McMansion suburbs

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

For Chicagoland, Naperville immediately comes to mind.

S. Barrington

[Citylover94]

For Boston the areas that come to mind for me are the southern New Hampshire suburbs.

Salem, NH

Pelham,
NH

As well as the Metrowest area of Boston

Sudbury, MA

Millis, MA

[cannedairspray]

There's a special kind of hilarity when a metro has a street named Leningrad but recently did this:

"Goodbye, Mr. Amherst."

With three words, Montreal's mayor declared British commander Jeffery Amherst's name expunged from a central city street because of the general's role in advocating germ warfare against Aboriginal peoples in the 18th century.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

That first one is clearly not a McMansion. It's the opposite.

Indeed. Yet it costs more than a true McMansion in most places. So now you understand the coastal CA quandry. Or maybe not.

[Jonboy1983]

My vote for Philly goes to just about anywhere in Chester County. I know of a few new construction developments selling for $300k to $600k depending on location...

[SlidellWx]

For New Orleans metro, it's the Northshore suburbs of Mandeville and Covington. Slidell to a lesser extent.

For Baton Rouge metro, it's parts of south Baton Rouge Parish, Gonzales/Prairieville, and Denham Springs/Walker.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

My vote for Philly goes to just about anywhere in Chester County. I know of a few new construction developments selling for $300k to $600k depending on location...

damn, only 300k-600k for a McMansion ?

[JManc]

^ Sounds about right. It's cheap(er) because the land is cheap. Most expensive homes comparable in size and features to suburban McMansions are so because of location, not quality or materials.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Indeed. Yet it costs more than a true McMansion in most places. So now you understand the coastal CA quandry. Or maybe not.

McMansions probably really don't exist there then because these things were built by developers in the past 40-50 years specifically for the suburban upper middle class and above who could not afford such a house in the city. A $2 million shack in the Bay Area means the land is worth $1.95 million where as with a $500k McMansion here in Texas, the land is worth roughly $50k.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

damn, only 300k-600k for a McMansion ?

yeah, i mean these massive u.s. residential construction companies churn out huge numbers of nearly identical 5 bedroom houses, with the cheapest finishes/materials possible, on plentiful, cheap land...

[sopas ej]

In the Los Angeles area, at least in LA County, there really is no "capital" of McMansions.

You can find them in areas far and wide, and in diverse/different-from-each-other areas, from Venice to Downey, from Arcadia to Northridge.

McMansions are hideous anyway, but the particularly outrageously hideous ones are the "Persian Palaces" you see on LA's West Side (and I think zoning laws were recently passed to further prevent those), with the wrought iron, the huge windows that show off really over-the-top chandeliers, huge classical columns... Armenians tend to go this route too.

And then of course there are the Arcadia Chinese McMansions that look particularly awful, because not only are they out of proportion with the lot size, but many use feng shui principles, so their proportions are really odd and totally out of scale. And then of course you'll see some with the feng shui mirrors over the front door, little waterfall elements...

[mrnyc]

while there are plenty of cookie cutter cathedral ceiling mcmansions in the surrounding area, here is an article from 10yrs ago complaining about them beginning to be built in more established suburban areas around columbus:

http://www.dispatch.com/article/20071219/NEWS/312199818


and here is a good interview with the mcmansion hell blog guy who just recently came to columbus for an event:

http://www.columbusunderground.com/m...o-columbus-bw1

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

My vote for Philly goes to just about anywhere in Chester County. I know of a few new construction developments selling for $300k to $600k depending on location...

I would say central Bucks County has to be in the running too. The area around Newtown is just acre upon acre of luxurious MDF and well manicured beige stucco.

Edit: for the above post, McMansion hell is run by Kate Wagner.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by photoLith

For Pittsburgh it's the shit hole suburb of Cranberry for sure. In Houston it was basically every suburb but the worst offenders are probably Kingwood, Katy and The Woodlands.

My impression is Cranberry isn't quite upscale enough on the whole to be a McMansion area. This is a typical new build area. Here's another.

The Peters Township area in the South Hills, on the other hand...

[sopas ej]

Oh, do "tract mansions" (the term I use) also count as McMansions?

My understanding of a McMansion was that it's a large house too big for its lot, which replaced a demolished smaller house in a neighborhood of smaller houses; you know, shit like this:


static1.squarespace.com


citywatchla.com

^^^Now that's a Persian palace if I ever saw one.

This is why on the West Side of LA, many people felt these McMansions were out of character and out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood, many taking up basically the whole lot with little to no front yard or back yard left, and I believe zoning laws have been created to outlaw McMansions in already established neighborhoods in the City of LA... but I could be wrong.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

In the Los Angeles area, at least in LA County, there really is no "capital" of McMansions.

You can find them in areas far and wide, and in diverse/different-from-each-other areas, from Venice to Downey, from Arcadia to Northridge.

McMansions are hideous anyway, but the particularly outrageously hideous ones are the "Persian Palaces" you see on LA's West Side (and I think zoning laws were recently passed to further prevent those), with the wrought iron, the huge windows that show off really over-the-top chandeliers, huge classical columns... Armenians tend to go this route too.

And then of course there are the Arcadia Chinese McMansions that look particularly awful, because not only are they out of proportion with the lot size, but many use feng shui principles, so their proportions are really odd and totally out of scale. And then of course you'll see some with the feng shui mirrors over the front door, little waterfall elements...

As an Armenian whose parents are from Iran, i wish i could refute this, but it is what it is lol

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wow, those Montreal ones are pretty vile. I guess that's supposed to be some bizzaroland French Provincial architecture.

Why aren't the McMansions like two feet apart like in Toronto burbs? I always thought new Canadian sprawl was ultra packed-in, or maybe that's more an Ontario thing? Even Windsor has the tiny lot thing.

Land is cheaper in the Montreal exurbs and development is less restricted. Thats why you get so many stone veneer 4000 sf(+) mcmansions in greater Montreal.

Torontos overly restrictive greenbelt and speculation has jacked up Torontos prices beyond the point of insanity.

There are many exurbs with 1-3 acre lots around the GTA but they typically start around $2,000,000 for a base level home. Youll find these cul de sacs scattered around Kleinburg, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Clarington .

What you'll never see in the GTA is 1 acre lot developments with vinyl clad starter homes like you do in the Eastern US. Because of land scarcity in the GTA, such lot sizes in new development are reserved for the truly wealthy who build 5000 sf (+) homes with limestone/brick clad exteriors. Montreal is somewhere in between the GTA and Eastern US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

S. Barrington

I was thinking Barrington too. Naperville is a little more middle class.

For Chicago, prime, first tier suburbs would be North Shore and that western corridor around Hinsdale. Inland North/Northwest suburbs are probably the second best zones, so likely McMansion clusters.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

damn, only 300k-600k for a McMansion ?

That would be pretty standard across the U.S., excepting a few high-priced metros. At 500k you can buy a new construction, semi-custom mini-mansion in most metros, assuming you're fine with living in an bland exurb.

[Doady]

Suburban Monteal not as dense as suburban Toronto, but I don't think those McMansions in Brossard are representative of Brossard, or let alone all sprawl in Montreal area.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Oh, do "tract mansions" (the term I use) also count as McMansions?

My understanding of a McMansion was that it's a large house too big for its lot, which replaced a demolished smaller house in a neighborhood of smaller houses; you know, shit like this:


static1.squarespace.com


citywatchla.com

^^^Now that's a Persian palace if I ever saw one.

This is why on the West Side of LA, many people felt these McMansions were out of character and out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood, many taking up basically the whole lot with little to no front yard or back yard left, and I believe zoning laws have been created to outlaw McMansions in already established neighborhoods in the City of LA... but I could be wrong.

First one, no. I'd say these 9usually townhouses like the one in photo) are something else and endemic to cities all over the country and in neighborhoods so sought after they've priced everyone but the very upper middle class and beyond and out. McMansions are typically 2x the size with half the price and on huge lots on cul-de-sacs a million miles from the center of town.

That second one is just horrid in every possible way. It's like Gotti's widow got into home building...