Posted on 08/20/2005 3:41:23 PM PDT by lowbridge
The American home is getting bigger. And fatter. And, to some, uglier. Now, towns are fighting back.
Chevy Chase, Md., an upscale suburb of Washington, recently announced a six-month moratorium on home construction to make time to examine how to deal with the proliferation of oversized single-family houses.
Call them what you will -- starter castles, McMansions, monster homes -- these houses have become increasingly visible in metropolitan landscapes. Many residents hate them.
Todd Hoffman, town manager, said that more than 500 Chevy Chasers, a significant number in a community of just over 1,000 homes, signed a petition expressing their "concern about the effects of 'mansionization.'"
Folks in Chevy Chase aren't alone.
New York city councilman Tony Avella from Bayside in Queens, led a rezoning effort last April that combats the trend. He said, "Overdevelopment is the No. 1 issue in my district. It comes up more than education or police protection."
The Los Angeles city council recently passed an ordinance that limits home size in the Sunlund-Tujunga area.
New Canaan, Conn., enacted regulations this year that limit the height of new houses. Nearby Greenwich and Westport have similar rules under consideration.
Other opposition has surfaced in Boston, the Chicago suburbs and the Bay Area in California.
What's the big deal? Are these new homes really so gargantuan that they should attract such fear and loathing?
Back in 1950, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the average new house clocked in at 963 square feet. By 1970, that figure had swollen to 1,500 square feet.
Today's average: 2,400 square feet. One in five are more than 3,000 square feet.
Oddly, as houses expanded, the number of household members shrank, from 3.1 people in 1971 to 2.6 people today. The average building-lot size contracted also...
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
1. Do you think American homes have gotten too big?
Yes 71%
No 29%
total responses to this question: 21219
How pathetic have we become when we worry about other peoples houses being too big?
The liberals (socialists) would rather everyone live in mud huts than have a few people living in mansions.
Think of the children.
Or
It's Bush's fault.
I didn't see a question asking, "Do you intend to move to a smaller home this year?" in the Communist News Network poll.
Who am I to tell someone what to do with their money and on their own land?
I know, a supreme court justice.
The problem with these houses, is not only are they big, but they're built like shyt.
WHO GIVES A CRAP!!! If people have money to build big, then build big. Rediculous.
That depends on how much land you have to put them on.
If your cat jumps out of your bedroom window and lands in your neighbor's kitchen sink, then both of your houses are too damn big.
As long as it conforms to pre-existing zoneing laws who's business is it if its huge and expensive.
All that money went into the local building economy, and all the property tax goes to the local government.
Where's the beef?
I'll tell you where: Rich Guy's big house makes Regular Joe's little house look small and cheap. This is ultimately penis envy carried to an extreme.
My wife wanted a 2900sq ft house. I told her, "I don't want to hear you complain when it comes time to clean it."
It's a bit too big but we felt that if it was smaller it would sustain its value in the surrounding market of homes that are now 3500 sq ft or bigger.
The city will surely collect more property taxes on a 3500 sq foot house than they will on a 1500 sq foot home. Must be a jealousy thing.
No...your lots are too small. That's the real problem, IMO...the "smart growth" advocates are forcing tiny lot sizes.
This sounds like a lot of nonsense unless you live in a town where McMansions are being built. We moved out of Ridgefield, Connecticut partly because McMansions were going up on small plots of land all over town. The standard plot in Fairfield county is two acres, but these houses damn near covered the whole thing. And the owners mostly had one or two children, but evidently they needed their exercise rooms, jacuzzis, etc., etc. It's a shame to see a lovely New England village turned into yuppieville.
It's not that. Those huge things also have a huge price. Affordable housing isn't being built because everyone wants to make a big profit during the bubble. If you want a house, you have to buy a monster that a lot of people can barely afford. What's going to happen when the bottom falls out? And a lot of these huge boxes are without character. House after house that are look-a-like boxes that few can truly afford.
Lol. Have a friend who does grading work for Pulte Homes. He saved up and bought a big Massey-Ferguson tractor with all the bells and whistles and then found out that the homes only had a five foot easment to the side property line. He had to sell it and buy a little Bobcat tractor. :-)
The problem in Chevy Chase, MD (and nearby areas like Potomac, Bethesda, and parts of Northwest Washington) is that the underlying value of the actual land has increased to such a level that it isn't really economically viable to build a modest home anymore.
Not where we are. Every town around is zoned 2 acres or more.
If it's two-stories-with-a-full-attic, painted a horrible pastel color, set exactly on the minimum side clearance from your property line, and not landscaped, you sure as hell DO have a right to make yourself heard in front of the ZONING BOARD before the monstrosity is BUILT.
About 3/4 mile away from me they seeded a whole bunch of McMansions on a new dead-end street: 80'x125' lots (quarter acre), barely 30' between houses, all plastic-sided, some built on SLABS 'cause they're on top of otherwise-unbuildable ledge, and the ONLY two adjoining property holders that got relief (in the form of a 40' wide heavily screened/planted visual barrier) were the two that SHOWED UP at the ONLY Zoning Board meeting they HAD for the 17-house development.
The OTHER (non-attending) adjoining property holders GOT SQUAT.
You can still build well built homes.
They're just much more expensive...
I know, I'm in the process of building my new home now. I'm building on 5 acres and the elevation was a problem with the city. The peak of the roof ridge is about 34'. I had to go through the public hearing process to get it approved... And this is out in the hills (small mountains) in a small city...
It's a "larger" house...
seriously, (retired from contracting), between the mexican labor and the Brazilian lumber, these homes won't make it 25 years
lot of worry over nothing, IMO
I know what you mean. I especially can't stand any toilet made after like 1995. It takes 5 flushes and a helluva lot of plunging to suck down what used to take one.
Funny this thread should start tonight. I took my son to a classmate's back to school party just now. What a house!! Must have been 5k square feet. Very nice. I got back to my 2200 sq. ft house, which has enough room for the four of us, and even my daughter's overnight guest. I guess we could have scrimped and got something approaching that size house, but we got ours paid for in 15 years, and the thought of no mortgage is VERY comforting. But I don't bedgrudge any of these people their homes, large or not. Sounds to me like institutionalized sour grapes.
"The liberals (socialists) would rather everyone live in mud huts than have a few people living in mansions."
The liberals (socialists) would rather other people live in mud huts than have a everyone living in mansions.
Don't forget Jean Kerry and Teddie the swimmer live in mansions
They make them out of lumber?
If you don't like to live among the ostentatious, move into a trailerpark (which there is nothing wrong with).
does anyone remember the 65/10 rule in certain areas washington state? you can only build on 10% of your land!!!!
that combined with eminent domain is a recipe for communism
The cost of homes is sky-rocketing in the northeast. Even a little shi-ite house here in New Jersey is a half mil. How can a young family find a nice house in a good neighborhood at a reasonable price?? It's impossible. The answer is not move away---I don't know what the answer is, but most of the home construction here is on speculation---but then they get snapped up so fast---somewhere down the road, this bubble has to burst!!
It's not envy that sparks my disgust, but a rather the lack of taste and style that these cookie cutter status symbols evoke.
I have a theory... it's XX's wanting to have BIG NESTS that sparks this insanity. No XY with a lick of sense would want to live under a crippling mortgage for an ostentatious heat sink.
All the men I know, are more pragmatic then that.
Not my lots. They were plotted in 1889. :-)
lot of worry over nothing, IMO
Good. I'll be looking forward to the next earthquake.
Americans are bigger too.....
they need more space and a workout room.
SEVERAL mansions, each!
We are homebound for various reasons. We have chosen to spend our extra money on our house. Some people have a second home. Our second home is our first home. We are planning to expand it to suit our needs. We also see it as a good investment in the long run. Our vacations are quite limited, family oriented and rather inexpensive. I would rather spend the money where I live most of the day.
It is odd to see monster homes going up for two adults (soon to be divorced) and two children. Ours is 2000 square feet and may reach 2600 square feet.
Dear Betteboop,
I think it's worse in northern New Jersey than in the Washington area.
New homes are very expensive, here. It's rare to see a new single-family home for under half a million dollars. Older homes have shot up in price, as well, but the difference is there are a lot of starter homes that are available, still, in the $200K - $250K range, and even some nicer, newer homes to be had for $300K. A $200K home will yield about a $1200 - $1700 (depending on the jurisdiction - taxes vary widely) per month, which is readily accessible to families with $50,000 - $60,000 per year in income.
Of course, we're talking about 1500 sq ft, 3 bedrooms, a bath and a half, fifth-of-an-acre lot, in a somewhat downscale neighborhood, not 5000 sq ft mcmansions in Bethesda.
So, I don't know if we're really in a bubble here, yet. I think, in fact, things are slowing down a little, prices are moderating, and that we may not accelerate into a bubble market here.
I'm not sure that's the case in the NYC region.
sitetest
I say build what suits you. Some build for others to see, others buy/build homes to live in. Sounds like you and I fit into the latter category. We have built a screened in back porch/deck that we really enjoy, with ceramic tile and ceiling fan. Nothing really fancy, but we had to replace the deck. We are very fortunate to earn a good living, but we have 13 year old twins that will be in college in just a few years, and we don't plan to go into debt to pay for it. When they are gone, we will revisit adding on to the house or building something, probably smaller, if that is allowed in 10 years.
Dear zencat,
"Just built a 4200 sq. ft. home in Central Missouri. Large wooded lot, marble and hardwood floors, vaulted ceilings, cherry cabinets, 7 ft. Jacuzzi, 2 sun rooms, 3 car garage. Every room wired for Ethernet and all new stainless appliances."
"$264,900."
Wow. You just described a million dollar-plus new home in my area.
sitetest
I guess these busy-body nannies would really get their knickers in a twist if they saw the 24,000 sq. ft. home in Dallas. In Texas, you can build till you run out of land or money, whichever comes first.
Size doesn't matter. (i hope).
Wow, sounds really nice, and reasonable. Ours is 200 square feet, excluding basement/garage and screened in porch built last summer. Cost $116,000 in 1988. Probably worth around 215K today. We won't move, I don't think, it being paid for. I cannot overstate how comforting having the mortgage paid for at age 47 feels.
Oops, ours is 2200 square feet. It's small, but not THAT small.
I grew up in Greenwich and just moved away from there in 2000.
The traffic was horrendous and the monstrosities passing for homes these days makes me think of the last days of Rome.
I have a wonderful little house...800 square feet, 1000 with an attached garage...and I have two rooms I never even use!!!
Actually the liberal elite limosine private school crowd are outraged that average Joe can now afford a home nearly as decadent as their own.
I think that's great. My wife and I might not be together living where you live, but say, build/buy what you like!
I'm not a fan of the McMansions (and here on Long Island, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one), and I do wish that they'd build them on properly-sized lots (NOT 1/3 acre).
I wouldn't buy one of them for all the tea in China -- I like old homes that have character (and moldings; most new homes don't have any moldings!).
Further, if I owned the land, I wouldn't sell it to a developer who intends to build those things.
All that being said, though...it ain't my money and it ain't my land. If people want 'em, go for it.
Regards,
If I had a 29,000 sq ft house, my wife would manage to fill it and say, "we need more room".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.