Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think whether or not to live in a McMansion is certainly a personal choice, and so long as we live in a free society, people are free to chose how they live their lives. Who dictates and enforces "responsiblity" in the form of wastefullness or living above one's needs?
I personally don't like the cookie, cutter planned communities. They are void of any character and breathing room. I prefer the older houses in established neighborhoods. Although those houses may not have all the bells and whistles of the newer ones and require more TLC, they are better built, and by in large stand on decent size land parcels. I would rather live in a smaller place and have a little more breathing room in the form of land. Since it's just me, I'd be perfectly happy in an 800 sq foot little house.
As a consumer, if my fellow Americans are not utilizing our scarce economic resources to best obtain allocative efficiency, then I feel obligated to intervene. We have limited supplies of home heating oil. Knowing that part of the reason why demand is so high (hence higher prices) is due to people in McMansions having to heat their bonus rooms, media rooms, conservatories, etc. really irks me. THAT is social irresponsibility. We have limited supplies of potable water. Knowing that part of the reason why demand is so high is due to people in McMansions having to keep their large lawns watered, pools filled, fountains running, etc. really irks me. THAT is social irresponsibility. We have electrical prices that are continually skyrocketing due to a rising demand that is caused, in part, due to people indulging themselves in such large, excessive homes. THAT is social irresponsibility. The same could be said for those who opt to drive Hummers and Escalades, which increases our overall demand for gasoline, hence jacking up our prices. THAT is social irresponsibility.
Why should I sit here and realize that I'm paying a premium price for our scarce resources so that others can "live life how they see fit?" It seems quite a bit unfair to me that those of us who are trying to be environmentally- and socially-conscious are being punished for the excessiveness and gluttony of others who just don't quite "get it."
We are not a socialist society. Those with the dough can do with it as they please.
SWB, I appreciate the fact that you base your views on this subject on your personal ethics. I'd like to see those who disagree explain how their choices jibe with their personal ethics (Not "I do because I can". That's not ethics, that's an excuse.)
I'm neither a fan nor opponent of so-called McMansions, but I think it's really overblown to make the choice to live in a particular place into a moral or ethical issue. I have lived in both dense city neighborhoods and open suburban subdivisions and can tell you positives and negatives of both types of housing. However, I think it's pompous to say that one person is better or more ethical than another person because they choose to live in a smaller space or a certain type of neighborhood. All of the supposed "social cost" issues that people seem to bring up about McMansions are counterbalanced by the fact that those houses typically have huge amounts of property taxes associated with them that are plowed back into public services. There are many reasons why people might want to choose to live in one area (i.e. quality of schools, crime rates, access to jobs, etc.) over another, not just square footage. To just label everyone that buys a big house as selfish or unethical is counterproductive and simply not true.
At the same time, it's a misnomer that the mortgage lending crisis is because of McMansions. Sure, there's a segment of people that overleveraged themselves to buy too big of a house, but for the most part, the places that are seeing the highest numbers of foreclosures are (a) markets where the economy is in shambles and unemployment is high, such as Michigan and Ohio, which also have high concentrations of factory workers that lost jobs (very few of these people bought McMansions) or (b) markets where there were a lot of speculative investors such as Florida and Nevada, and, by the way, there was an overbuilding of condos and townhomes (the exact opposite of McMansions).
I'm not saying that I love McMansions, but let's keep everything into perspective here. It's way too easy to bash and pile on with respect to this subject.
Naw they are pretty much cookie cutter if that's what you are referring to
all the same ..maybe different color siding...
I was getting a good laugh..as i actually SAW them being built..every day
I also saw what they were selling for...I'm still laughing At least the ones they chopped the woods down next to me to build on....
New owners are having a bit of a time with the bear..well hell you are living in the bears former home is what I tell them.
Here, no Mcmansions have siding, all brick or stone. They are not usually all the same because the subdivisions here use all different builders. I was told mine had 5 builders. My model is the only one on block. I think there are only 3 in the entire subdivision and the subdivision is quite large.
There is a pond with a fountain in subdivision with a walking path around it. It's for all the residents. My house faces it.
Taxes? A joke here, in the $3000 range. I have no pool, don't want one, too much work, I had a huge one in NJ which I bought the house with.I rather go to the Country club pool.
Electric use in this house is more efficent than the one in Nj, because it 2 Zone, Gas Heat is also 2 Zone.
Location, 15 min from downtown, 20 from Airport
Roads, easy accessable to 2 interstates(no tolls) so less gas usage. Hubby drives a car to work thats gets 42 miles to the gallon. My office is in my home, upstairs, It overlooks the pond. His is within 25 min.
So, I'm using less energy on my larger house, than I did on smaller one, no pool, and 2 zone . It's also a new system so more energy efficent.
I am really glad that the McMansion market is in decline because the new houses they build near the Kansas City metro area look like oversized cardboard boxes with T-111 siding. Also, they build houses here with stucco exteriors when the climate is not suitable for those kind of materials. For some reason they do not build many new houses at all with brick exterior either. Overall, houses built in the 1980s or earlier are of much better quality overall than most cookie cutter trash. The only exception would be the very high end market where the build quality is better.
TimtheGuy wrote: Those with the dough can do with it as they please.
And screw things up for the rest of us!
IMO, the main issue is not one of affordability, but rather one of social responsibility. Even if someone can easily afford more than their fair share of resources, the added demand makes those resources more expensive. The constant price increases for basic resources makes it increasingly more difficult for those with less financial means to purchase a home of their own. They become prime targets for the lending scavengers, casuing housing bubbles. They lose their home, home prices fall, and the middle class gets squeezed yet again. We need some politicians who are willing to SIGNIFICANTLY raise taxes on the wealthy, taking away some of their excess, leaving them with less money to screw things up for the rests of us.
Here we go with that ethics thing again! How are we supposed to be good consumers if we have to reflect on what our spending habits may do to the world beyond our individual selves??
Here we go with that ethics thing again! How are we supposed to be good consumers if we have to reflect on what our spending habits may do to the world beyond our individual selves??
I applaud you for your contributions to a greener earth. However, remember that here in the land of the free, we all make our own life choices and endear particular causes that appeal to us.
In the case of my family, we'll take our "McMansion" (as you put it). I relish the thought of providing a wonderful place for my family and friends to enjoy life and togetherness. We work hard and relax easy, so the home is a reflection of our being. Interesting to note that we tend to stay home alot more on weekends and such, enjoying life here instead of running around driving, boating, and wasting discretionary dollars just to "get out of the house". (Hey maybe that makes me a little 'green'.)
I guess I can say it's unfair that my taxes are higher and I don't get tax breaks for buying hybrid cars and such. But we all make our choices.
Yep, I "get it", but we may have differing ideas of what "wasteful" is.
Personally, I think McMansions are hideous and tacky. They look like B-movie scenery. One certainly has to dispense with taste in order to reside in one. I find it more than ironic that many do not even utilize all of the available space. God awful pieces of crap.
But...if people want them, so be it. If you are start heaping guilt on them for consuming resources, you enter one hell of a slippery slope that will backfire on you sooner or later. Nobody can really cast apersions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least the ones they chopped the woods down next to me to build on....
And screw things up for the rest of us!
Good Post
