‘McMansions’ creep from ’burbs to cities

[MNdude]

‘McMansions’ creep from ’burbs to cities

Tired commuters in spots like Denver scrape homes in older neighborhoods


DENVER - Four summers ago at 7 a.m., the earth started moving and the ground shook, cracking the plaster in Jim Skelton’s small brick home.

The house next door was being torn down, another blow to what Skelton calls the character of Denver's Platt Park neighborhood.

“They're destroying what made this a neighborhood,” Skelton said.

McMansions. Faux chateaux. Scraping. Teardowns. All are becoming increasingly familiar terms across the nation. For years, tony suburbs like Kenilworth, Ill., Beverly Hills, Calif., and Westport, Conn., saw designer homes replaced by buildings two, three or four times as large.

Now the trend is creeping from pricey, historical enclaves like Kenilworth and Denver's Washington Park into middle-class bastions like Denver's Platt Park and University Hills — aging tracts of 1,000-square-foot bungalows built from the '20s through the '50s. Some families weary of long commutes from the newer suburbs are turning back inward and remaking older neighborhoods to suit modern tastes.

While the teardown trend has slowed somewhat nationally because of the housing slump, bulldozers continue to roll in Denver: Home demolition permits numbered 198 in 2004, 352 in 2005, and were on track this year — 111 in the first five months of 2006.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation said teardowns threaten the character of 300 communities in 33 states, and that more than 75,000 homes are torn down and replaced with larger homes each year.

Ed Tombari, a land planner with the National Association of Home Builders, said critics of teardowns have it backward.

“We perceive teardown housing as part of the overall smart-growth strategy to direct development to the inner cities and to areas that already have infrastructure and public transportation,” Tombari said.

This urban trend is intensifying across the country, said Robert Lang, head of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.

“Commutes are so long people are wanting places closer in,” he said. “ ‘I want a McMansion, but not out in McMansionville.’ ”

In the University Hills neighborhood, Drew Damiano bought a 3,394-square foot house for precisely that reason.

“It was a waste of an hour of my day that I could spend time with my kids,” said Damiano, who moved closer to downtown from its exurbia suburbs to the south.

Two years ago, Beverly Hills began imposing limits. The City Council said “mansionization” was a serious threat to the “character, image, beauty and reputation” of Beverly Hills, and the city developed a manual of proposed housing designs.

Lang said neighborhoods have several ways to control the spread of McMansions, but they need to build a consensus, propose reasonable alternatives, and accept that some buildings should be replaced.

“Cities should be a little flexible,” he said.

Tombari concedes a big new house next to an old structure is going to look out of place. Special neighborhoods have a right to preserve their character, but activists are hijacking the move to stop all development, he said.

“There is an anti-construction element out there,” he said.

Bill Arhold, also of the University Hill neighborhood, did much of the work expanding his home to 1,750 square feet from 1,100.

“Still, I understand why seniors feel comfortable in homes they have lived in for most of their lives,” he said. “Then someone comes along and builds a two-story next to them, blocking the sun, raising their winter heating bills and killing their gardens.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16177969/

[BnaBreaker]

If there is one thing I can't stand, it's when stubborn and snobby suburbanites move to the city for some reason or another, and refuse to change their lifestyle to fit their surroundings at all.

[LSyd]

next to my apartment tower in Birmingham there used to be a Catholic high school, which became a big empty lot for a few years. then a little cul de sac was built there, with about a dozen nice looking houses that fit into the neighborhood's character (and different designs from each other, too.) the only bad part was that they were set back farther from the main street by elevated dirt and a fugly retaining wall above the nice old stone retaining wall. it's still a lot better than a big dirt lot.

-

[MolsonExport]

McAssholemanship, once again.

[wong21fr]

I do have reservations about some of the "scrape-offs", but the article is also a little misleading. The biggest critics of these projects are NIMBY's who don't want to see their neighborhoods change one iota. They complain about rehab's of existing homes that expand them and also when older homes are scrapped off. These are also the individuals who complain about tower projects because it will ruin their views of the mountains.

Neighborhoods are not meant to be static objects as these individuals want, and the sooner these old NIMBY's die off the better.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Enough is enough. I have had it with these motherfuckin' McMansions in this motherfuckin' city.

[JManc]

that's not fair.

mcmansions wanna live in the city too; wear big glasses, ride mass transit and hang out with chicago103.

[xzmattzx]

So what?

[EtherealMist]

I do have reservations about some of the "scrape-offs", but the article is also a little misleading. The biggest critics of these projects are NIMBY's who don't want to see their neighborhoods change one iota. They complain about rehab's of existing homes that expand them and also when older homes are scrapped off. These are also the individuals who complain about tower projects because it will ruin their views of the mountains.

Neighborhoods are not meant to be static objects as these individuals want, and the sooner these old NIMBY's die off the better.

good point, cities are always changing and so are neighborhoods. Neighborhoods go through times of decay and times of growth.

It can be hard to define NIMBYism at times (it isn't always about going against big developments ) but I think your right in that NIMBYs are people who simply dont like change.

[BnaBreaker]

good point, cities are always changing and so are neighborhoods. Neighborhoods go through times of decay and times of growth.

It can be hard to define NIMBYism at times (it isn't always about going against big developments ) but I think your right in that NIMBYs are people who simply dont like change.


I am no NIMBY, and I usually support change if it is for the greater good...but bulldozing existing and established neighborhoods so there is enough room to build a bunch of gaudy stucco mcmansion's surrounded by iron gates is not something I can support.

[VivaLFuego]

A similar phenomenon is happening in many neighborhoods in Chicago now, particularly the close-in trendy 'hoods of Lincoln Park and West Town (including Wicker Park, Bucktown, Ukrainian Village). A cool 1880s or 1890s vintage 2-flat or 3-flat, either an italianate brick or perhaps a wood-frame frame cottage is razed and replaced with what I call a McStatelyTownehome; the same 3 or 4 "olde tyme-style" designs are popping up all over these trendy neighborhoods, there are probably now hundreds, if not thousands of these fugly 5+ bathroom, 5000 square foot behemoth mansions where there was formerly a quaint 2-flat or 3-flat (mind you these cottages can be renovated to be quite luxurious apartments or single family homes). The worst is when they pay off the alderman to allow for a curb cut for a street-facing below-grade garage: lose the street parking, the street aesthetic contuinty, and get a nice slanted curb cut (lovely for the handicapped and loads of fun when icy!). The main saving grace of these McStatelies is that they typically conform to the narrow 25' Chicago lot, so reasonable density is maintained.

It's interesting, because the inner belt of neighborhoods immediately outside the highrise/downtown belt are all becoming so nice and luxurious that they are fairly low-density while the next rung of neighborhoods is very high density (like Lakeview, for example)

example, thankfully no curb cuts here:
http://static.flickr.com/52/176724190_c4bbb4efc2_o.jpg

The type of stuff it replaces:
http://static.flickr.com/70/176724375_6f0eaeb085_o.jpg

[crisp444]

As if most of these small homes being bulldozed are architecturely noteworthy? And why are we assuming that the larger homes (what you all term "McMansions") are more tacky than the 1000 square foot boxes that are probably equally soulless? I'd rather have people move into the city, tear down outdated and small homes and replace them with very large homes than move to the fringe of the countryside and destroy wetlands, forests, and wildlife habitat in order to build sprawl. Some of these "stucco minimansions" that I have seen as infill have much better architecture, better attention to detail, more expensive and attractive finishes, and better landscaping than some of these old houses built en masse to house city workers. If the district in question is not a legitimately recognized historic district, then I say build, build, build!

[VivaLFuego]

As if most of these small homes being bulldozed are architecturely noteworthy? And why are we assuming that the larger homes (what you all term "McMansions") are more tacky than the 1000 square foot boxes that are probably equally soulless? I'd rather have people move into the city, tear down outdated and small homes and replace them with very large homes than move to the fringe of the countryside and destroy wetlands, forests, and wildlife habitat in order to build sprawl. Some of these "stucco minimansions" that I have seen as infill have much better architecture, better attention to detail, more expensive and attractive finishes, and better landscaping than some of these old houses built en masse to house city workers. If the district in question is not a legitimately recognized historic district, then I say build, build, build!

I tend to agree; I mean, the re- development often increases the city's tax revenue and therefore its ability to provide service, money that would otherwise be going to a suburb. But there are cases (as in Chicago, I feel) where it amounts to somewhat wanton destruction.

[LMich]

that's not fair.

mcmansions wanna live in the city too; wear big glasses, ride mass transit and hang out with chicago103.

:haha:

But, you forgot to add "hang out with Chicago103 and wax poetic about the pre-Applebee's America."

[Buckeye Native 001]

:haha:

But, you forgot to add "hang out with Chicago103 and wax poetic about the pre-Applebee's America."

I thought it was "wax poetic about pre-1950s America" when everyone lived in tenament apartments or whatever? :shrug:

[LMich]

Pre-Applebees are pre-1950's, take you pick.

I'm sort of the opinion that there are far worse problems a city could face, and that there is room enough in most American cities for all types of housing options. I do frown upon McMansions moving in on established neighborhoods, though, especially after considering what I said about their being room enough in most American cities for all types of housing. I guess it all depends on the particular case, but I think if you're city is having a problem, this is one of the better ones you have. At least you're getting development. It kind of reminds me about the criticism of ugly vinly-sided townhome infill projects. Sure I'd like to see better use of the land and better design, but I'll take them over an empty lot. I'd love for my city to have a problem like this, as opposed to me having to worry about this city sinking further in a hole and wondering when we're going to stem this population loss and tax base erosion. One must put these things in context, though, it's definitely a healthy debate to have amongst other growing cities.

[AZchristopher]

Because it is so horrible to tear down an old rotting house and put in a larger one that brings an influx of money to the neighborhood. I feel most of the NIMBY problem has more to do with jealousy than anything else.

Arizona has what it calls historic neighborhoods. On most lots in these neighborhoods you can not just tear down a house and build over it. Do your states and cities not have these? Because all the tear downs I see that are rebuilt on are not the classical houses but of the rubbish in between that has been rundown because of neglect from either the landlords or previous state funded occupants.

Now if your community is tearing down row houses like the example above then someone in the community needs to step in and make zone changes. Thats just ridiculous. But I have a hard time complaining about ranch houses that were the first suburban push being turn down for larger structures.

[Raraavis]

If they are built on existing lots than I don't see the problem. I think we would all be against bulldozing urban neighborhoods so it could be subdivided into acreages. We are richer today than we were 60 years ago and we want more square footage to live in. I think this is definitely the future as the exburbs get farther and farther away. Those with the resources to move back to the city will do so.

[beesbees]

If we hung onto old houses, we'd still be living in mud roundhouses. True some of these older buildings look beautiful... but what was there before?

In old neighbourhoods it's possible that it is the 2nd or 3rd building on that site.

In areas of decline, where people have moved from the cities to the suburbs, leaving disused buildings behind, people still try to protect them.

A classic example of this bizzareness happened near here. In Brentford high street there's a really old disused pre-1900 house. But it's listed, and people complained when they suggested tearing it down. But it looks like this:

http://www.derelictlondon.com/1e4d26b40.jpg

Is it really worth saving it? I suppose it prevents development like the recent Heron View, but I feel that's actually quite a negative step.

[BnaBreaker]

If we hung onto old houses, we'd still be living in mud roundhouses. True some of these older buildings look beautiful... but what was there before?[/img]



So you are saying that all change is worth accepting, and that all change is always for the better? I completely disagree. Accepting change and accepting progression are not always the same thing.

The Hummer is a rather new concept, and a change from past modes of private transportation, but I do not accept it as a progression, but rather, a regression. That, however, doesn't mean that I think everyone should be riding around in a horse and buggy.

[village person]

There was at one time a strange, opposite 'trend' in Jacksonville, where a couple of historic mansions downtown, which had their surrounding neighborhoods systematically replaced by parking lots, were floated downriver to more suburban locales. It's weird passing by them and thinking "that used to be downtown!" :sly: People are really friggin' weird when it comes to housing. A bigger house is not going to make your miserable life any more meaningful!

I personally feel that it's far more fullfilling to live in a place that has some history to it. It's less like a possession and more like an environment. And why the flying hell are household sizes getting smaller and houses getting larger?! Stop the planet and let me off!

[hauntedheadnc]

What are people's thoughts on creating historic districts to protect architectural integrity?

[village person]

^Well, to be sure, historic districts are less concerned with the architectural significance of individual buildings than with the continuity of buildings and their contextual value.

I believe historic districts should be up to the community.

[wong21fr]

I am no NIMBY, and I usually support change if it is for the greater good...but bulldozing existing and established neighborhoods so there is enough room to build a bunch of gaudy stucco mcmansion's surrounded by iron gates is not something I can support.

That's where the article is misleading, at least in the Denver example, these scrape-offs are not replaced by houses facing inward to a cul-de-sac surrounded by gates, they integrate with the street and their main difference (and source of NIMBY complaints) is that they are newer and bigger. These houses are two-stories rather than one and often times push further back towards the alleyways. They really do not alter the neighborhood all that much, the character is still there while the neighborhood is garunteed a future with young families rather than a slow decline into death.

There is a new push in Denver by some of these NIMBY's to down-zone historic neighborhoods to prevent houses being replaced with larger houses, duplexes, or triplexes in order to "perserve the historic character". The only acceptable development would be single-family homes. Does this sound like an acceptable level of development tolerance? Or does this mindset sound more like those subdivisions that we tend to criticize and deride on this forum?

[WesTheAngelino]

This is so rediculous. These people are either moving to the city or staying there. If they want to build a larger house, what is the fucking deal? What business is it of yours? This is one example of some of the crap that made people desire to live in the burbs in the first place....freedom to do what you want without too much rules and regulation (of course that has not always proven true due to restrictive HOA's).

Besides, if then neighborhood becomes extremely desirable, dont you think these huge places can be subdivided ala old money Victorians in many cities?

[vid]

If it's an empty lot, then go for it. Better than tearing out a bunch of houses to build sprawling one level houses. But don't tear down historic houses that are in good shape for them, and try to have some originality; ie, don't have a dozen identical ones on the same block.

[MayDay]

Cleveland has a few areas that have been McMansionized but no historic structures were demolished. The lots had been barren since the race riots of the late 1960s and sat vacant for decades until the city developed a land bank. I'm not the biggest fan of them and would never choose to live in one but I definitely prefer them to an empty lot.

http://www.nhlink.net/neighborhoodtour/hough/hough11.jpg

[Marcu]

Cleveland has a few areas that have been McMansionized but no historic structures were demolished. The lots had been barren since the race riots of the late 1960s and sat vacant for decades until the city developed a land bank. I'm not the biggest fan of them and would never choose to live in one but I definitely prefer them to an empty lot.

http://www.nhlink.net/neighborhoodtour/hough/hough11.jpg

I think I drive down this street at least 3 or 4 times a day whenever I'm in the burbs.

[kznyc2k]

It's always rather jarring to see a street like that ^ in the city. Perhaps the only example of this phenomenon to happen in Buffalo is this, just off Main Street (the road to the left). It used to be the right-of-way to some railroad tracks, and when driving down Main it's always weird to see those houses past that barren clearing and surrounded by decades-old industrial structures.

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/3472/zoopeu1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[MayDay]

Interesting re-use of that right-of-way.

In Cleveland's case, the homes are all on the original street grid - sort of an in-fill on a larger scale. Sure, they aren't the densest neighborhoods but the majority of the new homes occupy a much smaller site than their suburban counterparts. Fortunately, the city has an aggressive Design Review process (and dozens of protected historical districts) and developers aren't just allowed to plop these wherever they want.

[Chicago103]

I thought it was "wax poetic about pre-1950s America" when everyone lived in tenament apartments or whatever? :shrug:

I am not even refering to tenament apartments when talking about pre-1950's america, I am talking about an era where many people lived in single family houses just without gobs and gobs of space that people dont need. Its amazing how some modern families think about living space, household sizes have decreased and yet the average size of new houses has been increasing exponentially. What used to be a house that people raised five kids in is now not big enough for a yuppy fuck couple, because 1,600 square feet is restrictive on a marriage (that was some dumb bitch said in an article posted on here about a year ago said).

People build McMansions in the city because the old housing was built for another era when it was meant to be family housing but now isnt considered good enough for child rearing. I simply dont understand that reasoning because millions and millions of productive and successfull people in society were raised under such conditions. Sometimes its not even about children but just a desire to bring their suburban lifestyles to the city, they simply cant imagine about not having a separate living and family room with a cathedral ceiling or whatever because it wont impress people. Then they have to have street facing garages because they are too lazy to walk 30 feet outside to a detached garage in the alley. Also if these people were really hot shit they would just buy an existing real mansion on the Gold Coast or in Beverly and not some cheap piece of shit built on a block of bungalows. I dont know who these people are trying to impress but they certainly arent impressing me, all they are telling me is that they have no taste and they know how to waste money, McMansions are for McPeople.

[bpg88]

This is so rediculous. These people are either moving to the city or staying there. If they want to build a larger house, what is the fucking deal? What business is it of yours? This is one example of some of the crap that made people desire to live in the burbs in the first place....freedom to do what you want without too much rules and regulation (of course that has not always proven true due to restrictive HOA's).

Besides, if then neighborhood becomes extremely desirable, dont you think these huge places can be subdivided ala old money Victorians in many cities?

Nice urban unfill is great, provided it is placed on vacant lots or replaces something of inferior quality. A big home doesn't necessarily make it a superior structure, especially if it is replicated five blocks away.

You can't simply tear down an individually crafted home and put up some cheap, pre-manufactured crap design. Yes, homes were once designed individually and not replicated every five units across the neighborhood. These new homes affect the character of the neighborhood and therefore are relevant to everyone who lives there. What right of it is for someone to tear down a perfectly habitable, let alone historic structure next door to me and put up some kind of asshole design without my consultation? So yes, it is my business if I am the neighbor. If this is happening citywide than it is relevant to everyone because it is significantly altering the city's character.

This is one example of made people want to live in the burbs? What has that amounted to. Look at the American suburbs of today. They are utterly homogenous with no class, no style, no creativity. This is indicated by the thousands of homes replicated on end. This was the result of freedom from rules and regulation? If anything, suburban dwellers chose freedom from creativity and responsibility, or sacrificed them in exchange for a cheap price tag.

It's not as simple as "letting everyone do what they want" for a number of reasons. Namely, the fact that others do not have an adequate ability to confront them. What would happen if someone pulled a stunt like this without protection from the law? Fact - it wouldn't happen without considerable scrutiny. My guess is that a small group of lawmakers, not the local residents, have control over what gets built and what doesn't. In this case, money wins. Regardless, you're dealing in a market flooded with disinformation.

That said, I agree with you in a lot of cases. There are way too many standards and regulation, though in this particular context I'd argue that there are not enough.

[steel]

The irony of that Buffalo street is that there is a subway station at the end of the street

[Visiteur]

I'd like to see development on old urban property...prefab McMansions or otherwise...as long as what it replaces is not architecturally significant.

AZchristopher, the reason why your state has those tough preservation laws is because everyone wants to live there, and change their surroundings to fit their preferences. I can see why Arizona, a booming state, may want to curb their intentions. (if I may poke fun, I'm amazed that Arizona has that many historical buildings to preserve-does it have to be built before 1970, because that would eliminate 90% of the properties there;) )