HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 9:40 PM
MNdude's Avatar
MNdude MNdude is offline
mmmmmm.........pie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 1,660
‘McMansions’ creep from ’burbs to cities

‘McMansions’ creep from ’burbs to cities

Tired commuters in spots like Denver scrape homes in older neighborhoods


DENVER - Four summers ago at 7 a.m., the earth started moving and the ground shook, cracking the plaster in Jim Skelton’s small brick home.

The house next door was being torn down, another blow to what Skelton calls the character of Denver's Platt Park neighborhood.

“They're destroying what made this a neighborhood,” Skelton said.

McMansions. Faux chateaux. Scraping. Teardowns. All are becoming increasingly familiar terms across the nation. For years, tony suburbs like Kenilworth, Ill., Beverly Hills, Calif., and Westport, Conn., saw designer homes replaced by buildings two, three or four times as large.

Now the trend is creeping from pricey, historical enclaves like Kenilworth and Denver's Washington Park into middle-class bastions like Denver's Platt Park and University Hills — aging tracts of 1,000-square-foot bungalows built from the '20s through the '50s. Some families weary of long commutes from the newer suburbs are turning back inward and remaking older neighborhoods to suit modern tastes.

While the teardown trend has slowed somewhat nationally because of the housing slump, bulldozers continue to roll in Denver: Home demolition permits numbered 198 in 2004, 352 in 2005, and were on track this year — 111 in the first five months of 2006.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation said teardowns threaten the character of 300 communities in 33 states, and that more than 75,000 homes are torn down and replaced with larger homes each year.

Ed Tombari, a land planner with the National Association of Home Builders, said critics of teardowns have it backward.

“We perceive teardown housing as part of the overall smart-growth strategy to direct development to the inner cities and to areas that already have infrastructure and public transportation,” Tombari said.

This urban trend is intensifying across the country, said Robert Lang, head of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.

“Commutes are so long people are wanting places closer in,” he said. “ ‘I want a McMansion, but not out in McMansionville.’ ”

In the University Hills neighborhood, Drew Damiano bought a 3,394-square foot house for precisely that reason.

“It was a waste of an hour of my day that I could spend time with my kids,” said Damiano, who moved closer to downtown from its exurbia suburbs to the south.

Two years ago, Beverly Hills began imposing limits. The City Council said “mansionization” was a serious threat to the “character, image, beauty and reputation” of Beverly Hills, and the city developed a manual of proposed housing designs.

Lang said neighborhoods have several ways to control the spread of McMansions, but they need to build a consensus, propose reasonable alternatives, and accept that some buildings should be replaced.

“Cities should be a little flexible,” he said.

Tombari concedes a big new house next to an old structure is going to look out of place. Special neighborhoods have a right to preserve their character, but activists are hijacking the move to stop all development, he said.

“There is an anti-construction element out there,” he said.

Bill Arhold, also of the University Hill neighborhood, did much of the work expanding his home to 1,750 square feet from 1,100.

“Still, I understand why seniors feel comfortable in homes they have lived in for most of their lives,” he said. “Then someone comes along and builds a two-story next to them, blocking the sun, raising their winter heating bills and killing their gardens.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16177969/
__________________
Neoconservatives are people too
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 9:46 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Y GWIR ERBYN Y BYD
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago & South Bend
Posts: 14,813
If there is one thing I can't stand, it's when stubborn and snobby suburbanites move to the city for some reason or another, and refuse to change their lifestyle to fit their surroundings at all.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 10:03 PM
LSyd's Avatar
LSyd LSyd is offline
Red October standing by
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 16,175
next to my apartment tower in Birmingham there used to be a Catholic high school, which became a big empty lot for a few years. then a little cul de sac was built there, with about a dozen nice looking houses that fit into the neighborhood's character (and different designs from each other, too.) the only bad part was that they were set back farther from the main street by elevated dirt and a fugly retaining wall above the nice old stone retaining wall. it's still a lot better than a big dirt lot.

-
__________________
"The vapors! The fainting couch! Those heartless elitists are burning down the plantation with their logic and arithmetic!"

-fflint
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 10:16 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Liver & Onions
Posts: 18,550
McAssholemanship, once again.
__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld
Didn't you notice on the plane when you started talking, eventually I started reading the vomit bag?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 10:27 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 9,804
I do have reservations about some of the "scrape-offs", but the article is also a little misleading. The biggest critics of these projects are NIMBY's who don't want to see their neighborhoods change one iota. They complain about rehab's of existing homes that expand them and also when older homes are scrapped off. These are also the individuals who complain about tower projects because it will ruin their views of the mountains.

Neighborhoods are not meant to be static objects as these individuals want, and the sooner these old NIMBY's die off the better.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 10:56 PM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
Born Loser
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Backwoods
Posts: 28,120
Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfuckin' McMansions in this motherfuckin' city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 11:06 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,876
that's not fair.

mcmansions wanna live in the city too; wear big glasses, ride mass transit and hang out with chicago103.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Dec 15, 2006, 11:21 PM
xzmattzx's Avatar
xzmattzx xzmattzx is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 3,704
So what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 1:39 AM
EtherealMist's Avatar
EtherealMist EtherealMist is offline
Cold Bottles of Becks
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boston / Northern NJ
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
I do have reservations about some of the "scrape-offs", but the article is also a little misleading. The biggest critics of these projects are NIMBY's who don't want to see their neighborhoods change one iota. They complain about rehab's of existing homes that expand them and also when older homes are scrapped off. These are also the individuals who complain about tower projects because it will ruin their views of the mountains.

Neighborhoods are not meant to be static objects as these individuals want, and the sooner these old NIMBY's die off the better.
good point, cities are always changing and so are neighborhoods. Neighborhoods go through times of decay and times of growth.

It can be hard to define NIMBYism at times (it isn't always about going against big developments ) but I think your right in that NIMBYs are people who simply dont like change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 3:41 AM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Y GWIR ERBYN Y BYD
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago & South Bend
Posts: 14,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by EtherealMist View Post
good point, cities are always changing and so are neighborhoods. Neighborhoods go through times of decay and times of growth.

It can be hard to define NIMBYism at times (it isn't always about going against big developments ) but I think your right in that NIMBYs are people who simply dont like change.

I am no NIMBY, and I usually support change if it is for the greater good...but bulldozing existing and established neighborhoods so there is enough room to build a bunch of gaudy stucco mcmansion's surrounded by iron gates is not something I can support.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 3:51 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 42nd Ward
Posts: 6,374
A similar phenomenon is happening in many neighborhoods in Chicago now, particularly the close-in trendy 'hoods of Lincoln Park and West Town (including Wicker Park, Bucktown, Ukrainian Village). A cool 1880s or 1890s vintage 2-flat or 3-flat, either an italianate brick or perhaps a wood-frame frame cottage is razed and replaced with what I call a McStatelyTownehome; the same 3 or 4 "olde tyme-style" designs are popping up all over these trendy neighborhoods, there are probably now hundreds, if not thousands of these fugly 5+ bathroom, 5000 square foot behemoth mansions where there was formerly a quaint 2-flat or 3-flat (mind you these cottages can be renovated to be quite luxurious apartments or single family homes). The worst is when they pay off the alderman to allow for a curb cut for a street-facing below-grade garage: lose the street parking, the street aesthetic contuinty, and get a nice slanted curb cut (lovely for the handicapped and loads of fun when icy!). The main saving grace of these McStatelies is that they typically conform to the narrow 25' Chicago lot, so reasonable density is maintained.

It's interesting, because the inner belt of neighborhoods immediately outside the highrise/downtown belt are all becoming so nice and luxurious that they are fairly low-density while the next rung of neighborhoods is very high density (like Lakeview, for example)

example, thankfully no curb cuts here:


The type of stuff it replaces:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 3:52 AM
crisp444's Avatar
crisp444 crisp444 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brooklyn Heights, NY via Madrid, Boston, & Miami
Posts: 924
As if most of these small homes being bulldozed are architecturely noteworthy? And why are we assuming that the larger homes (what you all term "McMansions") are more tacky than the 1000 square foot boxes that are probably equally soulless? I'd rather have people move into the city, tear down outdated and small homes and replace them with very large homes than move to the fringe of the countryside and destroy wetlands, forests, and wildlife habitat in order to build sprawl. Some of these "stucco minimansions" that I have seen as infill have much better architecture, better attention to detail, more expensive and attractive finishes, and better landscaping than some of these old houses built en masse to house city workers. If the district in question is not a legitimately recognized historic district, then I say build, build, build!

Last edited by crisp444; Dec 16, 2006 at 4:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 4:45 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 42nd Ward
Posts: 6,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
As if most of these small homes being bulldozed are architecturely noteworthy? And why are we assuming that the larger homes (what you all term "McMansions") are more tacky than the 1000 square foot boxes that are probably equally soulless? I'd rather have people move into the city, tear down outdated and small homes and replace them with very large homes than move to the fringe of the countryside and destroy wetlands, forests, and wildlife habitat in order to build sprawl. Some of these "stucco minimansions" that I have seen as infill have much better architecture, better attention to detail, more expensive and attractive finishes, and better landscaping than some of these old houses built en masse to house city workers. If the district in question is not a legitimately recognized historic district, then I say build, build, build!
I tend to agree; I mean, the re- development often increases the city's tax revenue and therefore its ability to provide service, money that would otherwise be going to a suburb. But there are cases (as in Chicago, I feel) where it amounts to somewhat wanton destruction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 6:36 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 28,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmancuso View Post
that's not fair.

mcmansions wanna live in the city too; wear big glasses, ride mass transit and hang out with chicago103.


But, you forgot to add "hang out with Chicago103 and wax poetic about the pre-Applebee's America."
__________________
Where The Trees Are The Right Height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 6:46 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
Born Loser
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Backwoods
Posts: 28,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post


But, you forgot to add "hang out with Chicago103 and wax poetic about the pre-Applebee's America."
I thought it was "wax poetic about pre-1950s America" when everyone lived in tenament apartments or whatever?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 9:25 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 28,642
Pre-Applebees are pre-1950's, take you pick.

I'm sort of the opinion that there are far worse problems a city could face, and that there is room enough in most American cities for all types of housing options. I do frown upon McMansions moving in on established neighborhoods, though, especially after considering what I said about their being room enough in most American cities for all types of housing. I guess it all depends on the particular case, but I think if you're city is having a problem, this is one of the better ones you have. At least you're getting development. It kind of reminds me about the criticism of ugly vinly-sided townhome infill projects. Sure I'd like to see better use of the land and better design, but I'll take them over an empty lot. I'd love for my city to have a problem like this, as opposed to me having to worry about this city sinking further in a hole and wondering when we're going to stem this population loss and tax base erosion. One must put these things in context, though, it's definitely a healthy debate to have amongst other growing cities.
__________________
Where The Trees Are The Right Height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 5:12 PM
AZchristopher AZchristopher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 125
Because it is so horrible to tear down an old rotting house and put in a larger one that brings an influx of money to the neighborhood. I feel most of the NIMBY problem has more to do with jealousy than anything else.

Arizona has what it calls historic neighborhoods. On most lots in these neighborhoods you can not just tear down a house and build over it. Do your states and cities not have these? Because all the tear downs I see that are rebuilt on are not the classical houses but of the rubbish in between that has been rundown because of neglect from either the landlords or previous state funded occupants.

Now if your community is tearing down row houses like the example above then someone in the community needs to step in and make zone changes. Thats just ridiculous. But I have a hard time complaining about ranch houses that were the first suburban push being turn down for larger structures.
__________________
www.azchristopher.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 5:23 PM
Raraavis's Avatar
Raraavis Raraavis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Omaha
Posts: 1,596
If they are built on existing lots than I don't see the problem. I think we would all be against bulldozing urban neighborhoods so it could be subdivided into acreages. We are richer today than we were 60 years ago and we want more square footage to live in. I think this is definitely the future as the exburbs get farther and farther away. Those with the resources to move back to the city will do so.
__________________
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

-Galileo Galilei
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 6:02 PM
beesbees beesbees is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 44
If we hung onto old houses, we'd still be living in mud roundhouses. True some of these older buildings look beautiful... but what was there before?

In old neighbourhoods it's possible that it is the 2nd or 3rd building on that site.

In areas of decline, where people have moved from the cities to the suburbs, leaving disused buildings behind, people still try to protect them.

A classic example of this bizzareness happened near here. In Brentford high street there's a really old disused pre-1900 house. But it's listed, and people complained when they suggested tearing it down. But it looks like this:



Is it really worth saving it? I suppose it prevents development like the recent Heron View, but I feel that's actually quite a negative step.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Dec 16, 2006, 7:34 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Y GWIR ERBYN Y BYD
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago & South Bend
Posts: 14,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by beesbees View Post
If we hung onto old houses, we'd still be living in mud roundhouses. True some of these older buildings look beautiful... but what was there before?[/img]

So you are saying that all change is worth accepting, and that all change is always for the better? I completely disagree. Accepting change and accepting progression are not always the same thing.

The Hummer is a rather new concept, and a change from past modes of private transportation, but I do not accept it as a progression, but rather, a regression. That, however, doesn't mean that I think everyone should be riding around in a horse and buggy.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.