the common good" Her conclusion was that this is damaging the fabric that binds the country, creating more and more adverserial situations.
Time to re-think what the ideals are!!! Make as much money as you can and show it off or work for the common good including paying more taxes for such things as universal healthcare, full literacy, less crime/safer cities, etc., etc.
But at the end of the day, if someone can afford to build their 12,000+ sq. ft. dream home, I say go for it
Precisely. And, for a "dream home," most are likely to get professional help for the design and construction.
It will be a large home, but it won't be a McMansion (except to the envious-of-wealth crowd).
My (quixotic, sometimes) crusade is against the swathes of big-national-builder, cookie cutter houses, smacked together as fast as possible, passing for good construction. It's not that they can be 2800 or 3200 sf, it's that there's seldom more than 18-1900 useable space in them. The folks in the brand new neighborhood all have the same wasted spaces--so if everybody has it, it's what everybody wants, right?
These places have all sorts of spaces that the owners don't know what to do with, but every one of the 6-8 plans at the sales office had them, so that's what they got. How many people actually need a formal living room? How many actually get to use that formal dining room? (I've converted too many dining rooms into really functional home offices to answer that last in an unbiased way.)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Hi,
We've recently completed building plans for a 3500 sf house. We had to work hard to downsize it to that size because of the many functions this house must fulfill. It's an off-grid country house that needs to handle the volume of paperwork for four businesses, homeschool, handle the country mud of a working farm, have a larger mechanical room than an on-grid house would require, and store items that would otherwise require an hour long round trip to the nearest store.
We currently own a 300 sf Victorian built in 1901, and while it's a beautiful house the space isn't configured for the demands our generation puts on both square footage and the building envelope. I have three closets, each 3'wide and shallow. We dust and mop daily because the country mud and dust is everywhere. We've put in solar power tied to grid and replaced many windows, but the building envelope can't be made tight enough for current energy conditions.
Perhaps people have reasons for larger houses.
"300 sf Victorian", eh?? got any pictures? Can't be much room left for living space after you subtract out your 3 closets :-)
sorry, that was a typo. 3000 sf Victorian, with a typical Victorian layout of individual rooms for kitchen dining, ladies' parlor and genteman's parlor. Very appealing unless you work at home and need more desk, files, and computer space.