McMansion suburbs

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

For Montreal, I'd say Brossard is pretty much unrivaled in quantity of ugly, tacky, oversized mansions:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.43982...7i13312!8i6656

This one is also terrible because of the "fence". brutal!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Doady

Suburban Monteal not as dense as suburban Toronto, but I don't think those McMansions in Brossard are representative of Brossard, or let alone all sprawl in Montreal area.

They're not "representative" of Brossard or suburban Montreal, but Brossard is probably the one with the most McMansions. That's where all the Habs players live. The whole area around the DIX30 Shopping Center is as ostentatious as it gets.

There's also Boucherville on the South Shore:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.58803...7i13312!8i6656

But the one that depresses me the most is the newly developed area of the Saint-Laurent borough of Montreal, just brutal:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.50576...7i13312!8i6656

Compared to it's counterpart 500m away built by a developer with an actual desire to build something nice:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.51088...7i13312!8i6656

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

A lot of the older suburbs were developed without bulldozing the trees. Almost all of those along 1960 are that way, as well as the older suburbs along Memorial Drive all the way to the Energy Corridor (unfortunately, some of those flooded during Harvey due to proximity to the reservoir). But all in all, they're gorgeous neighborhoods full of the older mcmansions that aren't cookie cutter. Even parts of Cypress were built in the pines but the mcmansions there are the newer type with little character at all.

For me, Kingwood would be a great place to live. The Woodlands is beautiful but way too far from the inner city, and too much dominated by ultra conservatives.

Kingwood is probably right up there with The Woodlands as far as ultraconservatism, if not worse since the TW is has more economic/ cultural diversity. There is a church on every corner too. Still, As someone who leans left and has never been religious, other than the distance and lack of any decent drinking establishment(s) with decent selection of craft beer and someone who can make a real whisky sour, I can think of worse places in the Houston area to live than the Kingwood area.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
For Montreal, I'd say Brossard is pretty much unrivaled in quantity of ugly, tacky, oversized mansions:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.43982...7i13312!8i6656

Originally Posted by TWAK

This one is also terrible because of the "fence". brutal!

You could plop Brossard down basically anywhere in the US. I never understood why developers don't spend the money to bring in mature trees or resist the urge to clear cut their development sites. Sure, it's an added cost, but I feel people would pay considerably more to move into a newly built subdivision with mature trees already in place. Who wants to wait 30 years for full tree canopies?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

You could plop Brossard down basically anywhere in the US. I never understood why developers don't spend the money to bring in mature trees or resist the urge to clear cut their development sites. Sure, it's an added cost, but I feel people would pay considerably more to move into a newly built subdivision with mature trees already in place. Who wants to wait 30 years for full tree canopies?

Agreed, but in this case, I believe Brossard is mostly on farmland so the trees were planted there.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Agreed, but in this case, I believe Brossard is mostly on farmland so the trees were planted there.

That would make sense. I know in Wilmette, IL, which is northern Cook Co., a developer found one of the last tracts of undeveloped land in town. He clear cut 80+ trees for 6 homes. Obviously the existing properties owners lost their minds, but as prospective buyers started viewing the homes, many of them kept asking "where are the trees?"...

[mhays]

It "easy" to cut everything down, especially if they're regrading, overlaying a map for the most-possible houses, houses on cul-de-sacs, etc. Much of it is about a formula. Root systems play a role. I wonder if liability for trees falling down is also an issue.

But it wouldn't be that hard to designate a few trees here and there, and work around them. But it would be a tradeoff.

You can buy larger trees but they're expensive, and the supply might be an issue.

I agree that big trees are a necessity, especially in a low-density area.

[Centropolis]

Most truly high end spec home projects preserve some mature trees, that I've seen, or if they are being built in already dense, existing forests like southwest of st. louis/atlanta/etc, although sometimes they will clear-cut down the trees on the front of the lot, and leave the backyard forested, especially if the subdivision is being built on an ozark ridge or something, leaving the steep creek hollow behind each street undeveloped.



Tract home developers in the midwest seem to have little problem cutting trees down on existing, flat farmland, though, where the properties NEED the trees the most!

[Centropolis]

perfect example in the ozark suburbs of st. louis:

https://goo.gl/maps/AED4qHofeZt

although they often push dirt up agains mature trees when grading the street...which kills them anyway...

[photoLith]

Why are McMansions always horribly proportioned? Its like the architects of these horrid buildings didn't know what they were doing and threw a bunch of architectural styles together into a horrifying amalgamation of shit. One would think it wouldn't be too hard to make an enormous house at least well proportioned and pleasant to look at. But rarely do I see suburban McMansions ever well proportioned, they are all hideous.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

But the one that depresses me the most is the newly developed area of the Saint-Laurent borough of Montreal, just brutal:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.50576...7i13312!8i6656

Some crazy high density of in-ground pools in that neighbourhood.



There's Mcmansion suburbs in Florida that probably have less than that and they can stay open all year round.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Docere

Vaughan:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.86927...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.81680...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.83560...7i13312!8i6656

King Township:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.96776...7i13312!8i6656

Newmarket:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.03648...7i13312!8i6656

Maybe I'm defining "McMansion" incorrectly? These houses in these areas are expensive and aren't "like 2 feet apart." But they are pretty hideous for the most part.

These are basically nouveau riche areas. The people who live in them are likely to be construction company magnates, various successful business owners/entrepreneurs, maybe some personal injury lawyers etc.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Maybe I'm defining "McMansion" incorrectly? These houses in these areas are expensive and aren't "like 2 feet apart." But they are pretty hideous for the most part.

These are basically nouveau riche areas. The people who live in them are likely to be construction company magnates, various successful business owners/entrepreneurs, maybe some personal injury lawyers etc.

I don't know if I'd consider the first link "McMansions." Garish and an architectural train-wrecks, yes but these are probably custom built right down to the bathroom fixtures. These are legitimate mansions. The owners simply probably preferred a suburban setting as opposed to right in the city and they probably could easily afford to live in any part of Toronto if they chose to. The other links are hit and miss. Some are actually kinda nice, some are pretty tacky. I don't necessarily think every big house on a cul-de-sac is automatically a bad thing.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Some crazy high density of in-ground pools in that neighbourhood.



There's Mcmansion suburbs in Florida that probably have less than that and they can stay open all year round.

the province of Quebec is 2nd, the only place in North America with more pools per capita is Florida.

[cannedairspray]

Is there any reasoning behind that other than a vague cultural one?

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

Is there any reasoning behind that other than a vague cultural one?

you come back from work, you grab a beer, you jump in the water, then you start the BBQ. the sun sets at 8h50pm,

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Docere

Vaughan:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.86927...7i13312!8i6656

I worked in the Vaughan area years ago and don't miss it. That house in the background on the left listed for 17 million. Not sure if they got it.

Tacky nouveau riche homes. Not a single person on the streets and just huge areas of lawns that are never used but full of garden chemicals.

Ugh.

[Phoenix22]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the province of Quebec is 2nd, the only place in North America with more pools per capita is Florida.

Arizona have more pools per capita than any other area in North America.

Top 10 Pool-Loving States



Rank

State

1 Pool Co. per X People


1 Arizona 8,628
2 Florida 10,367
3 Nevada 10,814
4 Connecticut 22,198
5 New Hampshire 24,063
6 Texas 27,723
7 California 28,000
8 Montana 28,199
9 New Jersey 28,894
10 Wyoming 29,133

Most of the top states are the ones we would expect—Arizona, Floria, California… but a few are somewhat surprising. Montana and Wyoming particularly stand out. Pools are not particularly common in either of those states, but they both have more pool companies than their relatively small populations would suggest they might have.


http://porch.com/advice/porch-data-r...loving-states/

6 of the 10 cities with the most pools are in Arizona

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/...ng-homeowners/

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Phoenix22

Arizona have more pools per capita than any other area in North America.

Top 10 Pool-Loving States



Rank

State

1 Pool Co. per X People


1 Arizona 8,628
2 Florida 10,367
3 Nevada 10,814
4 Connecticut 22,198
5 New Hampshire 24,063
6 Texas 27,723
7 California 28,000
8 Montana 28,199
9 New Jersey 28,894
10 Wyoming 29,133

Most of the top states are the ones we would expect—Arizona, Floria, California… but a few are somewhat surprising. Montana and Wyoming particularly stand out. Pools are not particularly common in either of those states, but they both have more pool companies than their relatively small populations would suggest they might have.


http://porch.com/advice/porch-data-r...loving-states/

6 of the 10 cities with the most pools are in Arizona

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/...ng-homeowners/

that was in 2012, Globe and Mail's acticle , forgot to put the link
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

[suburbanite]

Article doesn't say anything about Quebec being number 2, just that Florida is an example of a place that has more per capita.

Would still expect Nevada, Arizona, and certain parts of New Mexico and California to come out on top.