The Fall of the McMansion

[sharkdawg]

I think Brynocerus is reffering to neighborhoods like Longview, http://www.theclubatlongview.com/club/scripts/section/section.asp?grp=0&NS=REALESTATE

I drove around their with my parents for some home expo. It is heavily gated/fortified and excessive to say the least. Almost every single house has slate shingled roofs. Lots of porticos and turrets.

I agree that I feel this type of building is what the term McMansion refers to. In my mind a true mansion comes with large acreage and does not conform to some neighborhood grid. McMansions take many of the same physical attributes of a true mansion but can be found in a regularly formatted neighborhood. There is another similar neighborhood, that I can't think of the name of, near the intersection of Rae and Colony.

Some of these features are found in neighborhoods like Ballentyne, but for the most part Ballentyne is a more traditional type neighborhood full of never ending big houses and cul-de-sacs.

[monsoon]

This topic really wasn't to get into what constitutes a McMansion. Needless to say it is a matter of opinion since it is a term of derision.

The topic is really about the vast neighborhoods of very large homes that have been built on the edge of Charlotte, and maybe within the city too, where the people who have bought them are sort of trapped in an albatross they can't afford, where there are no buyers, the banks are foreclosing, and there are large numbers of unbuilt lots. What is happening is an exodus from these neighborhoods and a return to something more reasonable.

[SmellyCat]

There is an article in Mon's WSJ about how McMansions have fallen out of favor with Americans. One interesting statistic cited was that the average size of new homes built 1Q09 was about 2,300 square feet, down from the average of 2,600 a year earlier. The article doesn't flat out predict the death of the McMansion - more like a recessionary pause with the assumption that once the economy gets better, these eyesores may be back in vogue (hope not).

[Neo]

There is an article in Mon's WSJ about how McMansions have fallen out of favor with Americans. One interesting statistic cited was that the average size of new homes built 1Q09 was about 2,300 square feet, down from the average of 2,600 a year earlier. The article doesn't flat out predict the death of the McMansion - more like a recessionary pause with the assumption that once the economy gets better, these eyesores may be back in vogue (hope not).

I did a presentation a while back that included a chart showing the increase in home sizes over the years:

[JayGee]

I did a presentation a while back that included a chart showing the increase in home sizes over the years:

[Neo]

That's stunning. Do you have anything that goes back to the 50's, when the suburbs really got started?

I assume that the NAHB has stats on this, but I couldn't find anything. The earliest data I could find from their site and Census.gov was 1978, although Census.gov did have data from 1971-1977, but it wasn't in any good form to put into an accurate chart that would match up with the above data.

I did find one reference on NAHB for 1950 that pegs the average home size (single family, the same as the other data I gathered) at 983 sq. ft.

[Charlotte_native]

I did find one reference on NAHB for 1950 that pegs the average home size (single family, the same as the other data I gathered) at 983 sq. ft.

[monsoon]

The first modern sub-division of mass produced homes in a planned community was called Levittown and is a suburb of NYC. It was built ~1950. It had all of the elements of what we see today in these McMansion neighborhoods, i.e. few basic floor plans reproduced endlessly and made distinctive by changing facades built on a former greenspace. In this case a potato farm.

Levittown had 5 basic designs that were approximate 800 sq ft. Here is one of the floorplans.

Compare that to the monsters built today. So from 1950 to the 2000s, homes of this nature grew from 800 sq ft to 2600 sq ft. This while the average family size has gone down.

[InitialD]

Compare that to the monsters built today. So from 1950 to the 2000s, homes of this nature grew from 800 sq ft to 2600 sq ft. This while the average family size has gone down.

[rockhilljames]

Wow! If we could only go back to the time when everyone lived in 800 sq ft homes! Truly that would be an urban utopia!!

While I'm not a fan of many of the houses that you guys are labeling "McMansions", what's wrong with having more sq. feet? I have a family of five and I promise you we use every inch of our 2000 sq feet. Seems to me that build quality, energy efficient materials, and neighborhood planning are more important than size alone.

[InitialD]

Wow! If we could only go back to the time when everyone lived in 800 sq ft homes! Truly that would be an urban utopia!!

While I'm not a fan of many of the houses that you guys are labeling "McMansions", what's wrong with having more sq. feet? I have a family of five and I promise you we use every inch of our 2000 sq feet. Seems to me that build quality, energy efficient materials, and neighborhood planning are more important than size alone.

[rockhilljames]

Trust me, we use ALL our space (and then some). I grew up in a smaller house with the same size family, and HATED sharing a bedroom with my brother. You get by, of course, and learn to live with what you have.

I'm always a bit concerned when people discuss what we should and shouldn't be allowed to own or live in due to the "good of society." The tyranny of good intentions usually results in people living in commie blocks and rationed housing. I WOULD however like to see our region as a whole improve the zoning laws and building standards. While I'm not sold on the idea that the SIZE of the house we can live in should be regulated, the materials and neighborhood design should be a concern. I'm not as concerned about the environmental impact of our houses as I am the cost of dealing with the blight and restoration or removal of the cheaply-built, vinyl clad crap that litters our landscape. There are viable neighborhoods that have ranch houses built in the 50s and 60s that have aged quite well. Imagine what some of those "starter" neighborhoods are going to look like in 40 years.....

[JayGee]

There are viable neighborhoods that have ranch houses built in the 50s and 60s that have aged quite well. Imagine what some of those "starter" neighborhoods are going to look like in 40 years.....

[New Name]

I don't know that you can quantify something like housing - a basic necessity.

It's all about what you need, and some people honestly feel like they need more than others.

Unfortunately: (assuming) loose credit, cheep supplies and labor, and places like Walmart, have allowed Americans to convince themselves that we need more than we really do. I don't know that we can go back - but maybe this market crash will at least help us put it into perspective.

[49er]

Full basements aren't shunned around here, they're just problematic due to the red clay and poor drainage.

[monsoon]

Full basements aren't shunned around here, they're just problematic due to the red clay and poor drainage.

[Windsurfer]

Full basements aren't shunned around here, they're just problematic due to the red clay and poor drainage.

[rockhilljames]

The lack of basements in the South is definitely more about functionality than drainage. In the north you needed basements to store firewood and canned/pickled goods. The temperature stayed more consistent year-round and allowed families to literally "store up" for the winter. We never really needed that in the South. Cost is certainly a factor as well, if the market doesn't demand them (and ours doesn't) builders aren't going to pony up the extra cost to build them. I wouldn't mind having one, but all my friends up north who have them have seen them flood at least once.