I think a lot of the anger that people spout about "McMansions" is based in jealousy. Not for everyone, but for most people. at least, that's how many posters and people in real life come across when they complain about "McMansions."

(and if someone says I'm generalizing about people who complain about "McMansions" then it's no more of a generalization than from those who posted the negative stuff.)

I've read through this entire thread. It's an interesting read about several things happening in our society today.

I don't like McMansions. But, it's nothing to do with those who do.

For starters, I don't like how they look within their larger environment. They stick out of the ground like great monoliths that are incompatible with their surroundings. I read descriptions of these homes & people seem to think they've "erected" something that "suits" their individual sites. But, to my eyes, they've created alien structures that look out of place no matter what the site's characteristics. They DWARF the surrounding landscaping. A young oak tree planted around these houses looks inconsequencial. An oak should be majestic...not a house. Some McMansions attempt landscaping...some appear to have put considerable financial resources into the attempt. But, the result is always the same. The house appears out of scale to its surroundings. Planting a shrub from a 5-gallon nursery pot just doesn't work for McMansions....even if there are 157 of them. Maybe, in 50-75 years...these houses will look different. But, I'm not sure? They are so large that even fully grown trees/shrubs will be dwarfed in comparison.

If you look at the great estates of Europe...much attention has been given to the hardscaping & landscaping of the estate. Over several centuries & at huge effort/expense, a cohesive estate has developed. I'm not seeing in America the attention to landscaping that will be required for these modern estate houses to ever develop into properties of grace & beauty. Time will tell...

I've been inside about twenty McMansions. I feel small, awkward, insignificant, & a bit lost. Since I'm looking to feel cozy, secure, comfortable, protected, and peaceful in a home...the McMansions are counter to my desires.

I don't like all of the "hard" surfaces that are so popular today...wood floor, granite (or even concrete) countertops, stone...it's all cold & hard. Again, these materials do not create the feeling I want in my home. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with them. It's just that, together, they create an atmosphere that is not warm & inviting, IMO. I find them standoffish places.

Interior scale is another factor I don't like about McMansions. I've only been in one that was not professionally decorated. First, the concept of a stranger decorating my home is foreign to me. I want my home filled with things that have meaning in my life. I don't want everything to "match" or "coordinate". I want that one crazy table that doesn't ever fit in any house I've ever owned. It has a great story & is part of who I am. Back to scale...the twenty or so McMansions that I've been in are furnished in too small a scale. I'm sure cost is a factor here. These people have already spent a lot of money on decor...to create the scale required to bring the house down to human scale requires a vast amount of money. So, maybe...the funds have run out & the 10-12' armoir needed for that 20' two-story wall will just have to wait??? In the meantime, they live with an 8' armoir that looks out of its element. Artwork is abysmal in the homes I've been in. In a home of this stature, I expect to see museum quality pieces of art. Instead, I see mass-produced, photocopied art on canvas framed on the cheap. Or, I see grouping of a dozen small pictures that are completely lost in the scale of the structure. Again, referring to the great estates of Europe...artwork takes time to collect so maybe America's new "estates" will mature to reflect their intended stature but the ones I've seen sure don't have it now.

Add me to the list who've noticed the lack of humanity around these communities of McMansions. Nary a child or mother in sight. I don't believe we have a higher percentage of "weirdos" in America. We just hear more of them. I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I would NEVER contain my children indoors for fear of the boogey-man getting them. I want my children to play outside, get filthy dirty, build castles & dams, play ball, ride their bikes, fall down & maybe even get themselves a little scratched up. It's part of being a child & of growing up. My goodness, how are they going to learn to cross a street if we never give them the opportunities to try?
So yes...I find the lack of children outside disturbing around these McMansions. Folks who don't have 4,000+ s.f. houses still let their children play because there's not enough room inside for a touch football game in the family room. To me, that's a GOOD thing.

Maybe, I'm more social than others. But, I don't want to be an "island unto myself". I want neighbors. They don't have to be 10' away...but I want to be able to putter in my garden & have a visit over the rose bushes. Or, invite them over for a glass of iced-tea on a hot summer day. In these McMansion neighborhoods, I never see any PEOPLE. Where are they? I could never be comfortable in a neighborhood like that. I'd be trying to organize a neighborhood BBQ or something... I have only asked 3 of the couples who's McMansions I've visited about their neighbors. All said the same thing...they prattled off what company they owned or were CEO of, where the kids attended school, & other social status comments. But here's the deal...not a one of them had ever actually visited with those neighbors. That's weird, IMO.

So, in general...I need to reserve definite opinion on McMansions for many decades to see how they "mature". For now, I think they are a blight on our lovely country's environment. Anything that makes an oak tree look insignificant has failed to achieve the grandeur that I suspect many of the McMansions owners hoped to accomplish.

Tricia

Ok, comparing old large european estates to 3-6K sq.ft cookie cutter homes is hilarious and ridiculous.

I'm not comparing 3,000 s.f. houses with Euro estates....where did you read that? I'm talking about those 5,000-11,000 s.f. McMansions which are comparable to many Euro estates.

Tricia

Well! I'm glad I stirred the pot up!

When I said WASPy, I meant it as people you should not fear, and yet you are avoiding them! Notice I didn't say RICH! Those are two different things!

Carolineb, I know you were offended and I'm sorry. But are you saying you are keeping your son from your "melting pot" neighborhood?

Like I said in my earlier posts, I used to live in that neighborhood and I paid twice as much money just to leave it. I hated that lifestyle.

I do think we are disconnected in our society today. I think that these homes (from personal experience) help this disconnected lifestyle thrive. Just observations from someone who lived it. I've come to find out that success does not equal the "McMansion".

I am nearly 60 so envy is pretty much a non-issue with me now. I look at the big houses and think how much my feet would hurt if I had to look after them.

This last fall my neighbor and I went to builders' open houses just for fun and were surprised that the tiny yards were actually being listed as an asset as in "Look, hardly any yard work!". I understand that because people have less and less time, but it was still a bit of a shock because my husband and I have been investing a lot of time and sweat into making our backyard attractive and functional. Apparently we will never see a dime back on it.

I disagree in part that we need to live and let live. Like it or not, we are on a planet with finite resources. It is my business how much farm land is taken out of production. It is my business how much gas/oil/electricity it takes to run a large home for a small number of occupants. It is my business when creeks are silted in from construction run off and salmon spawning streams are lost forever. I don't consider myself the "owner" of my home. I am its caretaker for so long as I live here. There has to be some inter-generational parity. We cannot salt the earth that our children will inherit.

For the record my son is not quite 2 years old. Anyone who would let a child that age play outside unsupervised should be reported to child services. That being said, he does play outside, I just make sure I am with him.

Tricae, You let your kids play outside with no adult supervision? So you have no idea where they are at all times? Personally, I don't think that is the safest/smartest thing to do. IMO the world has changed. I agree with you on the point that we do hear more about sexual predators than in the past. However, I also do think there are more of them in general. Without getting too far off the subject I think internet porn and the amount of sexual imagery in the media has had a lot to do with it. People become desensitized to what they see leading to more degenerative behaviours.

I will also say that besides the comparison of grand old European estates and McMansions being ridiculous, I have seen far more small homes with poor landscaping, decorating and cheap materials than I have larger ones.

C

devorah, what about small houses that are so inefficient that they waste more "resources" then newer, larger, more efficient homes? What about aged septic systems and water and sewer lines that are found in older smaller homes? If you have a problem with "resources" and the effect they have on the planet, please include all homes in your statements, because when you don't, you're being a hypocrite..And how do you think the home you live in was created? It was clear cut out of a farm or forest etc, at some point in the past, so don't give me the nonsense about new homes taking away the "land" we need, this has been going on for EVER...If you practice what you preach, i know of a cave you can rent ;)

I don't discount any of the things that you said qdog, but the subject was McMansions and my point was that I do have an interest in what others do just as you have an interest in what I do. I am perfectly aware that my house was built from timber. I am perfectly aware that where my house sits was once a cow pasture. I am perfectly aware that the little town I live in is now a bedroom community. I did take great care in selecting this house because it was near a transportation hub so that my family could take the bus to work and school, and I do live on a very small lot, but I don't think I was taking a "holier than thou attitude". I don't think I was saying my lifestyle is superior to anyone else's, just that we each of us impact the other and we are within our rights to care about it. We will need to have informed opinions if we are going to participate in a civilized discourse on how we are going to manage growth in a way that will have the least negative impact on the generations to come after us.

Tricia, I'm sorry, but you can't compare middle and upper middle class housing with old European Estates that belonged to nobility ... there just isn't any comparison ... apples to oranges.

The generalizations and prejudice shown here are just amazing! I make an effort to make friends and get involved in any neighborhood I have lived in. From my experience the ratio of "nice" to "snooty" people was the same in the working class neighborhood and the executive/CEO neighborhood. The ratio of people and kids outside was also the same. What ever happened to not judging a book by its cover!

I don't think you can generalize about the lack of people and kids outside playing soley to McMansionville. I see the same thing in even the more modest subdivision built over the last 10-20 years where the lot sizes have diminished to postage stamps and the streetscape is row upon row of double car garages. Doesn't matter the size of the house. Oddly they build these subdivisions and even go as far as building nice large parks in the center with many offshoot mini-neighborhood "tot-lots" every couple of blocks replete with swings etc..and you never never ever see anyone using them, ever.

Whoever said jealousy is probably partially correct, as there is always jealousy between the haves and the have nots. Yet, I think the over riding issue here is more one of culture. More and more, our pundits express the overwhelmingly "American" sentiment that because this is America I shouldn't be criticized just because I get what I want. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor or somewhere in between, it's aboot getting what you want. Emphasis on want. I want a 5000 sq ft house because I can afford it, so that makes it good. I "earned" it. I can't afford to buy my kid $150 shoes, but I do because he is special and deserves them, nevermind that it puts me closer to personal bankruptcy. Why should I consider anything else. It's the American dream to get what you want.

I'd like to make the point that perhaps the American dream shifted. Shifted from providing a comfortable environment for my family to providing anything and everything within (and increasingly without) my means to do it. Shifted from conservation to excess. Shifted from happiness derived from family and community, to "happiness" derived from stuff.

Yes, I think McMansions fall in that category. Nobody, and I mean nobody really "needs" them unless you've got a mess of kids and/or home businesses. From a purely aesthetic point of view, personally I don't see why anyone would want them. As an investment, depending on the area of the country you live in, I can see why one may be considered for investment purposes.

In my area, suburban Detroit, I get the impression that someone comes up with a budget and builds the most impressive (read largest) house they can with the money, rather than really what they will realistically use. And, in my area, those houses are the ones that are sitting on the market for more than a year, and are valued less than what they cost to build.

The enourmous house and enormous car and enormous plasma tv--they're all symptoms of the culture of consumerism that has taken over America ever since the end of WWII. It's worrisome on many levels:
1. The world has finite resources and there won't be much left for future generations. Already the ice caps are melting.
2. The people who extend themselves because they 'need' or 'want' a 9,000 sq ft house, but don't save for retirement and health care, are going to expect the govt--i.e., the next generation's taxes--to pay for their old age. Thanks a lot.
3. It gives people around the world who are poorer, or more concerned with utilization of resources, another reason to resent Americans. Let's face it--you see McMansions on HGTV w/ their owners chattering about how they had to add a wing on the house to accommodate the media room. And you see people complaining on CNN about the horrible price of gas. The whole world gets American cable. So they see these shows. And they're sitting in their 900 sq ft apartment, and they just filled their tank w/ $5-6 per gallon gas, and they think, 'those damn Americans.' Or, worse, their town just got bombed by American planes or their elected president was forcibly removed from office so some CIA puppet can replace him. I'm just surprised the Argentinians haven't gone the route of the mideastern terrorists. They have as much reason.

Now that there are many more millionaires than ever in history, the days of being able to do whatever you want because you can afford it are coming to an end. Yes, this is america and yes, people have rights. But one way or another it's ending--either people start thinking of the sustainability of their lifestyles or they'll bring about ecological collapse and their $11 million beach homes will be flooded by the rising oceans. Which will be too bad, because they'll take Venice with them.

More generalizations:
"people who extend themselves because they 'need'or 'want' a 9,000 sq ft house"

Why does everyone assume that those in large homes are over extended and have no savings?

House newbie, I have lived in South America and Europe ... trust me there are plenty of homes/apartments much, much larger than 900 sq.ft. Not everyone outside of the US is destitute and suffering. The middle and upper middle class lives well in all parts of the world.

How many Argentinians do you know? I could probably contact 50, right now, that know me, most living in Buenos Aires. They would be very offended that you even placed their nationality in the same sentence with terrorists.

"2. The people who extend themselves because they 'need' or 'want' a 9,000 sq ft house, but don't save for retirement and health care, are going to expect the govt--i.e., the next generation's taxes--to pay for their old age. Thanks a lot."

That statement is pretty much the exact opposite of reality. The people who can afford 9000 sq ft houses are most likely in the highest tax bracket and as such are subsidizing everyone else. You'd be in big trouble without them, not the other way around.

One other facet of the jealousy factor is that some folks resent others who are just happy. Happy folks get a lot of flack! Misery loves company. A girl told a friend she would not date me in college because, I was too "Happy" for her! Maybe it's perceived that happy folks are in the "Have" crowd. I guess the saying about health and happiness is really true!

"the big house will go when exasperation trumps ego."

Good luck with that. Exasperation has its limits, ego knows no bounds...

Part of the resentment toward "McMansions" is due to a trend I see where I live (Atlanta). Young Couple works downtown, builds their first home in a nice suburb - everything is all shiny and new. A few years later, Young Couple decides too many OTHER Young Couples are building new homes in their area, they hate all the traffic and congestion; so, they move farther out and build another shiny, new (bigger) home. This adds 30 minutes to their commute, but they feel their new location more than makes up for the extra time. A few years (and a few kids) later, they decide their commute is just too long, and decide they want to move closer in toward town, where their jobs are. Problem is - there are no big, shiny, new houses available; just older homes in well-maintained neighborhoods. But the older home will not do - so, Young Couple jumps on the Infill bandwagon - the trend to buy an older, smaller home, then tear it down and build a new one twice the size. Young Couple doesn't seem to notice or care that their neighbors are unhappy that the new house towers over the old ones, sometimes to the point of blocking out sun; Young Couple MUST have a shiny, new home, in the location of their choice. That attitude is very prevalent in Atlanta - people who want what they want, and don't seem to be at all concerned that they are inconveniencing anyone else. In my opinion, these people earn the resentment of others; but, I suppose that doesn't bother them too much.

"The people who can afford 9000 sq ft houses are most likely in the highest tax bracket and as such are subsidizing everyone else."

Thank you. Not to mention that people in the highest tax bracket positively contribute to the economy in many other ways, i.e. they own companies that provide jobs, their spending provides jobs, their lifestyle (nanny, gardner) provides jobs, they donate more to charity, they start companies that are innovative, etc.

C

I do believe that the working class (the one below middle class) contributes a higher percentage of their income to charity than wealthier citizens do, on average.

This subject is always a touchy one. It sends me back to the small houses forum! We are trying to sell our old home, a 1450 sq ft ranch in a 1950-1955 development. Our house was owned by one of the few two-earner households, a newspaperman and a school teacher. They built the larger kitchen option that was available, then added the only attached garage in the area. That garage gave us the only "bonus room" around - a 23 x 12 room above the garage, a half-storey higher than the main floor. So we have a considerably larger home than most of the others in the development, although some were remodeled and added on to later. My point is - these were cookie-cutter homes! Same foundation. You could have two large or three small bedrooms, the standard 8x8 kitchen or the 3 ft extra bump-out, or the 8x16 expanded kitchen. That was it. 56 years later, they do look similar, but not alike. Give those McMansions some time and I bet they will get their personalities. But just wait until they have to be re-roofed the first time! Those peaks and valleys will inspire some cursing. Another energy crisis (I spent some years in high school wearing gloves in class) and the soaring ceilings may be boxed in.

BTW, my big new house is 1675 sq ft! The LR makes a great library/music room/office. The kitchen seating area will take an 8 ft banquet table for the holidays, which we keep in the basement.

For everybody getting their "issues" up in arms, follow brickeye's suggestion and go to Gellner's website.

This is typical of "political correctness." Chastise what you don't like, make it a major social issue, but God forbid you practice what you preach!!!!

As I said in my earlier post, this is one man's opinion. And it is worthless!!!!!!!

Enjoy the journey.

eal51 in western CT

1. The world has finite resources and there won't be much left for future generations. Already the ice caps are melting.

The ice caps have been melting and freezing for eons. Nothing new there. And there is evidence of plant life in Antartica too. So maybe the earth is just seeking it's NORMAL temperature?
***********************************

2. The people who extend themselves because they 'need' or 'want' a 9,000 sq ft house, but don't save for retirement and health care, are going to expect the govt--i.e., the next generation's taxes--to pay for their old age. Thanks a lot.

We had a cance to have the younger generation take a percentage of their Social Secutity and invest it themselves, but the Left said NO!
************************

3. It gives people around the world who are poorer, or more concerned with utilization of resources, another reason to resent Americans.
Let's face it--you see McMansions on HGTV w/ their owners chattering about how they had to add a wing on the house to accommodate the media room. And you see people complaining on CNN about the horrible price of gas. The whole world gets American cable. So they see these shows. And they're sitting in their 900 sq ft apartment, and they just filled their tank w/ $5-6 per gallon gas, and they think, 'those damn Americans.'

I really don't think poor people in underdeveloped countries have satellite tv. And they're paying $5-$6 per gallon because of TAXES. The suppliers in Europe pay just as much or just as little as we do. The government just takes a bigger bite. And keeps them poor.
********************************

But one way or another it's ending--either people start thinking of the sustainability of their lifestyles or they'll bring about ecological collapse and their $11 million beach homes will be flooded by the rising oceans. Which will be too bad, because they'll take Venice with them.

I think you sat through too many AlBore movies. If the north pole melted tomorrow (and it HAS melted in the past) the ocean won't rise ONE INCH! The ice cap is nothing more than a big ice cube. And as it melts, the mass becomes less so displacement stays the same. Take a full glass of water and put an ice cube in it. Fill the glass to the very top. Let the ice melt and you won't see any rise in the water level. Basic physics. But yes, climatologists do say the ice caps are melting. And at the CURRENT rate, it'll take 720 YEARS to completely disappear. The nutcases in the middle east will destroy the world long before that as soon as they get the Bomb.

As we all know, the planet has gone through three ice ages. That means the Earth hs experienced MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING as well as MASSIVE GLOBAL WARMING. Where I currently live in VT there was once a glacier over a MILE THICK covering New England. It MELTED! Why? Global warming! And just what caused this? Not Mc Mansions or SUV's.

well put, chris
But lets not criticize Big Al too much,just because his global warming movie was a crock, he did invent the INTERNET ;),lol

Wikipedia has a great page on McMansions.

When we were selling our 4275 sq ft house I had the idea of downsizing. I sort of bought into the smaller house idea. So I started looking for 2500 sq ft houses. I soon moved to 3000 and then to 3500. We had a designer working on a 3500 sq ft house and I was unhappy with it. Ultimately we found a near perfect existing house and bought it.

Size? Almost 4500 sq ft plus a guest house and two 2-car detached garages. Oh, there is also about a 1200 sq ft covered patio and 2 acres.

And, we use every inch of it. In fact, my only small complaint is that right now we could use one extra room.

Main house: 5 bedrooms - There is DH and me, 15 year old son, 12 year old son, daughter and au pair. (there is a small extra room attached to one of the kids bedrooms which is unnecessary but kind of cool (built out of attic space).

Kitchen, Dining room. The kitchen has a bar (that we put it in) where 3 can eat but the dining room is the only eating area in the house so we use it.

My study - I sit there now. This is a room with a built in desk and cabinets and it is where I have my computer and keep all of our papers and a lot of our books. I use this room more than any other.

DH's Study - This is actually in what was intended to be the formal living room. It contains DH's desk and computer and a computer for kids to use for homework.

Family Room - This is the main seating area and TV room in the house. It is in fact the only TV room that our kids can use (we do have a TV in the master bedroom and my office but my office is too small for anyone else to be in there).

Sunroom - This is a small room that is called a sunroom on the plans. We use it as an exercise room and place for our pets.

So...every room is used on a daily basis. The 3 kids have to agree on what to watch on TV or take turns as there is only one room they can use for TV.

The guest house is used when my mother visits (she may move in permanently at some point) or others visit. One garage we use for our dogs. The other is just a regular garage.

That's a great entry in wikipedia. After seeing the examples I think I like McMansions! Except maybe the one they describe as "A McMansion of a lower order", heh. It's interesting that they also tag the range as 2400 - 5000 sq ft for McMansions. I bet a lot of anti-McMansion folks will be surprised to hear that they're actually the enemy, lol.

"a higher percentage of their income to charity than wealthier citizens do"

But a higher percentage of a smaller amount may stil be a smaller amount.

>The world has changed. When we were younger (and my husband and I are in our mid 30's so we're not that old) we remember playing outside all day. Our parents only had a vague idea of where we were at any given time. In today's world, there is no way would I let a child roam the neighborhood without knowing their exact whereabouts and without parental supervision. Nor would I let them walk to school by themselves. There are too many weirdos out there.

Crime rates were a LOT higher when you were growing up than now. Parents just didn't worry about it back then.

---

I'm moving into an existing house because A) we need a place to live, B) you just can't GET virgin land like that anymore so close to DC for any price (2 acres old growth forest, carefully preserved when the house was built, backing up to a preserve), and C) the house itself has good bones and will be a great center for substantial additions.

Current house:

3400 finished sqft
2600 above grade
2 half baths
1 full bath (very, very small)
1 3/4 bath (even smaller--no place for a vanity!)
1 kitchen/eating room and 1 living room on main floor with half bath
1 master bedroom and 2 smaller bedrooms on the floor with the full bathroom
1 large bedroom, 1 small bedroom, and 1 large laundry room on floor with 1/2 bath (The large bedroom will be my library, office, homeschool room, AND playroom for a while, while the second bedroom will be DH's office)
Tiny two-car garage
Finished basement with sauna (which we'll never use) and shower (ditto), which is the ballroom for practice and parties

Activities that the needs to support:
-Master bedroom suite
-Many kid's rooms--we plan to adopt older children and so would like as many rooms as possible
-Modern kitchen (current one is tiny, 1965, no DRAWERS, no dishwasher)
-Separate formal/informal living areas, with TV only in informal
-Substantial entertaining space
-Basement ballroom (dance practice & entertaining)
-Homeschooling room
-Playroom/game room
-In-law's permanent residence after retirement (they plan to be RVing most of the year and want to have a permanent guesthouse residence so they can be close to us, so that we can keep an eye on their house and handle their mail, smaller than their current 3,400 sqft house but still big enough for guests)
-Formal dining
-Library and office for me for working at home, with space for an assistant
-Isolated office for DH for working from home
-Housekeeper's quarters
-Substantial workout room with hot tub for my chronic pain condition
-More garage space
-Mudroom--we have none

So, our first addition will be about 1,000 sqft:
-New kitchen, allowing former kitchen to become living space
-New eating area
-Substantial walk-in pantry/mudroom
-Basement workout/hot tub room beneath new kitchen

Our second addition will be about the same size:
-Apartment for in-laws now, later housekeeper
-new master bath and closet, to get the house up to a very desirable standard in case we have to sell or stop before we finish the additions. The closet will later become the library's office and the master bedroom the library.

Our third additon will be much larger, about 3000 sq ft:
-1-car garage with storage above (included in square footage but unconditioned)
-Brand new master suite, allowing old suite to become library/office and to remove those from the homeschool/playroom
-Four children's bedrooms with baths

Our fourth and final addition will accomodate all the entertaining we do and will be about 4500 sqft, including basement:
-Huge dining room
-Prep kitchen
-Two half baths
-Three living areas: music room and two parlors, meaning the second living area in old house will become another informal, TV-free room
-Basement ballroom, allowing other basement to become game and play room
-Upstairs, four more kids' bedrooms, allowing the other two in the original house to be combined into a theater room

And we'll also add a better solution for the in-laws, total square footage about 2400, incuding 600 sqft garage:
-Two car garage that opens directly on-level to a fully handicapped accessible guesthouse, which overlooks a steep slope into the woods. In poor weather, they can drive in or be driven in and transfer directly to the house. It will have kitchen, eating area, a livingroom, a bedroom, a full bath, and a small office. This is built on a hill, so the second floor with be underneath and will be heavily used by them for their hobbies, etc., while they are in "active retirement" (when they will only spend 3-6 months a year in the home, anyway) and by their guests or even a live-in nurse, if necessary, when they are older. It will have a living area, two bedrooms, and a bathroom.

And then we also want a small poolhouse, unconditioned, with two changing rooms/showers, storage, and a covered patio.

So that would be about 12,000 finished sqft for the main house, with a 1,800 sqft guesthouse. Up to 6 people could be working in the home and 11 people living in the main home at one time, with up to 3 living in the guest house. We plan to buy the neighbor's 1.5 acre lot, so if things begin getting crowded with relatives and guests, we'd add a 3-car/1 RV garage with a "bunkhouse" above.

What I think is crazy is when people build 5,000 sqft+ houses before they hire someone to CLEAN it! I have no intentions of having a large house without first having a housekeeper. *g*

Will it be a McMansion? Not a chance. Will it be a mansion? Yeah, you could probably call it that!

christopherh -- very well said!! I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks!

I also agree with Chiefneil, carolineb, qdognj, eal51 and kygirl99!

Housenewbie -- you're just kidding, right?

Way to go Reyesuela -- Sounds like an ambitious plan for you and your family. Think of all the people you will employ building all your additions. Very nice.

>Think of all the people you will employ building all your additions.

HA! My current carpenter (the old fashioned kind who does everything but plumbing and electric) is joking about moving to MD and working for me there. *g* I told him if he did that, I'd be making him an employee and stop paying the overhead indirectly!

"...a higher percentage of their income to charity than wealthier citizens do"
But a higher percentage of a smaller amount may stil be a smaller amount..."
***************************

I was watching the Barrett-Jackson Auto auction yesterday. A Humvee owned by CNN that was in Iraq covering the war went on the block. It was brought back to the USA and customized by the guys on the show "Trick My Truck". It was called "FREEDOM ONE" And it was to be sold with all the money going to charity for veterans. The truck sold for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Cash or bank credit only. Money changes hands at the time of the sale. There were two bidders. One was a veteran who's foundation wanted it. So his friend bid the million. The winning bidder said "I don't want the truck. Title it to my friend's foundation." He paid a million dollars and gave the truck away.

Later on Carroll Shelby's personal 1965 Cobra went on the block with all the money again going to charity. He said he got stopped in 1967 in Nevada doing 190 mph in this car. Somebody wrote a check for FIVE million dollars!

Was that the same percentage of income as a middle class guy? I really don't think so. It was a very small part of their income. But a total of six million in one day going to charity by two car guys dressed in jeans and sports shirts was pretty good.

Thanks Christopherh for so clearly explaining US policy on the environment:

1. There is no global warming.

2. If there is, it's no problem.

3. The world is going to blow up, so why bother?

Chris, I haven't seen Al Gore's movie. I have heard him discuss it with various TV hosts, and I have read a bit about it, but am not really competent to say what the content is.

I don't know if he really said that sea levels would rise with the melting of the polar ice cap. If he did, then he is, as you say, mistaken. The polar ice cap floats and so it will make no difference to sea level. The melting of the southern polar ice cap, however, will make a significant difference in sea level because it rests on land and is not floating on water. My understanding is also that as the melted water of the northern ice cap meets the warmer water of the North Atlantic, it will seriously interrupt the currents that have kept Europe in moderate temperatures. It is expected that global warming will actually result in much colder temperatures in Europe. That has happened before too and with disastrous results.

I heard Gore say that we are not yet past the tipping point on global warming. He can't possibly know that. He says that we can all be part of the solution by just changing out our lightbulbs and driving a little less. That seems unlikely as well.

I do think that there is a very real possibility that we are entering a period of global warming, whatever the cause, and we should be planning accordingly. We should get over trying to place blame and get on with at least contingency planning. If we don't need it: Great! If we do then maybe we can help ourselves to lessen the impact. In Seattle we are deciding whether or not to build a tunnel near the water's edge to move traffic without impacting views. I think the threat of global warming is reason enough to reject the tunnel. We shouldn't spend billions on something that might not be supportable in the years ahead. That just seems sensitble to me.

By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with being careful how we use energy. Changing out our lightbulbs may not help, but it can't hurt so why no do what we can while we await better science.

Demeron,

Don't put words in my mouth.

I NEVER said there's no global warming. The earth IS getting warmer just as it has done multiple times in it's history. Or didn't your Perfesser's assistant tell you that?

The earth has gone through three cycles where it FROZE and then MELTED.

What I am saying is that it's NOT America's fault.

10,000 years ago Lake Champlain was connected to the ocean. We have proof because skeletal remains of a whale were discovered at the bottom of the lake. I go out into my backyard and dig down a foot and strike sand. Yes, sand here in the Green Mountains. Why? Because where I live, at one time was an inland sea. Along came the GLOBAL COOLING and the glaicers disrupted everything. People like you would be blaming it on Fred Flintstone's evil Flintstone Flyer. At one time the Greens were taller than the Rockies. But when the evil GLOBAL WARMING started, the glaicers retreated DESTROYING EVERYTHING and making Vermont a state with rounded mountains. Massive destruction because of global warming 10,000 years ago! It has happened before and it WILL happen again. Neither you nor I can stop it!

But what happened in the 7th century when Iceland and Greenland were crop growing regions? What caused that?
And what's wrong with Siberia being able to have a crop growing season longer than 18 days? What's wrong with a farmer's ability to plant another crop of food to feed 6 billion people?

You seem to think we are responsible for all this.
OK, what about the "Coming Ice Age" scare in the mid 1970s? ABC news did a special and promoted the idea that unless we acted NOW we were all going to feeze to death. We (the USA) HAD to stop pollution NOW because it was blocking out the sun! No sun, no warm weather! Killington Ski area in Vermont was open in JULY! That was a mere 30 years ago. A blink of an eye in the overall time frame of the earth. What caused THAT???

And scientists have discovered cities that are currently underwater. Intact cities. That means when they were built, the water level was much lower than it is today. What made the water levels rise from the levels they were at 3,000 years ago? Think now. Yesss! Global warming!

And I just read where the Polar Bear is now threatened. But nobody on CNN said that in the 1950s there were approxomately 5,000 total bears in the artic. Now there are 25,000 to 30,000 bears. Maybe there are just too many bears and Moher Nature is culling the herd? But why let facts get in the way of a good scare, huh?

So my friend, the Earth IS warming. Just as it always has. The water levels will rise, just as they have done in the past. Species will become extinct, just as they become extinct every day.

But it's NOT America's fault!!!

Oh, by the way, I have installed flourescent bulbs throughout my house. I did so because they claim to have a 10,000 hour life span and Bennington is promoting the sales of them at 99 cents each. And I can save money on my electric bill. And THAT'S why many people are changing over, not because of the environment.

My goodness, you certainly got a lot out of my brief post.

Little bit of a chip on your shoulder there, guy?

Gratz on your flourescent bulbs, for whatever reason you chose them (no worries, I won't accuse you of concern for the environment.)

Chistopherh

In your claim that melting ice caps don't raise the sea level, you used the invalid analogy of ice cubes floating in a glass of water.

You forget that the ice caps aren't floating in the sea. They are anchored to land. When they melt because of rising global temperatures, the water flows into the sea and raises the sea levels. When they reform because of falling global temperatures, the sea levels fall.

Any paleoclimatologist would tell you that this same pattern of falling and rising sea levels has occured every time the Earth has gone through an Ice Age and subsequent warm up. In fact, during the height of the last Ice Age, which occurred about 18,000 years ago, sea levels were lower by 410 feet than they are now. That's why a land bridge existed between Siberia and Alaska, which is how the ancestors of Inuit and American Indians Asia were able to walk from Asia to the Western Hemisphere, something I'd like to see you try now!

There are a number of arguments one can reasonably make about what is causing the current global warming and whether anything meaningful can be done about it, but no expected rise in sea levels isn't one of them.

BRAVO Christopher! Great job. I laugh daily watching the "hysterical" media blabbering on about Global Warming (America's fault implied, George Bush is the ring leader). Meanwhile, it's freezing out in Calif & the West. It just kills me how people can't see the forest through the trees. Can anyone look at the big picture (besides Christopher) and know that this earth has gone through serious changes well before the industrial age, well before America and it's dreaded SUVs? PLLLLLEEEAAAASSSSEEEEE people, get a brain and use it. The lack of education in the West is scarier to me than Global Warming.

So what if the changes in climate are man-made or natural? The point is that they have to be anticipated and dealt with as best we can. So what if we can't make a big difference by the way we live. We can make SOME difference. If you think the fact that there is 3" of snow in Tucson and California lost it's orange crop is evidence against global warming - it is you that needs to bone up on some basic science.

"You forget that the ice caps aren't floating in the sea."

Only at the south pole.
The Arctic Ocean ice cap is floating.

And, just to cause problems *g*, there is no risk of melthing at the poles, while Artic/Antarctic precipitation has risen dramatically with temperatures. So the ice is actually thickening--quickly--in places. (Hence the new S. Pole station being raised so high--the old one has been pretty well buried.) Warmer weather means a wetter Earth.

My favorite questions for the global warming fols are
"Why is Greenland so named?"
"How did the Maunder minimum produce global cooing?"
and
"Does your model account for the effects of the sunspot cycle?"
Whan the answers to these questions are found we can discuss your models.

Dumb question on the ice cap melting quarrel (and yes I know water expands when it freezes...vaguely remember that 6th grade science project)

But glaciers are huge above sea level, visible, right? So expanded, contracted, or whatever, wouldn't all that melted visible ice - once in the ocean - add some volume and raise sea level?

"...My goodness, you certainly got a lot out of my brief post.
Little bit of a chip on your shoulder there, guy?..."
*****************

I'm just not afraid to debate the issue as you obviously are. Because you haven't refuted any of my statements.

I have no chip on my shoulder. But I just get reeeeaaaallll tired of the people that say the sky is falling. Yes, the earth IS getting warmer and it always will. And then it will cool. As it always has. The ocean WILL rise, as it has in the past, and WILL fall as it has done in the past. So what? Do you REALLY think we can stop it????

I do care about the environment. After all I live in the Peoples Republic of Vermont! (Texas isn't the only independent republic to join the Union!) We elected a Socialist to the US Senate for god's sake! Yes, Bernie IS an avowed Socialist. And proud of it. He hangs a picture of Eugene Debbs in his office. But he's still an idiot.
I drive a vehicle that's rated ULEV ("ultra low emissions vehicle") I use wood as the primary heat for my home. (fewer hydrocarbons and a constantly renewable resource) I recycle. Possibly more than you. So I AM aware of the world around me. I'm just not afraid of it.

We live by a saying up here.
Use it up.
Wear it out.
Make it do,
Or do without.

My computer is 8 years old. Because I don't need to waste money on a new one. I live in a small home. Because I like it. I like having land around it. And trees to burn.

So if you'll excuse me I'm going to climb into my Ford Expedition (ULEV!) and go to the general store for a newspaper...

"But glaciers are huge above sea level, visible, right? "

No, most of the volume of floating ice is below the water level. The density differnce is not very large so only a small fraction of the ice is above the water surface.

It's true that the Arctic ice cap is floating, but it isn't all that important in terms of the volumn of water it contains. More important is the Greenland ice cap, which is melting quite rapidly and most important of all is the Antarctic ice cap. It's western half is melting, but the eastern half is thickening. Climatologists attribute both these seemingly contradictory effects to global warming.

There is also some fresh water tied up in glaciers in other places, such as Alaska and high mountain ranges, but the volumn of water they contain is relatively small.

To my mind, there are so many other good reasons to cut back on our consumption of fossel fuel, that global warming issues are almost beside the point. But there's no question that it's happening, that it will impact us greatly, and that we better have strategies to deal with it as best we can.

I thought this was an interesting bit of good news/bad news

When a meteorologist says the American Meteorological Society should de-certify any meteorologist who does not agree that man has caused global warming and it has had a direct effect on our weather patterns- I have a major problem with that position.

There are too many doomsday sayers who only want their opinion heard. Any form of dissent or debate against their opinion cannot be tolerated. They must silence their oppositon at all costs. That, my friends, is not freedom of speech and that is not the way of a republic.

That type of hype on any subject should cause us all great concern. If you have to silence your opposition or another point of view, you must have a very weak position.

So let's all take a step back and really read, research and think upon what we are being bombarded with in the press.

Let's be individuals who think for themselves and not a bunch of followers who blindly believe because someone says its true.

Enjoy the journey.

eal51 in western CT

"But there's no question that it's happening..."

That is exactly what the question is, along with the concept that we can do anything about it.

Di you even know what the Maubder minimum is?
Have you looked at the data that ashows the suns output has been increasing for at least the past 20+ years?

The planet may be warming. The proof that is has anything to do with human activity s subject to considerable debate, and it is far from decided.
Even if Al Gore claims otherwise.
Science has never been a majority rules activity before.

Of course, Brickeye. Duh. Where is my brain? ..."tip of the iceberg" and all.

Below is a link to another interesting site

and BTW, According to Jared Diamond, the lesson of Greenland is that failure to adapt means death. The Scandinavian settlers died because when the land would no longer support cattle or crops, they refused to eat fish or seals. The native population did just fine. I don't recall what the global situation was at that time, but once again I will say that colder temperatures in parts of the world don't prove that global warming is not occuring, in fact, just the opposite and adaptation to changing conditions is where we need to focus.