End Of McMansions? Does this speak for Atlanta as well? (appointed, rental)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by cabasse

making fun of the less affluent doesn't seem to be as much fun though.

No, it's not. It seems the opposite is a medal sport these days.

Bottom line is that people will vote with their pocketbooks and will buy what they want, regardless of what other say, think, or write. If the market for larger and newer homes dries up, then so be it.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by cabasse

mcbuses

the analogy is crystal clear to me - mcdonalds is the primary purveyor of mass produced, low quality, excessively-sized meals. mcmansions (not mchouses!) refer to houses with all those same qualities - mass produced (predesigned) low quality, excessively-sized homes. you're reading too far into the discussion, trying to find some kind of political statement, though i would definitely agree that mcmansion homeowners seem to be the most conspicuous consumers....

Great points.

Originally Posted by cabasse

how about something more creative? instead of mcshack, how about happy meal house. mccondo - commie block? making fun of the less affluent doesn't seem to be as much fun though. drats.

You need to listen to some of that conservative talk radio sometimes. Picking on poor people is a regular pastime for that industry.

[Somoso]

Originally Posted by neil0311

And those would be legitimate concerns worth discussing, as would be the same concerns with regard to condos or smaller homes being built in Henry, Clayton, and parts of east Dekalb.

My objection and now dead horse is the use of the term "McMansion" and the connotation around large and expensive houses. Again, I hear no one complaining about "McCondos" or apts, other homes being built (poorly or otherwise) that are smaller and cheaper. That leads to me to my "Karl Marx" conclusions.

Based on what many people have said here on this forum, it seems they would have no problem with all kinds of cookie cutter high rise condo boxes, with cookie cutter buses stopping on the corner. That's my point.

I've heard plenty of neighborhood association complaints about prefab condominiums springing up in already over crowded areas leading to density related issues. I've actively participated in city planning efforts to examine "cookie-cutter" development (be it condos or McMansions) simply for the sake of quick tax revenue without considering the consequences on infrastructure and services. And driving down Peachtree and over on Lindbergh one can easily see examples of condo over-building. There was considerable press coverage over the proposed condo development on Briarcliff and N.Druid Hills, which was/is already next to impossible to navigate at rush hour - very few wanted a condo high rise built there and lots of citizens were adamant about it. By the way try living in NYC or San Fran or Paris where many condos *start* for double what McMansions here go for.

[globalnomad]

Those owning McMansions, especially Boomers, had better be prepared to "age in place".

When you get ready to "downsize", who do you think is going to buy your big home with large energy foot print and outsized taxes?

Demographics indicate there won't be enough young buyers out there to take that McMansion off your hands when it comes time to buy a smaller place or move to assisted living.

Remember, young people of tomorrow won't be able to count on secure jobs and will need to be able to move where ever there is work. Renting gives them flexiblity while home ownership will trap them.

If they have learned anything from our great recession, they will be less likely to buy something they can't afford (like a big house).

Down the road, can you imagine millions of seniors trapped in their decaying McMansions? Unable to sell them and also unable to maintain them on retirement income?

[AcidSnake]

I've thought about that myself. At retirement, elderly people typically experience a loss of income. There are higher costs to consider in heating and air-condition for large homes.

Also when your body gets old, situations like walking up and down the stairs as well as being able get to a restroom in a shorter period of time become much more of a safety issue, when adding to the equation the onset of arthritis and other age-related decreases in bodily functions.

Its unfortunate that people have such a deep "me, me, me" mindset when it comes to buying items in order to show off perceived wealth that they actually fail to look at the long term ramifications of their actions. Such is the price of Globalism and the mass consumption culture, I guess...

Originally Posted by globalnomad

Those owning McMansions, especially Boomers, had better be prepared to "age in place".

When you get ready to "downsize", who do you think is going to buy your big home with large energy foot print and outsized taxes?

Demographics indicate there won't be enough young buyers out there to take that McMansion off your hands when it comes time to buy a smaller place or move to assisted living.

Remember, young people of tomorrow won't be able to count on secure jobs and will need to be able to move where ever there is work. Renting gives them flexiblity while home ownership will trap them.

If they have learned anything from our great recession, they will be less likely to buy something they can't afford (like a big house).

Down the road, can you imagine millions of seniors trapped in their decaying McMansions? Unable to sell them and also unable to maintain them on retirement income?

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by cabasse

the analogy is crystal clear to me - mcdonalds is the primary purveyor of mass produced, low quality, excessively-sized meals. mcmansions (not mchouses!) refer to houses with all those same qualities - mass produced (predesigned) low quality, excessively-sized homes. you're reading too far into the discussion, trying to find some kind of political statement, though i would definitely agree that mcmansion homeowners seem to be the most conspicuous consumers...

how about something more creative? instead of mcshack, how about happy meal house. mccondo - commie block? making fun of the less affluent doesn't seem to be as much fun though. drats.

I agree with your summary but I'd just stress that the main thing that explains why "McMansion" caught on and seems so expressive is that it captures the conspicuous aspect of the consumption, the fact that, as with other examples of conspicuous consumption, something gaudy was chosen when something understated and modest might have been chosen instead.

And this was already the case before the economic crash. The reality of what we know now about how large numbers of people have been living over the last decade gives the "McMansion" phenomenon wider significance and little more political heft. As we now know, these people were in a great many cases basking in a false prosperity, which is what the Atlantic article is explaining.

[FromGA]

Originally Posted by globalnomad

Remember, young people of tomorrow won't be able to count on secure jobs and will need to be able to move where ever there is work. Renting gives them flexiblity while home ownership will trap them.

It will be interesting to see how the general thinking changes over time. Statements such as - "renting is throwing money away..." (which I have never believed in). I am guessing these statements already getting replaced, with statements such as yours. Home-ownership is a positive, but only if done right.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

I agree with your summary but I'd just stress that the main thing that explains why "McMansion" caught on and seems so expressive is that it captures the conspicuous aspect of the consumption, the fact that, as with other examples of conspicuous consumption, something gaudy was chosen when something understated and modest might have been chosen instead.

And this was already the case before the economic crash. The reality of what we know now about how large numbers of people have been living over the last decade gives the "McMansion" phenomenon wider significance and little more political heft. As we now know, these people were in a great many cases basking in a false prosperity, which is what the Atlantic article is explaining.

An example of exactly the attitude I'm describing.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

...I just don't get how these builders are allowed to put a 3-story luxury house right next to a one-story ranch-style shotgun home. The aesthetics of such a creation simply don't match up, not to mention the obvious clash of income levels between neighbors.

Call me a cynic, but infill houses seem to smack of some county commissioner's desperate ploy to increase property taxes and ultimately give him/herself a pay raise.

"Allowed"??? "ALLOWED" ??? The owner of the property, by definition, owns the property and its property rights. This is still the United States of America. Property rights matter. Efforts to restrict those rights smack of ******* elitism - the same time of ******* elitism that goes into the old saying that a ******* is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to repay with your money.

[AcidSnake]

Who let the trolls out?

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

"Allowed"??? "ALLOWED" ??? The owner of the property, by definition, owns the property and its property rights. This is still the United States of America. Property rights matter. Efforts to restrict those rights smack of ******* elitism - the same time of ******* elitism that goes into the old saying that a ******* is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to repay with your money.