I'm loving it

November 28, 2005 2:01 AM

Mansions fit for a commoner "... moving into a bigger house was not something to be questioned, but something to be accepted, an axiom of American life."
posted by knave (86 comments total)

Bigger is better....
posted by rhymer at 2:13 AM on November 28, 2005

And no use of the word McMansions.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:39 AM on November 28, 2005

More space to hide the bodies.
posted by spinoza at 2:52 AM on November 28, 2005

This, too, shall pass. These neighborhoods with the whopping great big houses on postage-stamp lots will make interesting slums when they deteriorate.
posted by jfuller at 3:04 AM on November 28, 2005

Nothing new here at Metafilter but I thank you for the link anyway, as my days of reading the Post have passed for the moment. I had spent the last two years west of DC and am always amazed at the changes afoot and like to keep tabs on the real estate mood.

Something new (at least from my recollection) in this article though -- the idea that homes of this size are now an "investment" (third paragragh). I can't imagine that will make for anything but trouble in the future.
posted by Dick Paris at 3:06 AM on November 28, 2005

jfuller, yes interesting slums they might turn out to be. Houses razed on lots bought up by junk-yards, car repair shops, and the occasional drug dealerships posing as a lumber warehouses
posted by gregb1007 at 3:16 AM on November 28, 2005

As long as they aren't driving SUV's, I don't see the harm in it.
posted by reidfleming at 3:42 AM on November 28, 2005

..."we figured we'd make this home in keeping with where our country's going."

And, pray tell, where's that? To Hell in a handbasket?

It's called "greed", by the way.
posted by darkstar at 3:54 AM on November 28, 2005

these people make me want to puke.
posted by tarantula at 4:12 AM on November 28, 2005

What kind of "normal person" affords a $2M-$4M house? The average American makes something like $35,000 a year; their grandkids would still be paying the mortgage. Someone's definition of "normal" is busted.
posted by graymouser at 4:12 AM on November 28, 2005

Clearly anyone earning under $100,000 is not normal.

Let them eat Big Macs.
posted by spinoza at 4:31 AM on November 28, 2005

My vision was to have a big house, drive a big car. . . . I don't know where I got it from -- probably TV. I guess that's where I got it. Maybe 'Dallas.'

...

These people seem to have only a very loose and vague conception of what they want, yet they're on the receiving end of an avalanche of luxury.
posted by Drexen at 4:31 AM on November 28, 2005

I'm not sure what it is. The US, generally, isn't especially expenisve in real estate terms. It does have lot of space and relatively lax planning controls. But these alone aren't enough: nowhere else in the world do normal people feel the need (or desire) to build houses that would make Russian mobsters blush. I think it's a combination of the wish to celebrate success (sometimes laudable) and widespread preference for "more" over "better quality" (less laudable).
posted by rhymer at 4:37 AM on November 28, 2005

The house is only valuable if you can find someone who wants to buy it from you, otherwise it is tossing money to the wind and is a bad investment. I personally see it as a bad investment because the number of people who want this type of lifestyle, let alone afford it is fairly limited.

Considering that, the number of people who can afford to heat this home is limiting as well. So toss in the extras like furniture, security system, etc etc. and were onto a tidy some of money. Get up on Monday because you have to go pay for all of this. Ha ha ha ha.

I don't see this as greed. I see it as stupidity. They are reaching into the next level with their income while risking their future retirement/investment capital. I believe it is a large risk to think the monster homes are anywhere near sellable in the future - they are stuck with a boat anchor. Part of me also wishes it's true because the resources and footprints of these homes disgusts me.

If you have a crystal ball and can tell America will be energy independent and debt free in 10-15 years let alone 30 years from now, great! Time to start buying monolithic proportioned homes.
posted by fluffycreature at 4:50 AM on November 28, 2005

Another reason these houses are terrible investments: why would anyone who could afford even an $2 million house buy a used one (other than a very old, historical building)? If I were about to drop that amount on a house (and I really hope I wouldn't), you can be sure that it would be one I'd had designed and built exactly the way I wanted it.
posted by leapingsheep at 4:58 AM on November 28, 2005

they'll make wonderful houses for communes ... and if heating oil gets too expensive, they can always burn a couple of rooms to keep warm ... even some of the more truly normal homes that are being built today are being occupied by people who don't have enough stuff to actually put in there
posted by pyramid termite at 5:44 AM on November 28, 2005

leapingsheep : If I were about to drop that amount on a house (and I really hope I wouldn't), you can be sure that it would be one I'd had designed and built exactly the way I wanted it.

This seems to me an eminently sensible and practical viewpoint, but anecdotal evidence suggests that, whether choosing a "used" house or building a new one, most people sublimate their own needs and wants in a home in favor of what they think other people will want, in the name of the almighty resale value dollar.

This point, and the concomitant point that more, is not necessarily the same as better, especially in a house/home, was made in trenchant fashion by Sarah Susanka in her wonderful book The Not So Big House.

My wife and I were lucky enough to stumble across this book at just the right time in our quest to build our own "home for life" (i.e. where we planned to raise a family and live for the foreseeable future). We ended up with a larger house than either we had originally intended (the land we purchased came with a deed of covenant that specified a minimum square footage for any home built on it, apparently in the interest of maintaining our neighbors' property values - clearly written by someone who didn't get the not-so-big-house memo) or than falls into Susanka's definition of a "not-so-big" house, but nonetheless we did appropriate a lot of the thinking and followed a lot of her ideas and suggestions.

Her basic points are that if "bigger" always meant "more luxurious", then tycoons would surely travel around not in luxury cars but luxurious buses or 18-wheelers, that we, on the whole, tend to design and build houses for a way of life that ended a century ago, that craftsmanship and thoughtful attention to detail will ultimately bring greater happiness and enjoyment of a house than sheer size, and that, if we're going to build or choose a house to live in, we jolly well ought to choose the features we want, not what we think some hypothetical other person might want.
posted by kcds at 5:47 AM on November 28, 2005

FTA: [The house] is off a winding two-lane road where half-filled balloons are tied to "Pre-construction pricing!" and "Open House!" signs. Driving around, it feels like a party that is either coming, or going.

Going, going, gone. Thanks for the link. Suitably disturbing.
posted by voltairemodern at 6:10 AM on November 28, 2005

There's compounds of these dotted around Boulder, and they're mainly kind of ugly and stacked close together. I'm with leapingsheep and kcds - build a smaller, nicer house.
posted by carter at 6:14 AM on November 28, 2005

"'If I were about to drop that amount on a house (and I really hope I wouldn't), you can be sure that it would be one I'd had designed and built exactly the way I wanted it'.

This seems to me an eminently sensible and practical viewpoint, but anecdotal evidence suggests that, whether choosing a "used" house or building a new one, most people sublimate their own needs and wants in a home in favor of what they think other people will want, in the name of the almighty resale value dollar."

That's an excellent point that bears repeating. In order for a piece of real estate to be an investment, it has to be of a certain inoffensive cookie-cutter style. Design your own by catering specifically to your own taste and you risk turning off potential buyers (see Homer Simpson's car "The Homer" for an extreme example) and thus nullifying the point of an investment, which is of course to increase in value. Sadly, this is usually at the expense of style, because when everyone else is buying real estate for the same reason everything ends up looking exactly the same.

Of course, if I were in a market where my house was appreciating in value 25-50% a year, I'd be tempted to do the same thing in the hope of riding it long enough to pile up enough equity to actually build my dream home (in which I'm sure nobody else would ever be interested).
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:37 AM on November 28, 2005

kcds, that Not-So-Big House link is pretty interesting. It sounds like it fits with my own views on homes. I'll be looking out for the book.

Thanks for the tip!
posted by darkstar at 6:42 AM on November 28, 2005

Oh, and my dream home design is less than 2000 square feet. But it has a secret passageway, a jacuzzi, a formal dining room and a wine cellar, among other cool things.

Some day...
posted by darkstar at 6:48 AM on November 28, 2005

nowhere else in the world do normal people feel the need (or desire) to build houses that would make Russian mobsters blush.

Well, there's nothing in it about normal people except the Post's assertion, and there wouldn't really be much of a story if they had to write "Newly rich people build big houses with the windfall," which seems to be what the story is about.

Also, hey, I've seen Country Life, and there's crap in Spain in most issues that would provoke the same reaction in mafiosi of any nationality. And I suspect the sorts of people building these homes are the same sorts of people who buy stuff in CL.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:51 AM on November 28, 2005

"Mommy!" said a small voice from somewhere.
posted by washburn at 6:58 AM on November 28, 2005

remember this?
(at least, I think I saw it here first...)
posted by bashos_frog at 7:46 AM on November 28, 2005

"Specifically, I'm weird, but I'm supersensitive to the kids getting snatched. Like at Chuck E. Cheese, I have to constantly watch them."

What a strange country we live in...
posted by wfrgms at 7:56 AM on November 28, 2005

Here is another thought:
Those home make over shows on tv. For example a small house owned by the parents of a crippled child is totally redone with new everything and the new home is twice if not three times larger than the original. How do the recipients of this new monster home afford it? They have an increase in their utility bills, tax bills, upkeep et-cetera.
posted by robbyrobs at 7:57 AM on November 28, 2005

The house I grew up in is one house away from the beach in Southern California. It was a great place to grow up and a wonderful place to go back to, when I visit. It is also a "tear down," situated between these monstrous McVillas that push the 30' height limit and cover every square inch of land that they legally can.

There are two cultures. . the rich people in their big houses and the long time residents in their cozy, well kept "tear downs." No one from one group every talks to anyone from the other. I truly cannot understand what would make a couple with one or no kids build and live in a place like that.

In spite of myself, I sometimes long for the day when Charlie gets out and gets the old gang back together.
posted by Danf at 8:05 AM on November 28, 2005

robbyrobs:
Variety did a story earlier this year on that exact question.
posted by raedyn at 8:11 AM on November 28, 2005

The economics behind the huge houses in the $2 million + range are usually pretty solid. They're typically well-constructed big homes, on big lots, being bought by people with the means to maintain them. I expect we'll see a correction of less than 5% in that market, maybe 10% at worse.

The next tier down is a whole 'nother story. Basically upper middle class people stretched to the limit, buying homes of pretty questionable aesthetics (vinyl-sided Disney Princess fugues spaced 12 feet apart with those tiny back yards).

Prices are already down 5%-10% from their summer 2005 highs in a lot of the Mini Mansion developments in the North East, and they might have a LOT further to fall.

Given the rise in short term interest rates (lots of variable rate mortgages) and high heating costs (those houses aren't particularly well built, and the 25 foot great room celings suck up the BTUs) the carrying costs are going to push people to the wall.
posted by MattD at 8:15 AM on November 28, 2005

This word, "investment," I do not think it means what they think it means.
posted by odinsdream at 8:23 AM on November 28, 2005

I don't want huge, I just want a bigger space so that my family isn't trampling over each other. And a mudroom and a laundry room and a hot chicks room. I figure I should be good with a 2500 square foot house, maybe 3000 on the outside. But there's no way I could see building a 15,000 square foot house unless I had to several indoor basketball, tennis and volleyball courts. And maybe an indoor aerodrome.

Some of these houses are pretty truly ridiculous though. I'd rather have a smaller house in a nicer place to live than a small city under one roof in Bumjack, Arkansas.
posted by fenriq at 8:28 AM on November 28, 2005

I really think that these kind of houses and paranoia about what your kids are up to go hand in hand. I was a reasonably good kid when I lived at home for a lot of reasons, but a big one was that in our tiny house (I think it's around 1500 sq. ft.) there was no way to be bad. I had privacy, but not enough to really hide. We only got up to mischief when we visited out friends whose parents could be in the house and yet have no idea who else was there.

I would never live in a big house. Then again, my first house is going to be a 432 sq. ft. studio . . .
posted by dame at 8:37 AM on November 28, 2005

McMansion.. aka Beltway Baronial, Starter Castle, Tract Mansions, Faux Chateau.. and now the "Mini-Taj Mahal".
posted by stbalbach at 8:43 AM on November 28, 2005

"We enjoy it more when the kids come here and play. Specifically, I'm weird, but I'm supersensitive to the kids getting snatched. Like at Chuck E. Cheese, I have to constantly watch them."

What a weird sentance.

And these McMansions suck.
posted by delmoi at 8:46 AM on November 28, 2005

If I had $2-$4 million to invest in a house I'd dig a huge, two-story basement and then a small, reasonable house on top of it, along with a back-yard. The basement would actually be underneath the yard.

And of course everything would be all modern looking, and so-fourth
posted by delmoi at 9:02 AM on November 28, 2005

These neighborhoods with the whopping great big houses on postage-stamp lots will make interesting slums when they deteriorate.

Downside is most of this construction is situated so far down on the quantity/quality curve that it won't stand being subdivided or turned into tenements. Hell, most of it would start falling apart if subjected to the average renter.

Upside is that construction quality, as well as a complete lack of aesthetics that might invite calls for historical preservation, will make tearing it all down a simple matter of stretching a chain between two suitably large trucks. Double-plus: the ludicrous pavement width required by local ordinance in most of these places makes it a snap to get the suitably large trucks in position.

(Full disclosure: 2000 sf, 3 story, ca. 1935, built in the words of the home inspector "like a brick you-know-what". Once we finish reversing the atrocities of style committed on the third floor in the 1960's, it'll be _way_ more house than we need, sized so we never have to move again.)

on preview - delmoi, I think there are some abandoned missile silos on the market you might find interesting...
posted by Vetinari at 9:05 AM on November 28, 2005

How perfectly vomitous. I grew up in those things, my parents buying ever bigger-and-bigger houses (we've moved a lot), and my favorite childhood home is one of the smaller ones, not the golf-course dining room monstrosities we lived in later. There was no need for those giant bedrooms--it just got covered with toys and shit and even when I kept it clean the blank carpet space was never used for anything.

The quotes from the owners of these houses are terrifying.

Give me tiny houses any day. They are so wee and cozy!
posted by schroedinger at 9:10 AM on November 28, 2005

I was visiting my aunt's house in Oakville (outside Toronto). It wasn't a monster home, but it was an affluent executive home in new development with a forested creek running behind everyone's yard. One of those places with a foyer with a spiral staircase, rooms off the garage that had no purpose, a bathroom for every bedroom and doors that felt like they were made of balsa wood. I remember looking out a window and right into the window of the neighbours, which was all of four feet away. And there I could see, in the dining room of their also expensive home, lawn furniture. My aunt told me the neighbours had been living there for at least a year.

Meanwhile, no one builds decent modest accomodation that's not part of a townhouse development or condos, anything that's the equivalent of a Honda Civic. There are these, but I first saw the article on them fifteen years ago, and I've never seen similar developments being built anywhere. Just giant homes for two people so isolated from any services that they require a car (or an SUV) to go get a bag of milk.
posted by TimTypeZed at 9:11 AM on November 28, 2005

most people sublimate their own needs and wants in a home in favor of what they think other people will want, in the name of the almighty resale value dollar.

I think it depends on what you're looking for out of the whole business.

If you are planning on staying in city X for somewhere around five years, it would make the most sense to buy a house that a buyer five years down the road would like, and which suits your needs reasonably well.

If you're looking at buying your thirty year house to settle down and raise the kids, retire and be empty-nesters, then it really doesn't matter very much what anyone else thinks of the place. It's not like you can predict this on a thirty year timeframe anyway.

I admit that I really don't get these 5000+ sq ft palaces though - if you have the money to spare, get some mutual funds or other investments. If you don't have the money to spare, then what the hell are you doing?
posted by theorique at 9:14 AM on November 28, 2005

That's right, TimTypeZed said bag of milk
posted by smcniven at 9:16 AM on November 28, 2005

Yeah. So not happening in LA.
posted by linux at 9:23 AM on November 28, 2005

My wife and I have a floor plan for our dream house. It's about 2800 sq feet, with most everything on one floor. No worthless rooms, no showoff staircases. We both grew up in modest houses on what are now considered huge lots. We'd probably have to buy two lots now to get that kind of space. Or build in a rural area. It sickens me.
posted by Ber at 9:49 AM on November 28, 2005

The one that really got me was the couple that spent all their time in the home office. Shouldn't they be spending their money buying time, in the form of employees to delegate their workload on, rather than unused real estate?

As long as they aren't driving SUV's, I don't see the harm in it.

Think of the natural gas they're using heating those monstrosities.
posted by Aknaton at 10:00 AM on November 28, 2005

If I had $2-$4 million to invest in a house I'd dig a huge, two-story basement and then a small, reasonable house on top of it, along with a back-yard. The basement would actually be underneath the yard.

Have I got a deal for you!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:07 AM on November 28, 2005

In a different trend I've noticed a revival of interest in older urban homes. Houses built before World War II and have a dignity and feeling of permanence that don't exist in newer developments. I think the home improvement/DIY movement is making many people less afraid to own older homes, if one can judge by the large number of 'Old House', etc. magazines showing up.

A lot of Americans are afraid to live in the city. They like having a large yard for the kids and worry about school quality. But with fuel costs rising more people may reconsider the cost of a long commute and oversized heating bills. I think about the acres and acres of Hummers sitting in California and I wonder if there will be neighborhoods full of crumbling McMansions sitting at the edges of most cities.

Most of my suburban relatives worry about me in my little urban house. I think they have an inflated view of urban violence from the news or think of city people as less willing to take care of their houses. But I love older houses and my neighborhood. Sure they can be short on closet space, but the wood paneling, tin ceilings and extra details are so much more special. Plus, there are shorter commutes, public transportation, and (if one is lucky) a short walk to the movie theater. I even live near a great (public!) school.

I'm pulling for a revival of city cores and we're seeing it in a lot of places around the country. I do worry a bit about moving to another city and being priced out of the lifestyle I love.
posted by Alison at 10:40 AM on November 28, 2005

Those missle bases are wonderful, ROU_Xenophobe. What a boy's fantasy -- a fortress of solitude, part Star Trek, part Hugh Hefner.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:03 AM on November 28, 2005

This was one of the subjects of "60 Minutes" last night. A woman was asked how many bathrooms she had in her new monster home and she had a rough time remembering.
posted by Wylie Kyoto at 11:03 AM on November 28, 2005

Ugh.. some people simply shouldn't have money, if this is what they do with it. "Give a beggar a horse and he will drive himself straight to Hell."
posted by TricksterGoddess at 11:08 AM on November 28, 2005

In the "60 Minutes" episode mentioned by QuietDesperation, the woman's answer to the "How many bathrooms?" question was: seven. (For her 3-person, 1-dog family IIRC)
posted by jaronson at 11:18 AM on November 28, 2005

Great link, ROU_Xenophobe. Too bad these bases are out in the middle of nowhere.

I'd love to have a tiny little (above surface) house in the middle of downtown (there are a few in Vancouver) with a ginormous multi-level basement (sunlight doesn't do a lot for me).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:48 AM on November 28, 2005

In the "60 Minutes" episode mentioned by QuietDesperation, the woman's answer to the "How many bathrooms?" question was: seven. (For her 3-person, 1-dog family IIRC)

Well, to go offtopic a little, there seems to be a lot more desire for bathrooms nowadays. I live in a small rowhouse built in the 1880s, and it has three bathrooms, two with showers and bathtubs. The previous owner carved off part of the already-small kitchen and made it into an (unnecessary) bathroom.

A lot of Americans are afraid to live in the city. They like having a large yard for the kids and worry about school quality. But with fuel costs rising more people may reconsider the cost of a long commute and oversized heating bills.

We bought our house from a family about to have their second child, which was why they were moving out of the city. I don't think it's just about having a large yard - more like having something other than the front sidewalk for your kids. I love my house, but I'm not sure I'd want to live there if I had kids, either.

Ugh.. some people simply shouldn't have money, if this is what they do with it.

Whatever happened to "to each his own?"
posted by me & my monkey at 11:52 AM on November 28, 2005

Whatever happened to "to each his own?"

This is true, but from the sound of the article it seems that a lot of people are buying into a lifestyle that may not be what they really want. A lot of people in the article seem to think that it is important to have a house that fits their dreams, the "big house". While there is pride in owning the biggest house around it also ends up being more than what most 2-3 child families need. It seems like a lot of people are isolating themselves from their neighbors and their communities and too scared to take the kids to Chuck E. Cheese. Even families are isolated from each other in different wings and on different floors.

Personally, suburbia is not for me. I hated the isolation as a teenager. My friends lived too far away to see without driving. I had to beg my parents for rides to anywhere. The nearest store was a long bike ride away. But even this is different than the low-quality mega-houses that are becoming more prominent on the suburban landscape. There is the typical suburban home with a large backyard, and then there are houses with backyard-sized dining rooms.

Everyone is entitled to seek out what makes themselves happy, but we are also entitled to think that rooms used exclusively for finger painting are wastes of space and resources.
posted by Alison at 12:24 PM on November 28, 2005

Most of my suburban relatives worry about me in my little urban house. I think they have an inflated view of urban violence

and a deflated view of car accidents. I saw some statistics about deaths of children in three spots, one total suburbia, one American inner city, one Israeli city with lots of suicide bombers. The winner: suburbia, because of all the car accidents. Sorry I'm too lame to hunt down a link at the moment, but this is a derail anyway I guess.
posted by Aknaton at 12:28 PM on November 28, 2005

This is true, but from the sound of the article it seems that a lot of people are buying into a lifestyle that may not be what they really want. A lot of people in the article seem to think that it is important to have a house that fits their dreams, the "big house". While there is pride in owning the biggest house around it also ends up being more than what most 2-3 child families need.

I think it's presumptuous to think we know what other people really want, better than they do themselves. I agree that they certainly don't need these big houses, but people often want things they don't need.

Everyone is entitled to seek out what makes themselves happy, but we are also entitled to think that rooms used exclusively for finger painting are wastes of space and resources.

It seems to me that there's just such a huge puritanical streak here in this thread, and on this site in general. Links about people being too fat, or driving SUVs, or buying big houses, are always popular here, and everyone likes to get in their two cents about how wasteful this all is. And, generally, I agree - I'm not pro-fat, or pro-SUV, or pro-big-house. But I don't think that the difference in consumption between these extremes and that of the average poster here is as great as we'd like it to be.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:55 PM on November 28, 2005

me & my monkey: Doesn't the article quote them (or some of the buyers) as saying that they bought these house without really knowing what they wanted out of a house? Their "preferences," such as they are, are shaped entirely by peer pressure and advertising. So who's being presumptuous? What alternatives have been presented to them?
posted by raysmj at 2:44 PM on November 28, 2005

Doesn't the article quote them (or some of the buyers) as saying that they bought these house without really knowing what they wanted out of a house? Their "preferences," such as they are, are shaped entirely by peer pressure and advertising. So who's being presumptuous? What alternatives have been presented to them?

They have the same alternatives as everyone else, don't they? They can choose to resist peer pressure and advertising. They can choose not to resist. And either way, it's their choice to make. They're expressing what they want. Why does it matter to you why they want it? I think that almost all first-time home buyers don't really know what they want out of a house, anyway.

As for who's being presumptuous, it's the same people as before - those who think they know better what would make other people happy.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:30 PM on November 28, 2005

If I had $2-$4 million to invest in a house...

and I had to actually spend it on my housing, I'd buy some small homes in different places, maybe a city home and a country home near each other and my job, so I could live in either or both, depending on circumstances, plus a vacation home or two somewhere else (at least one on a different continent). Then I'd rent what I wasn't using.
posted by pracowity at 3:34 PM on November 28, 2005

> Ugh.. some people simply shouldn't have money, if this is what they do with it.

Like Hummers, these houses have the ability to drive Metafilter's likably lefty denizens up the banana tree. Hence they, like Hummers, are not utterly without merit.
posted by jfuller at 3:35 PM on November 28, 2005

I was always confused about the size of master bedrooms. It's not being puritanical, I can understand wanting a big house. But why such a huge master bedroom? Some of them are as big as the living room. All you are going to do is sleep and get dressed in it - and you could have another room. My husband is using our bedroom (12'x12') as his fulltime office right now - what I wouldn't give for a wall between his stuff and our bed.

And why are kitchens so small? Always, huge bedrooms, but then small kitchens. The priorities are all backwards!

My dream house is going to have a kitchen twice the size fo the living room, with an island and full kitchen table. No dining room, that's not used enough. We'd make it into an office. And all the communal rooms will have doors you can shut, so one person can watch tv or listen to the radio without disturbing another.
posted by jb at 4:08 PM on November 28, 2005

Okay, all those huge houses, all those unused rooms, and I didn't see a single mention of having a library. (Correct me if I missed one please). That is the central room around which I would design my own dream house, one with countertops higher than normal (I am 6 ft tall), and showerheads mounted 7 feet high on the wall. And solid wood doors and completely flat walls (none of that textured crap that hides shitty drywall-hanging skills). Ah, the dream.

But here in reality - I don't know, these people sound sort of empty to me. They think of a big house as a status symbol or a reward for living well or something. And it ends up being more of a burden than a regular-sized house, in the end. But hey, this is the American way, eh?

Me, I wonder what the people hired to clean these places think of them.
posted by beth at 4:31 PM on November 28, 2005

I dig that people have their own priorities. But is the word "greed" no longer a word with any merit?

It used to refer to people who wanted more material possessions than they really needed. Folks who always wanted bigger and more, even when it was outrageously beyond any semblance of reasonable need. That sounds like the folks in this article.

Rooms that are completely unused? That's kind of a red flag to me.

Sure, it's their money to waste spend however they want. But is greed another concept that postmodernity killed? How sad. All those good concepts been dropping like flies, lately.

(Disclosure: my pad = 1550 sqft.)
posted by darkstar at 4:48 PM on November 28, 2005

Can somebody tell me, are there mandatory energy efficiency standards applicable in US states? Are these mansions fully insulated, double glazed, passive solar designed? Are tehre water saving features, dual flush toilets and low flow shower heads? Or are they consumption beasts during their life as well as in construction?
posted by wilful at 4:56 PM on November 28, 2005

beth: one with countertops higher than normal (I am 6 ft tall), and showerheads mounted 7 feet high on the wall...

PREACH it, sister!

I can't tell you how many times I've cursed the diminutive designers that plan home interiors. I mean, when you cannot see yourself in the bathroom mirror without bowing like a penitent, there's something seriously messed up. And I'm only 6'2".

And don't even get me started on washing dishes for 20 minutes while standing in front of a sink that was evidently designed for 12-year olds.

The whole fixture-height-normalization-initiative (FHNI) is a major part of my dream home.

Oh, and I dig your central library idea, too!
posted by darkstar at 4:56 PM on November 28, 2005

beth, why do you want a library with seven-foot shower heads?

Can somebody tell me, are there mandatory energy efficiency standards applicable in US states?

I am not a building inspector, but until one comes along:

Yes, but most of it isn't federal. Water use tends to be, IIRC.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:10 PM on November 28, 2005

Whatever happened to "to each his own?"

Despite what your puny governments believe, the land belongs to all of us.

Interesting blog: Green home building
posted by mrgrimm at 6:06 PM on November 28, 2005

darkstar : Oh, and my dream home design is less than 2000 square feet. But it has a secret passageway, a jacuzzi, a formal dining room and a wine cellar, among other cool things

Boy, it sounds like you've already read the Not So Big House! One of the most gorgeous houses in Susanka's book is, if memory serves, a touch under 1,000 square feet. It's set into the side of a mountain, and is just unbelievable. Features a handmade redwood soaking tub with an incredible view.

theorique : I think it depends on what you're looking for out of the whole business.

I agree that there is undoubtedly a set of circumstances where choosing features based solely or even mostly on maximizing resellability makes the most sense, however, it's my feeling that this is simply the default assumption for far too many people.

Even in the case where you know you're going to move within, say, ten years, I think there's an argument to be made for designing or choosing a house with some "quirkiness" or "charm" or whatever you want to call it - something other than safe, bland, generic, cookie-cutter sameness. A home that offends no-one will truly delight no-one, either.

The funny thing is, if you look at real estate listings for houses, very often they feature phrases like "impressive two-story entrance" or "huge master bedroom" and the like. But if you ask people what adjectives they associate with the concept of home, you get answers like "comfortable", "welcoming", "cozy" and "warm". There's a disconnect somewhere.
posted by kcds at 6:46 PM on November 28, 2005

me & my monkey: You still didn't address the fact that the frickin' article has home owners quoted as saying they didn't know what they wanted in a house before buying one.

My take is that these people have a lot of money and, although certainly not forced to buy these homes, are doing so out of: ignorance (your kids might be kidnapped at Chuck E. Cheese. like the girl in Aruba or something, best to keep them at home, rather than having them develop confidence in dealing with the unfamiliar--most kids will be "snatched" by someone who knows the family), b) a housing business that doesn't make smaller or even mid-sized homes look quite as attractive and that really isn't pushing smaller homes hard; and c) a culture that is no longer frowning upon the worst sort of waste and outright greed.

And, by the way, I damn sure don't waste anything close to the amount of resources that these folks are. I'd bet you money on it. I'd prefer to use even less, but I have absolutely limited options in this area, given where I live, the stage of my career and my income. What would you have me do otherwise, live in a tent?
posted by raysmj at 6:53 PM on November 28, 2005

Funny that the Washington Post is just noticing McMansions. The New York Times thinks they're on the wane.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:00 PM on November 28, 2005

Despite what your puny governments believe, the land belongs to all of us.

Well then, I guess it's ok if I go ahead and take yours?

I dig that people have their own priorities. But is the word "greed" no longer a word with any merit?

Sure it is. But unless your greed is affecting me, what business is it of mine? We're not talking about robber barons here, just the upper middle class - if even that.

Rooms that are completely unused? That's kind of a red flag to me.

Really? Sounds like almost every household I remember as a child - there was always one unused room, typically the "living room," which was reserved for the company that never came over.

But a "red flag" - what does this mean? Your personal outrage meter is ticking? Again, what do you care whether someone's using all their rooms or not? Do you want people telling you how to live your life?
posted by me & my monkey at 7:02 PM on November 28, 2005

You still didn't address the fact that the frickin' article has home owners quoted as saying they didn't know what they wanted in a house before buying one.

Well, actually, in the frickin' article linked here, most of the people were very happy with their choices, for a variety of reasons. One person, Cindy Gray, said that she "didn't understand why things were getting so big."

But in any case, I answered your question here.

My take is that these people have a lot of money and, although certainly not forced to buy these homes, are doing so out of: ignorance ... b) a housing business that doesn't make smaller or even mid-sized homes look quite as attractive and that really isn't pushing smaller homes hard; and c) a culture that is no longer frowning upon the worst sort of waste and outright greed.

Maybe they just want a big goddamn house? So you don't. Good for you. I'm sure they could come up with a "take" on why you don't, that belittles your judgment.

And, by the way, I damn sure don't waste anything close to the amount of resources that these folks are. I'd bet you money on it. I'd prefer to use even less, but I have absolutely limited options in this area, given where I live, the stage of my career and my income.

Well, bully for you. Of course, you choose where you live and your career, just like they choose big houses. So your "absolutely limited options" is a bunch of BS. Sorry. Don't let me stop you from enjoying the view from your high horse.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:10 PM on November 28, 2005

me & my monkey: Yes, the options are limited in that: a) The city that serves me does not do recycling, b) I am employed full-time, but am on a temp assignment while applying for longer-term employment. Even once I get that next job, which I will, I would not put solar panels in a new home. I'd love to use them, but you'd have to be sure you're in a house for life before spending the extra thousands. I'd love to have a hybrid car, etc., but it's not viable option at the moment. So that's not a bunch of BS at all. You have to spend money to conserve, unfortunately, just as it costs more to eat healthier. Wasting is in many cases cheaper.

Meanwhile, another quote. Did this guy know what he wanted? (The article begins with a quote from another person calling a rarely-used room "kind of stupid." They only bought the house, almost surely out of ignorance, as an "investment.")

"We moved up . . .," Georgia Psihas said between answering the door and the phone, as if moving up were just one more item on a list of things she had to accomplish. "You know, bigger, better, best, but I don't know necessarily if bigger is better. I don't know if I enjoy it more. The only room I ever sit in is the office. Then I go to sleep in my bed. I don't even know what my bedroom looks like."
posted by raysmj at 7:31 PM on November 28, 2005

The "ignorance" comment is a fact in re to Chuck E. Cheese and kidnapping, etc. and not a sheer judgement call. The statistics and research bear it out: Your child is more likely to be kidnapped by someone he or she or the family knows, and is not safer at home than elsewhere.
posted by raysmj at 7:34 PM on November 28, 2005

It seems to me that there's just such a huge puritanical streak here in this thread, and on this site in general.

This is true. We do like flogging the consumption pony, but that is part of the character of this community.

While I don't think there should be a law against owning large homes, I don't think that the trend towards neighborhoods of large tract houses is a good thing. However, I believe in the system taking care of itself and that people will stop buying huge houses when they have a reason to stop. Large utility bills and reduced resalablity will probably reduce this trend. This is already happening according to Artifice_Eternity's link.
posted by Alison at 7:46 PM on November 28, 2005

It seems to me that there's just such a huge puritanical streak here in this thread, and on this site in general. .... But I don't think that the difference in consumption between these extremes and that of the average poster here is as great as we'd like it to be.

I have no idea what the average poster around here is (do you?) but I do know that that's not my life, or lifestyle as it's called now, because these things are in fact a fucking disgrace. People can do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, that's fine I'm live and let live, but these conspicuous consumption behemoths are destroying the planet, one mcmansion at a time. I don't want my children growing up in an ecological desert (and economic wasteland), so it is my moral responsibility to live more lightly and be conscious of my own impacts, and also to disapprove of this vacuous shit like megamansions that are entirely unnecessary and very wasteful.
posted by wilful at 8:33 PM on November 28, 2005

Yes, the options are limited in that: a) The city that serves me does not do recycling, b) I am employed full-time, but am on a temp assignment while applying for longer-term employment. Even once I get that next job, which I will, I would not put solar panels in a new home. I'd love to use them, but you'd have to be sure you're in a house for life before spending the extra thousands. I'd love to have a hybrid car, etc., but it's not viable option at the moment. So that's not a bunch of BS at all. You have to spend money to conserve, unfortunately, just as it costs more to eat healthier. Wasting is in many cases cheaper.

So, you can't move to another city, or get another job, or find housing near your job so you don't need a car.

Note that I didn't say you should do any or all of these things. I merely point out that these are your choices. You could certainly choose otherwise.

Did this guy know what he wanted? (The article begins with a quote from another person calling a rarely-used room "kind of stupid." They only bought the house, almost surely out of ignorance, as an "investment.")

Actually, I think "Georgia" is a woman. And while it may not be the best investment, it's probably not the worst either. It's certainly a better investment than other ostentatious spending, on say cars or fancy nights out or other things you might do to keep up with the Joneses. You're very quick to label it as "ignorance," since you disagree with it.

The "ignorance" comment is a fact in re to Chuck E. Cheese and kidnapping, etc. and not a sheer judgement call. The statistics and research bear it out: Your child is more likely to be kidnapped by someone he or she or the family knows, and is not safer at home than elsewhere.

Additional research bears this out: an anecdote from a news story is unlikely to be as representative of a large swath of people as you think it is.

This is true. We do like flogging the consumption pony, but that is part of the character of this community.

Yes, a nasty, unpleasant, and somewhat hypocritical part to be sure. There aren't too many members who are subsistence farmers, I suspect.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:41 PM on November 28, 2005

I have no idea what the average poster around here is (do you?) but I do know that that's not my life, or lifestyle as it's called now, because these things are in fact a fucking disgrace. People can do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, that's fine I'm live and let live, but these conspicuous consumption behemoths are destroying the planet, one mcmansion at a time. I don't want my children growing up in an ecological desert (and economic wasteland), so it is my moral responsibility to live more lightly and be conscious of my own impacts, and also to disapprove of this vacuous shit like megamansions that are entirely unnecessary and very wasteful.

I suspect that most members have at least one car, and that about one third own a house. I just pulled those numbers out of my ass, based on my vague knowledge of US demographics in general, a quick trip to census.gov, and a wild-ass guess about the makeup of this site. But in general, I suspect that the average member's standard of living is much closer to the McMansion owner than to the typical resident of the Third World.

If someone is willing to pay for what they "waste," why do you care? If you don't think they're paying the full freight for what they're wasting, shouldn't you direct your ire at hidden market costs? Where is the point at which you draw the line, when decrying this "vacuous shit?" Why shouldn't we draw the line lower, say around where you're at? Don't you do anything that others would consider wasteful?
posted by me & my monkey at 8:56 PM on November 28, 2005

So, you can't move to another city, or get another job, or find housing near your job so you don't need a car.

You're just being an asshole now, so never mind. No, I can't move. I'm under contract. And it costs way too money to move, regardless.
posted by raysmj at 8:57 PM on November 28, 2005

Additional research bears this out: an anecdote from a news story is unlikely to be as representative of a large swath of people as you think it is.

I didn't say that it was representative, actually.

And it's not that I just merely disagree with the idea that it's a good investment. The homes are generally not built well, as many people here have stated, accurately. Anyone who keeps up with business and investing news well enough would know that these aren't smart investments, regardless, given what's likely on the horizon (skyrocketing natural gas prices, among other things). And some luxury cars can appreciate in value. It depends on what you buy. A car costs considerably less anyhow, until you get into cars for the super-rich territory.

I'm actually not in favor of forcing these people to move into smaller homes. I'm in favor of telling people the other side of the story more, as regards these choices.

The move-to-another-city thing, meanwhile, is not worth a response. If I leave, the place still doesn't have options, and thousands of others do not, regardless of whether I'm under contract and could get sued if I leave.
posted by raysmj at 9:07 PM on November 28, 2005

You're just being an asshole now, so never mind. No, I can't move. I'm under contract. And it costs way too money to move, regardless.

Funny, you think I'm being an asshole; I suspect the people in the article would think you're an asshole. I guess it's just a matter of perspective. Are you trying to tell me that you didn't choose your circumstances? You didn't choose to be "under contract?" I don't know you from Adam, but it sounds to me like you've chained yourself to the same material crap that these people have done with their big, awful houses - it's just a matter of degree. No one put a gun to your head and said "sign this contract," did they?

I didn't say that it was representative, actually.

No. You said, to paraphrase, "here's several reasons why people buy these houses even though they really don't want to," and that was reason #1. So if you didn't mean it to be representative, I'm stumped why you'd bring it up at all.

And it's not that I just merely disagree with the idea that it's a good investment. The homes are generally not built well, as many people here have stated, accurately. Anyone who keeps up with business and investing news well enough would know that these aren't smart investments, regardless, given what's likely on the horizon (skyrocketing natural gas prices, among other things). And some luxury cars can appreciate in value. It depends on what you buy. A car costs considerably less anyhow, until you get into cars for the super-rich territory.

For those of us who can afford one car and one house, there's quite a bit of difference in their potential investment value. If you drive your car every day, it will not have any resale value. On the other hand, living in your house doesn't, by itself, diminish its resale value. So, for most of us living in the real world, a house is much more of an investment than a car, whether it's built well or not.

I'm actually not in favor of forcing these people to move into smaller homes. I'm in favor of telling people the other side of the story more, as regards these choices.

Well, that's very good to hear, that you're not in favor of marching them from their front doors at gunpoint. Your generosity is astounding. You seem to think that all these people are duped into buying something they don't want, just because they can't express why they want it well enough for you, and that if only you could plead with them earnestly, they'd see the error of their ways. Again, I think that's a remarkable amount of presumption on your part. But maybe it's no more presumptuous than my thinking that MeFi's self-righteousness can be turned down a notch.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:21 PM on November 28, 2005

standard of living is not the same as impact of living. I have a car, but it uses about 500 l a year. The rest of my consumptive activities tend to rate me at about 1.5 earths, using the ecological footprint models you can find around the web. So yeah I'm still helping to overshoot, but there is a clear level of reasonableness and common sense in what is acceptable levels of overconsumption. Of course there's no clear line, but it's more than clear that the examples provided in the FPP are well over it. A drawing room you've never sat in, a dining setting for 20 that you've never used. Absurdities.

I do direct my ire at hidden subsidies, having a fully priced market is one of the key planks of sustainability, but certainly not the only one. Having normalised societal expectations for appropriate behaviour is another one. I don't give a fuck about the cult of the individual, I don't worship it, it's live and let live until they start harming others, which is a line that I'm skating on but they are clearly deeply into the red on.
posted by wilful at 9:24 PM on November 28, 2005

me & my monkey: I laid out good reasons for why these homes are most likely not good investments. But homes in general are (not the same as always, of course) very good investments. I wasn't disputing that, and don't know how you came to that conclusion. Given that you failed to see this, and your general tone, the rest of your post is unworthy of any response.
posted by raysmj at 9:39 PM on November 28, 2005

Are they consumption beasts during their life as well as in construction? - wilful

Yes. Some people choose to spend the extra money for those features. Many do not.
posted by raedyn at 7:29 AM on November 29, 2005

This series of articles is by the same reporter, but written while working for a different newspaper and focusing on a different region of the country. Same general theme, but set on Long Island, and this one focuses on the neverending expansion outward from urban areas, as well.

The thread was petering out, but I still thought a few people might find it interesting...
posted by owenville at 12:08 PM on November 29, 2005

me & my monkey: I've lived in developing countries and worked in remote, extremely poor villages. I know what's really needed to live and thrive, as a baseline, at least.

In my life, I waste and consume more than that. But I've also lived a significant amount of my life making an effort to significantly minimize consumption, be ecologically sound and so forth. I'm not an eco-warrior or an obsessive about it, but I think it is important to conserve, be ecologically sensitive and to not consume vastly, grossly more than you need, whatever your wants are.

Piling a lot of food on your plate when you can't eat it, simply because you wanted the food to be present, is greedy. Then throwing away what's left over, especially when it amounts to two or three times what you ate, is very wasteful. That seems like common sense. The same common sense seems to reasonably apply to the kind of house that you live in (though an investment is another matter).

And I think it's a great disease of the mind and spirit to think that you need bigger and more to satisfy your cravings for security or prestige or whatever. I think that leads to all kinds of other excesses and eventual dissatisfaction. That seems like millennia-old wisdom, too.

I also think I have, at least, some degree of latitude in being able to at least note when I recognize that someone is, in my opinion, exhibiting behavior that is wasteful, greedy or materialistic.

I do recognize that you may not agree with me on whether these folks may be exhibiting those characteristics. But I have to reject the presumption, which I think I'm hearing, that I don't have the prerogative to reasonably makes those kinds of assessments of behavior.

Regardless, nothing (including my views) is stopping folks from buying whatever kind of house they want or spending however much money they want to do it.
posted by darkstar at 8:36 PM on November 29, 2005

interesting slums when they deteriorate

Indeed. This has already started to happen in Bishops Avenue, popularly known as Millionaires Row, which includes some of the most expensive houses in London -- one of them, the hilariously over-the-top Toprak Mansions, currently on sale for £50 million -- but is now half-derelict, as described in this highly entertaining article from a few months ago:

Intrigued, I ring the doorbell. A few moments later a half-naked man pops out from behind yellowing net curtains. Do you live here, I ask? He explains in a heavy accent that he and five fellow Hungarians rent the place. Apologising for his poor English, he excuses himself -- he is in the middle of cooking lunch -- and then darts back behind the curtains.

A few doors down I find another house, what would once have been a pretty neo-Georgian mansion. It too has smashed windows, and the masonry is covered with ivy. There is a caravan in the forecourt, from which two men emerge. One is half-naked -- apparently the done thing on The Bishops Avenue -- and the other, wearing a red football shirt, walks towards me. "Sorry, I can't tell you anything," he says, as I call out a cheery hello. About the people living here, do you mean? "About anything. Sorry." He and his friend retreat into their caravan.

Read the whole thing. Also -- to return to America for a moment -- see this fascinating and rather melancholy exhibition of photographs illustrating the "surreal intersection of suburbia and desert in the constructed landscapes of the American West".
posted by verstegan at 3:09 AM on December 2, 2005