What Is A McMansion?

[sidegate]

To me McMansion is a contextual term, connoting something that is egregiously out of proportion and style, and lacking in any sensitivity whatsoever, to the prevailing architecture and feel of the neighborhood. I have one opposite me; in the evening, the porch/stoop lamps of the Craftsman bungalows cast a subtle glow on their front lawns. With it's OTT landscaping and "mood lighting" this thing is is lit up like something out of National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. You wouldn't bat an eyelid at in Bellaire or West U but in this part of Montrose at least it's definitely filed under "WTF?"

[Dan the Man]

To me, a McMansion is a residential structure whose design violates fundamental architectural principles in an attempt to maximize enclosed space and impress others.

[TheNiche]

To me, a McMansion is a residential structure whose design violates fundamental architectural principles in an attempt to maximize enclosed space and impress others.

Enlighten me. What are these principles?

[Dan the Man]

Enlighten me. What are these principles?

The decorative features of McMansions are typically taken from traditional architectural styles that are highly dependent on the objective principles of "proportion" and "scale". Designers of McMansions often implement architectural features from these styles without regard to proportion or scale, causing the resulting buildings to appear distorted or grotesque to people with an understanding of traditional architecture.

[N Judah]

It's where a person buys a home in an older neighborhood and tears it down to build something larger (that typically takes up the absolute maximum space allowed on the lot). Usually these houses are "custom built" in a mass-produced sense and do not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood at all.

[TheNiche]

The decorative features of McMansions are typically taken from traditional architectural styles that are highly dependent on the objective principles of "proportion" and "scale". Designers of McMansions often implement architectural features from these styles without regard to proportion or scale, causing the resulting buildings to appear distorted or grotesque to people with an understanding of traditional architecture.

Is there a "fundamental principle of architecture" that you could objectively describe as it might pertain to proportion or scale? If someone is accused of breaking the rules, well, all I'm asking is that the rules be defined. I don't think that that is unreasonable.

[Subdude]

Is there a "fundamental principle of architecture" that you could objectively describe as it might pertain to proportion or scale? If someone is accused of breaking the rules, well, all I'm asking is that the rules be defined. I don't think that that is unreasonable.

I think the ideas of proportionality and scale are perfectly understood without someone having to provide you definitions, and I agree that they are important components of good architecture.

[JLWM8609]

I wonder if such an outcry was made against mods in the 50s and 60s being built alongside traditional style homes from the 20s-40s in Riverside?

[20thStDad]

"McMansion" sounds catchy, but I don't think it's the best term. The "Mc" to me would imply that they're all basically the same, but also that they are cheap. I don't think they are, at least not to my definition of cheap.

How about we switch it up and call them iHomes? I know some Mac people won't like it, but it reflects trendiness to the extreme, same as the people who absolutely must have the latest i-pod, phone, whatever. It doesn't mean those devices aren't useful, same as the perfectly functional houses, but it does reflect that having one goes well beyond need and is often a good bit of overkill.

[sarahiki]

To be fair, the Romans broke all the "rules" of architecture that the Greeks had established. Greeks would have been (and probably were) horrified by how the Romans built. But we look at a building like the Pantheon in Rome and marvel at it... breaking the rules was how the Romans were able to innovate. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[TheNiche]

I think the ideas of proportionality and scale are perfectly understood without someone having to provide you definitions, and I agree that they are important components of good architecture.

Clearly they are not perfectly understood. That was the premise of Dan's argument, that these houses so blatantly violate the rules of proportionality and scale. I don't necessarily disagree with him, however I should like to see such rules codified if they are going to be referred to in argument. Otherwise its an ipse-dixitism.

[flipper]

Otherwise its an ipse-dixitism.

I was just about to say the same thing.

flipper

[travelguy_73]

I wonder if such an outcry was made against mods in the 50s and 60s being built alongside traditional style homes from the 20s-40s in Riverside?

Are there major scale differences between the traditional homes in Riverside versus the mods? I think they are probably a little larger, but close enough in size that the residents were likely titilated by the extreme difference in style, but the scale wasn't a factor. IMO, the mods in Riverside compliment the traditional homes because they highlight each others differences, and you see each with a fresher perspective, without one looking like it is going to "eat the other," which is what I think of when I see a home out of scale with its neighbors. I wonder if the residents' felt that way or if they couldn't get past what we see now as "normal."

[sidegate]

This is a more philosophical question but I've wondered why does the urge currently exist to fill lots up with these things? Have developers become that much more profit-driven in the past 80 years? Put another way, when what are now inner city additions were originally developed, why weren't they filled up with 1920s versions of McMansions instead of 2-1 bungalows? Or is the McMansion phenomenon simply market-driven, with modern homebuyers more desirous to put their affluence on display with as large a house as they can buy, whether it fits into the neighbourhood or not?

[EMME]

This is a more philosophical question but I've wondered why does the urge currently exist to fill lots up with these things? Have developers become that much more profit-driven in the past 80 years? Put another way, when what are now inner city additions were originally developed, why weren't they filled up with 1920s versions of McMansions instead of 2-1 bungalows? Or is the McMansion phenomenon simply market-driven, with modern homebuyers more desirous to put their affluence on display with as large a house as they can buy, whether it fits into the neighbourhood or not?

utility costs. building material costs. cost of craftsmanship. cultural difference (current culture of greed)

IMHO

[TheNiche]

This is a more philosophical question but I've wondered why does the urge currently exist to fill lots up with these things? Have developers become that much more profit-driven in the past 80 years? Put another way, when what are now inner city additions were originally developed, why weren't they filled up with 1920s versions of McMansions instead of 2-1 bungalows? Or is the McMansion phenomenon simply market-driven, with modern homebuyers more desirous to put their affluence on display with as large a house as they can buy, whether it fits into the neighbourhood or not?

It isn't as though the development of McMansions in some particular neighborhoods is an "urge" or compulsion. I recognize that some preservationists may disagree, but developers of custom homes aren't psychotic knuckle-dragging baby killers. They do it for the money, and the money exists because so many consumers view McMansions as a superior form of housing to a bungalow given the legacy-constrained spatial realities of an inner-city lot.

The key difference between the inner-city McMansion trend and developments from 80 years ago is that the neighborhoods previously were designed to appeal to a mass market that you and I would consider lower-class, strictly given their buying power and consumption patterns in real terms. For their day, the Houston Heights was pretty solidly middle or upper-middle class, but as people's real incomes have risen, they consume more because they want to and can. I don't doubt for a second that if a person from that era were transported to this time, they would tend to gravitate to McMansions over bungalows. In comparison, the McMansions are marketed to a market of consumers that in the context of Houston as a metropolitan area is a niche market and only seems so large because the aggregate market size is so large relative to the stock of older well-located housing.

There are still houses built in the Houston area that are roughly the size of the typical bungalow and that serve the same function, however they are pre-packaged undesirable communities in undesirable locations that quickly go down-hill. As much as they blame greed and consumerism for the destruction of neighborhoods of bungalows, I don't think that any bungalow enthusiasts would want to live in a similarly-sized new structure. The fact is that they're consumers just like anybody else, only with slightly different preferences. And if they had their way, they would greedily remove the option for others to live out their preferences of a McMansion on an infill lot in a desirable location. There you have it--greed, consumerism--it's inescapable.

[Dan the Man]

Is there a "fundamental principle of architecture" that you could objectively describe as it might pertain to proportion or scale? If someone is accused of breaking the rules, well, all I'm asking is that the rules be defined. I don't think that that is unreasonable.

Like I said, the design of McMansions use traditional architectural styles as a base. These traditional styles evolved from the Classical architecture of the Greeks & Romans, as well as the architecture of the Renaissance.

At their very core, these styles are made up of "rules" or "Classical Orders" that govern the proportion and scale of all components of a building. These rules will tell you exactly what size one component should be relative to the size of another (i.e. the length of a column should be x times its width, and the total length of the building should be x times the length of the column). The Classical Orders are published in "Ten Books on Architecture" by the Roman architect Vitruvius.

During the Renaissance, Classical architecture was "rediscovered" and applied to new building types, including residences. Most traditional residential design has its origins in Renaissance architecture, especially the villas built by the Italian architect, Andrea Palladio. Palladio's villas used the Classical Orders, but also incorporated newer design concepts - room sizes based on Classical geometry (squares, golden rectangles, etc), as well as the division of exterior facades into distinct parts based on the Classical proportions.

To actually explain the Classical proportions, most are based on geometric relationships that are found in nature and the human body. Aside from the pure geometry of the Square and Circle, the most famous is the "Golden Ratio" (a line divided into two parts - A & B, the ratio is A+B is to A as A is to B ). Leonardo da Vinci best explained how the geometric relationships relate to the human body in his drawing of "The Vitruvian Man" around 1487:

In addition to the Classical proportions, the Imperial system of measurement is also based on the human body (1" is roughly half the size of a thumb, 1' is roughly the size of a foot, etc). Carry this idea one step further, and most building materials are also scaled to the human body (a standard brick fits in the palm of a hand, a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood or sheetrock is just large enough to be carried by one person. Furthermore, geometric relationships exist between building materials (3 standard bricks = the height of 1 concrete block, 12 concrete blocks = the height of 1 sheet of plywood).

So where am I going with all of this, and how does it relate to McMansions?

As you can see, classical proportions and geometry found in the human body are an integral part of traditional architectural design and building construction. Traditionally, residential architecture plays off of this human-centric concept to create spaces that humans can comfortably and economically inhabit. The design of McMansions is very different, in that the maximization of enclosed space and maximum perceived building size are often the central design goals. Classical proportions are not used in most designs, likely due to ignorance on the part of the designer. The lack of Classical geometry, coupled with attempts to maximize enclosed space, often results in buildings that are not scaled to humans at all. These buildings can even appear alienating to humans, as many have large expanses of blank exterior walls, cavernous rooms that are difficult to furnish, or interior spaces with terrible acoustics. The lack of human attention in the McMansion design process also has negative economic implications, in that there is an increased cost to condition the extra enclosed space; increased height makes repairs more difficult; increased room sizes cost more to redecorate; and the house takes longer to clean.

In an attempt to humanize McMansions and make them appealing to potential buyers, Classical decoration is often applied to the building. However, this decoration is often made to fit the non-classically proportioned structure, rather than adhering to the principles outlined by architectural tradition. As I mentioned earlier, the results often look distorted or grotesque to people with a knowledge of traditional architecture. As you mentioned, these principles are not clearly understood by most people, which is why McMansions have been very popular, in spite of their lack of adherence to traditional architectural principles.

[TheNiche]

As I mentioned earlier, the results often look distorted or grotesque to people with a knowledge of traditional architecture. As you mentioned, these principles are not clearly understood by most people, which is why McMansions have been very popular, in spite of their lack of adherence to traditional architectural principles.

This is why I can hold the opinion that St. Genevive cabernet savignon is palatable, while a wine connoisseur with a trained palate would sneer at my selection and call it swill. ...yet in taste tests, the St. Genevive is considered better by many consumers than many other cabs many times as expensive by volume.

So who is to say which is right?

...

I am. Ipse dixit, dammit.

[crunchtastic]

Carmela Soprano called. She wants her king-size, wrought iron and honey-ash bedroom suite back. And the Tuscan-inspired travertine powder room too.

[sidegate]

I think new-build smaller homes, be they bungalows or otherwise, can still fill a niche - consider empty nesters who want to move back in town but 1) don't want to rattle around in in a 5-4 McMansion and 2) want the feel of a neighbourhood that a street of townhomes can't provide. Or a couple with a small family who don't want the hike in from the burbs every day. I know of one on new build Craftsman bungalow on Nicholson in the Heights that was designed by the same company that did the remodel on ours that is just amazing. Granted it was built to spec by the owners, which is the reason it exists. And developers have to make a living and pay their bills so I don't subscribe to the point of view that there should be too much oversight by neighbourhoods over what's built beyond considerations of setback and height - variety is the spice of life after all. But as a consumer I would just like to see a bit more variety in inner city residential development in desirable neighbourhoods beyond townhomes and McMansions.

[drfunk]

I think new-build smaller homes, be they bungalows or otherwise, can still fill a niche - consider empty nesters who want to move back in town but 1) don't want to rattle around in in a 5-4 McMansion and 2) want the feel of a neighbourhood that a street of townhomes can't provide. Or a couple with a small family who don't want the hike in from the burbs every day. I know of one on new build Craftsman bungalow on Nicholson in the Heights that was designed by the same company that did the remodel on ours that is just amazing. Granted it was built to spec by the owners, which is the reason it exists. And developers have to make a living and pay their bills so I don't subscribe to the point of view that there should be too much oversight by neighbourhoods over what's built beyond considerations of setback and height - variety is the spice of life after all. But as a consumer I would just like to see a bit more variety in inner city residential development in desirable neighbourhoods beyond townhomes and McMansions.

I totally agree with this, and feel the same way. But, ask any realtor and they will tell you: spend a million bucks on a human-sized house and you will never get your money out of it. It's stupid and bad for neighborhoods, families and people. But it's reality.

[TheNiche]

But as a consumer I would just like to see a bit more variety in inner city residential development in desirable neighbourhoods beyond townhomes and McMansions.

As a spectator, it's clear what you and a lot of other people would like to see. But as a consumer, would you buy a small new-build house on a full-sized lot at such a high price per square foot?

Personally, I'm very willing to pay out the nose for a cool space, even if it is small. But to me, a simulated bungalow isn't cool. It's regressive. I'd at least want something that is innovative and architecturally significant.

[RedScare]

Like I said, the design of McMansions use traditional architectural styles as a base. These traditional styles evolved from the Classical architecture of the Greeks & Romans, as well as the architecture of the Renaissance.

At their very core, these styles are made up of "rules" or "Classical Orders" that govern the proportion and scale of all components of a building. These rules will tell you exactly what size one component should be relative to the size of another (i.e. the length of a column should be x times its width, and the total length of the building should be x times the length of the column). The Classical Orders are published in "Ten Books on Architecture" by the Roman architect Vitruvius.

During the Renaissance, Classical architecture was "rediscovered" and applied to new building types, including residences. Most traditional residential design has its origins in Renaissance architecture, especially the villas built by the Italian architect, Andrea Palladio. Palladio's villas used the Classical Orders, but also incorporated newer design concepts - room sizes based on Classical geometry (squares, golden rectangles, etc), as well as the division of exterior facades into distinct parts based on the Classical proportions.

To actually explain the Classical proportions, most are based on geometric relationships that are found in nature and the human body. Aside from the pure geometry of the Square and Circle, the most famous is the "Golden Ratio" (a line divided into two parts - A & B, the ratio is A+B is to A as A is to B ). Leonardo da Vinci best explained how the geometric relationships relate to the human body in his drawing of "The Vitruvian Man" around 1487:

In addition to the Classical proportions, the Imperial system of measurement is also based on the human body (1" is roughly half the size of a thumb, 1' is roughly the size of a foot, etc). Carry this idea one step further, and most building materials are also scaled to the human body (a standard brick fits in the palm of a hand, a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood or sheetrock is just large enough to be carried by one person. Furthermore, geometric relationships exist between building materials (3 standard bricks = the height of 1 concrete block, 12 concrete blocks = the height of 1 sheet of plywood).

So where am I going with all of this, and how does it relate to McMansions?

As you can see, classical proportions and geometry found in the human body are an integral part of traditional architectural design and building construction. Traditionally, residential architecture plays off of this human-centric concept to create spaces that humans can comfortably and economically inhabit. The design of McMansions is very different, in that the maximization of enclosed space and maximum perceived building size are often the central design goals. Classical proportions are not used in most designs, likely due to ignorance on the part of the designer. The lack of Classical geometry, coupled with attempts to maximize enclosed space, often results in buildings that are not scaled to humans at all. These buildings can even appear alienating to humans, as many have large expanses of blank exterior walls, cavernous rooms that are difficult to furnish, or interior spaces with terrible acoustics. The lack of human attention in the McMansion design process also has negative economic implications, in that there is an increased cost to condition the extra enclosed space; increased height makes repairs more difficult; increased room sizes cost more to redecorate; and the house takes longer to clean.

In an attempt to humanize McMansions and make them appealing to potential buyers, Classical decoration is often applied to the building. However, this decoration is often made to fit the non-classically proportioned structure, rather than adhering to the principles outlined by architectural tradition. As I mentioned earlier, the results often look distorted or grotesque to people with a knowledge of traditional architecture. As you mentioned, these principles are not clearly understood by most people, which is why McMansions have been very popular, in spite of their lack of adherence to traditional architectural principles.

One of the most informative and downright cool posts I've ever seen on HAIF.

Thanks, Dan. You are indeed the Man.

[sidegate]

As a spectator, it's clear what you and a lot of other people would like to see. But as a consumer, would you buy a small new-build house on a full-sized lot at such a high price per square foot?

Personally, I'm very willing to pay out the nose for a cool space, even if it is small. But to me, a simulated bungalow isn't cool. It's regressive. I'd at least want something that is innovative and architecturally significant.

Whether it's bungalows or something more to your taste, the point is the same, they're not being built. Townhomes and McMansions, there's no middle ground.

[TheNiche]

Whether it's bungalows or something more to your taste, the point is the same, they're not being built. Townhomes and McMansions, there's no middle ground.

On the contrary, Townhomes and McMansions are the middle ground. As far as new construction is concerned, simulated Bungalows (or simulated cottages) and True Mansions are about equally uncommon, both on the extremes of the spectrum, each of them only feasible on a large scale when land prices (by land area) are relatively low.

[retromodernjeff]

Today's homes are comparable to the cars of the 70's - 80's Detroit.

The real estate bubble era thinking circa 2000-2007 and the greed factor it brought with it created the idea of a show of wealth = actual wealth, but in reality these people had very little if any of actual wealth and their perceived wealth was actually huge debt with trick financing. This is the incorrect line of thinking that guys like Dave Ramsey put forth as net worth.

Can't find it now, but I had a great article that mentioned the cost of building a house is the same now as it was in the 70's inflation adjusted. So the builders mass promoted and marketed the "show of wealth" mcmansions, that way they could make more money by building a larger home on the same lot as a properly scaled house would normally be built. The cities also love that because that means larger property taxes as well.

The average home size in the U.S is on the decline, happily. I think the future of these mcmansions will be pretty short, failing because no one wants them because of their conspicuous consumption look, very high energy costs. As well as structurally failing due to the popular EIFFS stucco system, OSB, the mold that always follows and nail guns combined with unskilled labor. The mcmansions and new homes in general will become major problems to society as the shoddy materials and shoddy construction will cause a majority of these to need either huge costly repairs to eradicate the mold and structural issues or will have to be demolished altogether because the costs do not make financial sense.

I think you will find the American ranch be it traditional or MCM will be around far into the future.

Does anyone really believe future generations will look back to the 1990's to today as a great event in the history of architecture, design and building. I don't think so. Most likely it will be best compared to the "greatness" of the cars that came out of Detroit in the 70's and 80's

[TheNiche]

Today's homes are comparable to the cars of the 70's - 80's Detroit.

The real estate bubble era thinking circa 2000-2007 and the greed factor it brought with it created the idea of a show of wealth = actual wealth, but in reality these people had very little if any of actual wealth and their perceived wealth was actually huge debt with trick financing. This is the incorrect line of thinking that guys like Dave Ramsey put forth as net worth.

Can't find it now, but I had a great article that mentioned the cost of building a house is the same now as it was in the 70's inflation adjusted. So the builders mass promoted and marketed the "show of wealth" mcmansions, that way they could make more money by building a larger home on the same lot as a properly scaled house would normally be built. The cities also love that because that means larger property taxes as well.

The average home size in the U.S is on the decline, happily. I think the future of these mcmansions will be pretty short, failing because no one wants them because of their conspicuous consumption look, very high energy costs. As well as structurally failing due to the popular EIFFS stucco system, OSB, the mold that always follows and nail guns combined with unskilled labor. The mcmansions and new homes in general will become major problems to society as the shoddy materials and shoddy construction will cause a majority of these to need either huge costly repairs to eradicate the mold and structural issues or will have to be demolished altogether because the costs do not make financial sense.

I think you will find the American ranch be it traditional or MCM will be around far into the future.

Does anyone really believe future generations will look back to the 1990's to today as a great event in the history of architecture, design and building. I don't think so. Most likely it will be best compared to the "greatness" of the cars that came out of Detroit in the 70's and 80's

I'm dubious of the inflationless construction cost assertion. There are a tremendous number of ways to fudge those numbers, and it just doesn't make any sense to me intuitively that every other part of the economy could witness productivity increases while the construction industry is stagnant.

As for issues pertaining to the quality of construction, some criticisms are valid while others are bogus. For instance, the quality of the wood utilized for pre-WW2 structures was superior to that utilized after about WW2. By individual species it tended to be harder and denser, and for that matter many species of hardwood such as fir--which have natural termite resistant properties--were more readily available. You'll get no argument whatsoever from me on that one. On the other hand, materials like Hardiplank are vastly superior to the wood siding used back in the day.

As for the prevalence of shoddy work, well that's as constant as human stupidity and greed; mid-century homes seem especially prone to slab failure, for instance as a result of contractors having used inadequate reinforcing or even no reinforcement whatsoever. I've encountered both problems in structures that I've dealt with that were built in the mid-20th century. In contrast, a surprisingly large number of McMansions are on pier and beam foundations and will be very inexpensive to adjust when the time comes; the ones not on pier and beam are frequently on an engineered slab designed specifically for the house that it will support and are far superior to what had been installed in the previous generation of buildings. Additionally, an enormous body of technical research has been compiled on various building materials and techniques, and large contractors typically have people who are college-educated in the field of construction; this has never before been available to the building trades in the history of mankind. If it had been, then there probably would've been many fewer flat and shallow-sloping roofs built between the 50's and the 70's.

As a "show of wealth", McMansions aren't a new concept. In a lot of ways, the advent of McMansions based on all sort of canned styles only hearkens back to architecture from the Victorian era, when great spacious multi-story houses were even sold out of a Sears Roebuck catalog, prefabricated in mass production, and then delivered to the construction site. These homes were common, lacked originality, and were ostentatious for ostentation's sake. ...sound familiar? But coming out of the Great Depression and WW2, there was a popular reaction against these styles, opinions bolstered as technologies such as air conditioning and inexpensive automobiles and open roads caused a shift in attitudes about what was important. Whereas many of these homes had been painted very flamboyant colors such as are now celebrated and painstakingly matched during restoration, the mid-century attitudes were that they all should be painted white or other such uniformly drab colors. And new homes would be much less ostentatious, with cleaner and low-slung lines.

If we're just coming back around on the cycle of styles, then I look forward to it. My personal tastes are probably very much in line with yours, and I'd especially like to see some of the characteristics and innovations of the mid-century style applied to modern building techniques. And if that is the case, then I suspect that the McMansions that have been built are going to look dated pretty quickly. By virtue of where they are, people will still value them, albeit certainly not as much as the newest iteration of American architectural style--such as will no doubt be replaced once again in only another decade or so. And one day, we'll repeat our follies and start liking the McMansion again, perhaps because it is considered a campy alternative to some superior mode of housing that fits in with a technology that would re-order the characteristics of urban form once again. We've always seemed to in the past. And, after all, if people liked McMansions once then who is to say that they would never like them again?

...even then, however...a discussion of scale and proportionality doesn't address the core issue. People are demanding to live in well-located neighborhoods such as West U, Bellaire, and the Houston Heights, but the homes offered are too small and are technologically obsolete. Until that mix of circumstances is resolved, the geometry of lots and homes will probably continue to override considerations of style, resulting in homes that are out of scale. The McMansion--given a facade of any style--is only a realistic compromise to stark economic realities.

[drfunk]

TheNiche +∞

[EMME]

I think new-build smaller homes, be they bungalows or otherwise, can still fill a niche - consider empty nesters who want to move back in town but 1) don't want to rattle around in in a 5-4 McMansion and 2) want the feel of a neighbourhood that a street of townhomes can't provide. Or a couple with a small family who don't want the hike in from the burbs every day. I know of one on new build Craftsman bungalow on Nicholson in the Heights that was designed by the same company that did the remodel on ours that is just amazing. Granted it was built to spec by the owners, which is the reason it exists. And developers have to make a living and pay their bills so I don't subscribe to the point of view that there should be too much oversight by neighbourhoods over what's built beyond considerations of setback and height - variety is the spice of life after all. But as a consumer I would just like to see a bit more variety in inner city residential development in desirable neighbourhoods beyond townhomes and McMansions.

There's a rehabbed shotgun house on a 3000 sf lot in the 700 or 800 block of E. 25th that was beautifully rehabbed without increasing it's square footage. They did add a fireplace. A young couple lives happily in it. I would buy something like that.

[missmsry]

I thought McMansions were passe.

My husband and I just built a 800 sq. foot house and just love it. Of course, if we had 3 kids it might be a bit tight but still livable. Nobody needs a 4-5,000 sq. foot house.