McMansions: The Solution

As covered before in this blog, McMansions have become problematic in Los Angeles and other cities around the country for various reasons. My primary argument against McMansions is an aesthetic one because that's what I care and know the most about. There are various socio-economic arguments against the McMansion that I can't begin to explain, so I have provided links to people who can explain it. This last post in the series, while subtitled "The Solution" isn't meant to be a definitive answer, but one possibility. My primary concern/wish, as stated earlier, is stopping the construction of large and unattractive homes.

In Los Angeles, steps have been taken to make my wish come true. Thank you, Design Fairy! You really do exist!

As reported by Curbed LA back in May of 2008, homeowners got City Hall to pass an ordinance restricting the square footage of houses based on their lot size. Some residents feel the ordinance is too restrictive, claiming that the city is enacting a "one size fits all" policy that favors a minority while ignoring the needs of the majority. My argument would be that people feel entitled to more space than they actually need and the government is not banning large homes altogether, but ones that are disproportionately large compared to their lot size.

As early as 2005, the New York Times heralded the end of the McMansion craze for several reasons. One of which is that the cost of furnishing/maintaining such huge houses is enormous and beyond people's means. A second reason is attributed to the rise in interest rates, which makes home buying a large home less feasible. Lastly, and most telling, is that the large homes have become associated with greed, especially after the recent economic corporate scandals.

The consumerist tendency of the American people seems to being tempered a bit by economic woes and (gasp) maybe even environmental ones too. One of the last reasons the New York Times cites as a reason for the return to smaller homes was the perception that building large homes is wasteful and damaging to the environment. Incidentally, these are some of the very arguments being brought against U2 guitarist, the Edge, who wants to build a large cliff side house in Malibu, California.

The downsizing trend can be seen in KB Home, one of the largest home builders in the country. As a Fortune article highlights, the construction boom of the early 90's has died down and people no longer desire or can afford the larger houses they once did. Responding to the home buyers' new needs and desires, KB Home is shrinking the size of their homes and lowering the cost.

Regardless of my aesthetic opinions, I think the slow phasing out of McMansions is a positive sign. One of my primary beefs with the McMansions is that, while ugly in their own right, their presence also mars the surrounding neighborhood and shows a certain selfishness on the home owner's part. They are are thinking only of what they want and not how such changes will affect the rest of the community, both aesthetically and economically.

I am a big believer in moderation and harmony. Home owners' desires to have smaller homes, to me, represents a greater social consciousness. People are not only considering their own needs, but problems like the environment, or neighbors' property values, or how much space a family really needs to live comfortably. Sure, some floor plans are shrinking because people simply can't afford anything bigger, but there are still many others who are able to go big and choose not to. Sometimes looking at the big picture allows one to see that it's the small things that are most important.