I can't recommend any particular books, but there are some general design principles that apply to landscaping McMansions, as they have much in common with high density housing in condominium projects or hotels that have a cottage bugalow type layout. The common factors are tall, and/or boxy architecture with little space between them to soften the architecture.. It therefor helps to use tall narrow growing trees/palms that will fit into such leftover spaces without getting too big or wide. It is also appropriate to use plants/trees that will have 4 seasons of good looks, as they will be so close up, that who wants to look at something less than attractive on a daily basis when it is always in your face. Detailing of walls, fences, arbors and trellises becomes very important when space is limited and second story windows overlook supposedly private spaces from all angles. Using matching building materials to mirror the house will often help to make the setting look more restful. Using plant materials that have definite architectural character to act as sculptural elements also helps when you have limited space.

To get ideas, you for good landscaped examples of condos, hotel landscapes, shopping centers, etc. that are dealing with the same sorts of issues as a McMansion, that are suitable for your climate and region. Making the most of limited space while providing a beautiful garden setting with privacy and character is a fact of life in coastal California, where hardly anyone really has large landscapes to play with, as land is just too expensive. Even when I occasionally do designs for California homeowners with more than an acre of land, it gets very expensive to develop, as no one expects a midwest landscape of mostly trees and large lawn areas; but instead lots of hardscape for outdoor entertaining, and lots of detailed plantings, I usually find that even wealthy homeowners don't want to spend the money to match what the neighbors are doing, or regret the water bills it takes to achieve such gardens. This is especially the case when they prefer the english/east coast garden style that needs lots of water in summer to keep it going. It is often difficult to reign in a client who wants roses, clematis, hydrangeas, boxwood, peonies, etc., but also wants to lower their water bill.

In our wanderings around the south we stumbled into a new golf course development of all McMansions. The developer deserves an award. He retained an experienced Landscape Architect who has designed all the plantings for the very small front and side yards. Planting beds weave in and out through the development between and shared by adjoining neighbors. Tree placement has been carefully considered. It emphasizes what I have said several times on this Forum. Adjoing McMansion owners should 'suck it up' and work with neighbors on each side to create a flowing design with shared planting beds, owners maintaining those parts on their property. The LA has done an excellent job of providing privacy and fence/gate design between properties where needed. This development is sold out although not all the homes have been built yet. Bahia makes some excellent observations above. I have also seen new developments where neighbors on cul-de-sacs have all hired the same LA and working together the landscape results are stunning.

As Bahia said, tall buildings that are boxy and close together aren't REALLY new--they are just new in the SUBURBAN landscape. I wonder if that is why we find them so jarring--we aren't EXPECTING to see that sort of architecture in a (largely) rural-esque setting. I wonder if we will still be disturbed by the "look" when McMansions have been part of the scenery for 30 years?

melanie

Melanie,
Based on the construction methods and materials I've seen used on so many of those McMansion developments, I'm not so sure they'll be around in 30 years. Or if they are, they will be in need of major overhauls that will take up any budget that might have been used for landscape.

Why can't people with money use that money to build a smaller house with the best materials, instead of a big, flimsy crackerbox made of crap? Pre-assembled softwood framing, composite board or plywood exterior walls, vinyl or composite resin siding and vinyl/aluminum windows. And the backside of the house is usually shapeless and ugly -- only the side facing the street has the fancy facade.

The desire is for immediate gratification in the form of superficial atractiveness, instead of soundness and practicality. That apparently extends to the landscape too, in these developments. Most have less than 12" of topsoil plopped atop the construction rubble, which itself replaces any good natural pasture or woodland soil that was stripped away to build the houses. Landscapers unroll sod atop the shallow topsoil, and plop in saplings that will never attain their full, majestic potential because there is no soil for their roots to develop into fully. (There was an excellent article about that phenomenon.)

Given that, I'd stick to shrubs, ornamental grasses and perennials all with shallow root systems, construct raised beds and berms and fill them with good, rich loam.

I agree with nandina on what should happen but the whole point of a house that fills the allotted property allowing no space for sensible planting is to prove that the owners are above all that. The reason these McMansions don't get a mention in responsible books on appropriate landscaping is because this style is INappropriate to any notion of a sustainable designed landscape. Anything else would be an attempt to excuse these aborations.

Burntplants,

You refer to McMansions as if they are all one style. What McMansions have in common is that they leave a large footprint on a limited size lot. Beyond that, their facade may appear to be modern, Victorian, colonial, Mediterraneans, southern plantation, arts and crafts bungalow, etc.

McMansions don't look weird to me, and some are very nicely landscaped. No, I do not live in one (far from it), but they are popping up all around me and they are nothing new. Maybe my view comes from living in an area where the cost of land is astronomical, so I am used to seeing the footprint of houses filling up a lot. Even 100+ years ago, cities out here were filled with large houses on smallish lots. For proof, just drive through San Francisco and look at the old Victorians built one right next to the other with just a narrow alley running between them. The same is true of many cities in the east with historic neighborhoods.

So, if McMansions are not all of one type or style, their landscape design really comes down to the same design principles as for any other home -- meeting the functional and aesthetic needs of the owners with consideration to scale, maximizing good views, protecting privacy, mitigating architectural flaws, highlighting architectural beauty, providing a welcoming entrance, etc.

I can't quite agree with Tony that the McMansion trend is unsustainable as a housing choice, especially where a large family prefers a close-in suburban location in an expensive market such as most of coastal California. I, as a single adult with no kids or family have the luxury of living in a 1000 sf house on a smallish 40 foot by 100 foot deep lot, with 4 foot side yard setbacks and 18 feet of front yard, and consider this a fair amount of garden space, and feel no need for more house or larger lot, (although I wouldn't turn down an offer to double my lot size for more garden if my property taxes didn't also double). Tony must live in an area where land values have not gone through the roof, but if one lives in a major city around the world such as London, Rome, Singapore, Sao Paulo, etc; the situation will be similar to San Francisco. The trend is not going to go away, and may be coming to your neighborhood sooner than you might think.

Not all McMansions are poorly/shoddily built, at least here in California, where you will be paying close to a million dollars or more to buy one. In case you might think that the developer is really taking the public, typically more than half the price is for the land, not the building, in our real estate market. The house I grew up in about 20 miles south of San Francisco is now a tear down, were my parents to sell it, with new McMansions going for close to twice the price of the land, which is already valued at a million, without the house on it...

This may all seem absurd to people in other less expensive markets, but it doesn't strike me as unsustainable, yet.
We have the high value jobs, amenities and lifestyle which continues to attract immigrants from around the world who want to live here. That includes the illegal immigrants who crowd 3 or 4 people into a single bedroom, and the valued tech/info worker from India who sees the value of living/working/researching here at the heart of the info economy. I just feel fortunate that I have a profession that is along for the ride, and so far can't easily be outsourced to another country, yet pays enough to stay here. Don't hate what is unfamiliar or strange, but try to learn more about it and/or experience it first hand before condemning it. I'd like to think this advice applies to more than just landscape design...

Interesting discussion. Though most of the McMansion neighborhoods I've seen look odd to me, with the houses being so big on such small lots, I've been thinking that our next house will have a smaller lot than I'm accustomed to.

My current house is one acre, the last one was two acres. I'm finding that unless I have mostly lawn, which I consider relatively easy to care for with a riding mower, a large lot creates an awful lot of work.

The shrub borders, which will be beautiful when the plantings mature a bit, are a nightmare to keep weeded in the interim, even with mulch. The perennial borders are a bit easier, because they're so closely planted. The more elements you add, like walks, patio, beds, the more edge maintenance you create. A small yard with a patch of lawn and enough bed area to satisfy my gardening urges is looking more attractive all the time.

At the same time, I don't want cramped interior spaces. As property values increase, I can see why people are buying good sized houses on smallish lots, that are still close enough to town to make commuting to work, shopping, and cultural activities convenient.

i AGREE WITH vICKI. oOPS, cAP LOCK.

There, that is better. There is no specific style to what a McMansion is. In fact, I bet several of us are picturing totally different houses that fit the definition in our unique regions. The constant is a big house on a small lot. Construction quality and architectural style varies, but an ugly house is an ugly no matter its size. When ugly is magnified the result is obvious.

The same thing is constant no matter what landscape you are designing. Enhance the positive and mitigate the negative.

We should get our terms straight. In my view, "McMansion," by its very reference to the McDonald's hamburger chain, refers to cookie-cutter, slapped-up, oversized houses churned out en masse, as in a development. Materials are shoddy (just as McDonald's ingredients are mass-produced and not of high quality), and the structures are meant to satisfy a desire for large houses on suburban tracts.

There are still actual mansions, in the true sense, being built, just as they have been for hundreds of years. I wouldn't confuse those with McMansions. Affluent people who can afford good materials and custom design, may want the convenience of a town setting, or not desire estate grounds to have to maintain -- and opt to go all-out with a big house on a small lot, often in an existing developed neighborhood.

The only issue I have with this (besides the obvious waste that occurs when two people or small family inhabits a vast structure that uses tons of electricity, heating fuel (in most of the US and Canada where the winters are cooler than California's) water and other natural resources), is that when such a mammoth house is plopped into a neighborhood of modest and smaller homes, it is incongrous in both size and style, blocks views and becomes the 800-lb. gorilla.

There is such thing as appropriate scale and demeanor. In the old days, manor homes and mansions were on estates, meaning they had acreage, not a small plat, that put the house into proportion and perspective, and didn't impose on the neighbors.

I think McMansions look nicer with loose plantings that evoke a feeling of age and permanence. I think they look too much like gas stations if they have ultra-neat beds, trendy plants (grasses, burning bush, daylilies, Japanese maple), and raised block beds.

If the landscape can make the house look like it's been there a while, the house looks more like a home.

Of course, it's not always possible to have big trees in the yard of a new house, but using traditional materials for beds could go a ways in softening the overall look of the place. In my area, most McMansions are stuck in the middle of older neighborhoods. They tend to have alot less yard than the old homes due to their big footprints, but they don't have to be atrocious.

Re: mammoth houses plopped into neighborhoods of modest and smaller homes. In my neighborhood, this is a trend that has been in place since before 1986 when I moved in. My own house was built in the early 50's, i.e. small closets, limited storage, single car garage, two bedrooms, one small bath, 50's galley kitchen, and slightly less than 1000 sq. ft. Is it at all surprising to see that footprint enlarged 50 years later on a 60 x 120 lot? The standard home from 1950 is sub-standard for a family of four today. Change in such a neighborhood, which happens to be bordered on one side by the ocean and the other side by a major bay, 3 miles from an international airport (thankfully not under the flight path) and 5 miles from the city center, is a foregone conclusion.

The good news is the homes are being upgraded with far better plans and materials than they were 20 years ago, and the converted garage look is a thing of the past. There is still the occasional sore thumb look, and one or two have gone overboard with more money than taste, but most are quite an improvement over the deteriorated cottages and ranch homes they've replaced. It seems the tendency is, when one pays close to $1 million for a tear down, to spend some bucks on quality and artistic sensitivity.

Are these McMansions? Not by the cookie-cutter developer homes definition given by Cady, because each is individually remodeled. What are they called? There must be a name for it...

(I'm just glad I don't have to pay today's prices to live here!)

David: I didn't quite say what you suggest I said (boy is that convoluted enough?) If a tract of land is filled with a house that is adjoined by another tract of land filled with a house, that is.... you get the picture there is no possibility of sustainable landscape left. Read the query about drainage between two building for a taste. Nothing of what you describe convinces me that, regardless of the market value of the land, we should build on all of it. I sincerely believe that getting out into the garden is an important modifier to a lot of the craziness that exists where you live and where I live. A humungous mansion with plants pressed up against their walls is more graffiti than landscape design.

My cousin the realtor sent out a postcard with a table taken from US Bureau of the Census information on trends in new "homes" 1950 to present. The basic facts are:

More average sq. ft.

More "stories"

More bedrooms

More bathrooms

More central air conditioning

More fireplaces

More 2-car or more garages

and much higher average prices.

This probably corresponds to the increasing demand for SUVs and other gas guzzlers and the decreasing interest in fuel efficient small cars.

I guess Americans are still dreaming.

An interesting observation, BurntPlants.

Whether it is McMansions or the McBungalows or McVictorians which were the scourges of their day before, or the houses which are Welcome to my Driveways, I think the question of ideal landscaping for them again trips into the difficulty of finding a balance between aesthetics and personality.

OK, the houses are big, on small lots. You have less space. The houses have little or no personality, or durability. But their owners still have as much personality and individuality as they ever did. I still get the hugest kick out of passing by a row of McBungalows and seeing every one of them so adroitly personalized that it doesn't strike you right away that the houses are the same. There is the one who does topiary, the fuchsia fanatic, the neat freak who is still trimming the bushes in the original landscaping, and the lawn king. Then there are the ones with the plastic tricycle decor, the vintage car detritus, and the one that is probably a grow-op.

I guess my point is that no matter how big or small the house, the function of the landscaping is not just to make the house look as good as possible. It is to make it look right for the people who live there.

The subdivision that Nandina describes sounds beautiful indeed, but living there would give me the willies. Of course I can see that there should be sales landscaping, and certaintly there must be some design principles that can be applied to making such houses look as good as possible in ways that still allow for lots of individual expression. The fact that books on landscaping fail to do so suggests to me that authors are assuming that if the house if boring, then boring people must live there.

Heaping abuse on the houses and the people who live in them doesn't seem to me to be of any more help in addressing their landscaping challenges than does completely ignoring their needs in writing a book.

Tony,
i would agree with you in principle that gardens and more garden space are important to people who like to garden, but we are not the majority in today's real estate market. I guess I am lucky in one respect to live in such a tightly regimented politically correct town such as the People's Republic of Berkeley, in that the zoning controls and design review ordinances are so tightly drawn that they mostly favor existing structures over new construction. Due to this fact, there are very few McMansions being built here, and although some tear downs do occur, they usually involve keeping 90% of the existing perimeter stud walls and footprint to avoid having to go before design review. As I work alot with contractors and developers, I know the drill when it comes to avoiding headaches here in Berkeley. On the other hand, there is absolutely no requirement to submit landscape plans for approval when doing such a quasi-teardown. I compare this situation to marvelous Marin County, which Michelle Dervis would always complain that you can't fart without getting a permit first. I relish the relative freedom to be creative without having to jump through all those hoops.

I also agree with the poster about how difficult it would be to live within a planned unit development which spells out what color to paint your house, or what trees to plant. Just a little too rigid for my tastes, although I have certainly designed and have seen built enough such projects that I had a hand in. I would also greatly enjoy the luxury of not looking at my neighbor's house just 8 feet away, but such is life. Such close living forces one to become more creative about planting for density and screening for privacy, while not blocking one's or neighbor's sunlight. House remodeling to add double pane windows are a nice bonus to keeping outside noise outside, or Chaka Kahn at high volume from bothering the neighbors.

I don't think I have ever lived anywhere, either here in California or overseas where I had the luxury of real space to garden, so I don't miss it. I would however, miss being able to enjoy being outside in the garden year round, and winters where nothing was actively growing or blooming. I should correct that last, I wouldn't really miss not having winters at all... What does all this blather have to do with the topic at hand? Just that population trends seem to agree with my personal situation, in that high density occurs where the climate is more pleasant year round, or where the cultural possibilities and scenery cause people to pick up and leave home to try living there, wherever "there" may be. Part of my personal mission is to make each client's "there" a little more like a private oasis or sanctuary, to compensate for the nonexistent elbow room between neighbors. My own backyard is such a jungle of vegetation from around the world, that I don't even see the adjoining two story apartment building anymore, although I do have to compete with these neighbors for on-street parking and all the public transit people who park in front of my house each weekday in order to take BART to the city. Still, it is still possible to park within a 100 yards of my house, as compared to living in San Francisco...

My personal image of a McMansion is the obvious garage door that becomes the most prominent feature of the house (an American architectural embarrassment, if you ask me). So for landscaping, I agree that plantings should sweep through one yard to the next. That would be the perfect answer to beautify such small spaces. Then a nice obnoxious hedge of arborviate to camouflage the disgusting garage door! ;-)