McMansions (Lowes, air conditioning, slate, gas)

[pennquaker09]

Well, I'm not very familiar with other production builders, but as someone that grew up in custom built homes, I think that Toll homes are good - I think it depends on the development. The clear majority I would not buy because I grew up in a true custom built house.

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by pennquaker09

Well, I'm not very familiar with other production builders, but as someone that grew up in custom built homes, I think that Toll homes are good - I think it depends on the development. The clear majority I would not buy because I grew up in a true custom built house.

each builder is in fact going to have different qualitys in each state. They usualy higher local subs to do the construction. So with different subs, you will have different qualitys between them

[HappyNCGirl]

I was reading a very interesting article on "green" building practices. One of the practices that got accolades was building new homes on smaller lots. This practice was particularly in reference to neighborhoods in locations where many people want to live because of commute time, schools, or whatever.

Small homesites allow for more density. Density allows more people to live in prime locations and reduces urban sprawl. Imagine what distances many people would have to commute if, for example, all neighborhoods in the heart of Cary or Raleigh or Morrisville offered half acre homesites.

This article pointed out that "city" living has always included narrow homesites for houses and many multi-story, multi-family residences such as apartment buildings.

Additionally, in urban areas, more parks, and greenways can be preserved for public use and enjoyment by making residential areas as dense as possible.

I resisted this reasoning at first, but eventually came to understand the rationale behind it.

My family lives in a neighborhood of 75'-80' wide, quarter acre homesites, in a neighborhood of larger homes. Do I particularly love the coziness of being so close to my neighbors? No, (but I do love my neighbors!) However the wonderful convenient location and ultra convenient commute time has relieved so much daily stress from our family life. Almost all my neighbors chose this new, small community for the location. If the lots had been half acre, there would have only been 22 homes built instead of 44. Meaning 22 families would be making longer commutes, more cars on the road, more carbon emissions etc.

I believe that one day, when we finally retire, my husband and I might want a less densely populated place to live. More "elbow" room and a view of a lake would be fantasic. But as long as we take kids to school and commute to work, I'll take the packed in like sardines way of life just so we don't spend 90 minutes a day commuting

[evilnewbie]

You want to be packed in like sardines? Sorry, that's not for me and that's a personal choice. What you don't take into account is that those highly dense areas carry incredibly over-inflated prices... look at NYC, Chicago, or LA... its ridiculous... you want to pay mortgage prices for an apartment smaller than my closet go right ahead... I take my urban sprawl any day of the year... I really don't understand the hoopla over the "style" that the homebuyer likes... if anything, people's taste are different and if you are expecting them to be same, I am sorry for you cause they will never be... I see large new houses in the middle of broken down houses... I have seen small houses amid larger houses... People says it devalues their houses... I didn't realize a house was more of a commodity instead of a HOME... what you want it to be both a commodity and a home... so do the people that build these homes...

[mimimomx3]

you want to pay mortgage prices for an apartment smaller than my closet go right ahead... I take my urban sprawl any day of the year...

I'll take my short commute over your urban sprawl anyday of the year...even if you throw in a closet the size of my bedroom!

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

you want to pay mortgage prices for an apartment smaller than my closet go right ahead... I take my urban sprawl any day of the year...

I'll take my short commute over your urban sprawl anyday of the year...even if you throw in a closet the size of my bedroom!

Thats your preference, not mine... you can opt to live there but don't try to force everyone to live your way.. its alternative way to live but it is certainly no the best way...

[ScranBarre]

Many of you are missing the point of those of us who are opposed to McMansions. I'm not so much irked by the fact that people wish to waste so much of their financial resources simply to "keep up with the Jones's" as I am about the blatant and inherent waste of natural and nonrenewable resources to construct and maintain these very large dwellings in mass quantities. If you think you need to spend an extra $10,000 on a media room or "bonus" room because all of your peers have them, then go right ahead. However, bear in mind that the more square footage you have, the larger strain you are putting on our environment.

The argument about purchasing a home with relatively small square footage as opposed to a larger one or a "McMansion" is analagous to the debate over purchasing a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle as opposed to a large SUV, such as a Hummer. Those who have the financial resources to purchase the latter in both cases don't give a damn that they're hurting those of us who can't, and it is this "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality that irks me. I'm a college student on a tight budget who drives a small older vehicle that nets 30 miles per gallon and whose next vehicle will likely be a Toyota Prius. Do you think I appreciate the fact that I have to pay the same $3.20/gallon to put gasoline into my fuel-efficient vehicle to get me to and from campus as a guy who drives a Hummer back and forth to his office simply because "It's a free country, and I'll do what I want?" Of course not! Why? It's largely because of many Americans adapting their tastes towards overconsumption that ALL of us have faced hyperinflation in recent years in both gasoline prices and metropolitan housing prices.

For example I was at the gas station the other evening and saw a business professional on his cell phone pumping gas into his Hummer while I cringed to see that it took nearly $40 to fill the tank of my small car. I can normally go for 350 miles on my 14-gallon tank before having to fill it again while the Hummer driver might be lucky to go fewer miles with a larger tank. The end result? The Hummer driver is driving up prices for EVERYONE by demanding more gasoline for a smaller marginal utility in terms of distance traveled. As demand increases, so do prices for that commodity. In other words part of the reason I'm paying $3.20/gallon myself for gasoline is because that guy behind me was driving an inefficient vehicle that increased demand simply to "look cool." If those of you with large SUVs want to continue to purchase those things simply to show off, then stop telling those of us who are PUNISHED by it with the same rising fuel prices that we have no right to complain! I wonder sometimes why Congress has yet to propose legislation that would put a tax on gasoline for large SUV drivers that would go to help offset these higher prices for those who drive hybrids. After all, we're driving more miles using less of this nonrenewable resource, and instead of being rewarded for trying to keep prices down we're being hit hard in the wallet as an indirect punishment to help finance those who choose to drive large SUVs. Why?

Back onto the housing debate, McMansions with 3,500, 4,000, 5,000, etc. square feet require much more in the way of home heating fuel to keep you toasty warm in the winter months and require much more in the way of energy to keep you cool in the summer months than homes half the size. In general the larger your home is, the more money you'll pay to heat/cool it. I had to chuckle at Speedy's reply of "it's MY utility/mortgage bill." That may be the case on a microeconomic level, but it is also thanks to such overconsumption on a larger scale that higher demand translates into higher costs that are passed on to all consumers, not just those living extravagantly and exacerbating the situation.

I'd love for a person in a McMansion who drives a large SUV (of which there are MANY on this forum) to explain to me as to why I should have to pay higher prices to subsidize YOUR choices? If gasoline was a renewable resource in which higher demand didn't translate into higher universal prices, I'd say more power to you. However, when you consciously made these decisions to buy McMansions and large SUVs, did the thought ever occur to you that you'd be disproportionately increasing demand for the resources required to power/maintain them, and that this increased demand would hurt many others' pocketbooks besides your own?

Many of the "It's my money; butt out" replies in this thread showcase just how selfish, cold-hearted, and short-sighted many Americans have become in an incessant quest to outdo their peers. Our family of four grew up in a three-bedroom, one-bath, 1,500 square foot home and never at all felt "cramped" with seven rooms of living space above-grade and a few unfinished storage rooms below-grade. I routinely have several passengers in my small car, none of whom ever appear "cramped." My family did the best we could to be socially-responsible and ecologically-responsible even though my parents both earned salaries high enough that would have permitted them to "keep up with the Jones's" like the rest in our suburb, which is now exploding in McMansion development. What's the excuse of everyone else?

I'm just honestly curious as to why those who purchase large homes and large SUVs think their purchasing decisions in no way affected others.

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by SWB

Many of you are missing the point of those of us who are opposed to McMansions. I'm not so much irked by the fact that people wish to waste so much of their financial resources simply to "keep up with the Jones's" as I am about the blatant and inherent waste of natural and nonrenewable resources to construct and maintain these very large dwellings in mass quantities. If you think you need to spend an extra $10,000 on a media room or "bonus" room because all of your peers have them, then go right ahead. However, bear in mind that the more square footage you have, the larger strain you are putting on our environment.

The argument about purchasing a home with relatively small square footage as opposed to a larger one or a "McMansion" is analagous to the debate over purchasing a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle as opposed to a large SUV, such as a Hummer. Those who have the financial resources to purchase the latter in both cases don't give a damn that they're hurting those of us who can't, and it is this "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality that irks me. I'm a college student on a tight budget who drives a small older vehicle that nets 30 miles per gallon and whose next vehicle will likely be a Toyota Prius. Do you think I appreciate the fact that I have to pay the same $3.20/gallon to put gasoline into my fuel-efficient vehicle to get me to and from campus as a guy who drives a Hummer back and forth to his office simply because "It's a free country, and I'll do what I want?" Of course not! Why? It's largely because of many Americans adapting their tastes towards overconsumption that ALL of us have faced hyperinflation in recent years in both gasoline prices and metropolitan housing prices.

For example I was at the gas station the other evening and saw a business professional on his cell phone pumping gas into his Hummer while I cringed to see that it took nearly $40 to fill the tank of my small car. I can normally go for 350 miles on my 14-gallon tank before having to fill it again while the Hummer driver might be lucky to go fewer miles with a larger tank. The end result? The Hummer driver is driving up prices for EVERYONE by demanding more gasoline for a smaller marginal utility in terms of distance traveled. As demand increases, so do prices for that commodity. In other words part of the reason I'm paying $3.20/gallon myself for gasoline is because that guy behind me was driving an inefficient vehicle that increased demand simply to "look cool." If those of you with large SUVs want to continue to purchase those things simply to show off, then stop telling those of us who are PUNISHED by it with the same rising fuel prices that we have no right to complain! I wonder sometimes why Congress has yet to propose legislation that would put a tax on gasoline for large SUV drivers that would go to help offset these higher prices for those who drive hybrids. After all, we're driving more miles using less of this nonrenewable resource, and instead of being rewarded for trying to keep prices down we're being hit hard in the wallet as an indirect punishment to help finance those who choose to drive large SUVs. Why?

Back onto the housing debate, McMansions with 3,500, 4,000, 5,000, etc. square feet require much more in the way of home heating fuel to keep you toasty warm in the winter months and require much more in the way of energy to keep you cool in the summer months than homes half the size. In general the larger your home is, the more money you'll pay to heat/cool it. I had to chuckle at Speedy's reply of "it's MY utility/mortgage bill." That may be the case on a microeconomic level, but it is also thanks to such overconsumption on a larger scale that higher demand translates into higher costs that are passed on to all consumers, not just those living extravagantly and exacerbating the situation.

I'd love for a person in a McMansion who drives a large SUV (of which there are MANY on this forum) to explain to me as to why I should have to pay higher prices to subsidize YOUR choices? If gasoline was a renewable resource in which higher demand didn't translate into higher universal prices, I'd say more power to you. However, when you consciously made these decisions to buy McMansions and large SUVs, did the thought ever occur to you that you'd be disproportionately increasing demand for the resources required to power/maintain them, and that this increased demand would hurt many others' pocketbooks besides your own?

Many of the "It's my money; butt out" replies in this thread showcase just how selfish, cold-hearted, and short-sighted many Americans have become in an incessant quest to outdo their peers. Our family of four grew up in a three-bedroom, one-bath, 1,500 square foot home and never at all felt "cramped" with seven rooms of living space above-grade and a few unfinished storage rooms below-grade. I routinely have several passengers in my small car, none of whom ever appear "cramped." My family did the best we could to be socially-responsible and ecologically-responsible even though my parents both earned salaries high enough that would have permitted them to "keep up with the Jones's" like the rest in our suburb, which is now exploding in McMansion development. What's the excuse of everyone else?

I'm just honestly curious as to why those who purchase large homes and large SUVs think their purchasing decisions in no way affected others.

I have designed quite a few large homes IE 5000 and up that were very environmentally friendly. we used green block (concrete insulated panels) a nice large solar array for gathering their own electricity. Along with many other recycled materials. They are paying alot less than you are trying to say they are with the choice of material use. you don't have to have a small cracker box home to be environmentally friendly. More and more wealthy people are going with environmental construction. The materials to make your house "green" are more expensive, but you don't have to be small to be "green" We did a 10,000 sq ft. home a couple years ago that undoubtedly will cost less in heating than a 5,000 sq ft. home using conventional construction methods

I would also ask you, why would you force someone to live the way you do? why would you want them to spend very hard earned money to make you happy? Honestly, they earned the money, they can spend it however they want to, I wont step in to tell them otherwise, and to try to force the government to impose anthing on its people is unconstitutional.

[ScranBarre]

To showcase how much open space has been wasted in my own area since the 1980s McMansions craze began take a gander at some of these photos, take a deep breath, and then realize that from the 1980s-Present the population here has declined by tens of thousands while we expanded our developed metropolitan area by more than 30 square miles, if not more. In other words we picked up people from in-town neighborhoods and plopped them down onto the exurban fringe. Also bear in mind that many of these homes I'm about to show you are home to married professional couples without children just to showcase the waste in how couples think they need 5,000 square feet for just two people when many other families of FIVE are living in 1,500 square foot homes just a few miles away in the urban core. As the area's population has just started to boom in the past year with new transplants from New York City and New Jersey, I can only imagine how much worse this epidemic is going to become in the coming years. There are thousands upon thousands of homes just like these all over Greater Scranton with many more on the way.




























These are just several of the MANY photos I have taken highlighting the struggles Scranton now faces with the rapid explosion of McMansion development.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by Noahma

I have designed quite a few large homes IE 5000 and up that were very environmentally friendly. we used green block (concrete insulated panels) a nice large solar array for gathering their own electricity. Along with many other recycled materials. They are paying alot less than you are trying to say they are with the choice of material use. you don't have to have a small cracker box home to be environmentally friendly. More and more wealthy people are going with environmental construction. The materials to make your house "green" are more expensive, but you don't have to be small to be "green" We did a 10,000 sq ft. home a couple years ago that undoubtedly will cost less in heating than a 5,000 sq ft. home using conventional construction methods

I'm very pleased to see that some discerning builders, such as yourself, are beginning to develop ways to make your homes more ecologically-friendly. Unfortunately you're in the West. In Eastern PA nearly EVERY one of those homes I photographed utilizes nonrenewable sources of energy. I didn't see one solar panel on any of those properties (although you do see them now in the city proper). You sound like you really ought to be commended for what your company is doing. Unfortunately, you must also admit that builders like you concerned with long-term quality and viability as opposed to just short-term quantity and inexpensiveness are a dime a dozen in most parts of our country.