McMansion suburbs

[Sun Belt]

The view from across the street of the 100 year house in Narbeth, PA is a large surface parking lot. This is a 100 year old car dependent neighborhood. Probably better to buy brand new in this particular case.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/21...!4d-75.2612674

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mhays

My condo on the alley side of a highrise on the Downtown fringe is much quieter than a typical suburban house. Any dog barking gets cracked down on. There are no lawn mowers. The block has retail but they don't open to the alley. Even street noise is minimal since a building is in the way.

Crime? Not inside my building. I could not lock my door (presumably), be away for weeks, and be perfectly ok. Privacy? There's none of that "personal but not private" space that house residents have...it's all private.

I understand this point.

I guess than in my suburban house we have less freedom to walk around naked on the ground floor than a typical condo dweller does. Obviously we could cover all of the windows on the ground floor to keep kids selling chocolate and meter readers from peering in, but what would be the point?

OTOH my house sits on a "quarter acre block" (makes me sound like an Aussie) with neighbours on both sides with their houses set slightly diagonally from mine following a bend in the street. I have no neighbours at the back and the yard is encircled by tall thick hedges and other trees.

So yeah my wife and I can swim naked in the pool midday, and you'd have to be a pretty extreme peeping tom in order to be able to spy on us.

[mhays]

Even that would be too much uncertainty.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mhays

Even that would be too much uncertainty.

Well, the possibility of getting caught (even if slim) is kinda part of the fun. As someone famous once said: what's the point of living if you don't feel alive?

That said I don't live where I live for reasons of "privacy" or "peace and quiet". My house achieves neither of those optimally, in fact.

[chris08876]

There seems to be a stigma against big houses. Whats wrong with someone wanting 5000 sq ft? Suppose they have 1 or 2 kids, whats wrong with that?

McMansions cater to the niche individual who wants a big house feel, without the absorbent prices of a legit real Mansion.

[mhays]

Nobody is saying ban them.

But being wasteful is pretty douchey.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by chris08876

There seems to be a stigma against big houses. Whats wrong with someone wanting 5000 sq ft? Suppose they have 1 or 2 kids, whats wrong with that?.

How many different places to watch TV does one family really need?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

How many different places to watch TV does one family really need?

Legit american answer, as many as they want.

[dc_denizen]

Just don’t ask the rest of America to bail you out when tastes change and 5000 square foot ugly homes on farmland collapse in value.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another common SSP observation that's been made in this thread and others is "why don't people just live close(r) to work?".

Which is fine where you're a single person but reaches a much higher level of complexity simply by entering a couple relationships, and gets further complicated once you have kids.

Job markets are dynamic. Most people won't be at their current job for life. Multiply those variables by two for a couple and then throw in the decentralized nature of employment in contemporary metropolitan areas.

The best you can do is move to a fairly central part of the metro but even so, is that still that much of an obvious choice when both adults end up with jobs in the burbs on the east side or the south side of the metro area?

Anyway, people are faced with complex choices, and not everyone commuting an hour or more each way everyday is a selfish, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too planet destroying exurbanite.

Most in fact, probably are not.

Well said.

I'm assuming most of the folks trying to play nanny in this thread about the living habits of those who don't live in someplace like Tribeca meet some or all of the following characteristics:

1. Single and/or couples without children (thus don't have to worry about the poor performance of inner city schools or tuition of private schools).

2. Are paid well enough to not have to worry about skyrocketing rent prices, and/or is lucky enough to live in an area that's rent controlled

3. Don't value having plenty of privacy or space as much (I.E. neighbors next to you or above your head making a ton of noise, not being able to purchase certain things because you can't store them, etc.).

And all of those things are ok. Different folks for different follks. It doesn't make them bad people.

And frankly, in many parts of the country, living in an "urban" environment just isn't practical. There are some cities that have undergone quite a bit of gentrification which have made their inner city neighborhoods livable again, but in other cities, the inner city neighborhoods are still poverty stricken and crime-ridden. Not to mention, the access to basic amenities such as high quality grocery stores or department stores will still require a weekly (at minimum) or monthly drive to the suburbs. We can't all live in SF or Boston.

[JManc]

Can some of you folks get any more opinionated? Some of us actually live in these kind of houses and neighborhoods (no not 5,000 s/f behemoths but big houses in the 'burbs with the yards and the whole nine yards). We also have three cars including an SUV and a truck.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Legit american answer, as many as they want.

Indeed... just as long as they are willing to bear the costs of that choice.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chris08876

There seems to be a stigma against big houses. Whats wrong with someone wanting 5000 sq ft? Suppose they have 1 or 2 kids, whats wrong with that?

.

5000 sf for a family with 1 or 2 kids? Sure, if that's what people want. But that's HUGE for a family of four.

It's actually huge for any family that isn't intergenerational or the mini-Dugards. (Am I getting that name right?)

And in roughly half of the U.S. you also have a basement that in terms of usable space is just a bit less than the size of the ground floor, so maybe add 2000 sf of potential additional living space there if the house if 5000 sf on two floors. As I said: HUGE.

That's more than double the size of my house which is about 2300 sf on two floors plus another 800 or so sf of finished basement space.

With that size of house we'd need to have quite a few kids in order to not have enough space to give them all their own rooms: we have five bedrooms (four on the top floor and one in the basement). We could add a sixth in the basement if we wanted to cut into the large family room space down there. And we'd still have ample room for the home theatre and other uses down there.

We also have two full bathrooms on the top floor, a half bathroom (powder room?) on the ground floor and a full bathroom in the basement.

The ground floor has a kitchen, informal dining area (dinette), formal living room, formal dining room and small family room that's kind of like a study.

Someone really wanna tell me we don't have enough space? (We're not that big a family.)

Actually, we could probably make do with a bit less space. An 1800 sf house (with basement) would probably still be extremely comfortable for us.

[chris08876]

Its not just the burbs where McMansions reside, but also in the cities. Ever check out the interior of some Victorians? Some of them are massive, yet in an urban setting. If your a smart shopper, and want to be in an urban core yet have the benefits of a suburban like McMansion, sometimes its a matter of location and looking.

One city (shame it declined) where a big house is technically accessible is Detroit. Beautiful homes, and some, if renovated, are winners. St.Louis comes to mind as well.

In NJ, Newark has some great homes too. Where talking big one too (3000-4500 sq ft). Location, location, location!

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Someone really wanna tell me we don't have enough space? (We're not that big a family.)

Its definitely more than enough. I was just simply defending the principle that people have the right to buy whatever home they please. For some, home ownership is a dream, and an accomplishment. I feel that he/she should bask in their hard work. Regardless of how excessive or minute it may be.

Similar to if someone wants a 500 hp V8 car. Let them have it. They worked for it. Not everyone is a fan of the soundless and overpriced Tesla's. Similar to how not everyone is a fan of apartments.

Its a lifestyle choice, and a hard one for most because a home is the biggest investment most singles or couples make.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Indeed... just as long as they are willing to bear the costs of that choice.

That can be said of anyone for a plethora of life choices, not just people with big houses.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

That can be said of anyone for a plethora of life choices, not just people with big houses.

Agreed. Our society does have trouble with lining up the actual cost of life choices vs. the freedom to make them.

[cannedairspray]

Glad to see some push back against the absurd smugness of some of the opinionated stances here.

[llamaorama]

Indeed... just as long as they are willing to bear the costs of that choice.

This is problematic though, because it denies that sometimes there is a greater good worth paying for. Or maybe its a matter of a happier majority being more valuable than a super happy minority and an unhappy majority?

Most people need to travel via road, either in a car or in a bus, so maybe it makes sense to fund highways without tolls? Likewise maybe we find it unreasonable that cars have an absolute monopoly on transportation, so funding sidewalks is fair.

I'd also argue that preferences of high income people have far, far more influence over things than the average persons' as it is. A big company might locate because of where its top management lives. The rest of the employees have to follow the jobs. The people whose jobs are 'multiplier jobs', who provide goods and services to those people also have to follow. On some fundamental level, this is why cities even exist in the first place.

I'm assuming most of the folks trying to play nanny in this thread about the living habits of those who don't live in someplace like Tribeca meet some or all of the following characteristics:

1. Single and/or couples without children (thus don't have to worry about the poor performance of inner city schools or tuition of private schools).

2. Are paid well enough to not have to worry about skyrocketing rent prices, and/or is lucky enough to live in an area that's rent controlled

3. Don't value having plenty of privacy or space as much (I.E. neighbors next to you or above your head making a ton of noise, not being able to purchase certain things because you can't store them, etc.).

And all of those things are ok. Different folks for different follks. It doesn't make them bad people.

Counterpoint:

SSP is not all people living in cities like NYC. It's a site for following urban development around the US(and world). Some of the most active city compilation threads are... Milwaukee, Austin, you get the idea.

If I had to guess, the silent majority on SSP like rooting for urban development and positive changes to their hometown, and live a lifestyle which is nothing like Seinfeld or Sex in the City. But if they wanted a typical suburbanite baby boomer trump voter perspective they'd go to the forums on City Data to bitch about crime rates and 'diversity' instead.

For middle class people from most of America, the choice isn't really between a McMansion and a 100 year old rowhouse or something like that. It's more like, do you want to live in a 3 bedroom house in the "city", a 3 bedroom ranch in an old suburb or a new 3 bedroom house in the new suburbs?

I feel like some of the big proponents of mcmansion suburban living here seem to be from the eastern seaboard. Jersey, NYC metro area, Mass, etc. Where there is a stark difference between the inner city, older suburbs, and new suburbs. Both physically and in a social and economic sense. It's also probably the most unequal and segregated region of the country. Also a lot of people saying "well if you were going to spend $900k a house might as well buy a fancy one", as if normal people had that problem. I guess incomes are just so much higher and that's not an absolutely insane amount of money to spend on a house, but yeah...lol...

And frankly, in many parts of the country, living in an "urban" environment just isn't practical. There are some cities that have undergone quite a bit of gentrification which have made their inner city neighborhoods livable again, but in other cities, the inner city neighborhoods are still poverty stricken and crime-ridden. Not to mention, the access to basic amenities such as high quality grocery stores or department stores will still require a weekly (at minimum) or monthly drive to the suburbs. We can't all live in SF or Boston.

No, but I think times are changing and, depending on the neighborhood, more people in less traditionally urban cities like Denver are wanting their neighborhoods to be better, to be more walkable and closer to things.

Likewise consider a city like LA, where the boundary between 'urban' and 'the suburbs' is very fuzzy and/or a continuum.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

This is problematic though, because it denies that sometimes there is a greater good worth paying for. Or maybe its a matter of a happier majority being more valuable than a super happy minority and an unhappy majority?

That argument only holds up if it's a matter of subsidies for something that actually has a tangible societal benefit, such as healthcare, education, etc. but there needs to be data that actually demonstrates that there are net benefits, particularly when it comes to things that also cause serious problems rather than just having a financial cost.

In this context, it's an argument against subsidizing inefficient choices rather than for it. If the people making such lifestyle choices are really in the majority, why do they need subsidies? When the cost is spread out among such a large group, economies of scale should surely make it affordable for participants to fund the true cost themselves. The difference is that when people are bearing the cost of their choices directly, there will inevitably be fewer people choosing it because when people are making any choice, most weigh both the benefits and the cost. And that's the whole problem. Many of the people "choosing" the inefficient lifestyles are doing so because it's artificially affordable while the alternatives are comparatively unaffordable rather than because it's something that offers them this incredible happiness. So the choice is partially being made for them. Meanwhile, the people bearing the externalized cost who aren't taking part in that lifestyle are being forced to pay despite not bearing any responsibility for the situation or reaping any of the benefits. So what it comes down to is that BOTH sides have a lack of free choice. So not only do you end up putting your finger on the scales on the side of something that may actually cause a net societal harm, but you're reducing the ability of the public to express its true preference.