I agree, Tib. While sad for homeowners trying to off-load one, not surprising that people that would be interested in a McMansion to begin with would want to build new and to their own specs. I have several friends who have done just that.

Big for big's sake. I can see why they are not that popular on resale.

I'm surprised that they say these homes range from 3K-5K sq ft. I would not classify my 4100 sq ft home a "McMansion". I do agree that bigger is not always better & can't imagine anything bigger than my home & would definitely be ok with something smaller. With that being said larger homes in my neighborhood fly off the market for far more than they built them for less than 10 years ago.

But the article states that many people still want big, new homes. They just don't want big homes that were built in the early 21st century, because apparently it's too difficult to make cosmetic changes. I can see that in my own area, where large new builds still continue to proliferate, and people flock to buy them. That said, I think quality has greatly improved since the so-called McMansions first came on the scene. Buyers have wised up as to construction methods and builders have to be responsive in order to sell their product. That's a good thing.

It is still happening in my town, fast and furious. It's rare to see an owner rather than a builder buy.

Mark_rachel, to me a McMansion is tearing down a home and replacing it with one 3 or four times (or more) the size. So, not necessarily square footage.

The home featured in the article are not "McMansions." That term was coined for cookie cutter subdivisions where all the homes were large, on small lots and all the same, giving the impression they came off an assembly line, aka like a fast food burger. These homes appear to be unique to their lot, and in a variety of settings. Was this just a fast and poor choice of illustrations? I'm not sure, because MANSIONS (as opposed to McMansions) or large, unique homes, are the ones I see with dropping, dropping prices. For example, there is an old neighborhood in my town where all the homes are very, very nice and well made, but old, and you have to have the funds to maintain and heat and cool them, so they sell for pennies on the dollar of what they might have been bought for 40 years ago, in modern dollars. And they often don't stay sold for long either. Gone are the days of folks wanting a charming older home and having the time and financial ability to maintain it. The same thing has happened in Europe with many old family homes falling into decay because the family no longer has the means to keep them up. This has been going on with mansions since the dawn of time. The only thing I would say is that older mansions from the turn of the century have a level of craftsmanship that we may not see again, so to me really a shame when they go down. As for McMansions, well . . . duh.

I think it is just all about INDIVIDUALITY. If I have the money and can build why would I buy someone else's idea of the perfect home? I would build my own too.

I think that the 20,000-40,000sq ft houses are having a hard time finding buyers these days. It finally occurred to people that a house the size of Downton Abbey needs a staff the size of the one there as well! Many in the 6000-10000 sq ft range were very poorly built and designed and are utterly devoid of charm.

I know that the VERY high end on Martha's Vineyard and in CT has not come back yet. The sweet spot is a house between $1.5 and $2 million in both places.

I guess it depends on where you are, Anglophilia. The very high end in FL never crashed and it's continued to skyrocket all the time since then, and I believe that is true in many markets.

A lot of people are just outright fleeing from Illinois and especially Chicago. I am a hop and skip away in NW indiana and McMansions are growing here with most being Illinois refugees.

I am not sure this isn't the same cycle as happened after the Victorian period and the gigantic Beaux Arts houses into the 1920s, some of which were houses only for a few decades. There is a limited pool who builds them and they usually don't want someone else's. So there is higher supply than demand over time.

I imagine the present generation would like a home that is already wired, in an unobtrusive way, for all the latest gadgets that hadn't even been thought of in the era of the McMansions, not to mention the darker floors (which show every speck) and other more current touches. They're also, as mentioned above, better-built and will hold their value. Why anyone would want a home that is more than they need, not exactly cozy, a beach to heat and cool, and requiring maid service to keep it reasonably clean is beyond me. For the two of us, a single-story 2140 sq. foot house with two en-suite large bedrooms and a guest bathroom, with a good sized TV room, office and living room, plus walk-in pantry and laundry room, seems more than sufficient and is not impossible to keep clean. In the era of global warming and comparatively vastly excessive consumption of everything by the U.S., I think smaller, well-thought out houses, hopefully with solar heating, would be the most logical way to go.

I just don't understand why people want a humongous house anyway. It's such a waste of money, even if you have a lot of it, why waste it?

I never understood why the couple with two college-bound teens that I know wanted a 28,000-square foot house. I guess it turned out that they didn't, as they recently sold it - but there were entire wings of the house that were empty and unused, and the parents rarely saw their kids because the place was so huge. It felt cold and impersonal to me, but it was their home so I had to assume that it brought them at least some measure of satisfaction at some point.

That said, I know a couple of folks who don't understand why my DH and I sized up by a little more than 1,000 square feet to just over 3,000. Did we "need" the space? No. But that wasn't the point.

Is it all relative? What I might consider overkill (like 28,000 square feet!) appeals greatly to someone else for reasons that are none of my business. ;-) Likewise my 3,000 square footer probably seems palatial to someone living in 400 square feet.

Yes, making sense of human decisions is an exercise in futility! Like the old lady that kept building room after room onto that crazy house of hers...HAHA! explain this house

There is still a market for the McMansions around me but during the crash the mini McMansions were affected. The mini Macs were made to make you look rich on the outside but the insides were of cheap building products. They were not cheaply made per say as most of the homes here are all cement block and stucco, so, sturdy and to the new hurricane codes. However, the insides often had (have ) very low end wood flooring, very low end kitchen cabinetry and builder grade lighting ect.

My husband fell in love with a mini Mac after we sold the last house. I loved the backyard/pool area but nothing else about it except the high ceilings. The price was high to reflect the exterior "I'm rich look" although not badly priced for the neighborhood. It would have cost me a fortune to upgrade the interior. I couldn't believe how horribly cheap the kitchen and all cabinetry was. Most of the wood flooring would have had to be taken up as I don't think there was a enough surface wood to redo .

The house I'm in now is much smaller than my last. I do not miss the extra SF at all. What I do like about the mansions and mini mac's though are the higher ceilings that most have.

My little ranch has 8' ceilings and I do not like it.

My opinions about the esthetics aside, my problem with most new Mansions and McMansions is the emphasis on size or volume rather than quality.

The impracticality of large Victorian houses for the next generation and the impossibility of maintaining the gigantic Beaux Arts mansions by even most millionaires was at least offset by the construction quality. There are several gigantic mansions in this area that were used for commercial purposes for a period of time, and then have sat empty for decades (Try a house with 55 bedrooms on for size), and they were essentially structurally sound at the time of the demolition are are still structurally sound awaiting some possible use.

The modern Mansion or McMansion will start to deteriorate rapidly the week it is emptied.

I'm also in Southern California (the west side of Los Angeles), and my neighborhood (Westchester) was built between 1947 and 1953, to provide housing for Hughes Aircraft employees. While a few houses have been torn down and replaced with much larger houses, at least 90% remain. The lots are fairly large and were designed so that the houses could be expanded into the back yards, which were huge in the original houses. My house was already expanded before we bought it, and it went from 850 sq.ft. to 1550 square feet, almost doubling in size but having no effect to the curb view. My back yard is now smaller, but still adequate, although if a bit larger, there would be room for a pool, which would not now fit very easily.

I do not think my neighborhood is in danger of having McMansions built in it, but since I am very close to Silicon Beach, real estate prices have been affected by having so many tech companies open offices nearby. Since I am in the city limits of Los Angeles, I guess my neighborhood is not really suburban, and my current commute is only 4-5 minutes. I think people who build McMansions are more suburban in mentality than employees of tech companies are, and techies seem to like to remain more mobile and may even prefer renting.

The worst development in a neighborhood adjacent to mine was the creation of Playa Vista, which was built on what was formerly part of the Ballona Wetlands, and area where swamp gas is common and may create a hazard for those now living there. Most of Playa Vista consists of very large townhouses, and the complexes built there are 3-4 stories high, which I consider a blight. Foreclosure rate in Playa Vista is fairly high, whereas in Westchester foreclosures are rare, which I think indicates that it is a more stable neighborhood. Here is a typical Playa Vista house listing, and it still has HOA fees, even though it is a detached house.

Oh THAT McMansion trend, the one where you buy a tiny lot in a neighborhood full of what were once modest middle class homes, tear down the architecturally appropriate home on the lot, and fill the lot almost completely up with a monstrosity of a home because you liked the neighborhood and nobody who wants a modest middle class home can afford to live there anymore. That is certainly an issue in some places, not sure if it is going to continue. Everywhere I have seen it, it is hideous and I can't imagine those out-of-character homes will ever appeal to anyone else other than the folks who insisted on building them.

As for the large but poor quality home building trend, I love the way it is parodied on "Arrested Development!"

Re: ability to withstand neglect: This has been empty a long time:

vs. this, which may actually still be lived in (Prince Andrew and Fergie's house:)

That trend is a real problem here in LA, and some communities (Studio City, Burbank, etc) have enacted ordinances to make it harder for developers to just scoop up old homes and demolish them. In Studio City, a certain percentage of the home has to remain intact. In 2015, the city of LA put into effect a two year restriction on the size of single family dwellings in 20 or so neighborhoods, including Valley Village, Los Feliz, Miracle Mile, Larchmont Heights and others.

Our community has a notoriously strict building planning commission, which requires all new construction to be flagged, and neighbors can weigh in on and even torpedo new construction plans. But still, these hideous things keep cropping up. I'm not sure who is buying them.

"The worst development in a neighborhood adjacent to mine was the
creation of Playa Vista, which was built on what was formerly part of
the Ballona Wetlands, and area where swamp gas is common and may create a
hazard for those now living there. Most of Playa Vista consists of
very large townhouses, and the complexes built there are 3-4 stories
high, which I consider a blight. Foreclosure rate in Playa Vista is
fairly high, whereas in Westchester foreclosures are rare, which I think
indicates that it is a more stable neighborhood. Here is a typical Playa Vista house listing, and it still has HOA fees, even though it is a detached house."

Funny, I took my dog to a dog sitter living there, I lived just south of there in Manhattan Beach for years. I was amazed at the development of Playa Vista, didn't think of it as good or bad, just amazed at the new little community I barely knew existed.

I used to like the oldness of Westchester, haven't been there in years, love the character of some of the houses in El Segundo, very cute.

I wouldn't call a 3000 sq ft home big either, maybe big for some neighborhoods.

Being close to Silicon Beach (good-bye, Dog Town), the 3600 sf ft walk street lots that once had vacation bungalows from the 1910s - 1920s and post-WW2 2 bed 1 bath homes from the housing shortage era have now sprouted architectural, modern mostly glass 2-story boxes. Land prices have soared, and the look of a modern home designed by an architect seems irresistible to the new residents. Home prices are now higher than before the market melt down c. 2007-2008. (During the last bubble, Craftsman restorations and Craftsman-style new builds dominated in my area.)

Since Playa Vista is all new construction, I find that there's something impermanent in the look of the latest development.

One of the concerns I have about Playa Vista and the McMansion developments is that they will quickly become dated, and not in a good way; i.e., I do not think they will age well. I have a somewhat different view of the extreme modern construction that is being done in Venice - I do think a lot of it is very well done and will stand the test of time - but perhaps not. I lived in a 1950s bungalow on Abbot Kinney for 15 years, and just before I left, the house across the street was torn down, and a 2.5 million dollar extreme modern house was built on the small lot. When it was for sale, I took a tour, mostly to see how my front yard and house looked from the house, and they had a better view of my front yard than I did and could see my hibiscus bushes and silk floss tree very well. In the 15 years I was in Venice, traffic on Abbot Kinney went from almost non-existent to bottleneck, which is one of the reasons I wanted to leave. Besides, I wanted a larger house, as the bungalow was only 900 square feet. It is still intact but does have a huge back yard, where I used to grow mangoes, lemons, limes, figs, oranges, etc. The mango tree is now gone, but the citrus and fig trees are still there, and the new owner has added a vegetable/herb garden. At one time I had an artichoke in the back yard, but it got too huge. The house next door got converted into apartments by the addition of an extension taking up the entire back yard plus a second story, which cut down the amount of light my yard used to get. The additions were really ugly. The value of the house in Venice has doubled (partly due to renovations) since I left in 2009, whereas my house in Westchester has increased in value by only slightly more than 50% in the same time period, but we have spent that much on renovations.

I agree with you re the new modern residential construction; most is very well designed. On the other hand, it should be considering the price of the lots.

Our first house was a 997 sf., 3 bedroom/2 bath ranch, our second house was 1,776 sf. and now we are in a 2,150 sf house. I know some may feel 2,150 sf. is small, but to us it feels just right. I think the only reason I can think of where I would want to add square footage to this house is for a mud room which I don't have, and make my master bedroom closet larger (it's very tiny).

When I was in my 20's, I thought I wanted to have a huge house some day. Now that I'm older, and hopefully a little wiser, the thought of a larger mortgage, higher taxes and insurance, higher utilities and upkeep make me realize that I'm content right where we are.

There's one thing I can't quite understand about some huge homes. I can drive down the highway locally and see massive (IMO) houses towering up on hills above the highway. In my mind, I'm thinking why in the world if you have that kind of money would you pick that spot!

In my current Midwestern suburb there is a McMansion smack dab in the middle of the historic district. How did it get there? Well first the original house was purchased, then the house next door; plans were drawn up to tear down one house and expand the other, tripling its size. The original house (remnants of which can still be detected with a squint of the eye and a good memory) was circa 1900 frame beauty. Surrounding houses date back as far as the 1840s, the downtown area one street away to the 1810's.

But this remodel/revision incorporates faux river rock, a turret, 5 different window styles, 3 different gables -- oh you just name it, it is there. Would fit in perfectly with the 1990-2000s styles of outlying developments. The architectural review board rejected it twice -- but the homeowners begged and pleaded -- it was their dream home, they wanted to raise their children in this town, they had already invested so much -- wore the board down I guess and it was built. Sticks out like a sore thumb, and now that the kids are grown the owners are selling but the community is stuck with it.