Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The sh@dow do!

What a looser!

A small, cozy home that will hold just enough stuff, allow you to run into the other people you live with, and is not a nightmare to heat, clean and maintain is where its at.

McMansions are for idiots.

I agree chlorocardium. My six kids, my wife, and myself live in a 2100 sq ft house. It is plenty big. Fuck the jones's.
ps Someone might want to tell John Edwards.

McMansions are the perfect expression of what the United States has turned into since Ronald Reagan became president in 1980. From the moment of his inauguration at lavish Gatsby-style parties in DC, it became acceptable again for the rich to show off their wealth. The phenomenon burgeoned during the eighties, continued under George H W Bush, under Clinton as well, and especially under George W Bush who rewarded his super-rich friends with huge tax cuts. The McMansions show no respect for the land on which they are located. One which was built behind where I live looks like the sort of estate mansion which used to sit on fifteen or twenty acres of land away from the public eye, but this one sits on one acre of land, two thirds of which has been cleared and turned into a sterile expanse of flat lawn. McMansions and SUV's ought to be banned, but they never will as long as this country is ruled by its current corrupt oligarchy of demorepugs.

I can't believe that this primate species that we are can't get past the problem of meaningless consumption. I can't believe that people still consume to impress, and that there are other people that are impressed with that consumption and wish they could join in.

I totally agree with all of you. Once (not long ago at all) we had nice shady streets with small quaint houses all respectfully and peacefully sitting in their perfect spot in the neighborhood. But now, inbetween these quaint warm homes are grotesque "tumors" spreading, as cancer often does. These hives-for-the-rich block sunlight and views and imprison their neighbors. It's ARROGANCE. The same ARROGANCE that makes us think we can go and bomb any country we choose if we have the whim. I'm really glad to read some places are reigning these people in. If they have so much money, let them buy a decent piece of land in proportion to their Tyvek Caves.

You are right and we will never get past the problem of meaningless consumption, it is endemic to our very nature.
The only solution to gas guzzling cars is higher gas taxes and rediculous home sizes is higher real estate taxes, if they are stupid enough to want it let them pay

In the vein of the little box houses of the fifties, I have taken to calling the macmansions, "refrigerator boxes". They are nothing to look at, just big boxy things littering the landscape.

One has to wonder if anyone ever gets lost in them. I suppose there is more room for the stuff from the big box stores.

Just remember the immortal words of Gordon Gekko (played by Micheal Douglas) in the movie Wall Street (1987): "Greed is good!" That scene from the movie epitomizes what we are seeing today in the United Corporations of America. The wars, the poverty, the rampant narcissism, the skyrocketing corporate profits, the alarming widening gap between the ultra rich and the rest of us, etc. They are all a logical extension of the trends reinvigorated and honed in the 1980s. He/she who dies with the most biggest toys wins, right? Isn't that written somewhere in the neo-con bible?

balakirev July 31st, 2007 5:38 pm

They can't do that. The size of your house or your family are dependent on your ability to pay for such things. Global warming is another matter. As it stands you are headed to communism or to remaining in fascism that we have now.

Maybe the marketplace is already punishing the home-bingers. How many people want to pay $5.4 million for a single-family home?

One subtext to this story is that rich people hate children so much they'd rather have a gigantic home that almost no one lives in than a smaller but still roomy home with three or four children.

I live in northwest Montana, far, far away from such meaningless consumption and this trend towards filling the landscape with supersized trophey homes. NOT! They're here too, and they're popping up everywhere! It's crazy what we've seen in the past 15 years. Every available piece of private land here in Big Sky Country is being developed, not just with vacation cabins, but huge ticky-tacky, cookie-cutter McMansions. Yes, I'm afraid that Big Sky Country is quickly and irrreversibly becoming big house country.
Just yeaterday we went out to the fields where the hay for our horses was being cut. The farmer leases the land from a developer who say's he can continue to cut hay until the property sells. It's in an area the locals know as Lower Valley and the topsoil is some of the deepest in Montana. But the views of the surrounding Rocky Mountains are "to die for" as the realtors like to say. So in a place where a few years ago was nothing but farm fields and woods, is now being divided into lots of 1 acre or less. I asked the farmer, "Where the hell are we?" He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Well look around. What happened to Lower Valley? I don't even recognize it any more." He replied, "It's becoming Boulder."

McMansions in my neighborhood have evolved into million dollar, 4000 sq. ft. stone castles representative of our new feudal society. Fortunately, there's no room for a moat on the 1/4-acre lots. He he!

Funnier still, each has a 3-car garage set sideways on the lot so as not to have the garage doors as the prominent architectural feature. So the double-width driveways make tight 90° turns at the entrance to the garage. These turns, however, are too tight for their over-sized SUV's to navigate, so they remain parked in the driveway, exposed to the weather. He he he!

sigma: eight people in a 2100 sq ft house? Get the hell outta here! How could that be 'plenty big'? Is yours a family of pixies? Do you live in a climate that enables you to spend a lot of time outside, year 'round? If you moved to a 2100 sq ft home with your family of eight here in Minnesota, I'm betting you'd witness a fratricide by February.

I don't believe this article for a second. I own a home in St. Paul MN - a 1,260 sq ft house with a 2.5 car garage and a HUGE yard (1.5 city lots deep) that children would love to run in and gardeners would love to grow their own organic food in. The house, built in 1915 has loads of charm and, as a friend says, "is cute as hell."

I live and work overseas (as an unpaid volunteer) and am trying to rent the house for what everyone assures me is a VERY reasonable rent (most say that it's on the low side!) My house has been vacant for five months. Why? Not enough space!!! The very small progressive community who try to live simply so that others can simply live, is just that - SMALL. The house cries out for a member of this community, but there aren't enough of us to go around.

The insatiable American appetite for more and bigger is as strong as ever. And unfortunately, I don't see it changing any time soon.

I live very comfortably in an earth-sheltered home of just over 900 sq ft. Granted, it's just me and the cat, but this space, with its super-efficient layout, could easily accommodate a family of 4 (at least while the 2 kids were very young and/or of the same sex). There's even room to add a 3rd bedroom if needed. You'd just have to fight for the one bath.
The mansions are also sprouting like toadstools in and around Knoxville, TN, taking some of the best and most picturesque land to be found anywhere and turning it into the ghettos of tommorow. When the revolution comes...and it will...and wealth is redistributed as it should be, these "McMansions" will be turned into muli-family housing. If it's not too harsh a transition, the owners might even be allowed to retain the Master Suite, though they might have to share the bath.
I wonder who all these folks who can afford, or pretend to, these huge and, for the most part, grotesque, homes?

If you own your land and can afford a castle then you are lucky! This article leans to a communistic point of view. The issues today are still war, Constitutional restoration and impeaching criminal members of government. If you are able to create a fortune and choose to build or buy a large home and you can afford the taxes and maintenance then good for you! So, now people are going to dictate how other people can spend their money or how they can use their land?

I worked for a lighting company a number of years ago and some of our accounts were the developers of these McMansions. What this article doesn't point out is that *most* of the homes I visited were still without alot of furniture even a year or two after the owners moved in. Oh, sure, they would make sure the formal dining room was fully finished (the dining room window always, always, always faces the street), as well as the formal living room (again, the windows always face the street).

When you get to the *back* of the house, however, or the rooms upstairs, it's a different story. Lots of crappy, old leftover hand-me-downs or junk remaining from their college days, I kid you not. Now, of course, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you're mortgaged to the hilt and pretending to have more money than you actually have, it's ridiculous.

It was funny. I'd see in these homes junk my husband and I had thrown out long ago, but then we could afford to, we live in a bungalow downtown.

I love my 1100 sq. ft. apartment for my family of three (and a rat)!
(and an apt is generally much more eco-efficent than a house)

jld_overseas: sigma's got 8 people in his 2100 sq ft house. Since your St. Paul abode is 1260 sq ft, that would work out to about 5 people, given the sigma calculation of 262.5 sq ft per person. Would you be so bold as to tell me that 5 people (American people, that is) can live comfortably in that house?

I get so tired of people who think *they* know what's right and want to enforce it on other people. My wife and I live in a 1,700 square foot home. Know what?? It's too small. The guest bedroom and office are 10x10 and barely have enough room for furniture. The master bedroom, where we spend most of our personal time, barely holds a queen bed and two computer desks. The living room is barely big enough to put in a projector TV with a screen for movie night. I'd like to get a 4x8 pool table and some chairs in the great room and it isn't big enough. No dining room at all, just a place in the kitchen for a 4 chair table.

You don't want those things in your house?? Fine, live in your 1,200 sq. ft. home. But stop whining when I want them in mine. I'd rather have more indoor space than outdoor space.

Consumerism?? Or just enjoying life the way I want to. I don't live in front of the TV, but when I watch a movie I want big sound and a big picture. I can shoot pool for hours by myself, and that's as much exercise as walking. Maybe you like to hike and ride your bike for all of your entertainment, I don't.

Go take your elitist attitude elsewhere.

MetalDog: My husband and I have two kids that we reared in our 1,200 SF house. sigma has double the number of people in a house almost double the size of our house. If we can easily do it, I'm sure sigma can, as well. We live in a small house with nice things, but without the accumulation of junk that people with more space feel they can't live without. (They can, of course.)

signmaker, I think the point is over-consumption is killing the planet. That's why people are complaining, or in your words, "whining".

I just returned from visiting Colorado and the newspapers are filled with these massive, monster, multi-million-dollar homes "ready to move in--ski in, ski out!" Meanwhile, the workers who keep these resort towns running live in barrack-style mobile homes if they're lucky.
Something is gravely wrong with this picture.

I know what this is like. I live next to one. One entire side of my house no longer has any privacy because their McWindows are situated in such a way that they can look inside our house very easily.

You want to let fresh air in the bathroom. Just make sure you close it before you shower otherwise the McNeighbors get a peep show too.

You want to sit in the backyard. They can see everything you do from their spacious second story and also their outdoor McBalcony that is conveniently located and overlooks our entire backyard. Isn't it also convenient that they have their "McPlayroom" type area also right next to our property so they are always congregating on that side as well.

You think I'm exaggerating but I'm not. In a way, we have become prisoners in our own house becuase all the blinds, shutters, etc have to be closed in order to ensure privacy.....on that side of the house anyway. We don't sit outside as much either unless we want him to join our conversations.

Nothing has been the same since that eyesore was built!

(BTW, I'm in L.A. Things are much worse out here.)

Frosty bunny July 31st, 2007 5:31 pm

Is that how it is? Your so sure? Have a look at this clip on YT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

I am vaguely remembering a scene in "Dr. Zhivago" where the soldiers come to the door, have a look around, and then say they could house fourteen families in the space...

Those of you who have learned how to live in small spaces, good for you. My husband, cat and I live in a 660 sq ft apt. We are very happy, and often have as many as 10 guests over for snacks and conversation.

What global warming is teaching us is that we in the "developed world" are all going to have to learn to live with less, so signmaker, maybe you can afford your big house (for now) but the earth can't; and the fact that you're such a space hog is nothing to be proud of.

If a person makes (or inherits) enough money to buy and do anything they want with the land, water, air, factories, stores, etc.that they own, then what do we do when they start to take breathable air, drinkable water, usable topsoil, the wonders of nature (aesthetics), safe driving conditions, low cost energy, non-toxic/non-engineered food, decent paying jobs, a working system of public services, and a democratic government from the rest of us?

sh@dow, I have several posts here, am I so sure of what?

Frosty bunny July 31st, 2007 5:31 pm
signmaker, I think the point is over-consumption is killing the planet. That's why people are complaining, or in your words, "whining".

I envision many of the huge houses to be split as townhouses and condos. When looking at floorplans, I look for ease in doing just that. VJ

On the Niagara peninsula in Canada (west of Buffalo NY and between the great lakes of Ontario and Erie) the province of Ontario has made the decision to encourage people to live in clusters in cities and villages and protect farm land with zoning ordinances. The farms can not be bought and divided up and resold.

It looks to me like what has happened in europe where the people live mostly in cities.

The Canadian gov't is preparing for using mass transit imo by keeping people in suburban lots with less land than in American suburbs.

But I might be wrong. This is just an observation and an opinion.

jld_overseas

The problem is you probably don't have enough closet space. People today have more clothes than people in 1915. Maybe buy some antique looking wardrobes... and see if that helps rent your house. :)

signmaker is the one with the elitist attitude. He/she is part of the problem, not the solution.

Almost all of society's woes are due to overpopulation and overconsumption; global warming, war, famine, greed.

Having said that, my wife and I are very cozy in our quality-built, well-designed 980 sq ft home with 5 dogs. Easy to clean, cheap to heat/cool, and always gets more compliments than the surrounding soul-less and poorly designed McMansions.

The idea of government mandating the size of my house offends my libertarian streak as much as the mcmansions offends my green streak.

Perhaps government should just stop subsidizing them. First figure out what the average number of square feet per resident in American homes. Then begin phasing out the mortgage interest deduction for those with more than twice that, taking it to zero for homes with more than 4X the national average square feet per resident. It would at least put a brake on things.

There is lots of wonderful stuff about New Urbanism, etc. The central principles are mixed-use areas, higher-density living areas (surrounded by open space: think of a doughnut), public transit.

I lived in a wonderful bungalow in Boulder for many years (it was built in 1918). We certainly could have used more closet space and another bathroom, but apart from that it was a wonderful house for a small family (which included a good-sized dog). We went back to visit friends a couple of years ago. Our bungalow has been replaced by a mini prairie palace almost three times the size of our bungalow. (They left one wall so that the project could be classified as a renovation.)

What a heart-breaker.

Sh@dow you make a better wall than a window, you don't say much and you don't let people see a thing, are you trying to make a point? You sound like your just a joiner/non-thinker!

PJD, I'm not Japanese, but I like the rest of what you wrote.

I'm a builder and you all are right about the plywood palazzos. I live in Seattle working on the rich and childless owners of zero lot line homes all on an eighth of an acre plot with at least 4000sqf min homes, sometimes we work on homes with twice that footage and a sixth acre plot. Yes, some have kids, some cook on gas(if they cook at home). All are single family homes solidly run on electricity all with a/c, after the fact a/c. You might only use it for a few days here so no one installs it with the furnace. In the past few years on the hottest days that are predictable, in the mornings we loose power due to all the new f#$^%$ window box style, inefficient, a/c units that these folk would rather put in, in a hole in the wall rather than in their furnace that would accept a more efficient model. Some in windows, o.k. And just to save money. Home Despot has sales just as the weather gets warmer. (Mostly they cant drive either, good thing they can always afford a new car) Less than ten minutes from downtown and without power, for blocks. I think it broke a hundred like once or twice in my life here!

Meanwhile, I live in a 600sqf house with my wood shop underneath, I work on reclaimed wood products on the side for fun, on a sixth acre plot with all the collards, kale, chard, strawberries and squash I can eat with tomatoes and peppers on the way, my lady and I have easy ten plus pets in the house with us. Thanksgiving is on us this year like usual, we can dine about 8 folk with out grabbing more chairs, we have done about fourteen and that is most of the family and close friends. Some folk don't know what real fun is!

This society WE have made is a morality free wasteland of greed. With kings of their own castles on every block. Its ok though, the bubble will burst like the stock market has and will again on Bushco and their BJ buddies. Hold on, we are going for a ride!

daBear July 31st, 2007 5:55 pm

So then you want the same demand destruction the wealthy want to use with carbon taxation?

High prices and taxation and inflation are all DEMAND DESTRUCTION.

If you all believe in global warming and energy depletion than you want STRICT CONSERVATION. Fair distribution of energy resources through rationing. So if you own a large home you will have to heat it with the same amount of fuel as someone in a cardboard box! If the VW owner gets 10 gallons a week so does the H2 owner. Rationing is the only way that does not create a class war!

Big houses are not sustainable, there aren't enough resources on the planet to build 500 (or more) square feet of heated and cooled space per person. I've built a few small cabins about 12 x 16' (192 square feet)and have found that they're plenty for one person. I live in a 240 sq ft travel trailer and am a firm believer that small is better! The smaller your place is, the less junk you're likely to bring home. Less to heat, cool, & clean is better. Simplicity rules! To hell with the big wasteful houses!

Their should be some big fat luxury taxes for big homes and automobiles.

"So, now people are going to dictate how other people can spend their money or how they can use their land?"

Yes, hopefully, they are going to...

The people, through their democratic govenments can, and do, dictate such things you are allowed to do through zoning regulations and and environmental regulations. Considering what we now know about the lavish and wasteful living styles and potentially catastrophic climate change, the laws should go further.

You do NOT have a right to spend your money as you please if it affects the ability of humans other living things to live on this planey. You certainly should not have a right to burn as much gasoline or use as much electricity as you please whether you can afford it or not.

This house size stuff is nonsense. Why is the CD readership so bourgeois? I grew up with ten siblings, two parents and a dog in a 5 BR house no bigger than about 2000 square feet. My folks considered it a palace. I currently live wit hmy wife and just two cats in a 1150 sq foot house and it serves us just fine. If we were middle-class Japanese, we would be living in half the space, but by almost all measures enjoying a better quality of life than here.

The biggest plus about small houses is their affordability - I am fortunate to live in an area with plenty of older, solidly built 1200 sq foot houses costing only $85,000 in fine, move-in condition. If we still lived in the DC area we would still be living in an apartment with home ownership not a viable option.

The poorly designed structures are bound to be blights on communities. Quality architectural designs, interior design layouts with good storage spaces, well laid out kitchens and baths, proper orientation to the sun for passive solar gain and minimal heat loss in winter and minimal heat gain in summer, correct window and door placements as well as greater consideration for the use of active renewable energy resources from solar collector panels to geo-thermal heating and cooling could make all the difference. In open areas where the water sources are wells and septic systems must be installed there better be adequate-sized lots. Harkening back to the comment about this all beginning during the Reagan administration, that might not be far from the truth. It was President Carter who put solar collectors on the roof of the White House. It was Reagan who tore them down immediately after he took office.

I figured as much. Everyone wants to tell me how to live. This isn't about democracy, it's about a bunch of people who think they are the only ones that know what is best and want to enforce their wills on everyone else. I get arguments like 'no, I'm not elitist, you are'. Wow ... got me there. I just don't know how to respond except 'no .. you are'.

I used to love my little 1,100 sq. ft. home where I raised two kids. I felt it was inexpensive, easy to maintain, and lots of other things. Said the same thing when all I could afford was a used Ford Escort. Funny, I could find all kinds of reasons why it was perfect for me and didn't understand why everyone else didn't have one. It's easy to find reason for the things you have and to find a little comfort in the decisions you've made, isn't it.

Funny now that I can afford to have a bigger house and nicer car, all those reasons have gone away. Now I'm not supposed to have one because of why?? Because some people don't think I should be allowed to??

I live in Phoenix and have visited some of the high dollar homes during tours. Do I want one?? No, couldn't afford it. But I'll be damned if I'll tell someone who does want one they can't have it. It's one thing to put in zoning ordinances about minimum lot size, minimum footage to make sure homes are livable. I can also agree with height restrictions. Now buzz off and let me live my life the way I want to. If I buy a big house, all the costs with running it also go up. I have to strike a balance between what I would like to have and what I can afford.

I have the house I have instead of the house I want because I chose not to spend another $100,000 and have all of those things. People can make those decisions.

It's easy to tear down the wealthy when you aren't one of them. I know, I used to be poor, then middle class, now upper middle class. I can't wait until I'm wealthy.

I've worked hard all my life to make something, made sacrifices to support a family and can now enjoy my leisure time just drives you crazy. I think if you went into some of those 2,000 and 4,000 square foot homes, there would be a lot of people just like me who for once in their lives have the kids out of their homes and can enjoy their leisure time before their bodies start to decay. I figure I've got about 10-20 years to enjoy my life before nature starts to restrict what I can do.

And I'm going to love every god damn minute of it. Go enjoy your life the way you want, and leave me alone.

I live in a 1040 sq. ft. home with three cats and a nice sized yard with a garden. I neither need nor want one of those chicken wire and stucco starter castles AKA McMansions. Most of them are way too big for real families. I always have figured that people who live in them probably don't like each other and need room to hide from each other. Poor souls. I think that if they can afford it and really want to speed up global warming, then they should all be put in some single place and not tarnish our landscapes with them.

Signmaker, you will never be wealthy. You will always be middle class, or with that attitude, classless. Do something, don't be a self serving selfish panderer ok princess? No one said you cant be comfortable, we all say you shouldn't destroy the world. You are twisted and very forgetful of all the morals you (hopefully) taught your kids. Just think about all the heaven you could find with just thinking things through! If you got money, Honey, you could help more than your selfish self. Your momma ever teach you about what your other hand is for? Its for helping others, not like the first one, which is for helping yourself. You can still grow up.

funeocons July 31st, 2007 9:29 pm

Capitalism is not a governmental system and communism is not a way to shop! A democratic republic we live in does not practice capitalism since that was derailed by plutocracy. We use worthless sheets of paper that lost all value when the silver and gold standards were given away.

Since none of us has ever experienced true capitalism or even anything like it it is time to end the Federal Reserve and its private collection agency called the IRS.

Now dingoboy is another to talk about another mans greed, etc. He knows nothing about freedom and also promotes communism as salvation and then reports to know what life is "really all about" yet is simply mortal!

Hey Sigma, be nice. I am a Jones and it is hard keeping up with self. Just moved from 2200 sf to 850 sf which is enough for wife and self and makes a smaller footprint on earth.

It's not all bad, some of these mansions can house some of the millions of illegal aliens that take the jobs Americans don't want. About 50 illegal aliens with 4 jobs each may be able to pay for one.

Back to economics, debt runs the economy.

Bankers are falling all over themselves looking to loan you money. Borrow money for a McMansion and the collateral is tangible property. Banks can't go wrong!

I know an accountant, and she tells me that most of these people are so far in debt that they will never get out. So are they rich? They are just players in a system, and are allowed to live like a rich person as long as they play the game.

The debt economy is driving the McMansions, stop that and things will equalize. If all of us working people lived using common sense, I do believe the "rich" would want to at least imitate the way we live, especially if we ARE happy.

We are talking 1% who are rich and then there are the super rich. The rich will fall into the category above; the super rich are the ones controlling our government. Right now I want to get our government to be open and honest to the people! Quit using public airwaves to promote corporate agendas and serve the people in the long run.

I bought 5 acres in 1980, paid it off in '84 then started a saving to open a business in '87. I survived because I lived on $5-10 dollars a day and invested the rest happily back into my business.

In 1999, our local paper had a blog, and I argued the same points then as I do now. After 9-11, I had the police claim the alarm in the business above went off so they came in my business pointing guns and flashlights in my face. Planning and Zoning started harassing my landlord. Tax and Revenue emptied my bank account of $600 when I owed about $200.

What I couldn't sell at garage sales I threw away. All my stuff fit in a 5x8 storage unit and I went to camp on my land. I now live in a over the cab truck camper that sits up on concrete with storage underneath.

That was my backup plan all along; if my business fails I will always be able to live on my land. As I see it I am retired. I owe nobody and only need about $5,000/year for food, insurance and taxes.

My land is for wildlife and I leave it in its natural state by taking up as little room as possible. Little house and a big yard!

As I said before, developers are bulldozing all around me and the McMansions are coming. All the surrounding ranches have sold to developers.

This problem is the world money supply is increasing because of DEBT, and the remaining land is seen as valuable as collateral and cheap as an expense.

Check out the site:

http://www.inequality.org/

and click on "By the Numbers". Down in the pie charts you will find the distribution of wealth in this country. The wealthiest 1% have over 30% of the wealth, the next 9% ditto. The bottom 90% of people have less than 30% of the wealth. The figures are from 2005. Things are probably worse now.

That 10% sets the standard for what is considered important. They can well afford luxury houses. There is a waiting list for multi-million dollar yachts.

Until (or if) the distribution of wealth can be make more equal, the rest of us must ignore their example of destructive over-consumption and set a different standard of conservation and simpler live styles.

The first twelve years of our married life was spent in a homestead shack without running water and lump coal for heat. We built a new 1320' home in 1972 and have lived in it happly ever since. Wouldn't trade it for any house on the market!!!!!

jungleboy July 31st, 2007 7:20 pm

Wow, Signmaker was just talking about communists like you and then you go and prove his claim. You seek to "tell people what is good for them" and that is idiotic on your part. You preach COMMUNISM and most people are waking up to your ilk. Later on you will make one of your communistic comments and for that you will get your head handed to you!
PAX