what is the solution to mansionization? build underground? (square foot, sales, accepting)
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 live next to a mcmansion, and I really don't care. But some people make a big deal of it.
Some think we should preserve midcentury tract homes for 500 years.
Some argue that a mcmansion blocks your light, invades your privacy, etc. Maybe they should just hide underground.
I have a 5.5ft high wall that I can easily see over from inside my house. So there's really no privacy even without the mcmansion.
I would like to think the younger generation would be more accepting of mcmansions, especially since pop culture glorifies them.
Under what conditions would you allow a 2 story house to be built next to you?
What if they planted a row of dense trees so they couldn't peek into your backyard from the 2nd floor?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,244 posts, read 80,460,275 times
Reputation: 57154
Quote:
Originally Posted by oh come on!
I live next to a mcmansion, and I really don't care. But some people make a big deal of it.
Some think we should preserve midcentury tract homes for 500 years.
Some argue that a mcmansion blocks your light, invades your privacy, etc. Maybe they should just hide underground.
I have a 5.5ft high wall that I can easily see over from inside my house. So there's really no privacy even without the mcmansion.
I would like to think the younger generation would be more accepting of mcmansions, especially since pop culture glorifies them.
Under what conditions would you allow a 2 story house to be built next to you?
What if they planted a row of dense trees so they couldn't peek into your backyard from the 2nd floor?
How do you propose to stop someone from building next to you? That's a zoning/permitting issue with the city of county, you can't do anything about it. Here in our small city of 50,000, you can count the number of single-level homes on your fingers. They are almost all 2 story, ranging from 2,500-3,500 sf. tract homes. There are a handful of McMansions, mostly along the lake but they are 6,000 sf and up, and mostly 3 stories.
I have a two story house next door but because they are in horizontal L shape I do not mind. Because the side of the two story home closer to me ends about 15 feet before mine. So they are able to see only on the side of my yard not the whole yard. And when I'm in mine I can't see them unless I walk to the side, so I think its out of site out of mind type of thing. However I would probably not buy one story house if they were squared off with 2 story
Lol I would allow them to build if they would put a roof top terrace on mine. Jk
It can look and feel that way, like Chicago suburbs you have a street with post war houses no garage and one story 1000 sq.ft. houses and someone bulds a 3000 sq. Ft home that takes up almost the whole next to you with attached garage.
How do you propose to stop someone from building next to you? That's a zoning/permitting issue with the city of county, you can't do anything about it. .
I have no issue with mcmansions.
but there are a number of folks (especially old people) who protest loudly and are very slowly bringing about change to the laws.
At most, it is causing delays in breaking ground because the cities are forced to hold hearings to appease the opposition.
First off, even the term, mcmansion, is derogatory. These people who are against everything bigger than theirs need to really get a life...Things change....they are usually just upset that the new homes are driving up their property tax values, and reducing their taxable values to just lot value...if you live in a city, and you own a small house, AND your neighborhood is gentrifying, or the dirt is highly valuable - you should EXPECT that newer homes are going to be bigger. There is no point in protecting these little shacks...they call bungalows. Its not historic just b/c its old...I am so sick of people like the lady in that video. They may be happy in 1000 square feet, but they should not expect others to be happy with that crap, and owners who want more should not have to move to the middle of nowhere to get what they want.
And I hardly consider 3-4000sq ft a McMansion.....they are just nice above average square foot homes. To get into the mansion territory to me, at least, the house needs to exceed 8000 sqft. 7,000 is big - but its no mansion.
9 times out of 10 - these are the same people who want more public transportation, more population density, more government spending, health etc - but just not in their area....they are usually the ultimate hypocrites on all issues...I call them miserable people.
Most, not all, homes these days are built by developers. That is because they absorb the cost of building out the infrastructure....streets, curbs, sidewalks, water, sewer, etc., which costs can be onerous to the person looking to purchase a lot and build a house.
As such, the developers build twice the house on the same foundation....two story McMansion....and get twice the square feet, and twice the money (broadly speaking) than they would if the built a single story home.
Hence, the plethora of two story McMansion style houses (without getting into what defines a McMansion).
In dense housing areas, like northern NJ, they are literally built one on top of another. Trying to find a single story home is very difficult.
Bottom line: McMansions have become a way of life for folks trying to find a real estate 'bargain' versus laying out a similar amount of money to put infrastructure in place and build a quality single story home themselves. They have become ubiquitous and folks have generally gotten used to them. Builders are not ignorant salespeople, and they know they can get the most for their money by throwing up these 4-6,000 square foot palaces as cheaply as possible, and as the rhyme says, "build it and they will come".
The suburbs of Boston are full of luxury home developments, and the current landowners love it. People in middle class 900 sq ft homes with no garage in tony little towns like Lexington, Newton, Concord, etc., are selling for many times the purchase price, and developers are building fence-to-fence, 2-3 story monstrosities with 3 car garage, humongous kitchen, the woiks.
It's nothing new, but unfortunately it's driving up the cost of real estate in an area where there's little new construction on empty land. The demand far outstrips the supply as it is, and middle class families with a combined salary of $80K to $120K simply are priced out of the market.
No particular solution except maybe to allow more new housing developments to be built on fallow land, to help absorb the demand. Also, some of the building height restrictions should be rolled back and allow 30-40 story condo and apartment buildings in areas where 3-4 stories is the current limit.
Or maybe people should just move somewhere else. Lots of space out west and you may not find the same culture out there but you bring your culture with you and in this internet age, the world's a village!
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.