McMansion suburbs

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

Yeah, to me, these are bigfoot homes, or infill mini-mansions. The McMansions are on the cheap land on the outer edge of the metro (for LA they aren't particularly common, but I would guess places like South OC, Yorba Linda, Calabassas would be examples).

Originally Posted by JManc

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

I think the Persians of LA and the Syrians of NYC have the same architects. Both are mostly Mizrahi Jews of merchant origins, so there are cultural similarities.

[SLO]

^^Actually I think it is both. Its the infill home on semi-urban lots where they come in and build 2-3x the square footage of the original house. Fills a want/need for the consumer to have a large new home closer into the city. Also makes it possible for the developer to make money by leveraging the square footage.
Your second point is the suburban Mcmansion which exists in every metro area in the country. I don't love the term because there are really nicely done homes across the country as well, they aren't all gross!

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SLO

^^Actually I think it is both. Its the infill home on semi-urban lots where they come in and build 2-3x the square footage of the original house. Fills a want/need for the consumer to have a large new home closer into the city. Also makes it possible for the developer to make money by leveraging the square footage.
Your second point is the suburban Mcmansion which exists in every metro area in the country. I don't love the term because there are really nicely done homes across the country as well, they aren't all gross!

There's having a nice big home (i live in one) and then there are these big garish things which are just bad architecture (look at mrnyc's photo) and big for the sake of being big.

[sopas ej]

The way the Los Angeles media has portrayed it, has always been this, which is how I've always defined a McMansion:

Originally Posted by SLO

Its the infill home on semi-urban lots where they come in and build 2-3x the square footage of the original house. Fills a want/need for the consumer to have a large new home closer into the city. Also makes it possible for the developer to make money by leveraging the square footage.

In fact, I found an article about the city of LA making laws regarding McMansions; I didn't realize it was this recent:

From LA Curbed, March 2017:
LA takes new steps to fight McMansions
Updated rules make it harder to build big, boxy homes


I've always called large, often garish and distasteful homes (though taste is subjective, of course) built by one developer and large tracts of them, "tract mansions." Because that's what they essentially are, often on larger lots than the average tract home development, and yes, in the LA area, they are often in places like Calabasas, south Orange County, even some in the Inland Empire. They are often (but not always) a "gated community," and all built in a similar style within a development, hence my moniker of "tract mansion"... because all tract houses look alike, right?

But in SoCal, these kinds of homes aren't cheap, they're often in the millions of dollars, or at least in the 800K-900K range, but that would probably be in the Inland Empire.

Edit: I take it back, even some Inland Empire "tract mansions" are in the million dollar range. I just saw this on Zillow:

5362 Windsor Pl,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
5 beds 6 baths 5,430 sqft

[BlackRedGold]

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.

Not at all. Case in point the exurban Ottawa community of Greely:

https://goo.gl/maps/BZRYdmZos5E2
https://goo.gl/maps/yteQBX2kouN2
https://goo.gl/maps/fmXeFpfrJA52

[SLO]

^^sopas, I read that article and I am actually a little mixed on it. Its hard to regulate taste, and regulating square footage based on a formula is ok, but doesn't take into account the cost of real estate in a place like Los Angeles. They are going to allow folks in Beverly Hills build anything they want even if it's out of character with a neighborhood. They are going to allow multifamily more dense development in single family areas like they have for years, but if someone wants a larger house they are going to quash that! In general I just find cities and planners don't always make sense.

[montréaliste]

I think the Leningrad streetname has to do with the fact Russian hockey players are always plentiful on the Habs team. Brossard is where the Canadiens have their practice arena. The newer players of course were born when Leningrad fell at the hands of St Peter.

[ThePhun1]

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.

You were right at first, it was basically every suburb in the area. My suburb actually used to be a normal country town but now? Meh...nothing but McMansions and strip malls with a historic center.

The only places I can think of that aren't plastic and have some charm are Galveston, La Porte, Kemah/Seabrook and some of the country towns untouched by Houston's urban sprawl.

[Gresto]

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:

That is my understanding of the term as well. Pointless tear-downs of perfectly functional older houses, replaced from the ground up with lot-busting, cheap, tacky boxes, often clad in stucco.

[Centropolis]

thats what i always hear called a "teardown," which sometimes is tacky, sometimes its not. sometimes its a garage door facing the street, with living quarters above.

[Docere]

North York is probably the teardown capital of Toronto, particularly in Willowdale (Chinese, Koreans and Persians) and around Bathurst and Lawrence (Orthodox Jews).

[dimondpark]

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.

Yeah thats what I understand McMansions to be as well. I personally dont mind them that much.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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.

Sounds about right to me. I think some people are missing the point that a McMansion is a cheap ripoff of a real mansion. It's something owned by the middle class probably paying more than they should to try and outdo the Jonses, not where true rich people live. Also, it's definitely much more about the gaudy style than it is cost. A multimillion dollar row home in San Francisco or New York isn't a McManision at all even if it costs way more than one. I do always find it moderately hilarious looking at prices in different places though. I was recently in San Francisco and my dad wanted me to check out the tiny duplex he grew up in. He was saying it was probably torn down by now since it was such a mess. LOL, nope it's there and Zillow has it priced at $2,500,000. Needless to say where my dad lives now that much money could buy you a 10,000sq ft house, not a tiny duplex.

[chris08876]

Central NJ has McMansions in select towns. A part of my town is divided between the old and new, and the recent developments (within 10-15 years), have been McMansions that have been developed over what use to be farm land. Neshanic Station has tons of them, often taking up a lot of acreage too. Its not the house thats expensive, its the land.

Nearby Hunterdon County also has them. Again, a mix of old and new.

But these pseudo mansions pale in comparison to some of the stunning homes in Watchung Hills or Princeton. Some of them are truly stunning.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Beyond the religious Stepford-ish vibe and that it's far from everything, I rather like living in Kingwood.

I think Kingwood is a beautiful place, as are a lot of similar neighborhoods, like along 1960. I think The Woodlands looks great, too. The 60s/70s "mcmansion" neighborhoods look especially nice, but the new ones just don't have much if any character (e.g., Cypress, Pearland).

Sugarland is another suburb which I think has a lot of very good looking mcmansion neighborhoods, at least the older parts.

[Shawn]

Norfolk and Bristol County towns for Metro Boston. Some that come to mind immediately:

Franklin
Millis
Medfield
Wrentham
Norton
Middleboro
North Attleboro

Lots of I-495 towns which doubled in population in the late 80s through mid 90s are heavy McMansion land. I will say though that the McMansion quality from this time period is much better than the second wave we saw in the late 90s - early 00s.

[muertecaza]

Phoenix sometimes feels like it's about 50% McMansion--head any direction from the core and eventually you'll probably find them.

Paradise Valley is probably the 'capital.'

E.g https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5751...7i13312!8i6656

But my personal least favorite are the ones out in the desert out in east Mesa toward the Superstition mountains, like this shit:


https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...t/14_zm/0_mmm/

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I think Kingwood is a beautiful place, as are a lot of similar neighborhoods, like along 1960. I think The Woodlands looks great, too. The 60s/70s "mcmansion" neighborhoods look especially nice, but the new ones just don't have much if any character (e.g., Cypress, Pearland).

Sugarland is another suburb which I think has a lot of very good looking mcmansion neighborhoods, at least the older parts.

It's a very beautiful area. One of the few suburbs in Houston (Woodlands the other) where developers didn't bulldoze all the trees and then name all the streets after them. They kept most of trees and built the houses and neighborhoods around them and the area has 'aged' well. My family all came down in the spring from Upstate NY and were even impressed and that's saying a lot.

[xzmattzx]

For the Wilmington/Newark area, it's either Hockessin, which came to in the late 1980s and early 1990s, or Middletown, which came to in the late 1990s and hasn't stopped yet.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's a very beautiful area. One of the few suburbs in Houston (Woodlands the other) where developers didn't bulldoze all the trees and then name all the streets after them. They kept most of trees and built the houses and neighborhoods around them and the area has 'aged' well. My family all came down in the spring from Upstate NY and were even impressed and that's saying a lot.

A lot of the older suburbs were developed without bulldozing the trees. Almost all of those along 1960 are that way, as well as the older suburbs along Memorial Drive all the way to the Energy Corridor (unfortunately, some of those flooded during Harvey due to proximity to the reservoir). But all in all, they're gorgeous neighborhoods full of the older mcmansions that aren't cookie cutter. Even parts of Cypress were built in the pines but the mcmansions there are the newer type with little character at all.

For me, Kingwood would be a great place to live. The Woodlands is beautiful but way too far from the inner city, and too much dominated by ultra conservatives.