McMansions and Resource Allocation

[burythehatchet]

Imagine you are on as island, stranded along with five other people. You have a limited amount of food to share before it runs out. You don't know if you will be rescued.


Do you share the food or kill the others keep the food to feed yourself? ... you don't have to answer that :scared:

I just finished watching a 50 minutes segment about McMansions. The segment was, of course, infuriating. I asked myself why was it upsetting. What is it about houses greater than 4,000 sf that concerns me? And it occurred to me, its the resources. Most all of us choose to maintain residences between 400 to 2500 sf, depending on family size and income. The cost to heat, cool, provide public service, protect, etc is based on the size and to some extent, efficiency.

Energy is a finite resource, the food on the island, and we all have to share in the use of those resources. If the owner of the McMansion is using 5 times the resources to maintain his castle, is he not depleting the pool of resources at a faster rate by a magnitude of 5?

I think it's that aspect that gets under my skin...though many are beautiful in terms of architecture.

[dorktv]

1. I think people should just get The Sims (or Sims 2) and make fake

McMansions...that way they use less resources but get all the fun of building a huge house.

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. This is what we do at my house!

:thumbsup: We have contests even. Currently, my Sim Home is 9850 s.f.... and it's just not enough. :hi:

[dorktv]

126. I have been trying to design a house with waterfalls around it and

at least four stories with the three story columns and an elevator.

[jrd200x]

2. It's a little unfair to generalize. How do you know how big a

house a family needs? And not too many people live in a 400 s.f. house.

If they're paying 5X for resources, aren't they employing 5X as many people as you are? Aren't they paying 5X as much tax as your are? Yet, they get the same services as you, not more.

This isn't a simple black and white question, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.

[Tace]

3. And The Rich Man In His Summer Home

And the rich man in his summer home,
Singing just leave well enough alone
But his pants are down, his covers blown

--Throwing Stones, John Barlow

[burythehatchet]

4. Resources = carbon fooprint, not microwaves

No, they don't pay proportional taxes

It's probably not balck and white, though its mostly white.

[NVMojo]

6. right on and mostly white and using up more resources, whether

they pay or not....

[TheFarseer]

123. just leave Neil Bortz Jr. alone n/t

[phylny]

7. It's not simply black and white.

We've lived in McMansions before, and we live in one now. We've also lived in very small houses.

We have moved many, many times and in fact this house cost LESS than the last house we had. We bought it for investment purposes, and because we've made money in real estate by buying and selling as we've moved, we had a very large downpayment. We could have bought a house for cash, but added a small mortgage and bought it.

BTW, it is fairly energy efficient - low e windows, six inches of superior insulation, five zone gas heat, two zones for a/c. We have set-back thermostats and in the winter, it's set at 60 degrees when we're all away at work and school, and again at night when we're under electric blankets (which cost pennies to run per night). During the summer, we keep the house minimally cool (today it was 82 degrees out and we did not run the air at all).

So, either we'll sell it for a profit or the joke's on us :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. God Bless You For It. I Hope You Enjoy Every Square Foot Of It Too.

I look forward to figuring out a way to be financially successful enough so that I to someday can enjoy a house such as yours.

As an aside though, 5 zones for heat but only two for ac? They're not running off of the same system?

[Jara sang]

99. Conspicuous consumption is not something that is worthy of admiration.

It's something that should be pointed at and mocked.

[phylny]

102. Why?

What a silly statement.

[Jara sang]

110. My, but aren't you enlightened?

Go ahead, go out and flaunt your riches. I don't really care.

[phylny]

115. Flaunt? Hardly.

I'm thinking that there are a lot of people who have problems with people who DO have money.

No need to be crappy, eh?

[Dora]

131. If you didn't care...

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have criticized him to begin with.

I'll also add that his choice seems to have been made pretty thoughtfully.I can't say the same for your initial post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

108. I Think Intolerance, Jealousy, Irrational Anger And Ignorance Should Be

pointed at and mocked.

To each their own.

[Jara sang]

111. .

[U4ikLefty]

118. I think poeple who drive their SUV's to WalMart to buy their smokes

even though they can afford to go elsewhere should be mocked.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. Who In The World Uses Their Only Gas To Buy Cigs At Walmart?

Actually, as strange as that would be, it really wouldn't be any of my business anyway, come to think of it. Actually it isn't any of your damn business either.

[phylny]

101. No, the heat runs off natural gas

(we live in a colder part of New York and have baseboard heat) and the a/c runs through central air.

[omega minimo]

27. You've raised another important point

See also #12 and #15

"So, either we'll sell it for a profit or the joke's on us"

Somebody gets left holding the bag, in speculator markets where homes are built or renovated and flipped, by folks (and I am speaking generally, not pointing a finger at you :hi: ) who never intend to stay, be part of the community for the long term. One big objection to the McMansion lack-of-mentality is the aesthetic footprint (in addition to the carbon footprint) that it leaves on existing communities; that speculators and flippers and unscrupulous developers leave in their wake, as they move on to the next market (or ag land) to exploit.

Some areas have preservation or zoning standards (and Europeans of course understand the concept) to protect the integrity and character of existing communities.

There has to be a balance b/w property rights and community rights. Just in terms of aesthetics and impacts for OTHER homeowners, McMansions that are out of scale and garishly ugly actually REDUCE the property values for others in the area.

The attitude of always moving on to somewhere else contributes to a lack of concern for the long-term reality being inflicted on the landscape and the community.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Why Are You Responding To Her As If She's Commishioned The Development

of these properties herself? Your response makes it sound like she bought the land from a community and developed and built the home herself, and has done so repeatedly.

I didn't get that out of her post. It sounds like she just simply bought an existing nice home. God bless her for it.

[omega minimo]

32. why are you misrepresenting the post? i'm sure she can read it more

clearly herself.

Since you have such trouble comprehending my posts, it's best you put me on "Ignore" and save yourself the frustration, mind crime. :hug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. How Is That Misrepresentation? Seems Pretty Evident.

You gave one heck of a self righteous guilt trip to that poster because she lives in a big house. You said you were speaking generally, and not pointing fingers directly at the poster, but you might has well have been. It's the same damn difference.

You referenced in several places the supposed horrors these houses bring to the community and talked all about the development of them etc..

You did all this after pasting a direct quote from the poster about her wanting to flip it for a profit, while offering a next statement dealing with how horrible it is when people do that. (though claiming "hey, I don't mean you, just generally" LOL)

All in all I found the reply to be one huge side swiping guilt trip on the poster while preaching about all the ills these big houses cause, but then trying to claim "oh, but I don't mean you". Of course you did, or you wouldn't have felt the need to have preached so self indulgently back to her.

All she said is that she has owned big houses, and that her house is energy efficient. Why must she have to deal with the guilt trips because of that?

This whole mcmansion issue has always been a perplexing one to me. Those who can afford a large home have every right to live in a large home. They shouldn't have to deal with the guilt trip preaching from those that offer it just because of that fact. That includes the poster above.

[omega minimo]

38. That's correct

"You said you were speaking generally, and not pointing fingers directly at the poster"

"You referenced in several places the supposed horrors these houses bring to the community."

Some people can hold more than one thought in their heads at the same time. :think:

It's my prerogative to overestimate-- rather than underestimate-- the audience.

Problem with that? Put me on "Ignore." Why strain your brain? :hi:

[adigal]

64. Why should God bless her for being able to buy a big house??

One might think God would bless someone for doing good works, or putting foster kids in that big house, or feeding the poor out of that huge kitchen, those are things God would bless.

But for buying a big house?? I'm sorry, that is warped.

[AllieB]

68. It goes to show where someone's priorities lie, doesn't it?

It's my God-given right to buy a McMansion and use more resources in a year than a third-world country. It's my right a 'Murican, and God agrees with me! :crazy:

[adigal]

92. Yup: $$ = Godliness

Just like the olden days of royalty and nobility.

[omega minimo]

80. Warped is a good word for it

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. No, It Isn't A Good Word For It Whatsoever. In Fact, It Was A Horrible

choice of words.

As I explained above, there is nothing warped about the sentiment of blessing her. Is there reason to believe she is not a good person? If we have no reason to not think she's a good person isn't it perfectly fine to say God bless them? Can you explain what is warped about asking God to bless a good person? I'd love to hear your explanation as to why it's warped to ask God to bless a fellow DU'er and good person. Please indulge me with your explanation to back up such a weak defense of calling it warped.

What is warped is misguided animosity towards other DU'ers merely because they own a big home.

[phylny]

103. Does God bless me for teaching people with developmental

disabilities, strokes, mental retardation and autism to talk? For doing some pro bono work?

(phylny, straining her brain to find some reason for God to bless me....)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. Nothing Warped About It At All. What Is Warped Is Misguided Animosity.

God bless us all. The point is that buying a big house should not exempt someone from being included in a God bless us all sentiment. I say God bless her, since she's a good person. I'm not declaring her to be a good person because she bought a big house, I'm doing so because I have no reason to believe she isn't. So therefore, God bless her.

So there's nothing 'warped' about that sentiment at all. In fact, it is a quite sane, rational and decent one that is becoming of a democrat. What I do find warped, is misguided animosity towards those that buy big houses as if God shouldn't bless them.

[phylny]

100. Hmm...

"The attitude of always moving on to somewhere else contributes to a lack of concern for the long-term reality being inflicted on the landscape and the community."

Or, if you're like us you contribute mightily to a community, but the main breadwinner's company moves you around.

[omega minimo]

124. Sounds like your attitude contributes mightily to the community and its

long-term reality.

:thumbsup:


"The attitude of always moving on to somewhere else contributes to a lack of concern for the long-term reality being inflicted on the landscape and the community."

I intended the comment as a generalization that was open-ended and used the word "contributes" as suggesting a range of possibilities. In terms of the general community (and not knowing about specific individuals) that attitude contributes to a lack of concern....

I live near an historic two story home, in an iffy but gentrifying downtown neighborhood. The home was purchased and transformed from a modest, simple, unpretentious facade close to the street (and fitting into it's historic neighborhood) to a brightly painted front with a new dangerous looking wrought iron fence (one of the first things the Yuppifiers do to feel "safe") with a cheesy fountain and ugly rock in the yard. And that's fine, if someone moves in and does their thing and it's different and may soften over time...... A youngish, Junior League looking woman appeared, working outside the home. I saw her and thought "She's doing her "This Old House" thing-- good for her.... (too bad about that fence..........)"

Next thing ya know THE PLACE IS FOR SALE. She's a bloody FLIPPER!

Asking close to million $$$$$$$.

Several months later, the place is still unsold and the market has taken a %30 dive.

Oh well.

Would it make a difference if she had purchased it for herself to live in? Would she have chosen a different fence or a better fountain or a different paint job and creative landscaping instead of something quick and easy and low maintenance and generic and tacky?

IMHO. Probably.

That's what it means:

"The attitude of always moving on to somewhere else contributes to a lack of concern for the long-term reality being inflicted on the landscape and the community."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. "And that's fine, if someone moves in and does their thing,,,"

It's fine if they don't too.

I understand where you are coming from and why you have the concerns that you do, I just don't agree with them at all. Firstly, I don't think someone has the right to give another default animosity merely because they're a flipper. That's their business and they have that right if they choose to do so. Choice, you're for that right? But she also had the choice to paint it however she wanted, put up whatever fence she wanted, as well as whatever fountains and rocks she wants. You might find them ugly, but rest assured there would be others who would find them charming.

I do see your point though, that those that are temporary residents don't carry the same 'this is home' bond with the community as other long term residents, I just simply don't have the same deep rooted resentment towards them. I'm very tolerant of others and the fact that life's for their own to live their own way, and that they have the right to make whatever choices they want, even when they are choices I myself may have done differently.

[HamdenRice]

134. While I congratulate you on your investments, there is a sad side

to your story. You mention that you moved many times, because you basically used your housing as an investment vehicle.

From your own description, however, it doesn't sound like you could have had much of a community life. I live in a house where I've known my neighbors on three sides for over forty years. My family has been involved in various public service institutions and organizations in this neighborhood for decades, and it seems as though I know everyone in a four block radius by face if not by name.

I simply could not imagine moving often as an investment strategy. It seems a little sad to me that people use housing as an investment rather than as the site of home and community.

[phylny]

137. Yes, I wish we could have lived in the same place for a long time,

however there's nothing sad about our situation at all.

Our girls have lived in many places, have friends in several states that they visit often, and we've decided where we want to retire for good when the time comes.

While it's been challenging for them to change schools and make new friends, the three of them say that they've learned well how to adapt to new situations and how to find the group of friends that will suit them.

There's nothing "sad" about it, though :)

[Gormy Cuss]

10. It's about limited resources, not consumer-driven demands.

I can tell you that a family needs no more than a few square feet of living space per person. The amount decreases with the number of people sharing but as little as 100 SF could suffice. If you don't believe me, look at domiciles in less developed countries. I'm not saying that most people would want to live in such constrained space, I'm saying that is all they need.

Based on your payment example I think you're confusing what people should be allowed to use based on an economic contribution and what they need to use, which is addressing the issue of limited resources.

[kestrel91316]

70. When I retire I will be able to actually buy some land

(in the Midwest? enough rain to grow food?) and put up a little Thoreau cabin, maybe 16x24, and live in that. If finances allow down the road I could add on to it. Rather than large, luxurious living space, I want a garden and chickens and a dairy goat, lol. And green pastures and big shade trees.

I will probably be forced to downscale from a 2 1/2 BR house with yard to a 1- or 2-BR apt soon, but I can do that. I have too much "stuff" anyway.

[uppityperson]

11. not employing 5X people or paying 5X taxes

Using energy resources does not =employing people.
Using energy resources does not=paying taxes proportionate.

[adigal]

63. Here is the problem - finite resources

I don't care how much money you have, you cannot make more resources for the world, and those with 4000 square foot houses are using way more than their fair share. No one should be using that much, or the whole world will eventually pay the price.

But I forgot - rich Americans think they have a special sense of entitlement, and that no problems will ever affect them.

[kestrel91316]

71. Careful - if you say "fair share" some of these PRETEND Dems here

will be all over you. It's like when the Repukes yell "communist!!!" at the mention of the word.

[adigal]

91. Haha! I am the only commie pinko liberal

ex-Republican around here!

[mainer]

85. Then don't live in the deep south, the southwest, or the extreme north

Because you're using up more than your share of resources just by either heating or cooling your homes. I would suggest to you that a McMansion sited on an ocean-cooled lot in California uses up less energy than a modest home in 105 degree Arizona or Texas.

[phylny]

104. The tiny house we owned in New Jersey when we were first married

used far more resources than our larger house now. Why? It was horribly insulated, leaked out of every window, door, and roof, had a horrendous heating system and the air conditioner was ancient. Oh, and the fridge and other appliances weren't at all energy efficient.

At the time we owned our home, we could not afford to make any changes to make it energy efficient.

[bloom]

119. Trailers are very inefficient

but that doesn't mean that when people build huge houses that they are NOT using up resources - trees, whatever.

If someone had the money - they could build a smallish energy efficient, solar house that would be using very few resources.

People need to start thinking like that. Our corporate media has not been emphasizing the effects of people's activities on global warming and the pollution of the land and esp. the oceans - the dead zones, etc. Of course - the media is advertising driven and they want you to feel rewarded by spending and consuming.

Those days are over. For any thinking people.

I think that there should be energy rationing for all new construction. And if it were up to me - there would be limits on house size as well.


See Environment/Energy Forum for more reasons why - if you don't know:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[phylny]

138. We are actually looking into energy efficient homes for when we

retire.

I know we'll want a small home that has the technology we'll be able to afford (whatever that'll be) with enough land to have a vegetable garden. I agree that smaller is the way to go.

As I said earlier, either our "gamble" will pay off or it won't. I anticipate moving within the year.

[phylny]

139. Dupe

[smirkymonkey]

5. I think McMansion owners and builders should be sent to prison

for crimes against architecture. The hideousness of many of those homes is downright criminal.

[cgrindley]

62. Amen

But you know that to a large majority of Americans, McMansions represent the peak of aesthetic taste, and that your point of view could be called elitist (though not by me).

[kestrel91316]

72. It's not just the huge ugly homes and sterile lives inside them that

bother me. It's the total waste of the land. Most these people couldn't grow their own tomatoes to save their lives. They just want expanses of grass so they can all pretend to be English lords.

[Batgirl]

76. McMansions around here look like spiritual cousins of the strip mall

There must be a special architecture school that teaches strip mall/McMansion design.

[Ilsa]

8. I would like to see them pay a special energy usage surcharge tax

to the govt for heating and cooling a home over 2,000 square feet per person if a home is over say, 5,000 square feet. Why, to discourage the waste of limited resources. It isn't enough that they are paying $1000 a month in electricity. I think there should be a surcharge over that. Just to bite them in the butt, but I bet they hardly notice the difference. The surcharge could be used to heat homes of the poorest of the poor. I guess the existing homes would have to be exempt.

[Aviation Pro]

13. Make the surcharge enough to make them take notice....

Go ahead build your 15,000 square foot pre-palace. The surcharge on energy usage will be 40,000%.

The only way to change the behavior of these jackasses is to fuck with their cash.

[jmowreader]

16. There is a better way to do that

Let's take two homes.

One is an 1800sf house built as cheaply as possible. It's got the least expensive vinyl windows on the market--something like the American Craftsman Series 2900, no low-E glass, no argon, 5/8" thick glass pack--and they're huge. It's got just enough insulation to meet code: R-13 walls/R-19 floor/R-30 ceiling. It's got really cheap doors. There is a "bonus room" which means there's very little way to properly ventilate the roof system. There are no ceiling fans. A heating system with 10SEER (seasonal energy efficiency rating) energy efficiency--the cheapest unit it's legal to sell in the United States today. There are black three-tab shingles on this home and it's in Georgia. It's got a six-year 40-gallon water heater, which is the least energy-efficient kind, and no insulation on the hot water plumbing. It's sided in dark-colored vinyl with roofing felt for vapor barrier and no sheathing under the vinyl. And it's just plunked on the lot any old way. The refrigerator is highly energy-inefficient. And it's home to freepers who take hour-long showers, run the heat up to 75 in the winter and the A/C down to 65 in the summer, and leave the lights on all the time (and put two cheap 100-watt bulbs in every fixture).

The other is a 6000sf home. Insulation is R-22 walls/R-30 floor/R-60 ceiling. The windows are extremely energy-efficient--Andersen Series 400, which are equivalent to R-10 insulation--and they're "egress windows"--the smallest windows you can crawl through in a fire situation. The doors are fiberglass, the most energy-efficient kind. The home has a lot of attic ventilation, including a whole-house fan and two big gable ventilators. There's no bonus room. The house has an 18SEER heating system, the most efficient one you can get as of this time. The roof is covered in light-colored shingles. The home has fiber-cement siding with inch-thick polyisocyanurate sheathing (very efficient--R-6.6 per inch) and Tyvek vapor barrier under it, and it's painted white. It has a high-quality refrigerator. There is a 12-year 80-gallon water heater (because of water mass holding heat in a well-insulated water heater, the bigger the unit is, the less it costs to run) with an R-19 water heater blanket and insulation on all the plumbing, not just the hot water lines. Oh, and there's a timer on the water heater, which turns it off between 9am and 4pm and again between midnight and 5am. Backing up the water heater is a set of solar water heating panels on the roof. The home is situated in a solar-heat-exploiting manner. The residents of this home are DUers who turn off the lights when not needed, use dimmers and high-quality 60-watt light bulbs with compact flourescents in places you don't need dimmers, take short showers and run the HVAC at rational temperatures.

The people in the 1800sf house will use more energy than the people in the 6000sf house...because the 6000sf house is made right. Why would we penalize those folks for buying a super energy efficient home?

Here's how to get to where you want to go--to cutting down the amount of energy used for homes. The government knows how much energy a home should use. Build a leeway zone in there--say, ten percent less or 20 percent more than the expected usage level. In this zone, we'll assume that the home is "using the right amount of power" and charge them the going rate for energy. If you go outside the zone, what happens to you depends on which direction you go. If you use less than the leeway zone, you get a discount of one percent of your bill per percent of power saved up to, say, 25 percent off. If you use more, a surcharge of one percent per percentage used will be added on--no limitation. If you use 100 percent more than you're supposed to on a regular basis, your light bill's gonna be really ugly. (The regular basis thing is very important--let's say that you're going along, minding your own business, drawing a 19 percent discount on your bill. Then comes July and you use twice as much as you're supposed to. Well...what happens in July? People go on vacation, right? People like your freeper cousins who came to your home for a month, plugged their RV into the side of your home, took hour-long showers, turned the A/C down to 60, played every television in the house 24 hours a day, spent hours staring into your refrigerator and boiled everything they ate. Next month comes and the televisions are off again, the A/C's back to 75, you know what's in your refrigerator so you can open the door and grab it, and you started taking Navy showers to cut down the water bill. We don't want to further the anguish you already feel by having had to listen to Bushbots extoll the virtues of Dear Leader for a month by tacking on a 100-percent surcharge. But if they move in...)

[Ilsa]

23. I see your points. They are very good. But they are still using

more than they really need by operating a palace versus a home. I still think hitting them hard is the way to go to convince them they shouldn't be able to dump more icebergs into the ocean just because they have more money to waste.

Maybe what we need is a national sacrifice or limit, especially if we have to sacrifice our citizens' blood for it. You get X amount of electricity, based on those factors you mention, but with a limit. So maybe they'll have to close off some of those extra empty rooms. (Waaaaaah) Perhaps a hybrid form of rationing should be called for.

[oc2002]

55. ohh..thats a excelent idea, A heating/cooling surcharge!

thats a tremendous idea, surcharge the homes that consume x amount over the average in a area!

the only thing I do not care about Mc Mansions is when they build them in a older neighborhood it just stands out like 'look, I got a bigger penis and testicles than you' sign.

[LiberalPartisan]

9. What piques me most

is the wretched excess of it all. Combine the 60 minutes story, which I too watched, with http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/fashion/06jets.html?ex=1155009600&en=088d5fe1cf91d56b&ei=5070">this story in the NYT about the explosion of people flying private jets to visit with others just like them and I wonder how can such a society sustain itself.

[Aviation Pro]

18. I don't begrudge the rich their wealth....

...but I take a certain amount of pleasure when they board a private aircraft and they have to completely surrender control of their lives to the flight crew (i.e. who the hell is going to fly the airplane richboy? You?).

[LiberalPartisan]

25. I'm not opposed to wealth

I am opposed to shallow, superficial people whose sole raison d'etre is the accumulation of things that wealth can buy. There once was a concept of noblesse oblige - I don't see that anymore, unless of course there's a PR angle to it.

[theHandpuppet]

52. Rather ironic, isn't it?

Our nation has gone full circle. We have become what we once we fought a revolution to escape.

What was it that pogo once said? "We have met the enmy and they is us."

[BrownOak]

112. So how do you tell

There once was a concept of noblesse oblige - I don't see that anymore, unless of course there's a PR angle to it.

If a person makes a huge charitable donation and the charity wants to announce it - how do you know the motivations behind the donation?
If a person makes a huge charitable donation and the charity and individual don't announce it - how do you know it happened?

Tempering your opinion of someone's charitable work by questioning the motivation of the giver is simply an easy way to filter things. If it's a person you like or respect you can ingore the press conference and focus on the act. If it's a person you don't like, well you can always pin it on the PR.

[Warpy]

12. What infuriates me is how useless these heaps of masonry will be

as soon as the present Gilded Age is over, and trust me, it will be over.

All these executives with their arm candy will be trying to unload these monuments to their self importance and, unlike the mansions of the Robber Baron era, these ridiculous piles of stucco and stone won't be usable for much of anything.

Before Reagan, most cities had their share of deteriorating McMansions and most of those places had been turned into rooming houses for marginal workers. When reagan started the massive wealth shift from the productive to the idle, those places were bought up and turned back into McMansions. Now they're just spilling over into the tonier suburbs, being crammed onto lots that were only big enough for a 50s bungalow.

These pleasure palaces with their industrial kitchens, multiple media and game rooms, and lack of bedrooms, will likely just be abandoned housing stock, useless for practical purposes unless they're turned into some sort of retail business with showrooms in the play areas and offices in the bedrooms.

The whole ridiculous business will be great fun to watch, if we live through it.

[union_maid]

14. The writing's already on the wall here

Prices are starting to go down. McMansions that were going for close to 700k are now being advertised for less than 600k. It's still a lot, but it leaves those in fully mortgaged homes up the creek a bit. What really told me things were changing were two ads for similar houses I saw last week. Both were McMansions in similar middle class communities right next to each other. One, which was priced a little higher than the other, was still optimistic. It said there were maid's quarters in the house. Maids? There are more people living in this community who have worked as maids than people who have had one live in. The other ad said, "Room for mom!" which is code for accessory apartment, for family or to rent out, legally or otherwise. And that's what's going to happen with a lot of these over mortgaged monstrosities. And then they won't be over-using resources anymore.

[Obamarama]

15. I was thinking exactly the same thing as I watched the episode....

I have several family members living in McMansions. The excess of it all is really revolting. And you're right...when the bubble bursts, who is going to live in these faux palaces?

[sweetheart]

17. Let the master pay

If someone can afford to heat it, its a free country, just
let them pay the *true* cost of the energy, including the
costs to all of uz of the war, the petrol economy, the pollution
warming and noise.

The nice thing about a macmansion is the bowling alley doesn't
have to interfere with your basketball court.! :-)

Britain is introducing a system by which a house seller must
get a house "surveyed" and this survey is then available to
potential buyers. The survey is to include an energy rating and
likely in future, the tax basis of the house will be keyed to
its energy rating.

[TomClash]

19. Class War

It was an interesting piece. Many of these people want these homes to show how successful they have been, how they've "made it" and are better than the rest of us. In short, they want to be royalty. One Texas Belle even crowed about her Versailles knock-offs - a perfect denouement to her "nouveau riche" class station tour.

As I watched Madame de Houston strut around her faux French McMansion, it was amusing to recall that Marie Antoinette, the last Grande Damme to occupy Versailles, found her final resting place at La Rue d'Anjou after being ceremoniously guillotined.

Ne mange pas le gateau. :)

[Greyhound]

136. And once again, they have become so disconnected with reality

that they truly believe they will not suffer the consequences of their "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude.

And yes, I know that's not how they view themselves, but it just doesn't matter, they are projecting that belief, and supporting the perverse master-class system. You know, Marie's famous "let them eat cake" statement wasn't a cynical mocking as we perceive it to be, she genuinely didn't have a clue until it was too late.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. I've Never Agreed With The McMansion Concept. God Bless Em I Say.

If they have the money I've always felt it is up to them how to spend it. I have never nor will ever have animosity towards the wealthy because they choose to have a very large home. If I'm ever that wealthy someday I'd look quite forward to having a home like that myself. I'm not jealous of them nor am I resentful. They can spend their money however they choose and God bless em for it. Sure, I hope that they spread some of their wealth around to those less fortunate, and admire the ones that do, however that isn't truly any of my business either when it comes down to it.

[B3Nut]

48. It's their money, after all

Mrs. Nut and I have a neat old 2400 ft2 craftsman/victorian style house in a small town, it's over 100 years old. Solid as a rock. I really want to upgrade to energy-efficient windows but we can't afford it right now. We'd love to eventually buy property a bit out in the country and build a log home, but the way the country and world are running I'd be surprised if the whole shebang wasn't completely collapsed in 10 years. It'd be nice to build a log home on enough land to grow food and run a windmill or two for electricity, and have solar on board as well. Heck, on a good day you can sell power back to the grid...and Wisconsin is usually pretty windy. :D

Todd in Beerbratistan

[MUSTANG_2004]

22. While ostentatious displays are tacky,

I'd be uncomfortable telling someone they can't spend their money as they see fit, even if it's for a house that's bigger than I think they need.

As far as energy, they do use more than they have to, but I'm less concerned with the energy to heat/cool (newer houses are actually pretty efficient - some large houses have lower bills than our very small 50+ year old house) than with the environmental impact of maintaining the perfect yards. All those bright green lawns on treeless lots take a lot of pesticides, fertilizers and water to grow something that has little value. But, as someone who has a non-irrigated lawn filled with scruffy, unfertilized native wildflowers, I'm not in a position to tell people what their lawn should or shouldn't look like.

[omega minimo]

24. Increasing energy costs are starting to put a dent in McMansion addiction

"Mutually Assured Expansion" Morley Safer called it: insecure people with more $$ than taste or real class, Nouveau Riche trying to Keep Up With The Joneses on steroids.

As with vehicle purchases and the state of the world in general, too many spoiled Americans have to see the huge number$ at the gas pump or on the energy bill before it dawns on them what they're doing...................

"I think it's that aspect that gets under my skin...though many are beautiful in terms of architecture."

McMansions in general are hideous and totally inappropriate in scale or style "in terms of architecture." They are not well-designed homes; they are attention grabbing billboards that scream: "Look At Me. Look At What We Got!!!!! Nya Nya Nya Na Nya."

Like the guy on 60 Minutes, when asked about his neighbors response to having a WalMart McMansion dropped in their neighborhood:

"They're jealous."

No, buddy, they're not jealous. You're tacky and pretentious. You are wasting resources to feed your pathetic ego and you are destroying the integrity and historic fabric of existing communities. You ARE the weakest link. GOODBYE.

[Nikki Stone 1]

26. There are other problems with the McMansions

The older residents of the neighborhood are often pressured to sell as the value of the land that their small houses are sitting on goes up (because of the size of their neighbors' homes). They cannot afford to pay the raised property taxes.

Homeowners' associations (when they exist) will usually cater to the more monied owners with larger homes; I know one older lady who was told by the homeowners' association that she would be forced out. They can't legally do this, but the HA can require all kinds of things that cost money that this lady doesn't have. Also, this lady's health is suffering as the selfish bastards building their gauche palaces have construction crews working AROUND THE CLOCK. This lady can't sleep at night because the home next door is being rebuilt all night. She has complained to the HA but they refuse to do anything about it. Her family wants her to go to the police. She got sick this year and couldn't get enough sleep to heal.

There is an innate selfishness in some people. I think choosing to live in a 10,000 square foot home built on a lot that would better handle a home half that size or less (and this describes most suburban neighborhoods) is a selfish act. It takes up greenery, air, energy resources and quality of life for other people.

Now, if you can afford a large amount of land and a neighborhood that isn't already designed around smaller homes, then knock yourself out. But when you screw with people who are already there and damage their quality of life, that makes you a selfish bastard.

[omega minimo]

28. Heartless

"Now, if you can afford a large amount of land and a neighborhood that isn't already designed around smaller homes, then knock yourself out. But when you screw with people who are already there and damage their quality of life, that makes you a selfish bastard"

Further proof that Trickle Down Economics = Trickle On Economics. "There is an innate selfishness in some people." That's true-- but it is growing out of control as people become more addicted to conspicuous consumption (at toxic, insane levels now), less educated (art, aesthetics, architecture, community values, history, etc. etc.) and more mercenary about "in yer face" Nouveau Riche tackiness.

What the hell will the future make of SUV limousines? :puke:

Good post-- thank kyou.

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. Thanks. I really am worried about this older lady

The woman from the 60 Minutes story (in Chevy Chase) reminded me of her.

[omega minimo]

34. No noise ordinances in that town? Worth checking

Most places would have civic codes on hours allowed for construction noise. Worth checking, even if you have to persist to find the right person (code enforcement, local council member) to back it up.

It's tragic this has affected her health. Sometimes a "white noise" machine can help block out the noise.

Maybe get local media involved?

Bastards.

[Nikki Stone 1]

116. Her family is looking into the ordinances

The problem is that the cops will come out, things will quiet down, and then they start again. The cops really need to get a hold of the owner, not the workers, who cannot simply stop what they are doing without losing their jobs.

And the new owner is apparently somewhere out of the area until the house is completed.

[union_maid]

41. Not in my backyard (I wish)

You're right. There are all kinds of situations. There are communities out east on Long Island that are zoned only for large plots. That's not only to keep them "exclusive". That was a result of pressure to prevent too much population density in an area that's already overbuilt. I'd prefer clustered housing and some natural land left on the same acreage, but that was the compromise arrived at with some developers years ago. However, the McMansions that are changing the characters of not some, but virtually all of the more modest neighborhoods and even most of the low income communities in the area could present more of a problem. Our neighborhood had three kinds of homes. There were some apartments, really small converted bungalows and your standard tract houses. Now, wherever there was an empty plot, there's a McMansion and there are conversions from modest home to McMansion, too. It's actually kind of bizarre.

[minerva50]

44. Destroying older neighborhoods

Like you, I don't object to McMansions scattered over the fields in outlying suburbs, but I hate the way they are destroying the quality of older, inner suburbs. That's what's happening here in DC. I was walking around near downtown Silver Spring the other evening and it saddened me. It used to be a very charming neighborhood of generous houses with lawns and beautiful gardens, trees and shrubs. They are being replaced by houses that fill up most of the lot and rise up 3 or 3 and a half stories, leaving little strips of front gardens and narrow alleys along the side. They try to blend in with the architectural style of the neighborhood,(victorian porches, bay windows, towers, no garages in front), but the scale is so overblown that they overpower. Without the generous gardens and space to breathe, the neighborhood is more urban than suburban, all the "charm" has fled.

[cgrindley]

69. So how did those Victorians blend in with their pre-existing neighborhoods

Oh right... they tore down the existing neighborhoods and built massive Victorian McMansions.

[Nikki Stone 1]

117. Exactly. And when McMansions are built on small plots of land they

restrict light and air flow to surrounding buildings. There's less space between houses, less privacy.

[theHandpuppet]

53. Hear, hear!

:applause:

[cgrindley]

67. Wow

Do you realize how that post would look if you were complaining about public housing instead of McMansions.

Now tell me why that difference matters.

[moc]

29. In the heart of McMansion Country (aka Dallas), my last electric bill was

over $400 - for a 2800-3000sf rancher. Our rancher is ~40yo, which was the predominant architecture around here back then. It's hard as heck to cool a two-story house in this heat. Many of these McMansions these days have two A/C compressors, one for upstairs and one for down. Many of my friends with McMansions complain of not being able to keep certain rooms cool.

I hate to think what the electric bill was for some of those McMansions. :scared:

[politicat]

33. However, larger houses can have a lower footprint per person.

Example: DH and I live in a 1400 sq foot house. Two of us, two cats and 3,000 books. We probably could do with less space if I had fewer books, but I'm a researcher and that's who I am.

Our close friends live in a 5000 sq foot house. There are six of them at any given time, and often more. (DH and I are considering buying into it if I can sell the house we have.) It's about the same amount of space per person (700 versus 830 or 710 when there are 7 of them) but their carbon footprint is actually somewhat smaller than ours, because it costs less per person to heat/cool/light their space than it does ours (they have a basement; we don't.)

I think it really depends on how people choose to live rather than in what they live.

[Quantess]

35. I have an amusing idea:

It would be hilarious if some wealthy person bought a McMansion and rented it cheaply--one big house--to 3 or 4 huge, poor, families. Even better if it's a huge, extended, immigrant family, who don't speak much English.

Hey, why not, if they'll all fit comfortably in the huge house?
The neighbors would love it.:evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

37. I'm all in favor of big families having big houses

and small families having small houses.

If you have 8 kids, why not have a 5 bedroom house?

But my aunt and uncle, who are empty nesters since their 1 daughter got married, are looking at 5 bedroom houses in Missouri that they can get for the price of their 2 bedroom house in California.

What the hell do two old retired folks need 5 bedrooms for?

Even their daughter thinks they're totally nuts.

[auburnblu]

39. Is that one of John Kerry's five houses?

Between wasting electricity at five houses and a private jet does any other Democrat and their come close to the disregard for conservation that he and his wife show. Nothing like jet setting in your private plane to go to a conference on the environment.

He's worse than most wasteful Republicans.

[Bridget Burke]

46. The wealthy do not live in McMansions....

They live in real ones. Or in apartments, where that's the way to go. I doubt all the homes are kept "open" all the time. Probably just a caretaker or two with minimal energy expenditure.

Sorry, the Republicans are worse.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

40. Overbuilding in the McMansion sector

Some quick thoughts about McMansions (and whoever came up with that term deserves a sort of medal)

Living area has gone up exponentially while average family size has gone down.

Some people buy them who really cannot afford them. There is a syndrome where some of them are barely furnished or some of the rooms are not being used or are closed off to cut down on utilities.

The sector is overbuilt. Some people are in them who don't really even want to be in them but it seems like the best choice given the options that exist. In other words, some older and more modest neighborhoods cost almost as much as the McMansion neighborhood.
So the buyer can have a 2000 square foot house in an established neighborhood or a 3500-4000 McMansion for not that much more. The sector is overbuilt because of the cost of land and development to the builder. They can build a much larger house and get a better return on their investment than if they built smaller more affordable housing.

Previous generations were comfortable with the concept of "first home" or starter home with the idea that they move up as their finances improve. Many younger people today want to begin with the home their parents ended with - it's a sense of entitlement.

Incomes have NOT kept up with the cost of housing. Too many people are living in McMansions who shouldn't be- they have overextended themselves and have too high a percentage of their incomes devoted to housing. They are mortgaged to the hilt due to low or no down payments. We all know that the housing market is softening. Some of these folks are going to be in a precarious position if they need to sell quickly in the future.

If the economy in general tanks massively in the future, perhaps all the houses in The Reserve at the Commons by the Windmills on the Bay can be turned into duplex housing or triplex housing. That is what happened to the Victorians.

[marions ghost]

45. I know a guy

who lives alone in a McMansion by choice. He bought it as an 'investment' but will be living in it for many years. He said there was nothing else to choose from in the area he wanted to live in. I have never seen anything sadder. There's very little furniture, the place has no character. It's like being in an unfurnished hotel with views of other hotels. Depressing.

Another person I know who has a McMansion uses it as a sort of museum. She has a large collection of art and antiques and they are arranged in every room to perfection, like pictures in magazines. Her kids are off at college and she and her husband are more or less alone in this place. It has 5 bathrooms. They too bought it as 'investment.' But meanwhile thay are living in an overpriced storage bin.

Whatever is driving people to live in these places should produce some interesting psychological studies. Is it the need for security, insulation from the outside world, keeping up appearances, blind consumption, an epidemic of narcissism? Just what is the attraction? Who would want to have to clean and maintain these places? I find the phenomenon hard to understand. Both of these friends I mention here are intelligent professionals, not particularly egotistical, not exhibiting overt signs of insanity. I just can't reconcile their decisions to live in one of these monster houses. Does not add up.

Right, these supersized homes will be the condos of the future once the bubble bursts. Retrofitted as multi-family units. Meanwhile they are a symbol of the High Republican Era in America, built mainly for people who have made excess profits and need something to show for it.

[MadHound]

43. Rather than going after McMansions, let us instead pursue renewable energy

Given that wind can power this country with ease, let us persue the wind and solar option for powering our homes. Then the power that those McMansions consume would make little difference. It would be an easier sell politically to switch to alternatives like wind and solar than to go after peoples' houses. I agree, they are obnoxious, ostentatious displays of either wealth or massive debt, but people tend to shut up and go into defensive mode when you're targeting their house. Instead, persue the concept of putting solar panels on those monstrosities, and/or power the local electric grid with wind, and frankly it won't matter so much what their energy consumption is, and those owners would be a lot more likely to listen to that approach than one threatening their precious house:shrug:

[burythehatchet]

56. Personally, I don't think I was going after McMansions

the subject of my comments is the use of a finite set of resources. Many other posters have identified additional examples of how these homes take away from public good for the sake of ego.

[MadHound]

60. I understand that, but trying to put a halt to McMansions

Is not going to be an issue that resonates with people. And frankly, the largest objection(other than looks) to these behemoths is the amount of energy they use. Therefore why not address our energy concerns, switch to renewables, and thus have plenty of energy for all of our needs. Meanwhile, the McMansion fad will indeed die off like other bad suburban architectural fads.

Saying no to McMansions won't address the underlying issues and will only piss off people. Address the underlying issues, and the rest will take care of itself.

[Bridget Burke]

47. To me, "McMansions" are not just large houses....

They are huge houses built on small lots. Or--on lots that looked fine with the original houses. But the new monstrosities only leave a few inches of lawn. Usually, trees & other plants are gone--or replaced with some generic "shrubs." Many close-in Houston neighborhoods are infested with these piles. Charming streets have become darkened canyons.

McMansions are also built Outside the Loop. Yes, there are some big homes on big lots--often surrounded by trees that were preserved when the homes were built. But the true McMansions are usually grouped close together, with a high wall around the subdivision. They look pretty silly on the bald prairie.

Contemplating the money necessary to cool those piles is the best revenge. In Houston, that is.

Most of them are not beautiful at all. They're usually bastardized versions of various architectural styles. People can build new homes that "fit" their lots & their neighborhoods. And older homes can be expanded tastefully--usually by going up a storey & maintaining the "footprint."

[unpossibles]

89. goo dpoint - also, for me the Mcmansions

are often lacking in any real character and don't appear to be any more solidly constructed (at least as far as I can tell - I could be wrong) or anything.

[phylny]

105. Our large home is on 2.5 acres of mostly wooded land.

We told the builder NOT to remove the trees.

In addition, the entire neighborhood consists of homes a little smaller than or a little bigger than ours, with lot sizes from 1.5 - 6 acres. So, no home is an eyesore.

All in all, after my husband's company stock, real estate has been the best investment we've made. This house that we bought is smaller than the one we had in Virginia, and was less expensive. We haven't moved to "flip" houses - we've moved because we had to - no move, no job.

[newportdadde]

49. What did you think of the trophy wife carrying the dog around?

She cracked me up, money can't buy class. Remember one thing, having a huge house does not mean you have 'wealth'.

[burythehatchet]

50. I enjoyed the McMansions in her blouse

That must have been quite a feat of construction. Gross and vulgar.

[Blue Belle]

109. I was crackin' up when the couple was talking about the floor....

in the house and how they had it specially made based on the floor that was in the Versailles house. Only in the minds of these people is the Palace of Versailles considered a "house".

[originalpckelly]

51. "Commie Time" or "Hammer and Sickle time" or "You can't touch this"

Which would best describe this kind of thinking?

Faced with the alternative (the government telling me how to spend my money or time) I believe our capitalistic system is not that bad. I could go through and explain why that rich person's house will actually benefit you or your children one day, but someone who gets pissed-off watching a show about houses probably won't listen to me.

There is a segment of the country that is way too rich and powerful (Bill Gates like wealth.) Bill Gates has approximately 46 billion dollars. 1 billion is 1,000 million. Bill Gates has enough money to make 46,000 millionaires. I can agree with someone being angry at that, because Bill Gates has used anti-competitive tactics to get that rich, and if you use Windows, you'll understand why a lack of competition has hurt users.

But you are talking about Mc-Mansions, not full on mansions. That means these people are probably millionaires, and worked hard to get their money. Personally I believe they deserve to have the damn house, anyone who works that hard deserves that.

[burythehatchet]

54. Remarkably presumptive, and mostly unrelated

to the original commentary, but I wouldn't want to step on your rant. Now as far as the personal attack, while offensive, it is expected on a big discussion board where people have varying degrees of conversational skill.

[originalpckelly]

58. Have you ever asked the following question:

Who the hell are you to tell another person how to spend their money?

[burythehatchet]

59. Ya got me there! I'm afraid I don't have

what it takes to debate you.

[depakid]

93. "...they deserve "

That's they culture of entitlement and American exceptionalism at work.

It's thinking that everything will continue to be just has been has been for the past century- that energy and natural resourses are infinite, and in any case American- particularly wealthy ones are entitled to waste the lions's share. In reality, natural laws like thermodymics, climate change processes and Hubert like analysis don't care what people think that they deserve.

The irony of course is that the macroeconomic system is part and parcel to the larger ecological system- and cannot continue to expand and "create" money (much less wealth) in a period of declining energy inputs. Which means of course that they very economic system that brought people thier paper (actually these days- digital) "wealth" is the very same system that's going to force some very harsh changes on them, irrespective of the political will to enforce appropriate regulation.

And I suspect this we'll see this sooner as opposed to later- on a much larger scale than anyone can imagine.

[LongTomH]

57. Wrong Time for McMansions

For one thing, we've got an aging population; baby boomers who are becoming empty-nesters (unless the kids have moved back in, which is likely in a lot of instances!). Also, a lot of young people are child-free or with one child. Unless you have people like those already mentioned, who are buying these barns and leaving them mostly empty, a good number of people would be very happy with a smaller ranch.

Plus the fact that it's a lot easier to heat and cool a single-floor home, all other things (windows, insulation, etc) being equal.

And, a creative architect can do a lot with a small house.

As for what will happen to the McMansions, I remember the earliest apartment my parents lived in: a one-room studio in a huge, converted victorian. A lot of these places will end up being carved up into small apartments for young people starting out; maybe that's the only way some kids will be able to afford a place of their own.

[cgrindley]

61. Problems with your point of view

1. New home construction is usually budgeted on a dollars per square foot equation. A small home (under 2000 sqare feet) can be just as wastefully extravagant as a large one (over 2000 square feet). And a 4,000 square foot home doesn't have to be a palace. It's the sorts of materials that go into said home that are the problem, but even then, just because a material is expensive doesn't mean that it is inherently damaging to anything or anyone. A radiant floor or radiant wall heating system, for example, will be massively expensive, but far more efficient than electric baseboards. Just as purchasing organic vegetables is significantly more expensive than purchasing factory-farmed crap, the same is true of construction materials.

2. A new large home is probably far more energy efficient than a similarly sized Victorian home and about a zillion times more efficient than a simliarly sized colonial home (I'm in CT, so 18th century houses are as common as mud). For that matter, a brand new split level piece of shit is constructed very poorly indeed compared to those hated McMansions, many of which contain highly sophisticated and energy efficient heating and cooling systems, etc. No one, on the other hand, recommends tearing down Victorian houses or burning them out of neighborhoods.

3. I think that you're complaining about the lifestyle choices not the structures. If I had a 5000 square foot home, for example, my parents, my brother and my father-in-law would be living with us. Up until the 1950's, that was the usual pattern of American living, a large, extended family sharing a good-sized home. Your beef is with selfish piece of shit yuppies and their castles (to you, it is all symbolic).

4. I think you're also complaining about the aesthetics of the thing. I have no problem with that, but you are opening yourself up to some hysterical charge of Elitism based on some the concept of an educated design ethos influencing taste (I happen to believe that aesthetics are largely a matter of education so you've got no argument with me, but someone's bound to flip out on you).

[Bridget Burke]

65. Many of us are concerned about the effect of the McMansions ....

On existing neighborhoods. Gigantic houses are built on decent-sized lots--lots that were sized right for the original homes. The new places look cramped & formerly charming streets become grim & uniform. Trees, lawns & established gardens are destroyed; much of the remaining land is paved over for driveways. (& people wonder why we're having more floods in Houston.) If people don't really want gardens--wouldn't high rise growth be more efficient?

My neighborhood has large & small homes--a few from the late Victorian era & many more Craftsman & bungalow style. It's possible to update them, expand them if needed & make them more efficient. Some new homes have been built that are the right scale to fit in. Styles vary--which is fine. At least they HAVE style--many of the McMansions are bloated, mismatched piles.

[cgrindley]

66. A few more problems

For one, the idea of preserving the "charm" of a neighborhood really will open you up to a charge of being elitist (although not by me because I agree with you). So you should think of some better counter argument than cutting down trees and lawns and gardens as detrimental to flood control, because that's just silly. EG leveling the entire neighborhood and replanting it and moving everyone into concrete apartments on high ground would be a far better solution.

For two, it's not a given that a house can be updated and expanded. Many homes were not built with good quality construction. I've worked on lots of stuff that wasn't 16" on center. To make a really huge house, you need 2x8 construction, larger joists, etc. Many of those old craftsman homes were balloon framed which is idiotic. In addition, since they are private structures, many have asbestos shingling hidden under three layers of vinyl, or have walls full of the stuff. Victorians will have lead paint, arsenic colored wall paper, hidden lead pipes, and so on. Open up a hundred year old wall and you're in for a lot of surprises.

For three, a lot of old houses are pretty ugly. Many post WWII homes are hardly even worthy of being dozed.

[Bridget Burke]

82. Gosh, now I'm an "elitist"

Just because I believe that most McMansions built in Houston are butt-ugly. Thanks!

Living here, I'm aware of how over-development increases the likelihood of flooding. Actually, I agree that people who leave a 1 foot wide "lawn" around their house might be happier in a fine highrise.

The Craftsman styled homes in my neighborhood are built quite well & many have been thoughtfully updated.

[cgrindley]

95. I didn't call you an elitist, I said that others might

If you believe that McMansions are ugly, by some people's logic, that means that you are calling the taste of the common person bad. Hence, to some people, that means you are being an elitist.

I don't believe that pointing out someone else's bad taste is elitist because I believe that aesthetic taste is something you learn. Saying that someone has no taste, to me, is the same as saying that they are illiterate. So, if you have little ceramic unicorns in your house, you have terrible terrible taste. To me, that's not an elitist thing to say.

But didn't you read the post? I said that it would be even better to tear down *all* the houses and put tens of thousands of people in massive concrete apartments away from areas prone to flooding.

[Bridget Burke]

127. Yes, I read your post.

I've read many of your posts.

[NoSheep]

75. I tend to agree with your assessment that it is lifestyle choice

that bothers ME, at least. Also, as far as NEEDING a big house, I don't know why anyone would have a slew of kids these days. Let's help the ones that are already here.

Wealth insulates the wealthy from reality. That bothers me. Why don't the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and social security? Why don't they realize their money is being made of the backs of others less fortunate then them. Why don't they live in a normal sized house and use their money more creatively. Start an artist colony or a camp for underprivaleged kids? Use it to increase teacher salaries?

I'm not against having money...just against the way some people spend it when a third of mine is taken away to pay for government programs that favor them.

[cgrindley]

77. What do the wealthy get?

Say you are a yuppie couple living in New Rochelle, in a massive Victorian house in a nice part of town. The house, currently, with 5 bedrooms and about 3,500 square feet runs you $35,000 dollars per year property tax. What exactly is that childless couple getting for all that tax money?

[NoSheep]

83. I'm not sure I consider that to be all that extravagant!

First of all, if it is truly a Victorian house, that's recycling and helps to preserve our history. Jobs were probably created to renovate it and no new land had to be disturbed to build it. To me, those factors are VERY important.

An example of a negative case scenario would be my ex-boss.
He's retired from 20 years as an investment banker. I dare say his personal fortune was gained from the sweat off the backs of others. I don't think one can separate themselves morally from the companies they invest in. South African Gold and the military industrial complex, for example.

(George Soros would disagree with me, but that's the only thng I know of we disagree about)

So here's this rich guy who has a bunch of money that he got by ignoring the social consequences of his desire for an extravagant lifestyle.

He "operates" a small business in his retirement. He sells DVD's based on another author's writings. The rights to the information those DVD's are based on, were stolen from the widow of the author during the settling of the estate. My ex-boss was the executor and got a lawyer to help him figure out how to do this.

So now he has a fortune from his job and pension, a small business and he hires me to run it for him while he takes out women on his sailboat. I ran it like it was my own. He refused to give me any benefits after promising he would AND refuses to pay employment taxes. he made me sign a contract based on ,lies and that is his proof that I complied with his terms. He fires me when I threaten to turn him in to the IRS and I couldn't get unemployment because he lied to the unemployment agency and says I quit. I appealed it and we had a hearing together and he lied right in front of me and showed a video tape he had made of me that he ediited to make it appear that I had bribed him. This man is unbelievable. He is a total snake to anyone around him so he can enjoy his lifestyle.

He builds a new McMansion in a gated development to impress himself and his friends. He votes republican. He doesn't care how many people have to die in order for him to have politician's in place to protect his interests: lower taxes for the rich and loop holes for business people that allow them to screw their employees. Sure, he pays property taxes, but the people he votes for make it possible for him to screw me and other working class people because we live in a "right to work" state.

I see the McMansion as a symbol of his values: cheap, morally bankrupt, copy-cat, keep up with the Joneses no matter the cost, go to church every Sunday and brag about it but live like a demon.

All people aren't the same. But it's damn hard to make a killing in this country without doing JUST THAT. I'm old enough to know it. I've experienced it first hand.

[cgrindley]

97. So, really to you, it's almost entirely symbolic

I wish people would just admit that.

Hatred of McMansions is based on a couple of "actual" considerations:

1. an elitist reaction to the gross architecture and design

2. an elitist reaction to the "destruction" of "charming" neighborhoods

3. some sort of class-based symbolic hatred of the Nouveau Riche.

Personally, I'm cool with raising my hand and admitting to hating the Nouveau Riche. I'm also cool with hating the destruction of "charming" neighborhoods and with hating the banal design of a typical McMansion.

But hating them for other reasons is probably over-stating the issues.

[NoSheep]

113. McMansions, and thus my feelings about them, are a REALITY, NOT a REACTION

[cgrindley]

121. What does that mean? That didn't make any sense at all.

Are there ever feelings that are not realities? But aren't all feelings reactions? And how does a McMansion's reality directly lead to a feeling other than through reaction?

[sui generis]

128. well a day late I guess, but my two cents

I'm all for requiring a certain percentage of every residential lot be permeable ground cover. Austin has a law like this.

Other than that, my dear fellow liberals, get over yourselves. Some of the crap I've read here borders on psychotic. It's a big country - there are plenty of "charming" neighborhoods that have building restrictions, and there are plenty of neighborhoods that have McMansions. Some people have no hobbies and sit at a keyboard day and night and sleep in a twin bed - boffo for you. Go live in a dorm somewhere, nobody is preaching to you, and if you're concerned about shared resources and space then lets talk about overpopulation, not housing choices.

Some people actually have hobbies that require room - I have a concert grand piano, dozens of neo-renaissance paintings in progress, the SO has byzantine mosaics and other hobbies that REQUIRE space, and many other things that require proper appropriate display space, before anything like kids even come into consideration. Space is an absolute requirement - and somebody else's idea of how much is enough is just busybody silliness.

Everybody wants to right-size everybody else's life based on their own. That's what I find absurd. Not elitist. Just absurd. If you're happy living in a 30's bungalow with aluminum wiring, floor furnaces and just enough closet space for your work suit and your sunday suit, nobody is critiquing your choice.

I think it's sad that if you ask anyone what the oldest thing they own is - it's usually less than 50 years old. We're already harvested for taxes, personal time in the corporate world, interest on borrowing and education, and social security that we'll never see by corporations and our own government who claim to know what's best for us. Now we have "concerned" liberals of our own who claim to know what's best for us, how much money is too much money to earn, how much space and paid resource is too much per person, who we should be married to, what kind of house we should live in and what kind of car we should drive - that's the psychosis here. You may have that opinion but trying to enforce legislatively is anti-liberal and anti-progressive, and does not address the problem causing the resource impact, just the symptom.

If people are dying out in their McMansions in their bedroom communities tied to an ARM with no limits and no gas, and not enough water to keep their lawns green or shower in the summer; why do we think the buyer is at fault? Wouldn't it be better to have to adjust by making telecommuting more viable? Is there something wrong with revivifying a dying or dead small town with new infrastructure? There's nothing charming about a pop.300 town with nothing left but a gas station and an falling down old folks home - there are plenty of those all through the midwest, and the fact is that the cost of urban living is so outrageous that you can spend half what it would cost to live IN the city on a very nice home outside of the city, and people do. As a species, we really don't take well to being warehoused.

:rant:

eh - sometimes winning in the more-progressive-than-thou arena isn't worth the prize.

[cgrindley]

130. An excellent point about telecommuting

Telecommuting requires space. We have a three bedroom house that is way too small for our needs. My wife is a filmmaker and works out of the house from one bedroom, and my office is in another bedroom. We are constantly bumping into each other and would love to have an extra 1000 square feet or so.

But telecommuting saves all sorts of resources. My wife's major client is in Boston. But we don't have to contribute to the congestion of Boston at all. We can live off on our own in CT. I ride the train into work in NYC 3 days a week, 7 months a year. The rest of the time, I work at home.

All of this saves resources because it decreases the number of times I have to commute to get my work done, and means that we don't have to live in Boston, or even worse, drive to Boston on a regular basis. It also means that we can have a far lower reliance on giant office buildings that really work over time to make our cities way uglier than they ever have to be. Telecommuting at least doesn't contribute to the hyper inflated real estate prices that are going on now in rapidly gentrifying areas of NYC.

Even if I lived in a huge flipping McMansion (and I don't, I live in a 1920 beach house), I wouldn't be contributing half as much to human misery as I would be if I was responsible for continuing to the gentrification of affordable parts of NYC and my wife was driving to Boston two or three times a week.

[Bridget Burke]

132. Ah--but YOU aren't judgmental....

Dorms & hovels are not the only alternatives to Neo-Renaissance/Byzantine Metroplex McMansions.

[sui generis]

133. of course I'm judgemental

and arrogant. What's your point? :P

[sui generis]

135. and another thing

sorry you took "dorms and hovels" to be my intent, it wasn't and you have it from me.

I'm just saying that a dorm is right sized for a particular kind of person and an old 30's bungalow was considered gauche in the 30's by people who lived in homes that still had outhouses.

I'm also vulgar, and proud of it. }(

Seriously though, some days on DU I get the sense that we're all directed to be appalled at one thing or another, and somedays we use filler when we don't really have anything meaty.

If the goal is to make a difference, then permeable groundcover regs is the very first thing that has the most impact in allowing runoff to resorb into the ground. New construction should have energy efficiency standards - so if you want a glass house you can have it as long as it meets heat spec, however much that costs. Preserve water - have strict pool regulations or else encourage community pools while disincentivizing new in ground pools. People who can't live without a pool have to buy old houses. Some people in old neighborhoods welcome new construction - it means nicer streets and elevated property values if it's a trend, even if it means the neighborhood itself changes over time. That's how the original neighborhood got there.

Some people do prefer the "charm" of bungalows, even a nicely restored one with new wiring, plumbing, insulation new addition, modern kitchen buildout and energy efficient windows. Personally I've had enough of them, and know whereof I speak. I want something utterly soulless and modern - I'll provide the soul this time instead of relying on the house. Be warned, I may change my mind in five minutes.

Anyone can go too far to either side of this argument, and there are some McNeighborhoods that are truly disgusting and indefensible; my reticence is just how willing we are to make decisions for other people's personal choices rather than laying the groundwork for everyone to still make their choices but do it responsibly.

[NoSheep]

114. I don't hate the Nouveau Riche. I hate what they do with their money-IF

these things we have discussed are what they do.

[Bridget Burke]

84. Well, if the yuppie couple shares your disdain for "charity"....

At least their high taxes mean they are contributing to the common good.

Maintaining a fine old house makes some people happy. Others might prefer a less suburban lifestyle.

[cgrindley]

98. It's the government's job

to protect our weakest citizens and they should tax the living shit out of the rich to make sure it gets done.

[marions ghost]

94. ditto

I'm not against having money...just against the way some people spend it when a third of mine is taken away to pay for government programs that favor them.

[kestrel91316]

73. A couple of miles from my office in Woodland Hills there are some

McMansions on postcard lots in a gated "community". I had a wealthy client who owned one for a few years, and they eventually moved because the house was such SHODDY CONSTRUCTION. She got tired of all the repair bills on virtually new construction. It was a milllion dollar piece of crap.

She now lives 10 miles away in a much more expensive but well-built mansion in a REALLY ritzy section. Hubby is a famous entertainment industry attorney. Wife, unfortunately, appears to have some substance abuse issues............sad.

[Blackhatjack]

74. Really comes down to a logical, moral choice? Here's a hypothetical

Here's a hypothetical?

What if you could build a 30,000sf home for you and your wife to live in OR you could donate the same amount of money to provide clean water and basic medical care for the less fortunate that would save 1,000 lives per year?

That choice really exists. It is a logical and moral choice.

And choosing not to address it in those terms, is to make a choice.

[cgrindley]

78. I don't believe in donations to charity

I believe in high taxes and a well-developed federal network of social programs. I work in the public sector for a relatively small salary, so that's that. I've dedicated my life to teaching and consider that I'm volunteering every hour I work. I'll occasionally give 25 bucks here and there to Jimmy Carter or Medicin sans Frontiers or to the political candidate of my choice, but if I never donate more than 100 dollars per year. It is the government's job to protect its citizens. I give our old clothes away but that's it. You want more social programs? Let's raise taxes. I'm cool with that.

But then again, I am Canadian.

[JHB]

79. My real beef isn't with McMansions per se...

...it's with the "Nuthin' but McMansions" that seems to drive housing construction around here. Whether McMansions, Luxury Rentals, or Luxury Condos, there's just freakking nothing being built for us mere mortals (except in some sectors, and then it's only for slightly-above-mere mortals over age 55)!

[earth mom]

81. McMansions are crap.

I feel the same way as most who've posted on this thread. People who own them think of themselves to be more "special" and far "superior" to everyone else. They must flaunt that "specialness" to show the world just how "precious" they are! Funny how they don't get how superficial they appear while they live in their spacious yet vacuous homes that are as empty as their hearts and souls. :puke:

[mainer]

86. A McMansion in Hawaii uses less energy than any house in Texas

When I was living in Hawaii, we had neither heat nor air conditioning because the trade winds cooled us during the day. And it never got cold at night. We had a big house and very low electric bills.

Someone with a 1500 square foot house in Texas, however, uses tons more energy than we did.

So who's the energy hog here? The homeowner in Hawaii with the huge mansion? Or ANYONE ELSE who chooses to live in an inhospital climate like Texas and Arizona?

A large part of our national energy use has to do with how many Americans have chosen to move to places like Atlanta and Phoenix. Before the age of air-conditioning, you never would have seen so much growth in Atlanta. So before you start ragging about McMansions, you should attack people who choose to live in places that require the continuous use of energy just to stay comfortable.

[Catherine Vincent]

88. Cool!

If I were younger and had the means, I would move to hawaii.

[Catherine Vincent]

87. My house is half the size of the photo. In fact, cut the left half off.

You get my house. All 1560 sq ft of it. And I think it's just the right size for me. Although I wish my kitchen was a little larger. But if some folks want humongous homes to clean, heat and cool and can pay for it, that's their problem.

[depakid]

90. I'm a afraid I will have ZERO sympathy

when energy prices rise through the roof and many (if not most) of the people who purchased these things- often way out in the suburbs, find themslves in severe financial hardship over the next decade.

It's about on the same lines as people who buy huge- and dangerous- SUV to drive around the city in.

The choice to be wasteful and ostentacious comes with its consequences.

[Javaman]

96. Define beautiful. one man's treasure is another man's garbage. nt

[bloom]

122. In the book "Collapse"

by Jared Diamond - which I recommend to everyone who sees no problem with overconsumption....

One of the scenarios he talks about - was in Japan when there was a finite number of trees to use - so instead of using up all of their trees - like some societies did, which collapsed - the trees were rationed. Each family got so many trees to build a house with. Some got more than others - for various reasons. But the idea is for people to start realizing that there is only so much to go around. Plus the process of creating and transporting materials all adds to the CO2 and other pollution overloads.

No family and no country has the "right" to destroy the planet. The US uses something like 30% of the resources for 5% of the world's population. What people do with their money DOES affect everyone. What everyone is doing DOES affect everyone. We are not all a bunch of islands that don't affect each other.


If you still think that there is no effect to what we are all collectively doing - read this series:

LAT - Altered Oceans

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series,0,7842752.special

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x62462


There are many other examples, as well.

[bloom]

129. Offsets - people paying for their excesses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1847172&mesg_id=1847172

Today I was noticing this UK site Climate Care.

http://www.climatecare.org/index.cfm


It is the idea that people should consider their CO2 emissions - from planes, homes, cars, businesses - and then fund sustainable energy projects in proportion.

I think it's an interesting idea. I've heard about it for businesses - but not seen this site for individuals.

I think it would be best if people used less. But for the things that people feel like they have to use energy for - at least this would make people more aware of the cost - to the the earth - of what they/we are doing. And to help pay for those costs.

---

On a related note - I also found this site - Exxon Secrets - which documents the funding by Exxon of disinformation on global warming.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

There was a story today about a GOP PR firm putting out an anti-Al Gore video on YouTube - that was supposed to look amateur - but is all part of the disinformation campaign.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060807_pr_firm_al_gore/