To me the houses in the original photo look like frame construction rather than brick, and the houses have uselessly small gaps between them rather than being connected in a row.
That explains a lot.
You have no idea.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Have McMansions destroyed your neighborhood?
- Thread starter 63dot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To me the houses in the original photo look like frame construction rather than brick, and the houses have uselessly small gaps between them rather than being connected in a row.
You have no idea.
True. But it's interesting, the most vocal objections we're hearing is to homes which are "too close together" and lack big yards all the way around. These row houses share common walls, have tiny front yards and probably only very small ones at the rears. By suburbanite standards, these row houses are completely unacceptable. But is this really a bad way to live?
You have no idea.
I'm beginning to get one. Oldest, middle or youngest?
The way I look at it, either go with no yard or a big one. A row house is fine, and so is a nice house on a decent chunk of property (we had 1/4 acre, which was a little tight due to the shape). But a big, shapeless house on a tiny piece of property is lame.
Eldest. But now I'm in the middle in terms of size, so the bullying days are over.
Our houses are small, but offset in a way that they are furthest apart from each other in the space used.
My neighbor on the corner is in way in back and up against the cross street.
My other neighbor, where his house is closest to mine, is very narrow but greatly expands on the back part of the lot, where there is nothing on my property. It's a jigsaw puzzle the architects carefully planned out to maximize the space and use of trees.
What is done is the best possible use of space within a 4,000 sq. ft lot with houses ranging from 700 ft. to 1200 ft. in size. But putting a house nearly 4,000 sq. ft. in a 4,000 sq. ft. lot is terrible if done en masse and in the same color and design.
I totally see where, especially after wwII, there was pressure to standardize and make some cookie cutter houses. But the earlier ones had some character and real differences. They weren't perfect rectangles like the 1990s mass produced housing.
In a few places, there are lots built by famous architects, and thankfully, those are protected. Nobody will likely tear down the two Frank Lloyd Wright homes in town, but everything else around it is increasingly those perfect rectangle, no yard, McMansions with 36" inch borders. Ironically, the shut down US Army base nearby used that shade of tan and to casual viewer, military housing looks more and more like the McMansion housing or vice versa.
The funniest part was where there was this eyesore military housing project which was torn down to put up slightly bigger houses for civilians (McMansions) and now it just looks like a rebuild "on base" even though there is no military base there anymore.
Due to cutbacks in certain spending in the military (BRAC cutbacks), some nearby military bases have shut down or cut back on their use of their land and moved back to the abandoned military base. In a couple of cases, privately built structures have been taken over by a small group of Army companies (200 soldiers each) since nobody would buy those eyesore buildings. If people continue abandoning the McMansion housing around here, they should just move the military back in as it would be a solution to the overbuilt stuff.
People have even called for city officials to house the growing homeless population out in the never purchased McMansions on the former military base. Whether it's government section 8 housing or a McMansion built for a yuppie, the basic cost of construction and maintenance is the same, believe it or not and in some cases, government housing costs more than private housing due to the bureaucratic process of the government to get anything built.
By far the biggest city in my county is the former military base and that housing sits unused, year after year.
The trend after World War II was to design everything for the maximum convenience of the car. Suburban development was encouraged by massive federal subsidies for home buyers and the construction of highways. At the same time, urban areas were neglected or slated for bulldozing, and mass forms of transportation allowed to wither and die off.
For about four decades hardly anyone could conceive of any other kind of development pattern but endless suburban sprawl, from sea to shining sea. Over the last 20 years planners and architects have come to recognize increasingly that sprawl development is unsustainable -- and probably so has anyone who has seen their commute to work become increasingly burdensome in terms of cost, and lost time and personal sanity.
New thinking is emerging about how to make cities sustainable living environments, and some of these ideas are already on the ground. A lot of the ideas are based on old urban models, which date from the era before the car become the dominant force in our lives. Clearly some of these ideas are more successful than others, but what is also clear is that the direction is changing -- because it has to change.
For about four decades hardly anyone could conceive of any other kind of development pattern but endless suburban sprawl, from sea to shining sea. Over the last 20 years planners and architects have come to recognize increasingly that sprawl development is unsustainable -- and probably so has anyone who has seen their commute to work become increasingly burdensome in terms of cost, and lost time and personal sanity.
New thinking is emerging about how to make cities sustainable living environments, and some of these ideas are already on the ground. A lot of the ideas are based on old urban models, which date from the era before the car become the dominant force in our lives. Clearly some of these ideas are more successful than others, but what is also clear is that the direction is changing -- because it has to change.
Welcome to my world...
I grew up in Stepford. (not really Stepford, but the real place the novel/movie was based on...a little NYC bedroom community in CT)
Gah, I've been in that area. Everyone drives luxury cars and pretends they live in a rural setting when it's merely a high-dollar suburb. I stopped at a store and people looked at me and my non-luxury sedan like I was some sort of derelict. I didn't think my Rustbelt roots were that obvious!
No offense, but I found that part of the state nauseating. Beautiful area (other than the profusion of BMW and Volvo dealerships). Shame about the people. It's a miracle you came out all right.
63dot - can I ask what city are you referring to with the military base? The only one I could think of was that base in Mountain View (can't think of the name right now), and then down on the Coast where CSU Monterey Bay is located...
Probably 90% of my community is Mcmansions as the ones you pictured. None of them have any reasonable sized yard. Plus the build quality of the homes are terrible.
you're right in on aspect, but these cookie cutter neighbourhoods are bad for one other - knowing your neighbour. no backyard, no common area to visit with these other people called humans...neighbours. Some of the best times I've had on my street have been with neighbours.
Personally, i think that has a much deeper implication than anything.
I think it's pathetic we don't (for the most part) go out of our way to meet our neighbours.
When I moved in to our house 11 years ago, I made Christmas cards for all my neighbours and only one said thanks. Maybe the cards themselves sucked
, but the effort could have been acknowledged. I didn't really expect to be thanked, but I certainly didn't think it would so blatantly ignored.And, my point is that I believe this inability to know your neighbour puts a protective layer around people so when they go shopping or visit their local rec centre for example, we don't end up really giving 2 craps about knowing the person.
I'm not saying let's share every secret we have, but it's nice to say hi to Mary at the pool help desk when you see her every week.
That's what I believe is wrong with this cookie cutter neighbourhoods.
Oh and the ability to have a really bad fire if any of them catch fire.
Cheers,
keebler
Gah, I've been in that area. Everyone drives luxury cars and pretends they live in a rural setting when it's merely a high-dollar suburb. I stopped at a store and people looked at me and my non-luxury sedan like I was some sort of derelict. I didn't think my Rustbelt roots were that obvious!
No offense, but I found that part of the state nauseating. Beautiful area (other than the profusion of BMW and Volvo dealerships). Shame about the people. It's a miracle you came out all right.
LOL! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that!
Usually when I mention that I'm from southwestern CT, I get many comments like "Oh, you grew up there? Do you have a yacht and summer home in the Hamptons?"
Of course not. While the majority of people who do live in the area are worth multi millions/billions of dollars, there are actually "normal" people who live there with "normal" jobs and salaries, like public school teachers and grocers - usually people who work at a job that provides something for the richer folks.
You're so right though. People there DO act like it's some nice rural New England town, except they're driving BMWs and Hummers, and their home costs about 2.7 million dollars. And if you aren't in some luxury vehicle while cruising around Greenwich - you're treated either like you're an object that the rich can use, or you don't belong there.
I'm so glad I don't live there anymore, to be totally honest.
Usual disclaimer: Of course not everyone there is like this, but in my experience there are many who are.
I don't like to advertise the area, since I have already said some terrible things about its politics and it's corruption which makes Mexico's Drug Lords look honest, but you got it right on one of your guesses.
This type of third world corruption in my region led one man to become the most corrupt mayor of San Francisco and I don't care to mention his name either but if you live within 300 miles of that city, you know who and what I am talking about.
There are a couple of more bases in the Northern California region (north of Santa Barbara County up to the Oregon border) that were axed by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney (another doozie of a politician) in his bid to look like a real penny pincher and trimmer of government pork/fat. Funny how things worked out just more than a decade later!
No matter what size, if the structure takes over the entire lot, or close to it, and are very ugly with no yard, it's a "Mc-something" and to be avoided at all costs.
Big turd or small turd, * think of dog crap, it's simply not palatable for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.