I would imagine a lot of people who buy McMansions can't even tell you why they did.I would not automatically assume anything about someone who buys one, because people home purchases are driven by so many variables.

I agree with the concept that one should buy a house that one can afford to furnish properly. I also agree that there are houses where I would assume that the buyers could do with less square footage and they obviously can't afford to furnish them.

But on the other hand, I live in a high cost of living area. I live in a modest house that is at about the maximum mortgage payment I would want to make. I don't know what I would qualify for, I didn't approach it like that. If we had two kids this house would be a little tight. If we had two kids I would probably have a lot less money because the public school system is terrible. I make more than the neighborhood demographic. I can see how people can't afford furniture. In the burbs, I would have a choice of a high priced, smaller, older house in a good public school system --or a higher priced house that was bigger in that school system. So I can understand, in my location, why people don't have furniture.

lol palimpsest--- the suv and travel team trends can also certainly be symbols of what is wrong with our culture!! whether that suv is a luxury brand or a more affordable, less well appointed brand and whether that suv is paid for with cash or needs to be bought with payments---doesn't matter- bigger is better for lots of families!!

having lived the life of carpools, I know you certainly like everyone to pitch in- and the more the better! ... but to claim safety concerns!? the new term is 'curling' parents..!

By today's standards, Emily Post is very sexist, which is one of the reasons she is out of vogue now. In her day, women stayed at home,were not professionals, and were more or less treated as objects IMO, albeit on pedestals - pedestals that she created. I would not want to go back to that world.

McMansions are the other extreme, I suppose. Since I live in the city instead of the suburbs, I do not have much experience with them, but I do have cousins in Texas who are builders, and they build McMansions, and I am sure they do not use architects. It is possible for a bad architect to design a McMansion, but one would hope not. I went inside one house in Westlake Village (Thousand Oaks) that may have qualified as a McMansion. I was there to help with the installation of a chandelier that I had designed, and I found the foyer/entrance to be very awkwardly designed, and that is where the chandelier was installed. There was no symmetry, and the ceiling did not mirror the floor plan. In my own neighborhood, the lots are 6000 to 7000 sq.ft. and so there is not room for McMansions, and the houses remain modest, for the most part - the lots are way more valuable than the houses.

I should clarify. When I said "People who see the size of their house as a reflection of their status and success, but who really can't afford a true mansion." I was referring to the target market. These are the people the builders have in mind when they produce them. And these are the people I see buying them on HGTV real estate shows.

Obviously not every customer fits the image a business intends to sell to. My friend bought hers because it's a vacation home, she doesn't care about the finishes. She wants lots of room for her family to be able to stay. I think she perhaps entertains clients there sometimes, so the impressiveness helps there. And it was dirt cheap. Some people also buy them and renovate to their own tastes, improving them from the McMansion they started as. And many more just look at number of bedrooms, amount of upkeep required and school district.

I have a relative who lives in one. It's big, maybe impressive from a distance or in a photo. Not bad in terms of shape (no giant roof that dwafts the first floor-- the look I've seen elsewhere.) It's maybe 20 years old, and on the inside, you can see it's just not holding up well at all. The cabinets and plumbing and lighting fixtures were cheap and I doubt they even looked good when new. But the rooms are large and there are lots of them. Big curving stair down to the front door that no one uses (spindly balusters all out of proportion, to my eye). But I recently heard her say about the previous owner, who built it: "Well, he clearly spared no expense..." And I thought, "Well, I see one or two..." But heck, she and her family are happy and they are not shallow people. They might even feel sorry for me and my 100 year old house with no granite, no gated entry, no 3 car garage. But we both have what we like!

Many are sprouting up in my neighborhood. One pet peeve, garages are always in front. I don't want to look at a garage, but that's just me. Fussy pavers in driveways, same ole landscaping, no soul. But, they do have loads of storage and bathrooms, I'll give you that. I'll take my 1928 house any day...

I read an interesting article recently about how housing has evolved in the US since 1900.

Housing Then, Now and Future

From the article:

"It comes as no surprise that houses have grown in size and cost over the years. At the beginning of the last century, the average home was 700 to 1200 square feet. In 1950, the average home was 1000 square feet, growing to an average size of 2000 square feet in 2000. Costs in 1900 were about $5000; $11000 in 1950; and $200,000 last year. An interesting fact revealed in a National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) report is that although homes have grown in size, lot sizes have begun to significantly decrease in size. In 1990, the average lot size was 14,680 square feet. Just eight years later, the average lot size was 12,870. In its profile of a typical new home in 2010, the report suggests that the average lot size will shrink by another 1000 square feet while house size will increase to 2200 or more square feet."

And:

"How much land do you need for bigger homes? Less than you might think. In 1976, the median lot size of new homes was 10,125 square feet. Last year, that median size had slipped to 8,750 square feet. While lot size is on the decline, the desire for bigger homes is rising. Homebuyers want one-story homes, but builders have been responding to the demand for more living space by building more two-story homes. More stories means expansion of interior space without increasing a home's footprint and the amount of land it uses. This has become more important as land becomes less available and more costly in many metro areas."

Backlash at mansionization in Los Angeles

Here is an article about the neighborhood responses to McMansions in the Los Angeles area (examples are often outside the city of L.A. itself). People in established old neighborhoods seem not to like having a huge two-story house suddenly next door to them, and so regulations have been put in place to preserve the character of some neighborhoods. My own neighborhood was single story bungalows when it was developed 1947-1952, but in recent years, a few people have built up - fortunately not next door to me. My neighbor in Venice converted his one story house into a two store duplex, and while it was unattractive and cast shade onto my back yard, it was not that terrible. No one peeked into my back yard to see what I was wearing while hanging laundry.

Lars

When I think of neighborhoods of "McMansion" homes, I think pretension, but in my opinion, I also consider them a sort of expected outcome of societal change. The move to two wage-earner families led to incomes that in my neck of the woods, at least initially, far exceeded the price level of neighborhoods of the older split levels, raised and regular ranches, capes, garrisons, etc., and builders began accommodating. Families seemed to appreciate moving to areas of similar status. No doubt the drop in double-digit interest rates that held from the late 70's though the 80's fueled new-found ability to stretch into fancier digs, along with the propensity of many to max out credit and not live frugally. (Not at all saying everyone who bought a McMansion was financially irresponsible or stretched) BTW I've often cringed at the thought of what all those roof angles and gables and dormers, etc. add to roofing costs.

Lars, technically, I am participating in what some would call a "mansionizing" project. Although in my case, the old house was already torn down, and the lot severed. The old house was probably about 1000sq, and it's been replaced with 2 2000sq' houses. In some other neighbourhoods, bylaws prohibit subdivision of lots, so the 1000sq' houses might be replaced with 5000 sq footers.

But I wouldn't consider any infill I've ever seen to be McMansion.

The "Mc" in McMansion comes from McDonalds. Therefore, the absolute requirement for a McMansion is mass production, and cheap materials. Without that, it's not a McMansion.

Unless your area has a plethora of identical size/shape lots, mass production is almost impossible. Some companies are using the same plan over and over. But there's always some little tweak required because of a variation of the lot on the next project. Even if the size is the same, the grading is different, and you can't simply regrade a 50' wide lot. Different streets also have different setback rules, depending on what was going on when each street was newly created.

The land value in these areas are also so high that the cost of the original property, plus the cost of the build make the new house WAY more expensive than the 5k sq' house in the new development in the suburbs. The cost of upgrading the finishes is so relatively small. And resale is highly considered. So it doesn't make sense to cheap out on finishes.

So while some may qualify as mini-mansions, wannabe mansions, ostentatious or even ugly, an infill is not necessarily (and probably not) a McMansion.

Come to think of it, I sort of live in a McRanch. From the 50's. Mass produced, builders grade. Small lots. However, it was never a pretentious neighborhood and people weren't buying out of their means. In fact, most in my neighborhood have underbought, not overbought.

This has been a real education to me. I've always thought that the primary description of a McMansion is that it does not suit it's neighborhood in design or size. When I refer to a house as a McMansion it is not a compliment. There is a housing development in my town which I now know would be what many of you have described. The houses are tall and built very close to the sidewalk. There are several models, some are Tuscan and some are Tudor. I don't care for the look but someone must. They all sell. They do not offend me because they are their own little neighborhood. It used to be that most people would not overbuild their neighborhood because if it was a modest neighborhood they would never remake their investment when it came time to sell their house. I don't know what changed.

There is an actual mansion on my block. It most definitely does not fit the neighborhood at all. It existed before the area got built up. It doesn't look out of place because it is not visible from the street. It has a front staircase and a back staircase which is dinky and not well lit. My best memory of the mansion is that in the 60's it had a polar bear rug which was visible through the glass front door.

DLM2000 won the thread by answering in one word!

IMO at the fundamental level it's defined by construction materials and building techniques that are not proportionate to the size of the building. A large house built with trim, fixtures, appliances and carpeting that you would find in an average apartment. I've been in a bunch of them before and it's not for me. Like someone else mentioned, I don't even want to know what it takes to waterproof and re-roof one!

Over sized for the lot. When looking at the home the major feature is the roof.

It used to be that most people would not overbuild their neighborhood because if it was a modest neighborhood they would never remake their investment when it came time to sell their house. I don't know what changed.

In my city, what changed is that the population grew and sprawled. Neighborhoods that used to be in the boonies are now practically downtown. So little 1950s 1 story 900sq' houses are worth $600k. And that's just the land. Put a nice, big, new house on it, and it's now worth $1m+. It doesn't matter that the neighbor's house is a rundown shack that he's renting from a landlord that hasn't visited the property in 12 years. You can walk to work instead of sitting in traffic for 2 hours each way. And that slum house will be gone as soon as the landlord finds a builder to take it off his hands.

But again, that has nothing to do with whether a house is a McMansion.

My house is essentially worthless. The bare lot would sell for just about as much. When an unmodifiable medical office building was demolished on the corner, six new houses were built and are roughly 4x the size and 4x the cost of the existing stock. (So they are very tall--these are townhouse or partywall lots) and loom over the rest of the houses. But they had to be in order for the builder to make any money.

An oversized house on a postage size lot not worth the oversized mortgage in a development where competition is based on who has the largest and most ornate. It's the 'proof' you're 'rich', are in a high paying professsion, and can afford anything money can buy. This is usually a mind set rather than fact.

Just checking in, I am really enjoying the responses. Although I am puzzled at the stream of consciousness that included "large breasts," lol.....is that a reference to augmentation as proof of need to impress or just an auto correct? Whichever......lol!

House size to lot size discrepancy seems to be the one thing everyone agrees on. In 25 years, though, as land is even more expensive, will those massive homes on tiny lots be the norm?

In our area we have suburban infill rather than urban infill. But typical lots are 5000-10000ft2, and it is hard to fit a truly large house on a lot that size with zoning restrictions. In the areas with .5-1 acre parcels, it is interesting to see "repeats" by spec builders putting up the same house just in different locations. Some of these are built from architect designs and are attractive but work better on some properties than others. Others not so much. What gets me is the ones that have "old world Europe" styling, yet the roofs are flat EPDM in the center (due to height restrictions) and the side of the roof has a bad case of vent pipe breakout. Builder shortcuts and lack of attention to design. The owners might not mind, but builders, if you are asking $8+ million for these houses, you can do better.

When it comes to infill decisions need to be made about what is structurally and economically feasible, which is why some houses end up as teardowns.

I had a client who tried to come up with all sorts of designs to modify their split level, and in the end it made more sense to tear the house down. They did build a house that was tasteful, though, a straightforward historical design. (It would have made the most sense to remodel the existing house not so extensively and call it done, but that's not what people were doing in the bubble).

So in their development there are now original houses, McMansions and extreme modifications. And some of the extreme modifications are just as ugly as the McMansions. Have you ever seen a split level that had stories added on to both sides of the split and a roof that tries to make it look like it's not a split? The house is so ungainly and top heavy it looks like the upper part is squeezing the first floor into the ground, or that the house could tip over forward.

The worst additions i see around here have a different roof pitch than the original gable or hip. It is a sign that screams BAD BUILDER ADD ON!

With regard to roof pitch, if you look at classical architecture it was considered okay, or actually preferable to have multiple roof pitches, and one of the issues with McMansions is dozens of gables or valleys all of identical pitch.

However, the normal hierarchy is lesser pitches on lesser parts of the house. But with the tendency for people to want 9 or 10 foot ceilings, they tend to create additions with roofs and other elements that dominate the original structure.

The above photo would be considered a mansion by my standards. It's in downtown San Antonio and is an historical landmark.

Wikipedia pretty much sums it up. In San Antonio this might be considered a McMansion.

This reminds me of a beach build too ornate for the small lot. It looks too heavy. It certainly was a high quality build, but too much for the lot. Most houses are built contemporary just because the straight lines are efficient for the small lots. Standard lot is 2,700 sq ft, this corner lot is 3330, still small for so much house. Locally it is the beach mcmansion.

1300 The Strand

Half acre wide lot- at most- 5,000+ sq. ft house in the middle of a subdivision.
Architectural details vary but the sides are generally flat.

This is ok on the beach and a few, very other specific places, but in the middle of suburbia, no.

I find it sad that you all still seem to enjoy putting down the McMansion.
So it's not a perfectly designed custom home and it's not made from the highest quality materials sitting on a large acreage. Not everyone can afford that or want it.
In my opinion, the McMansion is the sign of the times. Everywhere you look there's someone selling us on the idea that we should have a bigger home with three car garage (with at least two new/er vehicles) furnished mostly with things we don't actually use, but just look at. There also should be a TV in almost every room, some of them way larger than we need. They try to convince us that the first to have all this wins. What do we win? They insinuate happiness.
I was happy when we lived in a tiny duplex sharing a yard with another young couple. It was furnished with hand me downs and a new folding table and chairs set in our "dining room" that was barely big enough to hold them. We now live in a larger custom built home on a little over two acres of land in the country.
I don't feel the need to cut down what others have to make myself feel happier. Instead I'm happy for them. They have a home and family, pets and yard, small or not, for their children to play in. They have neighbors close by who help each other out when needed and someone to talk over the fence to. Is that so bad?

You are so right Justgotabme!

I’m thinking in the back of some minds the thought comes of
so many people who stretched themselves beyond thin during the boom to have the
McMansion and later added to the huge influx of foreclosures. I know that in my area there were a lot of
these instances. Maybe subconsciously this is the mindset.

The post is supposed to be about the architecture, the inanimate objects, not the people who live in them.

And yes, an inanimate object can be subjectively bad and that is what we are discussing, on a decorating forum. That's kind of what we do here, make judgments about inanimate objects.

Yes, this topic is ONLY about architecture. Several posts have strayed from that intent but just about all the replies have carefully divorced owners from their buildings. As I repeat, I can imagine many scenarios in which I would happily live in what I perceive as a MacMansion. Over the years I have lived in many house styles, sizes and locations. In all instances we lived in the best combination of style, size and location we could afford at the time and my personal happiness, while certainly influenced by my environment, was not determined by it. I don't think it is sad to discuss the relative merits of a relatively new phenomenon on the housing scene. And the question of resources--- lot size, home size, mortgage size--- are all part of a larger national discussion this one ties into.

Pal, with respect to roof sizes, I was not talking about classical architecture, or even about a rambling home that has been added onto over time, with different building materials, roof pitches, etc. ----and may I interject here that I have come to really dislike brand new homes that are designed to simulate that additions over time process? i am talking about a house, any house, macmansion or not, that has an addition "designed" by the builder who WANTS the addition to look like part of the original house but doesn't know enough to use the same roof pitch to make it so. We saw a lot of that In Florida, and it was awful.

One thing that is discordant to me is when they start taking over a neighborhood, it's so displeasing to my eye to see the old ranches and such with these behemoths lurking over them. I'm an old house person, I know it, but I would buy new as long as it doesn't look anything like this!

http://imagehost2.gsmls.com/pubhigh/19/101135201_2.jpg

No knock on those who choose these, but for heaven's sake, this house is very expensive and not for nothing is located about 25 feet away from a batting cage at our local junior high. Hope ya like baseball.

Here's 1 down the street from us - been standing empty on the market for a few years now - right to the edges of the 1/4 acre lot - looming over modest single story 50s & 60s FL homes - a teardown of same - & what you can't see in the photo is that the balustrades are already cracking & crumbling & "landscaping" is dying...

I went to a birthday party for a school age child my son is friends with recently. I was in awe as I pulled up to the house and walked through the front door... VERY large new house. Belgium block lined driveway. Tall foyer (although not very wide). Lots of veneer stonework. It's on a block of all brand new McMansions that was previously woods across from the elementary school.

The block looks completely out of place compared to the 1950's-70's average sized colonials that surround the neighborhood. Almost every other house in my town has a good stretch of green space that buffers the sides and back of the properties but the McMansions do not have a single mature tree on any of the lots.

What struck me as odd though was walking into the back yard for the actual party. There was BARELY enough room for a small deck and trampoline. Barely. And looking up I could see into the back rooms of the McMansions behind it.

Impressive house from the street but disappointing once you actually got inside. I'd much rather have my modest colonial with large private lot that is buffered with acres of woods for my sons to play in.

This has been an interesting read. I've seen "McMansions" in many parts of the country and agree that each area has it's own definition.

When I think of McMansion, I think of a house that's trying too hard to be something it's not. It doesn't fit with the neighborhood (to emmarose's point), was built as a replacement to a perfectly acceptable home (those teardowns....ugh) and intends to impress. It may have some quality finishes and whatnot but it just is out of place.

When I lived in the western burbs of Chicago, there was a stretch where folks were buying 30s/40s/50s homes with anywhere from 900 - 2000sqft for top dollar (location), knocking them down and building a behemoth in its place. Or some lucky dog would find a vacant lot and build said behemoth there. Driving through those neighborhoods 15 years later, the newer houses are not rundown/ramshackle but still look out of place. There were also brand spanking new subdivisions devoted to the 5000+ sqft home but to me, those aren't McMansions. To me, those subdivisions are in a world of their own.

Where I live now, the trend is to build with stone and architecture that's a combination of traditional and contemporary. Some subdivisions have min/max sqft to lot requirements so there is a relative cohesiveness to the neighborhood. Yeah, there may be limited floor plans and color choices but the look is uniform without being "Stepford". There is still some acreage available outside the subdivisions and you'll find 4000+ sqft homes built to satisfy those who "want" more.

We live in a land of McMansions - a lower priced neighborhood within a high-end zip code that is a stone's throw from DC. Most of the original houses here were around 1200 sqft and built in the 1950s; it's a top school district and easy commute to DC or the Beltway, so real estate is ridiculously expensive. Some of the McMansions are tolerable (meaning they are reasonably well done homes squeezed into tiny lots with little privacy) and some are less so (there's the house w/an elevator and 3 car garage, steps from one of the busiest intersections in the state; the pink stucco monstrosity that could never sell and now is rented to a professional baseball player's family for a few months each year; the ones whose back doors open onto what will eventually be a new light-rail line.) I could snap a photo of the one going up next door - they knocked down a 1000 sqft home and the plans apparently called for 8800 sqft, with windows that look directly into our bedrooms from a distance of approximately 16 feet. The port-o-potty is about 4 feet from my driveway.

I do understand the appeal and the economics of the McMansions though. Our house was expanded twice in the 1980s, so it was just big enough (1900 sqft) to be a credible place for a frugal family that values education and short commutes. We have slowly renovated but there are real limits to what can be done. We've spent a lot in the past decade and we'll spend tons more if we finish everything that needs doing and (hopefully) add on a bit more. It probably would have been better just to knock the place down. There are a few places nearby like ours - Capes and small Colonials that have been expanded because the original mortgage is so much lower than what these new builds cost. But 3 out of the 4 families at our kids' bus stop live in what I'd call McMansions. The smaller older homes are mostly inhabited by older people, and as they leave, so will their houses. And then families like ours, with middle class backgrounds and jobs in nonprofits or academia, won't be able to afford to live around here.

@aktillery9 - is that one in Stone Oak or nearby?

A 2,000 sf house, built at a cost of $125/sq ft, with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, vinyl kitchen and bath floors, builder grade cabinetry, builder grade carpeting, cultured marble vanity tops, a one-piece fiberglass tub/shower combo, and a brick facade on the front is deemed "acceptable."

A 4,000 sf house, built at a cost of $160/sq ft, with 4-5 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, which upgrades the standards of the 2,000 sf home to include tiled kitchen and bathroom floors, tiled showers and a separate tub, upgraded cabinets, carpets, and wood floors, natural marble vanity tops, higher-end appliances and hardware, more decorative moldings, and maybe a 2-story foyer with a more ornate staircase is deemed a shoddily built, tasteless home?

McMansion is just an epithet hurled at affluent homeowners by people who are either bitter about their own economic circumstances, or smug in their self-image of moral superiority.

Thanks for digging up a year old thread to tell us that, BB. Lol.

Here's a a very distinct subset of McMansion that continues to sprout in Queens, New York:

http://www.failedarchitecture.com/new-yorks-worst-architecture-the-bukharian-house/

I know that neighborhood well. Forest Hills has the best Mexican restaurant in all of NYC as far as I'm concerned. We drive out there just for their food.

Anyway- That article sums up what's happening in the area perfectly. Sorry to say, but parts of it is hideous now. It's not even the homes themselves, it's how they look so out of the place in the neighborhood.

The lots they build on are tiny, they're surrounded by post war apartment buildings that were built in the 50's, and single family attached homes. They just don't belong there.

I'm so happy to read the tudors across Queens Blvd will stay. It's the nicest part of Forest Hills, and you can really feel the history walking through the area.

Agree. It's ironic that Forest Hills Gardens was a planned "garden" suburb…those Tudors are gorgeous. But these….oh, dear! And ujnfortunately, although these are the worst offenders, there are other areas that are not far behind in the ugliness competition! I hope I didn't offend anyone with the post, though.

"a large modern house that is considered ostentatious and lacking in architectural integrity."

In Los Angeles we went through the overbuilt cycle a number of years ago and the problem was that while the new homeowners could afford the house they were not prepared for the maintenance costs. So my guess is that in several years McMansion will mean suburban blight. When you are a homeowner and realize that maintenance is charged based on square footage having a large house, especially if you are only using a part of it, is very costly. Poor insulation leads to higher utility costs. All the decorative roof peaks and valleys that might leak…and those post tension foundations where a plumbing repair that could be quickly and easily handled on a raised foundation may end up costing thousands...

The ones that build them in NYC can afford all the costs associated with these homes.
It's more of a cultural thing here. Showing that you've "arrived" so to speak in certain communities. So they're not scattered, they're pretty much in specific neighborhoods.

Issue is, most of those neighborhoods are already established with their own history and architecture. So these McMonstrosities stick out like a sore thumb.

In our area, the term "McMansion" often is used to refer to any larger new build that replaces a smaller tear-down -- could be custom or spec, doesn't matter what style or quality. As in "did you see that gorgeous McMansion they're putting up down the street." So not used with pejorative intent even though the term itself is somewhat derogatory . . . a non-sequitur?

Big and bland.... Similar to the popular chain restaurant the Mc refers to.

My understanding has always been that "McMansion" is a perjorative term used by people in the northeast and west coast to describe the very affordable 3,000-5,000 sqft houses that are available all over the south and midwest. It was thrown around a lot on the Young House Love forum on the GOMI site, mainly by women living in the northeast with astronomical real estate prices taking comfort in the character of their 1200sqft 100 year old homes while snarking on the builder grade large houses of people in the South.

I can only comment on "this" northeast woman. But I've only heard it used when talking about the houses here, not the south.
Houses such as these:

Out of place:

mcmansions · More Info

Out of character in this neighborhood of Post war buildings.

mcmansions · More Info

This one is still being built, and will stay attached to it's neighbor.. Wow..

mcmansions · More Info

A house that is to big for the lot/ property it sits on and to small to be a true mansion.

My 2 cents, a McMansion is like a McDonald's burger, not quite the real thing. A pretender. A scaled down version of the real thing to make it more affordable for the masses.