[B]ig houses will be killed by the simple fact that people spend most of their time at home in just a couple of rooms. In a big house, that leaves an awful lot of space that needs to be paid for, heated, cleaned and maintained but that has little real function beyond bragging rights.
Hence, the big house will go when exasperation trumps ego.
-- "McMansion Trend Likely to Fade When People Get Tired of Upkeep," SFChron, Dec 9, 06
I have had a few opportunities to hang out in super-big houses in the DC 'burbs this year. We're talking 4000 square feet of house, with three floors and a great room that had one wall which was nothing but windows. The kitchens were a dream, with what felt like acres of countertops. I lost count of the bathrooms.
The thing that lingers in my memory is what it felt like to rattle around those places. It was not unlike being inside a well-appointed public building; the scale of the spaces seemed overwhelmingly large compared to my everyday life. These houses are wonderful for throwing parties. I could see operating a full office of ten people on the ground floor -- hell, operating a retail boutique in the basement -- and then living in the top two stories. They are meant to encompass a lot of human activity. I can't imagine generating enough to make them feel fully lived-in.
I know some people dislike small apartments and houses. Perhaps it's because the opposite phenomena is in play: it is hard for one individual to make their mark on a McMansion, but you can't escape the stamp of their personality anywhere in a tiny house.
The whole McMansion thing as it's laid out in this article just makes me sad. If the author is to be believed, McMansions give nothing of value to their occupants -- just a black mark on their environmental karma, a long commute and a big white elephant that needs a lot of upkeep.
I have yet to visit a McMansion that feels lived in. Have you also noticed that many McMansion owners have stretched to buy the house and can't afford furniture or can't afford decent furniture? You cannot spend $700k or $800k and buy yucky furniture. These houses have such a grand scale that you have buy larger furniture, meaning furniture not sold at Ikea or other lower end furniture stores.
I will be happy with the *super sized* lifestyle trend is over (hummers, mcmansions, etc). I think a very interesting housing trend to watch is the hip modular housing (FlatPak etc).
Posted by: molly | 2006.12.11 at 13:52
I think some people like having a house that doesn't look lived in, that looks more like a showplace. This of course assumes that you can afford the furniture and appointments for it.
Then to see my place, you'd wonder how anybody could live in it. That's what keeping several ferrets will do to you. It's their house; I just sleep there sometimes.
This whole topic is a weird one for me. While I basically agree with your point, Lisa, I'm really wishing I had more space in my house. At 1600 sf it's a decent size, but we're really hurting for storage space. We've got just too much *stuff*, and the house design didn't really include storage. Even the kitchen is a horror for cabinet space.
One way I got around the "space" issue was buying a house with cathedral ceilings. While it's no larger than your typical floor plan, it feels more open because of it.
I'm kind of thinking that few, larger rooms makes more sense than apportioning a big house into many small rooms. One thing I'd really like to see in smaller houses is the large kitchens. Builders don't seem to think that you're at all interested in your kitchen unless you're buying a million dollar house. With the galleys they're putting in newer affordable houses, that's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Posted by: Roger | 2006.12.11 at 15:18
Oh my gosh, you've inadvertently hit a hot spot for me, Roger -- decent kitchens in small houses.
So we have an older house -- built in 1926 -- and like many older houses, it's got a small kitchen that was clearly not designed to take into account anything beyond a basin, a stove and an icebox. It also has a small, separate dining area, because that's how people rolled: food prep in one area, dining in another.
It is my dream that some day, we will completely re-arrange the layout in the downstairs -- knocking down one wall, moving another back, eliminating the non-supporting wall in a third area -- and just do a gut remodel of the kitchen and living room so that we've got one great functional space with smart storage options. The house has already been muddled by DIYers in the 1950s so I am less concerned about restoring the exact period layout and more desirous of an aesthetically pleasing space that meshes with modern sensibilities. One of the things about an older house is that you're always reminded of the gap between the prevailing sentiments of that time versus what you want to use the space for now.
Any smartly-designed house should be able to balance the spacious, multipurpose areas (kitchen/dining/gathering) with smaller areas that give individual occupants a sense of ownership and privacy when needed. I don't think it's a function of square footage -- it's a function of how you use the space.
Posted by: Lisa | 2006.12.11 at 15:50
My sister and her husband used to live in a neighborhood of McMansions (theirs was the smallest house in the area), and the turnover was amazing--there were always For Sale signs up everywhere. People buy these huge "dream" houses, and then once they actually start living in them, the hassle and the cost of the upkeep just kills them (especially if anything happens to make their income drop).
One result of the constant turnover was that the neighborhood was really not as nice as you might expect it to be--the neighbors changed so often that noboby ever really got to know each other, and there was really no sense of it being a community. My sister once remarked that you never saw kids playing outside (which was true and weird because there were a lot of families), so the joke was, that's what they did with all that space--put up a swingset and whatnot in the house rather than the yard.
Posted by: Polly | 2006.12.11 at 19:34
How funny! I was just telling my husband about an episode of the home organization show Neat (on Discovery Home Channel) that perfectly demonstrated how some people react to these McMansions.
The family was a mom, dad, and two kids still at home. The parents' master bedroom was much, much larger than any dorm room I ever lived in, and also larger than most of my apartments.
The show was called in because the family apparently did everything in this master bedroom. Folding laundry, ironing, computer & internet, board games, TV, piles of home work and school projects, treadmill, air hockey table - it was all located in this one room!
From the size of the master bedroom, you just knew the house had a dedicated laundry room and no doubt, a family room. But to preserve a sense of togetherness in a giant house, they'd turned this one room into a little community center. It was really fascinating. (For some reason, I was fixated on the fact that the mom must've hauled all that laundry upstairs, just to leave it in little piles all over her bedroom.)
Molly's point reminds me how cranky my husband and I get when trying to buy furniture, since most of it today is produced to a McMansion scale, and would look out-of-proportion and hulking in our 1936 bungalow.
Posted by: Anne | 2006.12.11 at 20:38
Anne, you've hit another two hot spots for me. Hi, everyone! Weren't you all dying to know more about my low-key-yet-persistent domestic vexations?
Furniture shopping is just ... I've just gotten to a point where I carry a tape measure with me everywhere, just to make sure something will or won't fit within the room. Also, have you noticed how house accessories seem to have also scaled up? I bought two candle sconces for the walls earlier this year and was gobsmacked when I got them on the wall and saw how freakin' huge they seemed relative to the scale of the room.
And my other hot spot: I can see the need for a family common space -- we always had one growing up, where we all seemed to gravitate unless we wanted to be alone -- but holy cats, the master bedroom? I'm sure this speaks volumes about my upbringing, but ... no. Master bedrooms are for grown-ups only, and for doing grown-up things. Public family life belongs in public spaces in the house.
(Then again, I am a proponent of using your bedroom for a small range of activities. The trend of doing work from bed -- no. No no no no. I don't even truck with reading in bed.)
Posted by: Lisa | 2006.12.12 at 10:15
AAAAK! Here in Northern Virginia they build 3 types of houses: condos, townhouses, and McMansions. That's pretty much it. And the McMansions, so ugly! And they all look just the same. My favorite was a development of maybe 5000 sq. ft. houses. You could stand between 2 houses, hold out your arms & touch both. I hate them and wish the fad would end before they tear down what smaller houses remain.
Posted by: alice 1 | 2006.12.12 at 11:56
To Lisa, I hope you get to redo your house. We did some add on to our 1970's place & what a difference it makes.
Posted by: alice 1 | 2006.12.12 at 12:00
Lisa, I wouldn't say it was all that inadvertent, but it's nice to know you agree. A good kitchen is important to me, since every once in a while I get back on a cooking kick. But it's so darn hard to find a good one! My house has a larger kitchen than most, but it's so poorly designed as to be almost unusable. I've had dreams of remodelling that thing since I moved in 11 years ago...
As far as master bedrooms go - I sort of agree with Anne. Our master BR is huge, too. It's at least three times the size of the other bedrooms, though it is at least smaller than the great room. We turned it into our office, and moved the bedroom furniture into one of the smaller bedrooms. When you've got all that space, you might as well use it for something productive! So, for our use at least, that room is a public space. Anymore, it's only a "master bedroom" as a word on the plans. Why be a slave to labels when you can make the space do so much more?
Posted by: Roger | 2006.12.12 at 15:24
I think we're in agreement on using space in the smartest way possible -- and if the house is built in a way where the "master" bedroom is well-sited to be a work space, then great. What I'm objecting to is the idea suggested by Anne's comment: that there was no clearly-delineated "adults only" space, no place for the parents to go when they wanted to unwind in a kid-free zone.
Publis space is important, but I think it's equally important to have spaces that are off-limits to different family members. My parents made a point of always, always knocking before coming into our room -- even if the door was open -- and letting us know that our rooms were our personal spaces in the house. This was great for a lot of reasons: we learned early on to be responsible for our own personal space, and to respect other people's spaces and boundaries (no wandering into a room or rifling through closets or drawers).
Of course, as part of that, my parents' room fell under the same rules our rooms did: we had to be invited in (unless we were on vacuum-and-dust duty), and it was not a public hangout space. As I get older, I can appreciate how having a kid-free zone is necessary for a parent's mental/emotional well-being. And years of living in group houses more or less drove home (ha! home!) the idea that everyone needs a space they feel is "theirs."
So I guess what I'm coming out in favor of can be summed up in two separate ideas: well-designed and well-sited communal spaces, and clearly-delineated private spaces for each family member.
Posted by: Lisa | 2006.12.12 at 16:16
Fair enough. I didn't find it clear from Anne's description whether that room was still used as the master bedroom as well as the "family room". That's where my comment came from. I really do agree with you actually - if it was still a bedroom as well, that's just too weird.
But, that take is only because you've grown up with such as strong sense of private space. (I envy you your parents, by the way. Mine had their personal space, but the kids' rooms were fair game.) In other cultures - and obviously in some families even in ours - that wouldn't be weird at all.
Posted by: Roger | 2006.12.12 at 17:58
Public space in a house? Golly, I suppose I need to understand more about urban planning than architecture if I plan to build a home. Or, maybe that is anthropology/sociology I can never be quite sure.
My house was built in 1890 and it is plenty big - about 2500 sf with a bunch of that in the "finished" attic. I live in an older neighborhood (obviously) so I too can touch my neighbors house and my house at the same time. For some reason it seems quite different than when I see the McMansions in the suburbs. A lot of times the feel is different because older homes tend to be in neighborhoods with established tall trees. My streetscape does lack a bit in the treescape but it still looks a lot better than the 'burbs.
Posted by: foo | 2006.12.12 at 19:17
I would like a larger place than what we have now, but not McMansion large. We're doing fine with 1,400 square feet, but I think 2,500 square feet or so would do nicely. I'd like a larger study, preferably with a door. I know Millie wants a room devoted to nothing else but her crafts and things. The nice thing about our place now is that we can entertain reasonably well. The living room is large and the kitchen is pretty spacious. Once we get the backyard done, we might have a big blowout. Bring your own booze, though.
Posted by: Ex-Monkey Ben | 2006.12.12 at 23:44
The room on Neat was also still being used as the parents' bedroom, which was what made it all so strange and fascinating to me. I was not really fascinated in a good way, but more because (1) my parents' bedroom was reserved just for them and was not a social/communal area of the house, and (2) it did seem like an unconcious reaction by the featured family to the impersonal hugeness of their house.
The organizer from the show was really appalled and made the mom move everything communal out, except the computer. The mom wanted to be able to monitor the kids on the internet, though why she couldn't do that in the kitchen or downstairs I don't know. So the organizer made her hang a sign on the door about the kids knocking every time they wanted to come in, and asking permission to use the computer.
Lisa, I hear you on the constant carrying of a measuring tape. I bought most of my new furnitutre from IKEA, and my father-in-law is only too happy to tell me it's crap, but I couldn't find a reasonably priced sideboard that was less than 30" high, and less than 55" long anywhere else!
Posted by: Anne | 2006.12.13 at 07:14
That's the nice thing about Ikea -- a lot of their stuff is scaled to smaller living spaces. We got our couch there because it was just a teensy bit smaller than the average couch size in typical furniture stores like Sears. It fits in our living room perfectly; otherwise we would have had to resort to getting a loveseat.
Posted by: drunken monkey | 2006.12.13 at 09:08
One of the things I'm fascinated by is the idea that buying a house *period* is somehow a requirement of being a sentient professionally-employed adult.
A little of my peculiar real estate background: My parents, when they were still expats, built a small home in a wee Poconos community. They knew they'd return to live somewhere in the NYC metro area, but didn't know where. When they did return, they bought the house in suburban Jersey where I grew up. Ten years ago, I began renting my current 2-BR apartment, also in suburban NJ and convenient to many things.
When my father was in his late 70's, our attorney advised that my parents "gift" me the Poconos house - in case of catastrophic illness, they can take many assets but not your primary residence. If the Poconos house wasn't my parents' asset anymore, it wouldn't have to be sold off to pay medical bills. Result: I now own a 3-BR home, free and clear while at the same time renting my flat.
What's amusing about this is the conversations I keep having:
Friend: You've been renting for TEN YEARS!!! That's crazy - think of the equity you're missing.
Me: I do have equity. I own a house already that used to be my parents'.
Friend: But see, you could have still bought a condo, and now you'd have TWO homes!
Me: Well, I kind of do. There's the house I own that I'm responsible for the upkeep of, and my parent's house that I'm responsible for the upkeep of. I like the idea that if the toilet backs up in my flat, I get to call someone to deal with it and they'll come at 1 AM. Why would I want to add a third into the mix?
Friend: But don't you see? Instead of paying rent, you could be paying a mortgage and getting something!
Me: You're right. What I'd be getting is screwed by New Jersey property taxes. Instead, I've ended up owning a house without ever having to pay a mortgage at all!
And then they look all confused. Because I rent one residence and don't have a mortgage on the other, it's like it doesn't "count" in the great real estate scheme of things. "Bbbut, but - you NEED to have a $300,000 mortgage! That's what Americans DO!"
Posted by: Shotrock | 2006.12.16 at 10:55
Boy, that is a tough problem, Shotrock.
Posted by: Amanda | 2006.12.18 at 20:05
Oh, I'd have to disagree, Amanda. Considering that my mom and I are now journeying with my father through the early stages of Alzheimer's, the "asset protection" of transferring that house to me has certainly helped ease our minds (knowing there will be *something* left after all this, financially speaking). And renting makes my primary residence that much easier to vacate should I have to move home if/when he gets worse. So the whole real estate situation isn't really a problem at all.
Posted by: Shotrock | 2006.12.20 at 16:44
I wonder what's the difference between a McMansion and a plain old mansion.
Posted by: Sarah | 2007.02.12 at 17:56