Planners Move to Close the Window on American McMansions
LOS ANGELES - For many they are a blight on the American landscape. For others, they are an expression of freedom and success. Now legislators in cities across the US, alarmed at the spread of "McMansions", are trying to contain the size of American homes.
Inspired by concerns that communities are disappearing and alarmed by the environmental costs, planners have drawn up measures to ensure new homes stay within a footprint that is proportionate to the plot size.
Since 1973 the median size of a new home in the US has grown from 1,525 sq ft (142 sq metres) to 2,248 sq ft. At the same time, the number of people per household has fallen from 3.1 to 2.6. Huge mansions are a common site across the US, dotting the landscape alongside motorways in Colorado, or squeezed into tiny plots in urban areas. Wherever they are found, they share common features: large atrium-style hallways, showpiece kitchens, multiple bathrooms, walk-in wardrobes, built-in garage and garden statuary; a style familiar to viewers of the Sopranos. While McMansion is the most frequently used pejorative term, "plywood palazzo" is another.
But the trend has alarmed planners and conservationists. In Boulder County, Colorado, which has recently adopted measures to cap the size of new homes, houses have grown from an average of 3,900 sq ft in 1990 to 6,300 sq ft last year. Last month in Los Angeles, the city's planning commission passed a motion to restrict the size of new homes. If the city council adopts the measure it could affect 300,000 properties in the city. Similar measures have been adopted in Minneapolis and in Florida.
"I think people are suspicious of development in the US right now," says John Chase, architecture critic and urban designer for the city of West Hollywood. "People have an unconscious cultural association with a place. Mansion-building takes away from a person's sense of the identity of a place."
But environmental pressures are also being felt. "According to scientists, if we don't learn to contain our use of fossil fuels we are in serious trouble," says John Nolon, a law professor at New York's Pace University. "One of the most egregious examples is a large house. A 6,000 sq ft-8,000 sq ft house is a climate change disaster. If the country doesn't rein in the construction of these mansions the message to individuals is that they're encouraged to follow their urges. The phenomenon with McMansions is similar to that with SUVs [sport utility vehicles or 4x4s]: they express a certain sort of success, they're available and they're fun. If legislative folks don't take some kind of position on mansionisation, it will go unchecked."
But some discern signs that Americans are tiring of the architectural bling of the McMansion . "My sense is that in the luxury market people are less interested in size than they were a decade ago," says Kermit Baker, chief economist with the American Institute of Architects, which has recorded a levelling off in the size of new houses.
Small may be beautiful, but new home owners may not want to go as far as the 250 sq ft micro-apartments proposed for central Los Angeles. That would be just enough space for a Humvee and a Prius to snuggle together.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
147 Comments so far
Show Allsh@dow: Fine, I'm a communist. Whatever. All I know is I'm happy, I'm healthy, I'm rich, and best of all, I'm sane!
But now I really am done with you and your silly, inept arguments. All that sputtering, puffing, misguided rage. Be careful or
you'll give yourself a big old heart attack. Bon soir, McLoser.
We will never know if communism works because, communism as Marx wrote about has never been implemented in ANY government. These governments structure themselves based on Marx's principals because that's what they can sell to the people.
We need to get our democracy to respond to constituants' needs instead of corporate demand. It make little difference to me what kind of government you have if it doesn't work.
"annemarie j August 3rd, 2007 10:17 pm
sh@dow August 3rd, 2007 8:07 pm
Sorry, can't chat anymore with you…Yawn…Besides, must get ready to go and club some more seals with my soviet canuckistani comrades. LOL"
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
sh@dow August 3rd, 2007 8:07 pm
annemarie j August 3rd, 2007 5:34 pm
"centre" is of French origin and frankly this conversation is in English. More than that you can comment on what you know or believe but you have no way of determining what stamps are in my passport or what I read. I can say that reading this thread is rather interesting since it is apparent that you communists want to do nothing more than change the subject...
------------
It does have French roots, as well as Latin, and Greek before that. But note this you know-it-all: the English spell it *centre*, as do Canucks, Aussies, et al...
Sorry, can't chat anymore with you...Yawn...Besides, must get ready to go and club some more seals with my soviet canuckistani comrades. LOL
dingoboy August 3rd, 2007 8:18 pm
You made a big deal about how your communist friends spelled "looser" and then you feel the need to play spelling corrector. Now it turns out your Canadian and so it makes sense that you are a communist. It makes sense that French words leak out. Go and club your seals Canadian!
balakirev,
interesting post. I'm going away for the weekend so I'll have to read it more closely when I return.
sh@dow, in Canada, where I live, we spell 'centre' as I spell it here. I don't really care about your spelling mistakes. I just
care about your reasoning, or rather, lack of it. I think I'm done conversing with you anyway.
annemarie j August 3rd, 2007 5:34 pm
"centre" is of French origin and frankly this conversation is in English. More than that you can comment on what you know or believe but you have no way of determining what stamps are in my passport or what I read. I can say that reading this thread is rather interesting since it is apparent that you communists want to do nothing more than change the subject.
We can go back to the top if you like and talk about "acceptable square footage for houses around the world and in the united states." Posters here claimed all different acceptable spaces but then agreed that square footages like 8K and up were simply too excessive. Then that amount started to go down as people reported there available square footages.
I never mentioned the square footage I live in since that is my business but I can afford it. Communists dictate acceptable housing and then over time acceptable amounts, levels and types of EVERYTHING. The posters of this thread have made numerous assertions and those assertions do not agree with me. That puts me in the minority on this thread but thanks to the Constitution none of you can TELL ME what the square footage can be.
Many of you that live in small homes built after the various wars for returning servicemen don't realize that mammoth houses and American Castles have existed here since European settlers arrived. If my home has 6500 square feet or twice that all that matters is if I can maintain that space and afford it. To you my home matters not and I'm sure the cardboard box you reside in is none of my business as well. You and your extended family can enjoy nights around the Sterno can or your open oven door for all I care.
My friends in England who have visited my home in the USA enjoyed their stays and enjoyed winter evenings in the warmth of a roaring fire in a lovely fireplace and not around my oven though that was on doing a great deal of cooking. Regardless, there is no way that your communist insurgency will dictate to me what is or isn't acceptable on my property in my house or in my life! When I have traveled abroad I mainly visit islands and I happen to love England and France though I like the tan time better.
The best you can hope for is that conservation through rationing is utilized. The wealthy people of the world are only marginally inconvenienced by hyper inflation, total cost, demand destruction and taxation. So as times get tough for the lower classes they become determined to grasp for alternative governmental systems like communism.
The idea that you and your friends are going to dictate acceptable living conditions to others is crazy but that is how communists do it. All of the planets in the solar system are getting warmer including the Earth so the greens look for people to blame and then push taxation as salvation rather than conservation. Taxation punishes the poor and middle class.
Your carbon tax will adjust my yearly cost by around +$3,000.00 provided I don't change anything. As food costs rise I will be able to absorb them too. Since I practice conservation there are areas of my home that are zoned out. I have solar heated circulated hot water heating and I have a drop coil for both heating and cooling. I could add more alternatives but frankly I don't use that much electricity as it is. My refrigerator is the biggest draw here. My house on the shore uses much less power but mainly because I stay out on the beach.
You people need to get a grip. Bigger houses use more material and many use materials that are now rare. My homes are custom built and quite new and are more energy efficient than all of the smaller homes I have owned. Today was quite warm out so I relaxed in my basement and pressed grapes and then I napped. I took some business calls and then later on I may go to the shore for the rest of the weekend. I will eat just like you and the trip to the shore will only be a few gallons of gasoline round trip for the 5 of us for the entire weekend.
Different types of wood from South America have become scarce and these materials should be regulated. Copper is now scarce and when I built this home I decided to use copper since unlike PVC it is safer and more reliable and cost me $1000.00's more than water through PVC or power through aluminum. I do all I can to minimize the amount of plastics in my home. I have hardwood floors and natural fiber rugs to protect the floors and create warmth. For counters I used garnet. All of the finishes in the home are low VOC water based products and the decks are natural redwood that was a gift from GP to me.
There is a great deal more to tell but all in all my homes are quite durable, attractive, efficient and best of all paid for. If this was the communist government you desire I would not be happy no matter how hard I worked since my art and antiquities would not fit in a smaller house. My kids would not be free to grow and express themselves in as cramped home. Frankly, I paid more just to have more space and I am a fantastic administrator of my property and my space otherwise I would have made other arrangements.
Enjoy the weekend!
I'm not one to judge anyone dingoboy. That is why I don't call people fascists, communists, anarchists, or f**king a-holes. I just don't like using hot-button words when I am discussing anything.
However, in a class-ridden society, one does have objective, working concepts that help describe it. Many of the concepts I use come from classic Greek and Roman political philosophers, especially Aristotle: plutocracy, timocracy, democracy, patriarchy, matriarchy, tyranny, monarchy, autocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, hegemony, republic, proletariat, etc.
If I used Greco-Roman terms to describe the U.S. , I would state that the U.S. is a plutocratic republic; in foreign relations, it is a thalassocracy (a naval-based power)that uses its naval supremacy to expand or maintain its hegemonic control of other states.
Its funny that the Greeks didn't develop terms like communist, socialist, fascist, bureaucracy, and many of the other current concepts in use today. Even FDR used terms like plutocrats.
Bye for now.
sh@dow wrote:
"The word centres(SIC) is correctly spelled "centers" so please make a note of that."
---------------
Actually, either spelling is correct. You might have known that if you were better read or better travelled, even on the internet. But there doesn't seem to be much chance that you'll ever venture far from your comfort zone since there are so many communists lurking about. Here, there, everywhere! ;)
With that out of the way, let's resume debating the original topic of this thread: How gawdless commies continue to threaten the good, ole' 'merkin way of life LOL
Wow! sh@dow
Communist, communist, communist, communist, communist...your last post was full of communists.
LOL from a ....?
balakirev August 3rd, 2007 12:33 pm
In my opinion you and many others here are communists. That opinion grows stronger with each post made by the communist posters here. Now, you claim that I am making ad hominem attacks by using the word "communist" when talking about you and your other communist friends posing as "progressives" here and possibly on other sites. I assure you that I closely read everything you and the others wrote and in my opinion you and the others are communists.
Not only are your views communistic but there are many times when your posts and the posts of the other communists here that pose as progressives like you read as hypocritical. Now, you might believe that I am issuing ad hominem attacks but I assure you that deep down you are in error and it is your denial of the fact that you are a communist that is creating paranoia that is manifesting in your writing.
Communists like you and the others that insist that you are simply green or whatever must learn that we see you for what you are and hope you turn hard about.
dingoboy August 3rd, 2007 11:41 am
Along with your communism you seem to have a reading problem. Study the thread again and you will see that "fatfreddyscat August 1st, 2007 11:06 pm" used "looser" and then I threw it back at him. Then "jungleboy August 2nd, 2007 2:46 am" used the spelling "looser" again followed by "fatfreddyscat August 2nd, 2007 11:32 am" using the "looser" spelling again. I should have included a (SIC) since I'm not the one with the reading or spelling problem.
Now your point is way off topic since this isn't a spelling site but I wonder if you made any mistakes in your spelling?
You wrote this:
dingoboy August 1st, 2007 10:25 am
hey, old goat, you know what's sad? They won't be turned into community centres(SIC) because they're so poorly built that they're doomed
The word centres(SIC) is correctly spelled "centers" so please make a note of that. Beyond that when you write and use too many conjunctions. Conjunctions are frowned upon and make your writing appear rushed.
I always laugh hard at posts by COMMUNIST SPELLING CORRECTORS. You are quick to point out the faults of the world yet make mistakes that help to shape the point of view that you are a hypocrite as well as a communist.
Now, back to the point you are a communist no matter what you say, enjoy!
balakirev, hello,
I agree with both of your posts. In fact, I only used the word "communist" because for some reason, unknown to me, shadow thinks I
am one.
Peace.
sh@dow
I was not telling people to do anything. I was directing a criticism at employing an overused and very imprecise word("communist") as a category in which to place a person and their ideas.
Usually, if one uses the word "communist" to categorize a person and his/her ideas, it both stops intellectual exploration and lowers the level of discourse.
Last, I was making appeal to stop employing this form of ad hominem attack.
If you read my previous post, you might have picked up that I think the use of the word "communist" is not only counterproductive it is a concept that doesn't really help approximate reality. It never did.
sh@dow,
yes, we live in a plutocracy, you're right about that. I'm not sure why you have to spell it with capitol letters. Nor do I understand
why you spell "loser" with two "o's".
However, in an earlier post, you called me a communist and said I "know nothing" about freedom. How strange, considering that you know
less than nothing about me or my knowledge of freedom. For your information, I am very rich and I know quite a bit about freedom and I
am not a communist. How you got your ideas about me remains as mysterious to me as your failure to grasp the spelling of a relatively
simple word, like "loser", which you clearly are. Good luck with your ideas. Maybe if you lived in a different country, (you are obviously
American) you could get your meds adjusted properly so that you wouldn't come across as insane.
PJD August 2nd, 2007 12:09 pm
annemarie j,
Good points. When I moved to Pitsburgh's Bloomfield neighborhood from a life in ultra-suburban Fairfax, Virginia, the experience was a cmbination of being (pleasasntly) culture shocked, and full blown epiphany. One can live fine here without needing a car, nor ever stepping into any kind of chain store or restaurant.
--------
PJD,
Hey, thanks! That's wild, my first trip to America was the almost-entire summer I spent visiting relatives in Falls Church, VA. Oak Ridge Road, in fact. Maybe you know it? Fairfax County, as memory serves. Summer of 1966. And we couldn't go a damned place without going by car. Which meant that we kiddies were stuck at the house most of the time. Blecch! And what a gawd-awful contrast to all the natural freedom to roam, wander, explore, and just be a kid in the small town I grew up in and was then living in, here in Canada.
Home is now Toronto Canada. And for a city, especially with a population approaching or over 4 million, downtown living here is great.
Yeah, give me gritty and real, any day! :)
balakirev August 2nd, 2007 5:03 pm
There ya go, telling people what words to use! Yet another low point of a free society. So, we quickly move from how big a house should be to what people should say. That isn't "progressive" and if the communist shoe fits the green foot than so be it.
Thanks for the invite, jungleboy.
Please, will some of the people partaking in this discussion stop using the term "communist." It is used so loosely that it has no meaning.
In fact, if the world of nations was organized into rich communist states and poor communist states, the rich would take advantage of the poor. The same is obviously true in the relations BETWEEN rich capitalist states and poor capitalist, communist, socialist and/or fascist states.
Within nations, people are organized into the elite and non-elite social classes. In relations between nations, nations are organized into the elite and non-elite.
As a result, the elite of BOTH non-elite and elite nations plus the non-elite of elite nations dominate and exploit the non-elite of non-elite nations. The non-elite of non-elite nations make up approximately 70% to 80% of the world population.
These non-elites also use the least of the world's natural resources. Ironically, these non-elites are considered to be disposable.
NMBill August 2nd, 2007 3:03 pm
Yes, you laugh since your in denial that global government is global communism. Taxation is simply class warfare. If pollution is true and if peak oil is true then conservation is the only way to cope with the ultimate END of INDUSTRIALIZATION.
Inflation, taxation and outright theft are solutions for you communists/socialists/fascists to prolong industrialization. We are at war and in fact there is no draft or rationing. We see hyper inflation and the impending economic collapse and talk about nonsense.
You don't even see the truth and parrot negatives about my perception of your fatal flaw of being an idiot in denial. The greens or "carbon taxers" are nothing more than globalists that push hybrid cars. The greens are in fact COMMUNISTS. No matter how many times this is discussed the result is that greens want a carbon tax since they in fact do not want to ration anything. You want to drive your Prius and have your mass manufactured plastic products.
RATIONING is what you do on a boat and we are on a boat.
Shadow's rationing idea makes sense. So does taxing excess and using the money to purchase and protect other public lands.
I really laugh when shadow equates green with communism, it shows me he knows nothing about communism.
All governments are a mix of all the 'isms, in different formulas in order to make them work!
jungleboy August 2nd, 2007 1:23 pm
Rationing is completely within the scope of the Constitution. Rationing has been done in each and every war till now. The plutocracy has created a collection company and through taxation the government is able to cease property and through inflation the plutocracy is able to cease savings.
You commented about the Constitution and in reality the Constitution is timeless. You believe that oil, plastic and nuclear power make us more evolved that the Founding Fathers and that is complete BS.
Sh@dow, your communist 'Rationing' wont work with the outdated constitution that was originally written to create a system where the rich in America can govern the poor uneducated. Its outdated and needs a sprucing up, it needs to be modernized. I'm all for a big overthrow here. When my lineage landed on the rock here, before "Don't Tread On Me" was hung up to fly, we needed a constitution for protection along with a citizen militia force to take over the government if things got out of hand, like they are now. While Reagan was sleeping with his pen hand in motion, all that now is impossible as the military can be used against the people and the militia forces are all disbanded. See the 'Senate Hearing on Paramilitary Forces' summer 95' probably available from PBS. (I think they cover senate hearings??) So now that the leaders of our fine country own all the banks and lending institutions, they have a great force to lobby local government and power to bribe the local offices to make sure the wheels go round for them, not us. If they can fill their coffers before the end, it's all they want. Your local city counsel is needing you Sh@dow, to stir things up. Don't ostracize them, work them over, work them up to do the right thing. Raise them up like your own child. Good luck! We all need to do the same to make change and not look to let it fall in our laps, because, it won't happen. Now stop preaching to the choir and GET TO WORK YOU BUM! See you in city hall, Y'all! Im going to work over some blind repug today and fill his head with all the news from the left he won't see on his Fox! He pays my salary and is a great debater, his flaw, compassion! I got him right where I want him. Thanks Amy Goodman! Work is never done!
annemarie j,
Good points. When I moved to Pitsburgh's Bloomfield neighborhood from a life in ultra-suburban Fairfax, Virginia, the experience was a cmbination of being (pleasasntly) culture shocked, and full blown epiphany. One can live fine here without needing a car, nor ever stepping into any kind of chain store or restaurant.
like most epiphanies, it is was hard to put ito words -the only word that described the experience was "this place is so real", yes a bit gritty her and there, but REAL.
The locals all thought I was nuts - why would anyone want to live here? Just a bunch of backward mom and pop italian grocery stores, hardware stores, coffee-shops, and restaurants - There's no shopping malls - and not even a TGI Fridays or Applebees!
fatfreddyscat August 2nd, 2007 11:32 am
No, you have it in reverse "scat boy" (yes we see the SCAT in your name). Your the one imposing communistic views on me and years ago someone said, "DON'T TREAD ON ME!" Your a communist and you should realize that a true progressive wants to restore the Constitution, end the war and impeach the plutocrats (impose terms, end corporate governance and lobby, etc.)You should also know that Communism is the creation of the Plutocrats along with fascism. You are part of a DIVIDED NATION that has the cart before the horse. We are in a dictatorship and your debating how big a house should be....
Ahahahahahahahahahah
irishgawdess August 2nd, 2007 11:03 am
Now your advocating reverse demand destruction. I'm advocating true conservation through energy RATIONING. Demand destruction is a result of inflation, taxation and plutocratic interests. You all have the cart before the horse. You have to end the plutocracy since the plutocrats control inflation, prices and taxation.
The issue is that the wealthy (who own those houses) can simply pay more for energy and thusly force all of the non wealthy to be limited. Hence "DEMAND IS DESTROYED" and the wealthy can enjoy empty roads, giant houses, etc.
Laws and taxes always punish the poor and middle classes. Your case as greens is that peak oil and pollution are killing us all. Building laptops, Priuses, solar cells, etc is not conservation but instead more of the same.
Conservation of resources has to be equal for all. A wealthy person can drive any car and the limiting factor to him is available money. A woman raising children who earns 20K a year is limited and imprisoned by inflation and spot shortages created by the wealthy!
Now the real surprise is how many of you line up for an attempt at what is clearly communism disguised as "globalism" or any of the other double speak words supplied by your party.
Aw c'mon sh@dow, just when I think there might be a rational thinking person behind that prickly exterior you go and try to hurt my feelings again. I guess once a loudmouth idiot always a loud mouth idiot. From what I have seen of your other posts on CD you really are not worth conversing with.
Good bye looser!
Dave - Your last post is well stated. You and sh@dow are 100% correct when you point out that the USA is a plutocracy and that the doctrine of corporate personhood is the foundation of our current fascist regime. But I still take issue with some of your statements.
"A common theme here is that these people who over-consume are doing so at the expense of everyone else. How? Is anybody here deprived of a place to live, food to eat, energy to burn as a result of the over-consumptive behavior of these few?"
Over consumption by the few hurts everyone all around to world, we are robing our descendants of their future by needless overconsumption.
"In other words, the government is permitting the building of McMansions and subsidizing the production of the energy to maintain them. The buyers of these houses are simply taking advantage of the system that exists. Yet the progressives blame the buyers for their "errant" behavior. What about blaming the government that has helped create this system?"
I certainly do not place the entire blame on the the buyers of these McMansions. I believe the have been deceived by the developers etc. And you are again 100% correct that the government is to blame for going out of it's way to allow the system to become so corrupted for the sake of profits. This is not freedom.
I blame "we the people" for allowing ourselves to be fooled so completely.
"fatfreddyscat August 2nd, 2007 11:00 am
BTW I am not a communist, nor a socialist, nor a capitalist. I am a decentralist with Georgeist economic leanings. And yes I am a registered Green. I do not believe that going back to what the founding fathers of the USA tried to implement originally is appropriate for today, the world has moved on gunslinger."
Wow, along with being a communist (decentralist(SIC)Georgeist(SIC)economic leanings) your clearly insane. Take heed bozo you are a communist.
"The phenomenon with McMansions is similar to that with SUVs [sport utility vehicles or 4×4s]: they express a certain sort of success, they're available and they're fun."
Never have I felt more strongly that the market should decide this issue. Seriously, are we going to legislate the size of homes people can build? Where is the outcry for fuel-efficient homes? For alternative fuels?
Then again, local governments can tack on a premium to build in such a manner. If these pinheads are more interested in showing off their wealth, fine. Let them pay for the privilege. Build a monstrosity, pay more for the building materials, especially if they aren't "green". Live in an over-sized mansion? Fine. Pay more for the fuel to cool and heat it, especially if the fuel isn't "green".
Treat them like the social pariahs they are.
sh@dow - Is your use of the term "greenie" supposed to be an insult? I actually kinda like it, perhaps I will have a t-shirt made, "Tree Hugging Greenie"
Your constant screaming and ranting about the evils of what you call "communism" are as uneducated as the screaming and ranting others on this site do about what they call "capitalism".
Neither true capitalism nor true communism has ever been implemented anywhere. A totalitarian socialist state is not the same as communism!
You might have better luck expressing your point of view if you eased up a bit on the ranting and raving about the "evils of communism". It diminishes your credibility.
BTW I am not a communist, nor a socialist, nor a capitalist. I am a decentralist with Georgeist economic leanings. And yes I am a registered Green. I do not believe that going back to what the founding fathers of the USA tried to implement originally is appropriate for today, the world has moved on gunslinger.
Very well stated, sh@dow. Freedom and adherence to the intent of the Constitution were some of the themes I was dancing around. Apparently such ideas are so foreign today that one cannot merely allude to them and expect everyone understand what you're referring to; one has to be much more explicit.
We do indeed live in a plutocracy here, thanks to that decision made by the Supreme Court a century ago. Given the close relationship between business and the government here, I regard the U.S. as a fascist state, in fact, a fascist, covert police state. England is indeed a socialist police state. Germany is not far behind. And sadly, France is showing similar tendencies.
What many evidently leftist progressives are advocating here is essentially a tyranny of the masses. They endorse the idea that the minority who favor big houses and overconsumption must bow to the ideals of the progressive segment of society. Is that freedom? Is that tolerance?
A common theme here is that these people who over-consume are doing so at the expense of everyone else. How? Is anybody here deprived of a place to live, food to eat, energy to burn as a result of the over-consumptive behavior of these few? Furthermore, these people are not consuming to excess for free – they are paying for what they consume! They are paying for their big house; they are paying proportionally higher property taxes for it; they are paying for the energy they consume to heat and cool that house. Why don't progressives urge governments to spend the extra property tax they collect from McMansions on alternative energy projects?
In a truly free market system, the price people pay for their house, their food, their energy would be representative of the true cost, including the cost to the environment. Our system is not, however, a free market system. It's so distorted, mainly as a result of government subsidies, that things are not priced accurately, leading to overconsumption of things such as energy. Were it not for massive subsidies in the form of U.S. military interventions overseas, energy prices would probably be higher, causing McMansion buyers to be a little more thoughtful about their choice of homes or automobiles. As energy becomes scarcer, the price will rise and put pressure on these McMansion owners to find less energy demanding homes to live in.
As some have pointed out, the local community does impose development rules on the community, and those rules have permitted the construction of McMansions.
In other words, the government is permitting the building of McMansions and subsidizing the production of the energy to maintain them. The buyers of these houses are simply taking advantage of the system that exists. Yet the progressives blame the buyers for their "errant" behavior. What about blaming the government that has helped create this system?
Finally, once you start imposing community standards on everybody in the community, where does it stop? OK, so you tell everyone what kind of home they can live in. Then you tell everyone what kind of car they can drive; where and whether they can smoke; whether they can drink; whether they can eat in fast food restaurants; what kind of clothing they can wear; what kind of books they can read. It doesn't stop. In fact, as some have pointed out, this would look a lot like communism.
What few people understand is that there is a fine line separating totalitarians on the left from those on the right. What many here are advocating is a form of leftist totalitarianism. The only true alternative to leftist or rightist totalitarianism is freedom, like that idealized by the Constitution. That, I believe, is truly progressive.
Dave
jungleboy August 2nd, 2007 2:46 am
Here is what your doing greenie...
You and your ilk are taking a quorum and making the determination that "for the greater good" you are going to dictate what size house is acceptable, what kind of car is acceptable, what type of job is permissible, etc. This is not a financial system that you are intent on mandating but is in fact COMMUNISM. Part of your insanity rooted in the extreme form of government you desire.
Greens will argue that taxation coupled with alleged green techno fixes and the elimination of property will save the world. I would contend that the only Constitutional way to resolve all of this would be through energy rationing and a free market. The greens/communists go out of their way to grab onto "demand destruction" and thusly create "class warfare."
Rationing is democratic and large home owners will be forced to economize and ultimately downsize while lower income groups will still be able to function. This would eliminate energy competition while still allowing commerce.
It will be interesting as oil depletes to see your plans fall apart. Look at your house no matter what size and realize that it is framed of wood and has a roof made of oil. The chip-board sheathing (some use foam sheathing) is a product of industrialization along with steel components, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, plastics and laminates.
Energy rationing will limit homes, cars, travel, food and do it without creating communistic blocks that the greens and communists here subscribe to. You all constantly talk about saving the world and yet insist that perpetuating assembly lines to build hybrids is some sort of solution to the underlying problems. That is false along with dictating property use.
Many here have decided that Constitutional restoration is the most important issue in the immediacy and frankly diverging governmental systems (like the current dictatorship)or your green lie (carbon taxes) are in direct conflict with the Constitution itself.
We live in something known as a PLUTOCRACY and it was an error that began during Abe Lincoln's. Corporations were allowed to have the rights of an individual and that one event is at the root of the current PLUTOCRACY. As a result we have been developing what can only be described as a "tangent form of slavery." The goal is to restore the constitution and live in a FREE NATION that avoids anarchy by operating under simple, basic laws. There are literally millions of laws now and basically you greens/communists want even more laws.
I suppose that this is part of the current establishment's growing dividing wall. The Founding Fathers did not have plastic but in reality they were smarter and stronger people in 1776 then the current conglomeration of idiots that make up the USA. Here you are sidetracked about houses and communistic governance while the fascists appear to be intent on killing everyone. You want to do your own dictating but can't even organize a march or national strike. AhAHAHahaha Good going!
Oh and did any of you notice that the LA rep of the Guardian Unlimited wrote this article? England had parliamentary government that has now grasped "global governance" through the EU. England is now a police state and is becoming a block in the EU's growing communistic lock on Europe. This is what you subscribe to and it is revolting!
Some terrific posts here, -thanks esp to Jospal and DeAnander for great turn of phrase and very insightful comments.
Fatfreddyscat: I hope your 'wounded ego' very soon regains full health. Oh... how *sorely* you must have suffered from that 'rapier wit' ;)
Jungleboy: " .01% of the population, most likely with a dick so small they drive a Hummer!" –
-Take it easy up on the roofs and never drop that 28oz Estwing on your foot my friend! :)
"Yes, we all want a bigger house. Now how bout a better country to put it in? You working on making it so? If no, then stop bothering the folks working on it."
–Brilliant comment, and damned well crafted.
You too are invited to dinner Jungleboy! :)
Sh@dow, you wish you could be rich, communism works as well as any bad economic system, you should know. I'll bet like your screen name implies you wont let yourself be seen in the light. A looser and twit. I dont see you argue pro Nafta. Its just the same bad economics. Why build something no one can afford? Check out how long it takes to sell a house in Seattle. Months! It used to be days. Real life terms for you fool? Lets say you had the skill to build,( I know, far-fetched) The bank owns it till you sell it, 95% chance unless you can spend $200,000 to buy the uninhabitable lot in town and get your crew to demo and build at less than, real dollars here, $100-$150 a sqf if lucky,(cheap ass) so now after 6-10 months of interest free loan because you are lucky and everything went unbelievably smooth you try to sell to someone that can afford it, less than .01% of the population, most likely with a dick so small they drive a Hummer! The only one they get! (sorry to get personal, sh@dow lover!) So, lets say its 4000sqf, so add two zeros like yourself to the end of that number and add the 2 to the 4 and the big number is $600,000 so far, now to add your interest rate and multiply it by the time gone by, ask Signmaker how long he is gonna live to schedule all this now, and you sell and make small dick from the hummer guy who then has no soul left because the bank owns it! You better sell for a cool mil, I didn't add insurance, permits, rising wood costs or the bad neighbor that slows you down, costing you $30,000 every other week or two. So what is mortgage a month on a million dollars, richie pooper? How bout just the cost of $600,000? Make sense so far?
Yes, we all want a bigger house. Now how bout a better country to put it in? You working on making it so? If no, then stop bothering the folks working on it.
balakirev, I'd invite you to dinner anytime!
There is a great podcast from KCRW's Design and Architecture titled "Does Size Equal Hapiness?" about McMansions.
--> http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/291343
Here is the blurb quoted from their website...
"McMansions are everywhere, but does size equal happiness? We hear from Sandy Gallin and other southland homeowners about the joys of living large -- or small! Plus a conversation with Max Palevsky and others about a LACMA exhibition for Italian designer Ettore Sottsass, who helped launch the post-modern Memphis design, and designing for health."
I'm sure anyone who is interested in this article will enjoy listening to the podcast.
Many people who buy into the globally dominant plutocratic culture tend to believe in the ideology of "possessive individualism."
In other words, such people define themselves through the things they own. As a result, they become an extension of the things they own.
Alas, since most goods and services are mass-produced, possessive individualists tend to acquire mass-produced thoughts, personalities and aesthetic sensibilities. They tend to be governed by corporate manufactured fads and fashions (i.e., planned obsolesence).
In turn, the possible self that each might have developed remains underdeveloped. A person's "self" develops by searching for what seems to be long-lasting and universal. That search is a journey that lasts until you die.
Uncle sh@dow Uncle! Your rapier wit has skewered my very being, I must retreat to bandage my wounded ego.
fatfreddyscat August 1st, 2007 11:06 pm
You should stop talking about yourself that way greenie I know your a looser!
fatfreddyscat August 1st, 2007 12:43 pm
Wow you sure told me greenie whoops I mean communist!
No more McMansions!!!
We need to consume less, recycle more, and recognize the affect we are having on our own habitat/environment/planet ....
Leonardo DiCaprio's "The 11th Hour" is a feature length documentary
concerning the environmental crises caused by human actions and their
impact on the planet. However, the most powerful element of "The 11th Hour" is not a portrait of a planet in crisis, but the offering of hope and solutions. "The 11th Hour" calls for a future now within our grasp that is both sustainable and healthier.
Join in on the 11th Hour Action: www.11thhouraction.com
See the movie, out in theaters beginning Aug. 18!!!
"If someone wants to live in a 10,000 square foot house, and they can afford to do so, and they are not hurting anyone else in doing so, then why not?"
How much are the forest destroyed to build those big houses really worth? Not hurting anyone else? Ha - what about our air, our eco system? We can't chop down all the trees.
We should have FAT taxes on oversized houses and vehicles!
The taxes should be enough to strongly discourage overconsumption of our limited resources and a fair amount of the proceeds should be used for greenbelt conservation projects.
TAX the rich!
I never really looked at this concept before, even I would occasionally dream to for a spacious house and I consider myself socially conscious. Hmmm. I 100% reconsider that now except for why does it have to be me that cuts back. You know amongst the population, someone will always have a lions share.
I grew up in 880sf, a mom dad and 4 of us kids. I currently live in 1100sf just on a regular city lot, 2 adults. Hmmm. I still have room. Seems sufficient space wise.
I also see a second problem from this large living, beyond the consumption, and others have alluded to it here, and that is the isolating effect. Big houses, never see your kids, likely with big fences, never interact with neighbours, gated communities to advertise some affluence, and combined with the increasing shrinkage of the middle class, setting up a divide between classes instead of a full range of mix as in previous and recent times. I doubt these McMansions sit in the middle of the projects.
The growing lower class population will get jealous and envious. When that reaches critical mass, revolution, and we start all over, that is if we don't bake first.
In my neighborhood in Minneapolis there is a brand new MacMansion surrounded by smaller houses displaying lawn signs that read "Monster Houses Make Bad Neighbors". The next door neighbor put up a large banner for awhile that read "I hope you enjoy your million-dollar view of our bathroom". The mansion sits empty. The developer may not be able to sell it. The majority has been heard and the city council passed an ordinance limiting the size of new houses in existing neighborhoods.
It seems that one of the main arguments of the few defenders of MacMansions in these posts is that no one should be able to tell them what to do. Well, the way things are going, it's only a matter of time before we may be told, for example, that we can only have 5 gallons of gasoline a week. Or that you can't have a car at all. Or to take public transportation. Or to bike or walk to work. Or that you can't have any meat in your diet. Or that you can only have one child. Or that electricity will be on only 4 hours a day. Or that you have to move to the country. Might as well get used to it. Renewable energy so far doesn't even come close to replacing our enormous consumption of oil. We will have to severely cut back our lifestyle, hopefully voluntarily. Otherwise, someone will for sure be telling you what to do.
I think, regrettably, we have confused the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence, as the pursuit of material wealth, and freedom as license to do what ever the hell we want to do. As far as material wealth, a recent study found that the people of Bangladesh were the happiest, and Bangladesh is hardly a bastion of wealth. Obviously happiness is independent of material wealth. What was that old saying, "the best things is life are free"?
All this generic, open architecture is wasteful. Having a living room that is open to the second floor is devastating for heating bills and a huge waste of living space.
but that is just the point. consciously or not, these buildings are designed to express and flaunt wastefulness. remember the bit in Dune (the book, youngsters, not the various movie/TV versions) where the ruling family of a parched desert planet spills water on the floor as part of their dinner ritual, to demonstrate their wealth, power, and immunity from commensalist obligation? deliberate flaunting of wastefulness, dysfunctional design and pointless/self-obsessed activity are markers of elite/ruling class membership throughout "civilised" human history.
time to re-read T Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class -- the prose may seem a bit creaky, but his insights into conspicuous consumption and its relation to bad design, inefficiency, and deliberate wastefulness are as fresh and relevant as today's news. and this is not about Communism or Capitalism; as totalising State ideologies, both are guilty of the same grandiose and insane displays of wastefulness and inefficiency to demonstrate State power -- pyramid-building, the perpetual vice of ruling classes.
it is pointless to rail and rant that these trophy homes are inefficient. their whole purpose, like SUVs and the foot-long fingernails of Mandarins or the bound feet of trophy wives in Imperial China, is to display inefficiency as a sigil of power and wealth, to say "this is how dysfunctional I can afford to be." the size, weight, and ugly brick shape of an H2 display the same arrogance of waste. to own a home that is ridiculously expensive to heat or cool, that is so large you need servants to clean it, with garage space for 3 or more cars, miles from any services or employment, is one way that human roosters crow "Cock A Doodle, look how much money I have!" -- as they perch proudly on top of the stinking midden that we are turning the entire planet into as we convert biosystems into money.
and the lesser roosters crow on their own dunghills, feeling pride at being able to waste living space on rooms dedicated to frivolous activities, to pay for heating and cooling rooms dedicated only to tv watching or pool playing or working out on an exercise bicycle (god forbid they should actually use a bicycle functionally for transport, that would be lower-class and therefore embarrassing). and that hunger for conspicuous consumption keeps the lesser roosters docile and obedient to the greater roosters, and The System Works... until it falls apart (and here Veblen will not do, we need Hornborg to discuss the thermodynamic implications of "growth" ideology).
in the meantime, just remember that aristocracies (and in global terms even the "middle class" of N America is a resource aristocracy, consuming on average 5x its share of annual global raw materials and energy) tend to embrace dysfunction to display wealth, and that this embrace of dysfunction tends to produce unfitness, delusion, and incompetence, and thus to lead -- over time -- to the collapse of said aristocracies. nuff said.
Dave - You make some good points, and I applaud your efforts to minimize your personal impact, but I think you are confusing freedom of choice for individuals with gullibility. It's kind of like the SUV, the auto industry figured out how they could bypass safety and efficiency regulations on passenger cars by marketing unsafe gas guzzling vehicles in an less regulated category, then they began a marketing campaign to convince people that SUV's were cool, and necessary. The demand was created using marketing techniques, for the benefit of the auto makers more so than the consumer. The same is the case with McMansions, the developers want to build them, so they have worked with real estate professionals and lenders to make them appealing, again befitting the developers, real estate brokers and lenders much more than the consumer.
The fact is that local municipalities have been regulating land use for the benefit of business, developers and other wealthy interests for many decades. Heck if I want to build a house with a composting toilet, and an artificial wet land for gray water, I have to jump through all sorts of hoops and still may have to put in a sand mound septic. Try composting your human waste in the city and see what the authorities have to say to you, no matter how much scientific evidence you give them. Having local planning commissions telling developers what they can build where is normal, having them do it with the best interest of the common people rather than the wealthy elite is un-common.
#
vinlander August 1st, 2007 1:13 pm
I'd rather die than live in the suburbs anyway.
------
LOL. My sentiment exactly. Actually I regard "living" in the burbs as a form of slow death. Back in '69 when we first moved to the city from a small town and I saw my first burb I nearly puked. Literally. Since that time I've regarded the burbs as some in-between place, neither rural nor urban, but more a sterile, homogenized limbo (a punishing place). I've never understood the appeal of those places, and none of my relatives who live there can explain the allure to me either.
In fact, several of them, still mortgaged (enslaved) up to their wazoos, have over the years admitted to regretting their choices. And often state how inefficient (wasteful) their square footage really is, how damned costly it all is (to heat or air condition), and they bemoan their postage-stamp yards, as well as how much damn time they spend/waste keeping their monstrosities clean. Along with the fact that they're seldom home to enjoy their once-dream houses, what with all the commuting to and fro work, activities, etc.
We (family of 3 adults) live much more modestly in the city, we rent near downtown an older 2-storey walk-up, with 1 bathroom. Not sure of the sq. footage, but were I to guess, it's probably the size of a 50s bungalow, minus the basement. No air conditioning, we resort to fans only on the hottest/humid summer days. Our heating bills are really low in winter. Also because we sometimes use our working fireplace (our relatives in the burbs all have fireplaces, but they're for aesthetics only! none of them actually work).
We 3 live within walking distance of work. Quick access to highway routes when we venture outside the city (rent a car). Walking distance to superb public transit. And quick, easy access to the best of city entertainment and community events, etc. Best of all, we have 5-minute walking access (less by bikes ;) to the city's vast, miles-long and interconnected network of green valley, river, parks hiking trails! We've also been living sustainably (green) since long before global warming came into fashion! Decades in fact. Unlike our suburban relatives, we have no debt, don't have to waste hours each day with long commutes to work, etc. etc. Also, we have a small veg and flower garden on a patio, just off our kitchen. mmmm.... while their obsessively manicured little postage stamp looks like astro-turf ;)
Quality of life? Bar none we're way less stressed than they, have much more free/leisure time, and more disposable income/s.
A few of them remarked that their big-box, cookie-cutter suburban purchases were now referred to as "starter castles". pfft! I think of them instead as "starter coffins"!
btw, All of us grew up in much smaller houses, with one bathroom, no a/c, and everyone living quite comfortably. And it is now them who say that they regret many of their lifestyle choices, while I can unequivocally say that we never have. ;)
Where are Americans gonna stash all their Walmart crap if they haven't got a McMansion?
On behalf of Mother Earth...
...and future generations, I'd just like to say a big *THANKYOU* to those lovely people here at Common Dreams who are voluntarily taking the time and trouble to live as simply, respectfully and caringly as possible. Bless you.
~ You feel like friends of mine.
xxx
I'd rather die than live in the suburbs anyway.
I still submit that even though I may disagree with what others do, I don't have the right to tell them how to live their lives or utilize their property. People who choose to live modestly and then believe that they can demand that others do the same exhibit the same intolerance and tyranny as conservatives who are often the target of scorn on this website.
We all impose a large impact on our environment – many of us don't even recognize the extent of our impact. So singling out one particular aspect of one's existence – their choice of house – seems kind of nitpicky. How many of you who are criticizing McMansions drive to work each day? How far? How many of you leave electrical devices plugged in, perhaps unaware that they are drawing power all day long? How many of you take long showers, perhaps multiple showers each day? How many of you eat meat? Or throw away food? Or use paper towels? Or buy bottled water? Or use disposable plastic bags? Or print reams of paper with your laser printer?
For the record, I try to minimize my impact on the environment at every turn. I work at home, and drive my 30+ MPG car once or twice a week. And even that I regard as too much. I often use my bicycle to grocery shop. I have all my TVs and computers on switches that I turn off when I'm not using the devices. Modern electronic devices consume anywhere from 5-50 watts of power even when "turned off." I don't shower every day; only when I feel dirty. And my showers are very brief. I eat little meat. It pains me to throw away food. I don't use paper towels; I use cloth towels only. I don't use plastic bags or plastic wrap for food; I have an assortment of reusable containers. I print perhaps 10 pages of paper a year, preferring to keep everything in electronic form, including the invoices I send out. I rarely have more than one light fixture on at a time. I seldom use my house's air conditioner – even in the summer – unless it's utterly unbearable.
So I'm hardly an apologist for conspicuous consumption. And I'm certainly not a right winger. I just happen to believe in individual freedom and I think we could all afford to be less judgmental and a little more circumspect.
Dave
DaveS - You are missing the point. It's not about the "bureaucrats are writing laws to tell you how big your house can be" it is about local government, as a representation of the the people, insuring that greedy developers are properly regulated. If your local government is not properly representing the people of your area, then the people of your area are not properly participating in their government. But then that is the problem with most government in the USA.
Wow sh@dow your ignorance is really showing through in your last post. Where did you get your definition of communism, from a cracker jack box? My problem is too many ignorant loud mouths like you, who have been allowed to run amok for far too long. This has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It has to do with manipulation of the masses for the sake of profits. Spending the next 30 years of your life paying 60% or more of your income to a mortgage company so you can live in an over sized piece of crap is not freedom, it is slavery Wake up!
So "planners" are "drawing up measures?" Why all the euphemisms? If this is such a great idea, just come out and say it: bureaucrats are writing laws to tell you how big your house can be, and to put you in prison if you don't obey and kill you if you resist.
Here is another really brilliant statement of ignorance "doubt McMansions represent a large percentage of the market for homes, so all this concern seems misguided."
Sorry Dave old boy, but you are the one who is misguided. The average home size for new homes in the USA is nearly twice what it was 30 years ago, the average cost is 5 to 10 times what it was 30 years ago, yet incomes of the working class have not increased significantly, and have actualy decreased if you consider inflation. The developers prefer to build these things, they make more profit, real estate broker like to sell 'em, cause 6% of $600k is a whole lot better than 6% of $60k. The part that baffles me, see my earlier post, is how the mortgage companies can justify overextending the credit of some schmuck who brings in $120k per year, spends his/her life savings for a down payment, and winds up with a $500k mortgage. The numbers just don't addd up. Yet the majority of what I see being built in my rural, southern community is.... McMansions. Huge ugly houses on tinny little lots.
This is what looks like the guilt trip/join the communist party thread. "Wow I live in a small can in a city and I'm grouchy enough to tell other people how to live and my name is Oscar" Spare me the BS, the problem we all have is PLUTOCRACY. It turns out that your home is not even your's and it is easy to find that out, simply stop paying your taxes. Large corporations use the lion share of energy and pollute the environment along with mass production of all kinds.
Stop purchasing things made of plastic. Stop purchasing things that are mass produced. Drop out of the system too since that is also part of the problem. Then stop paying taxes since you will be self sufficient. Then you will loose your house and spend time in jail.
Your problem is the GOVERNMENT and frankly you need the people to get together to defeat the dictatorship. Telling folks how to live or how to behave or how to eat or how to drive is COMMUNISM!!
We all live in our own bubble. That's obvious from reading all these posts. Everybody has their own unique perspective on things. Everyone seems to have a point to prove.
I'm not going to pick on anyone by name, but one reader said, "My attitude is: To each his own. If someone wants to live in a 10,000 square foot house, and they can afford to do so, and they are not hurting anyone else in doing so, then why not?"
Well, actually in many way's it is hurting many someones. And not just homo sapiens. Probably least of all, us. I'll give you an example from my bubble of perspective.
As I mentioned yesterday, I live in northwest Montana. I live in a valley that is heavily forested with tall mountain ranges on both sides. Yeah, as you can imagine, it's really beautiful here. But it's being raped. This is one of those sparsely populated places rich in natural resources. Consequently the natural beauty that brought us here a quarter century ago is being hauled to the mill at the speed of sound.
A picture is worth a thousand words. If I could show you all an areal photo of this place 25 years ago you would think it was paradise, and it was. If you could see an areal photo taken today you would see an "industrial forest". Most of these trees are being converted into McMansions, phone books, computer paper and junk mail.
Our modest family of 4 live in a 900 square foot log cabin made from hand-peeled locally grown logs by local craftsmen. We heat our interior space and water from wood that falls to the forest floor and scrap wood salvaged from the timber thivery on ajacent public lands.
This little log cabin is our primary home. Our other home is a tipi. We grow an enormous organic fruit and vegetable garden just out our door. We not only suppliment our diet from this garden, we feed about 10 other families and supply 2 restaurants.
It's a far cry from the lives of the McRich, but guess what... We're happy! On the other-hand, we're dissappointed and grieved at seeing this valley being comodified to supply the raw materials to build those butt-ugly McMansions that won't last half as long as our hand-hewn log cabin.
So the ecological footprint of those 2nd and 3rd home McMansions goes far beyond the views that can be seen outside their windows and their guard-gated "communities".
Did I mentiion all the wildlife that call these forests home that have to give up their homes to make way for our homes?
"The good times are killing me" - Modest Mouse
Envy?? Those poor souls who buy these things are so lost, they spend enormous amounts of money on cheap crap, and the developers are laughing all the way to the bank. The people who buy these monstrosities actually believe in the lie that is the "American Dream" You know bigger, more expensive, must be better. Do so many people in the USA really think it's our right to gobble up the majority of the earths resources for a minority of the population, or are they just blinded by the lies?
Now here is something to envy in a home:
http://www.earthship.org/imagegallery/
http://www.hfoesch.com/
I mean if you can "afford" to buy whatever you like, aren't you cheating yourself by purchasing one of these crappy, cheap, cookie cutter monstrosities? Then again perhaps these are the same people who actually think their hummer looks cool.
Big houses were meant for huge families. That included aunts and uncles, grandma and grandpa, etc. In these huge homes, what you usually see is two people, with maybe a couple of teenagers. And the house is "lonely". We have shipped grandma off to a retirement home, and the teens are away in college, and the rest of the family like cousins, etc. have disappeared from the scene. Here we have decadent lifestyles with monstrous homes that destroy a neighborhood by their encroaching. Riches just seem to make one more selfish. Such beautiful homes with hardly anyone living in them, yet think of all the poor folks living in ghettoes. If only all of our children could enjoy a nice and comfortable home in a nice neighborhood where there are flowers and trees, not dilapidated buildings and homeless lining the (once was) boulevard. Republican greed.
Extinction - Most species understand that if they consume everything there will be nothing left for future generations. Those future generations will have nothing to sustain themselves and they will perish.
While extinction of SUV driving McMansion owning subspecies is an attractive notion, I fear they will take everyone down with them.
Humanity lacks the maturity to understand our place in our world. Most people can not see beyond their own day to day needs. Here we are at a time of global warming and climate change and people continue their consumption. Mother nature is the equalizing force in our world and she is just getting warmed up.
In the next few years it's going to be a bumpy ride. Live a simple, mobile life.
Dave Eriqat still doesn't get it. The McMansion club is hurting the people, plants and animals affected by the ongoing war for oil.
Many more Iraqis and people from many nations will die as BushCo continues to secure the world's remaining fossil fuels for exploitation by the oil companies. Iraq is the satellite commerce capital from which the US will make forays in to other Asian nations to "get" oil.
Not only do McMansions have large floor plans. They also have high ceilings...20' or more is not uncommon. Very few McMansion dwellers are 20' tall, so in addition to the energy required to heat and cool that space, additional energy is required for the fans that blow the conditioned air down to where it is needed.
"If someone wants to live in a 10,000 square foot house, and they can afford to do so, and they are not hurting anyone else in doing so, then why not?"
Because it's not just someone it is many thousands doing it, and they are collectively impacting the planet far more than their share. In other words, robbing us. We are not Ayn Randian atomistic individuals without obligations to others, we are a society. The capitalist's success in programming the me-me-me perspective in the US populace is a cultural catastrophe that could very well lead to our extinction.
I don't think you don't understand what we mean by "McMansion"; we mean all those 6000-8000 sq ft houses sprawling over the outer exurban fringes of the city. When all the excess single-occupant car usage, heating and (here in PA usually unnecessary) AC usage is factored in, they represent a stupendous impact on the rights of a billion or more on this planet to live at all. THINK! Virtual genocide is being inflicted the poeple of Iraq to support the decadent USAn "lifestyle". Stop it. Just Stop it.
McMansions have cropped up on my rural road too. But I foresee a new use for these as people tighten their belts. I think they will be turned into multiple family apartments - or even multi-generational family homes. It's just nuts for a couple or small family to be rattling around in these huge spaces, paying to heat and cool them as the season requires. People will figure this out - the simple economics of it all will drive the solution.
My attitude is: To each his own. If someone wants to live in a 10,000 square foot house, and they can afford to do so, and they are not hurting anyone else in doing so, then why not? As a matter of aesthetics, the size of the house should be appropriate for the lot, but I regard that as a personal decision, not one that should be enforced by the government. I believe a huge house on a tiny lot would be a rather ugly sight, but hey, it's not my house or lot, so I have no say in the matter.
I doubt McMansions represent a large percentage of the market for homes, so all this concern seems misguided. Most of the comments suggest envy masquerading as environmental correctness. I feel sympathy for those people unfortunate enough to have a garish McMansion built right next to them, blocking their light or view, or eliminating the privacy. However, that's one of the risks of living in a free society, one that supposedly values the concept of property rights. If you choose to live in the vicinity of others, there is the possibility that they might use their property in ways you find offensive. If you want to avoid such a possibility, you have the freedom to move to the boondocks, or to a neighborhood with a totalitarian homeowners association that can legally impose its standards on everyone.
Dave
"PJD, where do you live where 1200 sq. ft. houses are still available?"
Brentwood Borough, PA - A nice suburb, cozy, solidly built 1950's houses, just 5 miles from downtown Pittsburgh. frequent bus or trolley service downtown. Unfortunately, it is a little a little too white, conservative and white-bread-boring for me. A bubba or bohunk-bar on every corner of Main St. but the nearest microbrew, or decent non-USAn food is 4 miles away into the city. Houses in the rough parts (but many are starting the yuppify-gentrify), many of them big old fixer-upper Victorians go for $25,000 - $55,000 but many definitely need a lot of work.
Sorry, but while there are some rough neighborhoods out there, but I generally find this sweeping white-suburban attitudes about the city to be just so much 6 o'clock news-generated paranoid-racism. While on Cindy Sheehan's DC march the other day, I even had some NOVA suburbanite on the march tell me he would never live in the Eastern Market/Capitol Hill neighborhood of DC because of a fear of mugging (by a black man of course). This is an ultra-gentrified neighborhood that nowadays is far more affluent and opluent than anything, anywhere in Pittsburgh.
hey, old goat, you know what's sad? They won't be turned into community centres because they're so poorly built that they're doomed
to fall apart before they can be used much at all. I know an expert drywaller who worked on some of the mansions in my area, (stone facade,
big gates, the works...) and he told me that the windows weren't level, the plumbing was faulty and the quality of the building materials
was so poor that he was afraid to move around in there - things kept breaking.
shadow: your arguments are laughable. I'm not a communist; I just know witch-hunting when I see it.
Me again...
UN-common-dreams, thanks for claifying 'communism'--I was about to suggest sh@dow re-read her Marx and Engels.
clan_keith, I am so with you! As a Michiganian with a deep love for the Lake Michigan shoreline in general, and Charlevoix/Petoskey in particular, my heart breaks as I watch the destruction of that beloved landscape for "2nd home McMansions" and the over-development that comes with it!
Excuse me, signmaker-- it is your 'let them eat cake' attitude that is elitist. Freedom doesn't mean freedom to trash the environment and ignore the common good. And the desire to preserve the planet is not 'communistic', it's just plain, repsonsible common sense. Self-absorbed, self-congratulatory conspicuous consumption is morally and spiritually bankrupt.
Sorry for the "screw the jones's" comment Jones, I didn't mean you. The 2100 sq ft house I live in with my six kids is an old farmhouse built in the 20's. It has a little property with it (4 acres) and I do kick the kids out to play every day. I have relatives that live in Mcmansions, they all wonder how I can be happy in such a small place.Some of them actually have sitting areas in their bathrooms! But you know what? On family functions they all want to come to my small working farm, because there is lots of things for the kids to do OUTSIDE. My kids know how to build and fix things,how to grow things, how to care for animals, how to ride a horse,ect. Theirs do not. Some of their kids are now into drinking drugs and sex at 13 or 14. A large house apparently doesn't buy happiness or peace of mind.
I wouldn't trade my place for a 6000sq/ft box on 1/8 acres.
Oh, and I know my neighbors. The Mcmansion crowd have all put up privacy fences so no one will encroach on their postage stamp lots.
"if we have any obligation to each other and future generations, we have to think about what and how we consume, the resultant waste and how it impacts us all. I drive a Prius because it was very important to me to pollute as little as possible (I would prefer an all electric..)and use only re-usable containers in my kids lunches, never buy water in bottles if I can at all help it, use re-usable grocery bags, etc. Our environmental problems are the results of billions of choices made by billions of people every day. Every day we have choices about how we live and consume - and those choices have an impact on every other person on this planet, not just now, but for generations to come. When I pull up next to a Hummer in my Prius, I don't wish to tell them what to do or how to live, but I would like to ask them why they think they have a right to more than their fair share…"
Well said, Funeocons.
Hey Fat Freddy's Cat:
I just read Wealth of Nations six months or so ago (what a slog-fest). And, actually, Adam pretty much hits the nail on the head with what's wrong with our version of capitalism. He is, in fact, about as harsh a critic of our brand of capitalism as anyone I've read lately. He says, in essence, that businessmen are a bunch of roaches who, unrestrained, will consume everything within their reach. He says that businessmen (people, on supposes, in our context) should NEVER be allowed any control or influence over legislation, because they will always decide for themselves and against the good of society. Can we talk Adam Smith? When I bring him up amongst my capitalist friends, they grooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. In the best religious tradition, they all worship him, but really don't want to be troubled with what it was he actually had to say :-)
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
I'd like to offer 3 observations that I believe are noncontroversial:
1) Americans--more than other nationalities--equate (and confuse)standard of living with quality of life.
2)In a world of increasingly scarce resources, the resources you consume occurs at the expense of others.
3)Resource use (hence consumption)is a heavily subsidized activity in the US. Consumers enjoy artificially low prices and consequently over-consume.
Maybe they'll be turned into community centers some day in the future - to look on the bright side...
You want to talk McMansions, what about one that I was told cost 13 million dollar to build, stuck right in middle of some small cozy cottages on the coast of Maine.
When it was built about 10 years ago some of the locals tried to stop it, but to no avail.
There it is like a castle among the homes of the serfs.. So, out of place.
I am told it is one the most pricey pieces of private property on the east coast.
Besides, it upsets my view.
fatfreddyscat August 1st, 2007 5:36 am
The people buying these things have stopped paying for them. The default rate in mortgages has soared %800 (!) in the last six months and the stock market, which deals in bundled mortgages as a "financial instrument", is about to get the shit kicked out of it.
Goddamn Richers.
Annabelle writes:
"Why in the world would anyone want three or four more toilets than other people?"
The clue Annabelle is maybe in the following witticism:
Question: "What's the difference between a baby's bulging diaper and very rich people?
Answer: -"Nothing, they're both full of ...."
:)
Mahatma Ghandi:
"The world has enough for everyone's NEED, not everyone's GREED."
And I think that's where the majority of posters here are coming from: an innate realisation that *we need enough to get by*, -but a preposterous excess is ugly, whilst an *ostentatious* excess (to show off how just empty we actually are!) is really obscene.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Respect to the craftsman Jungleboy. I come from a family of craftsmen / women, so can easily relate...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the dreaded bogeyman word 'Communism':
This was actually and originally a DIVINELY inspired idea. And yes, unfortunately mankind managed to mangle it somewhat when trying to put it into operation, but at *root* it is all about trying to live cooperatively and in harmony, -a functioning society of people working *together*, (not all pulling in different directions with rampant egotism, *competition* and selfishness to the fore...)
Animals still have to compete to survive, but as we homosapiens evolve out of that lower state, we need to learn how to *co-operate* instead, -coz this results in fewer battles, and brings a greater measure of harmony and happiness.
Of course any form of totalitarianism is utterly abhorrent, but *true* COMMUNE-ism has nothing at all to do with oppressive oligarchies and dictators, -it's simply about living commune-ally, - groups of people trying to live and work peaceably and creatively together.
But then, any society with the tragic ethos of "Work, Buy, Consume, Die!" at it's helm is not likely to take readily to a way of life wherein they might [- OMG! -] have to SHARE things!
Nor will people possessing 'half pint brains in ten gallon hats' readily accede to the lack of supposed 'STATUS' which a more humble communal life brings.
To live according to the corrupt morals of a corrupt society can only ever bring eventual sorrow, -one way or the other. Why else would all of the greatest Teachers of mankind, throughout history, have gone out of their way to point out that an obsession with material things is the royal path to sorrow?
Is it any coincidence that the main Teachers of humankind had little or no possessions? -I think not! They had values and principles higher than that of the cul-de-sac of materialism.
It amuses me somewhat to espy the parsimonious rich and selfish folk who call themselves 'Christian', who somehow assiduously avoid reckoning with that quote from Christ who (very pointedly) says, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." -whilst they themselves might own several mansions, but wouldn't dream of helping to share their wealth with those who have nothing...
I can't recall any RICH saints, but a hundred-and-one very rich devils easily spring to mind!
____________________
As some here have pointed out, the small family units, (maybe just getting by on meagre incomes), often live more happily than those in over-large mansions, -maybe coz those less well-off folk base their lives on a different set of *values*?
I've worked with and alongside the hardworking but penniless, and have worked with / for lounging millionaires, and it was patently obvious that the former group, (-albeit often struggling with money issues) did, (overall) live happier lives than the very affluent.
"When you got nothin' you got nothin' to lose," said B. Dylan.
Very many Sages have pointed out that poverty of SPIRIT is a much worse fate than poverty in material things.
Yes, we do need shelters, but we don't need the rampant SELFISHNESS, consumerism, arrogance and egomania that is eating up Planet Earth at such a ferocious rate, -leaving only poisoned, garbage filled wastelands for future generations...
:(
I see, now that I have had time to read more of the comments that we are back to the tired old capitalism vs. communism argument. As if these two systems are the only two possible alternatives for scoio-political and economic systems. What nonsense. Neither true capitalism or true comunisim has ever been implemented, and neither fully addresses the full range of socio-political problems.
The system everyone on this site calls capitalism is not capitalism. It is corporatism, consumerism, protectionist mercantilism, feudalism.
Go back and read Adam Smith before you talk about the evils to capitalism.
Go back and read Marx before you talk about the evils of communism.
And while you are at it, go read up on Henry George http://www.henrygeorge.org/ to learn why both systems get it wrong!
What I don't get is how there can be so many of them, they spring up everywhere! Who the heck can afford a home starting from the low $1,000,000.00's ? Even low end new homes in most areas start between $200K - $300K. Who is buying these? So many of them. It just does not jive with what we read about average income. A family earning $80K a year can not afford the mortgage on $200K house, and insurance, and 2 car payments and more insurance, cell phone bills, electric power, etc. not to mention food and clothing. Just who is buying these McMansions? And sooo many of them???? And the quality of the construction is piss poor, these greedy developers are making a killing, but how can there be so many people with that much money to buy them all?
I wish I had been able to join this earlier, as I suspect this discussion is about done. Architecture. I have in-laws in what is here being described as a McMansion. Never struck me as being anything like a mansion. It is 6,000 square feet, but it doesn't have the intelligent use of space that makes the house equivalent to its size, if that makes sense. All this generic, open architecture is wasteful. Having a living room that is open to the second floor is devastating for heating bills and a huge waste of living space. I've been in old Victorian and Georgian style houses that are much smaller, but FUNCTION much larger. The new housing offends (and I mean this from a personal perspective) my sense of space and aesthetics. Going into the rich suburbs in our town, I am struck, not by opulence, but by the generic nature of the architecture. The lack of personality. I remember walking into a much smaller house, but built on the same architectural principles (or, lack of principles) my last year as an undergraduate and being overwhelmed by how large the house felt. We rented it. It took a couple of months of settling in for us to realize that the grandeur of the visual did not translate into the usefulness or spaciousness it implied. They are made to sell on viewing, but not to support living. Like most things in our modern economy, it is about the hype and not about the function.
sh@dow July 31st, 2007 4:54 pm
"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!"
You're part of the capitalist killing machine if that's really how you feel. I wonder why you frequent a site like this one?
PJD, where do you live where 1200 sq. ft. houses are still available? That size is usually associated with areas of high crime and drugs these days. Better watch out, someone might figure out they can build a mall and declare your area blighted so the government can collect more taxes.
We have four adults and one five-year-old living in 1140 square feet home (cluttered at that)! We are comfortable and there is plenty of space. We entertain 25 for Thanksgiving every year and have a great time.
My in-laws lived with two parents, two grandparents, and four children in a one (tiny) room brick shanty with no bathroom and a lean-to kitchen (and they are a very loving and close family). People manage--we can't always have everyTHING we desire, maybe we should try to enjoy the blessings of what (and who) we do have!
I live in what was once a small community on the shores of Lake Michigan. What used to be a beautiful and pristine shoreline is now covered with ugly, three-story McMansions and enormous condominium complexes, complete with "No Trespassing" and "Private Drive" signs and gated entries to keep out the riffraff (that would be the rest of us). The vast majority of these expansive buildings are merely "summer homes" that stand empty for most of the year. The clearing of the natural landscape and the addition of miles of pavement accelorate the deterioration of the Lake Michigan shoreline and contribute to the pollution of the water table, while providing nothing but an eyesore for those of us who actually live here year round. Apparently, it isn't enough to simply visit a lovely place like this and enjoy the water, woods, wildlife, etc. Folks with money feel a compulsion to "own" a piece of it. The irony is that by feeding this compulsion, they ruin the very things that made it so appealing in the first place.
I have no problem with people acquiring wealth, if that's what's important to them. I have no problem with them spending their money any way they want to. But I also feel that communities have not only a right but a responsibility to protect the natural resources that belong to all of us. Not everything is for sale, regardless of how much money you have to offer, and having wealth does not entitle you to be as wasteful as you want to be at everyone else's expense.
So, you're rich enough to build a 5000 square foot house for just the two of you on an acre of astro-turfed land, drive a Hummer five miles to work every day and chug around on your yacht every weekend? Congratulations! Good for you!
You just can't do it here. Sorry. We reserve the right to protect our beautiful forests, gorgeous sunsets, amazing wildlife, clean water, peace and quiet, and breathable air for EVERYONE to enjoy. That's not Communism. It's just common sense.
Here is a BIG PROBLEM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/rams/document_20070723.ram
Have real player or real alternative to listen
I believe in all my heart that an expedition to the Baja Ca coast for an alternative energy production eco settlement model with permaculture science is the solution exodus for the enlightened progressives looking to evolve. There will be a nature readjustment to things concerning natural patterns in ecology once the timeline of peak oil comes looming in around us. I was press at ASPO Boston Univesity peak oil conference. We really are living in an international state of emergency right now. We have to start now and install the systems I have listed at www.ecosutra.com , we have the time to get ready. The fossil fuel party is over but we have another party beginning that is beautiful and positive. Lets direct our focus on a migration. Lets empower ecosutra with common dreams resources in networking and creating the logistics for change. Lets build a model to kill the world with kindness. This is what Woody Harrelson wants www.voiceyourself.com, as do many others in the alternative energy industry looking at co op power investments using the Baja region, I really want this to be the focal point for change.
If a family spends 600 to 800 a month on a loan for 50 grand and sends a family member along with the investment to build the setttlement, we can start bringing in the rest of the families within 5 years easy. Multiply that by 4000 and thats 200 million to work with in a trust to build all the energy integrated systems to profit off of, and then install permaculture science around that just using the interest alone. Add the diesel fuel and the hydrogen production and its transportation fuel called Urea and the Baja hopefully can be the new energy production line for the 18 million people above.
We will produce in abundance even our water and food, and never touching that principle, we can get er done. I even have a Mexican national permaculture instructor who we will put the land in his name. He is highly respected in the Permaculture leadership in Oregon and California.
Using the neighboring desert area of the Baja is where we can build the sexy sustainable model to showcase the planet on how we can live now with these new applications. We have the land and sea, so lets do something pioneering and use the technologies to showcase while we green the deserts. Be on the Baja Ca. coast too. Whats so hard of a sell on that?
I personally want to divorce myself form the entity which is America, its to far gone, a totally unsustainable monster crashing the world into oblivion. Come join the new world design.
Most of the world is used to living with a whole lot less than us North Americans. I'm tired of hearing how entitled we think we are to
everything we can get our hands on. Greed and irresponsible wastefulness is what it is but anyone who calls it that is a "communist".
What horseshit.
No one needs a McMansion. I wouldn't live in one if someone gave it to me. The best thing about learning to live with less is that you
learn to give more and when you do that, you begin to learn what life is really about.
I remember when I was young and lived in a 350 sf apartment in Paris (on the 6th floor, no elevator) with my family of 3 (sometimes 4 when my stepson was over. I was always so shocked when friends would come over and say "oh, it's so big". I grew up in a 6,000+ sf home and swore I would never, ever have a big house and be a slave to it like my mother was. Today, we live in a 1500 sf home in the US with one bathroom - no problem.
ecosutra - interesting point about the mortgage as a way to enslave people. I am feeling that tremendously and just wanting out so badly. I got the education, the house, the family, the job -- everything I was supposed to want and I am really seeing what a big-ass lie I swallowed. I keep thinking about what Thoreau said - something like "what's the point of a nice house if you haven't a decent planet to put it on". While I was so busy chasing the American dream, our politicians and corporate oligarchs were driving our planet into the ground. And now I and everyone I know is in so deep we *wish* we could hit the streets, protest, strike -- but we can't miss a beat lest we lose everything.
How many of your grew up in a one bath, small home with siblings and you don't remember being deprived by waiting your turn for whatever? Probably a lot. Even those who had more had nice houses but they were relatively small by todays standards. Why in the world would anyone want three or four more toilets than people? I once invited a German couple who were vacationing in our area to my home which was 1,330 sq. ft. and they wanted to know where the other people who lived with us were. A house that size in their neighborhood housed more than one family. They are used to sharing and living in smaller spaces, whereas we are definitely space hogs.
I always find it interesting that certain people feel that they have a "right" to unlimited consumption of limited planetary resources that are our commons, a "right" to produce as much waste as they please to be dumped into our common air, water and land, and that this "right" is bestowed upon them in accordance with the amount of money they accumulate. When I was a little girl, my mommy and daddy taught me that taking more than my fair share of something to be shared was "selfish".
I think it all comes down to this: if we have any obligation to each other and future generations, we have to think about what and how we consume, the resultant waste and how it impacts us all. I drive a Prius because it was very important to me to pollute as little as possible (I would prefer an all electric..)and use only re-usable containers in my kids lunches, never buy water in bottles if I can at all help it, use re-usable grocery bags, etc. Our environmental problems are the results of billions of choices made by billions of people every day. Every day we have choices about how we live and consume - and those choices have an impact on every other person on this planet, not just now, but for generations to come. When I pull up next to a Hummer in my Prius, I don't wish to tell them what to do or how to live, but I would like to ask them why they think they have a right to more than their fair share...
So, signmaker and sh@dow, since you seem to have the "communism is evil" mentality, just where do you think unbridled capitalism is going to lead us? Or better yet, your grandchildren?
We are so brainwashed, rewarded and encouraged by our corporate society to consume, consume, consume, that the idea that maybe it is not in our best interests to do so comes as a great shock to most Americans. After all, that is the American dream we're talking about...
Anyone think it's funny that people on this thread have five dogs... three cats... two cats...
Anyone ever think about the resources it uses to feed them (I assume they're not vegetarians), dispose of their wastes, give them their prescription medicines, etc....?
I'll have a pet when everyone on this planet has 2000 calories of food a day.