Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The term "McMansion" was coined to describe very large homes on very small parcels, usually rebuilds or remodels of older, smaller homes in existing neighborhoods. We've seen a lot of this in Southern California, especially in areas where the property values soared in recent years, and growth controls made the construction of new homes difficult. The above aerial photo of the subdivision doesn't really suggest "McMansions" to me. In fact, it may be an example of the current trend in city planning towards higher density and lot coverage, with a stronger orientation towards the street. It's difficult to tell by the distance and angle what this neighborhood really looks like.

In any event, lower density is the driver of sprawl, so you can't like large lots and hate sprawl. The two are tied together.
 
Incidentally, Weeds is based on the Santa Clarita Valley. Well, the earlier episodes anyway - before they moved down to Oceanside or wherever. My wife and I love that show. :)

Anyway, I agree about McMansions. And they don't have to be big either - just developments of beige soulless boxes stacked on top of each other makes me want to cry. It's obviously horrible in Orange County, and I plan on getting the hell out of here as soon as I can afford to. Unfortunately, as other posters have mentioned, you really need to transition firmly into the Upper Class to do so. :(
 
In any event, lower density is the driver of sprawl, so you can't like large lots and hate sprawl. The two are tied together.

I agree. But rather than more suburbs, we need better utilization of urban spaces (apartments, townhouses, row houses, adaptively re-used industrial buildings and so on) so that we don't turn US into a series of subdivisions. :eek:

Based my own personal experience, I think there is a HUGE amount of potential urban living space being wasted in the US right now.
 
Yea, it's a real shame they're becoming so popular... West Omaha (NE) is REAL bad when it comes to the amount of these cookie cutter houses. They're everywhere. :(
 
What I find funny is that so many are belly aching over the first picture. You obviously never experienced the rubber stamp homes that were prevalent after WW2, where house after house were lined up on little lots all looking the same in nice neat rows.

Let alone row houses which were very popular in many cities and still are in places like Chicago.



As for the 2000sq feet is enough for a family of four. No, whatever they are comfortable in is enough. Do not set arbitrary standards for others based on your needs.
 
anything over 2000 sqft i consider to be to big for a average family (4 people).

There are 10 of us in my 7,500 sq. ft. house; me, my wife, 7 kids, and my father-in-law. We helped design the house after buying land to put it on. It may seem a bit large, but it was designed to accommodate the needs of someone in a wheelchair.
n706454351_1549064_3200774.jpg

There is also roughly 3,000 sq. ft. of unfinished space, should the need arise.
 
Urban sprawl is one of the ugliest things I've seen in city design. Nobody in the right mind would want to design a city with curved streets, cul-de-sacs, beige and more beige houses made of ticky tacky, and not a blade of grass in sight. Denver has Highlands Ranch, though since our housing market never really fully recovered from the last bubble, they haven't gone overboard in building it like Phoenix or SoCal. Still, if that was my budget, I'd much rather live in downtown, in a loft or townhouse in an area like the Platte Valley.

I don't know who would prefer a ticky-tacky house over something like this.
Denver is particularly bad. Some of the neighborhoods there are bigger than a lot of US cities. I live in an area like that in the Springs. The yard is about 1/8 acre (small) but the house was perfect in size and price for us. The really sad thing is that there is plenty of room to the east of the Springs. When I say plenty I mean 200 miles of ranch land to Kansas. So the only reason the developers are putting houses on top of each other is because they make more money that way.

We're planning our next house to be at least on 1/2 acre with plenty of room between us and the houses next to us. Part of the crappy thing in these neighborhoods is that you can buy 2 lots next to each other but you can't put the house in the middle of both. It has to be centered on one lot or the other. Moronic developer codes.

The term "McMansion" was coined to describe very large homes on very small parcels, usually rebuilds or remodels of older, smaller homes in existing neighborhoods. We've seen a lot of this in Southern California, especially in areas where the property values soared in recent years, and growth controls made the construction of new homes difficult. The above aerial photo of the subdivision doesn't really suggest "McMansions" to me. In fact, it may be an example of the current trend in city planning towards higher density and lot coverage, with a stronger orientation towards the street. It's difficult to tell by the distance and angle what this neighborhood really looks like.
Nothing says McMansion like the developments in Northern Virginia. Multi-million dollar homes that may as well be town homes they're so close together. Beautiful houses, yes, but they're so crammed together it's pathetic. I'd rather live in a home worth 1/10th of the price but that has a lot of land.
 
How are those not fire hazards, having a house 3 feet apart seems like disaster.
 
The ones in that first picture up top don't look like 10 feet apart. In fact I wonder why they even bothered with windows.
 
It is an example of what maybe a few towns in Anywhere, USA looked like but not the majority of the landscape.

Unfortunately, this "new look" of soulless McMansions are becoming the majority. Poorer neighborhoods will have smaller versions, and richer neighborhoods bigger ones, but the total lack of yards and nature is the one thing the new stuff has in common.

I really didn't mind when one small section of town had this cookie cutter housing, but when it takes over the whole town and the whole county, then something seems to be very off base.

Ever been to Europe?
 
I think the code in Colorado Springs is 12 feet (I could be wrong). My house is no further than that from my neighbors. Seriously.

Mine is between 15 & 20 feet depending on where you're standing.

But I have seen 3 ft. It must be really weird being that close to your neighbors, especially with the whole window situation I mentioned earlier.
 
I agree. But rather than more suburbs, we need better utilization of urban spaces (apartments, townhouses, row houses, adaptively re-used industrial buildings and so on) so that we don't turn US into a series of subdivisions. :eek:

Based my own personal experience, I think there is a HUGE amount of potential urban living space being wasted in the US right now.

Sure, but from that aerial photo, we can't tell if the houses in the neighborhood in question are the so-called "soulless boxes," or some type row houses that use the land a lot more efficiently than most single family detached developments.

Nothing says McMansion like the developments in Northern Virginia. Multi-million dollar homes that may as well be town homes they're so close together. Beautiful houses, yes, but they're so crammed together it's pathetic. I'd rather live in a home worth 1/10th of the price but that has a lot of land.

IOW, you're in favor of sprawl?
 
My neighborhood started out as a retired military and first-time home buyer subdivision. Very nice, quiet, etc.
NOW, we have Section 8 housing, developers have built five sets of duplexes and fourplexes to snag government money from the section 8 qualifiers. Of course the clientel for these dwellings is less than neighborly for the most part.
It's a real mess. Can't wait to move out.
 
The ones in that first picture up top don't look like 10 feet apart. In fact I wonder why they even bothered with windows.

I live in an older house, as do my neighbors, so on 40x100 small lots, there is 15-20 feet on one side, and 30 ft on the other. My house sits closest to the street, one neighbor is set back a few feet, and another neighbor is on the backside of their property. We are close but don't bump into each other.

But the newer houses in my neighborhood have 6 feet in between them, no more or no less. They are all pressed up against the street and extend to just 36 inches shy of the back neighbor. I was a landscaper for 20 years and in the last ten I saw this trend and had to work with that exact 36 inches and planned accordingly. The preciseness of the houses having to be 36 inches from both sides adds to the uniformity and eventually institutionalized look.

What I can't figure out, is unless the house is all out red brick, which is rather rather rare, what I see in my neighborhood that came in during the 90s and just before the recession were concrete/stucco and always a shade of tan. I don't know if this is a building code thing or just the cheapest standard paint color.

Being on the coast in Northern California, and a part of Al Gore's eco-zone he championed as VP, we had great looking coastlines and homes that didn't interfere that much. But during the time he was VP in his second term, McMansions started littering the coast next to the beaches, and to add insult to injury, the trees were mostly cut down. Basically think of a massive US Army base next to the coast if you want a picture. Just a few different colors and some more designs in the architecture would combat that, but developers were hungry to build many houses, all the same, at the same time to cut costs.

When I approached a contractor, I asked him why he did this. He told me, at least where I live, he doesn't cut a profit until his 11th house each year. When he buys lumber or supplies, he does so in huge bulk, thus the uniform look.

So from a business point of view, I understand his predicament. I now make skateboards and unless I make a certain amount of them, there is no profit. There is tremendous pressure to use the cheapest suppliers who usually give the least amount of choices. This is also true of skate/surf clothing. If there is a skate/surf equivalent of the McMansions' uniformity, look at Pac Sun or Zumiez stores. It's like the same store everywhere. I just wish it didn't have to happen with the houses we live in.
 
Sure, but from that aerial photo, we can't tell if the houses in the neighborhood in question are the so-called "soulless boxes," or some type row houses that use the land a lot more efficiently than most single family detached developments.

True, hard to tell from that angle.

Man, most of you guys live in palaces...I grew up as part of a family of 5 in a ~1500 sq. ft. house, attached 1 car garage, no basement.
 
Sure, but from that aerial photo, we can't tell if the houses in the neighborhood in question are the so-called "soulless boxes," or some type row houses that use the land a lot more efficiently than most single family detached developments.



IOW, you're in favor of sprawl?
If you lived out here you would be too. As I mentioned the sheer amount of unused land (not park worthy) in just Colorado alone is staggering. People think we're running out of room on the planet but they are dead wrong. There is simply a ton of land that nobody is doing anything with (not growing crops, etc).

Besides, I grew up in homes that were on land no smaller than 1/4 acre. My parents current house in on a wooded 1/2 acre in a heavily populated urban area. I HATE feeling crammed up as a result.
 
Mine is between 15 & 20 feet depending on where you're standing.

But I have seen 3 ft. It must be really weird being that close to your neighbors, especially with the whole window situation I mentioned earlier.

They did this in parts of Malibu, and famous stars, who obviously were friends, would visit each other via the side window (almost next to each other), since some newer properties were almost shared common walls. But leave this strange behavior to the Hollywood, Malibu set anyway. ;)

I have seen common walled structures in London where I was an exchange student, but it wasn't every single structure, and where it happened, it was in good taste (South Kensington, Bayswater, East End). What I see in the first post's aerial photo, and the fictional city in Weed, is just ghastly. Maybe 100 years from now, these houses will be considered vintage and reflect a certain time in history some will look fondly upon.

I hated the '70s flat roof look but now these former eyesores are highly sought after where I live, as if they are almost antique/vintage, because most of them were torn down to make way for another tan McMansion.

Many years, and even worse architecture to come, can make today's McMansions look pretty. I am still just horrified when I see one where I live but nowdays anymore, people have moved out of those things and they sit hollow like a ghost town. My city limits had 4400 people but now has fewer than 2000 people. Most of us old timers, anybody who remembers the 80s and before, have moved out. I once visited a California ghost town and thought it would never happen to me, and I thought those pre-Hooverville structures were kind of hasty and not a good use of the land. Now I have that same situation but with post-Hooverville McMansions, expensive still but trying very hard to look like glorified cardboard structures.
 
If you lived out here you would be too. As I mentioned the sheer amount of unused land (not park worthy) in just Colorado alone is staggering. People think we're running out of room on the planet but they are dead wrong. There is simply a ton of land that nobody is doing anything with (not growing crops, etc).

Besides, I've grew up in homes that were on land no smaller than 1/4 acre. My parents current house in on a wooded 1/2 acre in a heavily populated urban area. I HATE feeling crammed up.

Would I? It's not just about park land or open space. It's about agriculture, energy consumption, cost of services, etc. A lot of the costs of sprawl are externalized by a system that has encouraged this form of development for 60 years. Sprawl is the most expensive way to develop and live. It always has been; we're just starting to figure that out. Land is a finite commodity, no matter how you look at it.
 
The ones in that first picture up top don't look like 10 feet apart. In fact I wonder why they even bothered with windows.

You might be right, but don't discount roof overhangs - from that view we can't really see the walls of the houses.

Seems like it would be difficult to build houses only 3' apart. I sure wouldn't want my house to be that close to my neighbor's. We have 10' side to side, much more than that (perhaps 30' to our back fence then another 30' or so to the next house) behind us.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.