McMansion suburbs

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

I notice that too; the MM neighborhoods in my hometown in NY are very sterile with the landscaping seen as an afterthought which is different than here which people compete for the Yard of the Month.

Although, winter can be pretty rough on landscaping between the weight of the snow breaking branches, idiot snowplow drivers plowing over bushes and shrubs and excess sand and salt killing anything near the road so why bother. Plus, Most flowers are annuals and require time and effort in planting them every spring.

Good point. Hadn't thought about the effect of salt in particular. In the South, for example Houston, there can be a few freezes during winter, but usually not enough to do any damage (1983 and 1989 were exceptions). Last January during a Houston visit, I saw flowers everywhere, from city medians and public spaces to neighborhoods. It's also a cultural thing. Houstonians like landscaping and flowers, and corporations spend a lot of resources in competing with others to see who has the most landscaped buildings and office parks.

I've noticed that Houston MM neighborhood developers often line the streets with trees when the homes are built. The result is what you see in the older suburb of Sugar Land, which is so incredibly shaded with evergreens that it might be overly done. I think areas like Kingwood were already that way naturally, whereas Sugar Land was originally mostly pastures and farms.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

And not to beat a dead horse, but there really is a tangible quality difference between "first wave" McMansions (mid 80s through mid 90s) vs. "second wave" (2000s - now).

If you have a first wave house, maintenance due to age is unavoidable, but the construction quality and the materials used minimize this to a degree.

Second wave McMansions generally used cheaper materials with lower-quality construction. These will age horribly and maintenance costs will add up fast.

I thought the first wave was 60s-70s, from what I saw growing up. But your point is well taken about the lower quality these days.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I thought the first wave was 60s-70s, from what I saw growing up. But your point is well taken about the lower quality these days.

Ours was built in '79 and the craftsmanship put into this place could not happen today....would simply cost too much. Several rooms are entirely clad in solid oak paneling with milled inserts and would cost a small fortune to duplicate (or even refinish) today which is why you don't see them apart from million+ homes but all over the older part of Kingwood (houses built in late 70's/ early 80's).

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I thought the first wave was 60s-70s, from what I saw growing up. But your point is well taken about the lower quality these days.

They might go that far back, I'm an 80s kid and remember subdivisions going up in my Mass town which were phased for whatever reasons. The older houses were unique, each with a different design which matched the property shape well. Lots were about 3/4 an acre. These were all 80s built. Once phase two started in the late 90s, the house patterns repeated - it seems like "second wave" McMansions are all drawn from the same 3-4 designs - and the lots got smaller, maybe 1/2 an acre at best.

This is one of the "second wave" design patterns I've seen in essentially every "phase two" McMansion development, regardless of whether I'm in suburban Boston or suburban Sacramento. This house, with different siding, probably accounts for 20% of all McMansions in America (and Quebec, judging by the pics shared above):

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Shawn

In defense of the those shutters, in 95% of houses with shutters built after WW2 and not in areas where you don't have to worry about a tornado hurling a Ford Mustang through the living room window, they are ornamental even if they are full size and can move. Even my grandmother's 1880's house has shutters that are fixed to the facade and were added as a decoration. The oddball windows and dormers are a sign that this house was designed from the inside out. The elevations 9of which there are several versions) are usually designed after the floorplan(s) and the window above the front entryway provides natural lighting to atrium area with winding exposed staircase. I used to work for a home builder and we cranked out a lot of these things...

Still a meh house from the outside but usually pretty nice inside.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Shawn

And not to beat a dead horse, but there really is a tangible quality difference between "first wave" McMansions (mid 80s through mid 90s) vs. "second wave" (2000s - now).

If you have a first wave house, maintenance due to age is unavoidable, but the construction quality and the materials used minimize this to a degree.

Second wave McMansions generally used cheaper materials with lower-quality construction. These will age horribly and maintenance costs will add up fast.

Yep, I forgot to mention that, glad you did.

[Citylover94]

Originally Posted by JManc

In defense of the those shutters, in 95% of houses with shutters built after WW2 and not in areas where you don't have to worry about a tornado hurling a Ford Mustang through the living room window, they are ornamental even if they are full size and can move. Even my grandmother's 1880's house has shutters that are fixed to the facade and were added as a decoration. The oddball windows and dormers are a sign that this house was designed from the inside out. The elevations 9of which there are several versions) are usually designed after the floorplan(s) and the window above the front entryway provides natural lighting to atrium area with winding exposed staircase. I used to work for a home builder and we cranked out a lot of these things...

Still a meh house from the outside but usually pretty nice inside.

But from an architectural perspective the shutters whether practical or decorative should be large enough to theoretically cover the window. In my own experience shutters that are "properly" sized do look better than ones that are too small to cover the windows. Having a window above the front entry isn't the issue that misses the main point of the critique which is that the style of that window doesn't match the other windows at all. In fact most of the window styles look like they were randomly chosen. Although imo a lot of the two story entry foyer I've seen in those houses look a little ridiculous like they are trying to copy a mansion built by the Vanderbilt family in the early 1900's but in contemporary tract housing.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

They might go that far back, I'm an 80s kid and remember subdivisions going up in my Mass town which were phased for whatever reasons. The older houses were unique, each with a different design which matched the property shape well. Lots were about 3/4 an acre. These were all 80s built. Once phase two started in the late 90s, the house patterns repeated - it seems like "second wave" McMansions are all drawn from the same 3-4 designs - and the lots got smaller, maybe 1/2 an acre at best.

This is one of the "second wave" design patterns I've seen in essentially every "phase two" McMansion development, regardless of whether I'm in suburban Boston or suburban Sacramento. This house, with different siding, probably accounts for 20% of all McMansions in America (and Quebec, judging by the pics shared above):

You're right about that design being so widespread. I've seen many in the Austin suburbs that look just like that. Sometimes there are variations on brick color, with yellowish brick being one variation (red looks better). Also, in our suburbs, you see a lot of limestone facades for MMs. The limestone is actually quite attractive, especially when it ages.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JManc

I notice that too; the MM neighborhoods in my hometown in NY are very sterile with the landscaping seen as an afterthought which is different than here which people compete for the Yard of the Month.

Although, winter can be pretty rough on landscaping between the weight of the snow breaking branches, idiot snowplow drivers plowing over bushes and shrubs and excess sand and salt killing anything near the road so why bother. Plus, Most flowers are annuals and require time and effort in planting them every spring.

Most MM neighbourhoods here do have decent landscaping - but you need to give it time to mature.

Though on occasion here you do have people say that they don't want large trees in front of their house (you hear this for homes of all sizes BTW - even semi-detached) because it hides the view of the house apparently.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Most MM neighbourhoods here do have decent landscaping - but you need to give it time to mature.

Though on occasion here you do have people say that they don't want large trees in front of their house (you hear this for homes of all sizes BTW - even semi-detached) because it hides the view of the house apparently.

Once a tree gets fairly large, it is usually trimmed upward such that the house is visible. But I've seen lots of yards where the trees are young and the houses were obscured. I was wondering if maybe some people don't want to deal with the messes trees create. But houses just look naked without trees.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My brother lives in a McMansion. The appeal isn't that strange, but the SSP demographic just won't get it. 90% of people here are guys without kids.

New construction means low maintenance, perfect for your typical busy working parents. Also means smaller yards, smaller trees, all with less maintenance. McMansions are usually in good school districts, with reasonable taxes and decent services. Also, they tend to attract families with lots of young kids, a big deal if you have kids of your own. And open floorplans are generally preferred over the closed-off layouts, esp. with kids. Attached garages are a big deal with little kids, especially in inclement weather (hauling car seats and the like in January is no joke).

Yeah, the architecture is sometimes abysmal, but most don't care. And really they're usually just boring/bland rather than offensive.

Having been a real estate agent for years I have to admit that Crawford is correct. Count me as a typical SSP'er in that I don't like oversized, cheaply made modern suburban houses. And I am a single male, no kids who likes skyscrapers. Big surprise. But he is absolutely right that most people are not concerned with the materials, at least not enough to not buy a big new house. He is right that low home maintenance for the first few years of new construction including lack of mature trees to worry about is a plus for many working parents, Typically a new family wants space, they want to be in a "good" school district; This usually means whatever a family perceives is good.
These things are true and are the reality of the situation.

[mhays]

It's amazing how little thought people seem to put into this stuff. They buy the "most home" for the money, i.e. square footage, apparently not wondering if cheapness tends to mean crappiness. Even beyond maintenance, what about just heating, cooling, furnishing, and vacuuming the place?

The smaller land sizes are good though. At least they're ruining less land.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Having been a real estate agent for years I have to admit that Crawford is correct. Count me as a typical SSP'er in that I don't like oversized, cheaply made modern suburban houses. And I am a single male, no kids who likes skyscrapers. Big surprise. But he is absolutely right that most people are not concerned with the materials, at least not enough to not buy a big new house. He is right that low home maintenance for the first few years of new construction including lack of mature trees to worry about is a plus for many working parents, Typically a new family wants space, they want to be in a "good" school district; This usually means whatever a family perceives is good.
These things are true and are the reality of the situation.

This is the first time I've heard of young families wanting new houses with no landscaping because it's less maintenance. And I live in area with tons of both.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by mhays

Even beyond maintenance, what about just heating, cooling, furnishing, and vacuuming the place?

Pfft, they have people to do everything, including walking the dog, and heating and cooling is just money.

[Sun Belt]

People are lazy now. That or they have the mentality that the work is beneath them.

I grew up doing DIY projects with my dad, it was very rewarding and the time together was priceless. We lived in what would be referred to as a McMansion, even though back then the housing values were no where near where they are today. It was at least 4-5x cheaper.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is the first time I've heard of young families wanting new houses with no landscaping because it's less maintenance. And I live in area with tons of both.

That's sad. Landscaping really makes or breaks a house. Its like the chips in a chocolate chip cookie. It really enhances it.

Me personally, I can't stand houses (single, detached homes) without landscaping so that it just shows the cheap vinyl siding. Ughgh.

Give me brick or a Colonial home with landscaping any day of the week. And the ones that don't have it, tend to be boring and lacking character.

And they don't have to go overboard either, but a little flora and shrubs really enhances a home.

[llamaorama]

New construction means low maintenance, perfect for your typical busy working parents. Also means smaller yards, smaller trees, all with less maintenance. McMansions are usually in good school districts, with reasonable taxes and decent services. Also, they tend to attract families with lots of young kids, a big deal if you have kids of your own. And open floorplans are generally preferred over the closed-off layouts, esp. with kids. Attached garages are a big deal with little kids, especially in inclement weather (hauling car seats and the like in January is no joke).

From a sunbelt perspective, you get those same practical benefit from non-McMansion new build suburban homes in most places. Attached garage, modern floor plans, etc. Lots of homes being built where I live that are no more than 1100-1200 square feet and priced reasonably but you get everything you mentioned above.

The typical American family these days probably also lives beyond its' means and overspends on "toys". A lot of large suburban homes are just straight up bloated IMO.

Also, I have this pet theory that technology makes massive living spaces obsolete. You need less physical space for entertainment and books and seats for TV screen viewing when each household member likely has a personal device of some kind. Also with social media people may go to other's houses less so the need to have space to show off is lessened.

That said I've also realized by visiting people's homes that houses from 1950's and 1960's can be kind of crappy in certain respects. Maintenance, they can be musty, dark, too many random stairs, dungeon-like bathrooms and kitchens, etc. They always have that funky bad old house smell, my best guess is they treated wood with something back in the day and now its leaching out.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is the first time I've heard of young families wanting new houses with no landscaping because it's less maintenance. And I live in area with tons of both.

It's not that there's "no landscaping". If anything, newer McMansions have nicer landscaping than older suburban houses (all new sod grass, plantings, patios). It's just that the trees aren't mature yet so no real maintenance (no raking, pruning and the like), and everything is new outside so no repairs needed.

I wouldn't do it, but I can understand the appeal. Two parents each working 50-hour weeks, two kids, tons of activities on weekends. Most people in this demographic don't want to spend much time on their homes.

[dc_denizen]

what portion of the housing stock is actually mcmansions, I wonder.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's amazing how little thought people seem to put into this stuff. They buy the "most home" for the money, i.e. square footage, apparently not wondering if cheapness tends to mean crappiness.

I suppose I'm a communist or something, but I will never understand why the vast majority of Americans seem utterly incapble of understanding that quality of space > quantity of space.

But I'm a "Location" guy, so I'll probably never get it.