McMansion Attack

[Pumapayam]

8K SF. Thats huge! I'd get lost in something like that.

I would hate to see all the conditioned air it takes to cool that place down as well.

Yikes!

Bigger homes + Higher Ceilings = $$$ for electricity.

[jm1fd]

I am hoping to eventually have that comfort level and trust again to have my "husband" and I live together. I was so jaded by the last one.

Lucky you .

I digress . . .

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC, MISTER!!

I realize this is in the off topic subforum, but that is not on topic with the other content of this thread.

[TheNiche]

Bigger homes + Higher Ceilings = $$$ for electricity.

If done correctly, can't higher ceilings result in lower A/C costs? I mean, since warm air floats upward, it could be allowed to exist in the space above people's heads, with just enough cool air pumped in (from under the floor, I imagine) to keep things comfy. Right?

EDIT: I'm a Partisan now! Yay me.

[RedScare]

If done correctly, can't higher ceilings result in lower A/C costs? I mean, since warm air floats upward, it could be allowed to exist in the space above people's heads, with just enough cool air pumped in (from under the floor, I imagine) to keep things comfy. Right?

EDIT: I'm a Partisan now! Yay me.

Perhaps, though the increased volume of space to be conditioned still requires more tonnage of AC. The bigger problem with high ceilings is HEATING them, when all of the heat rises. And, an 8,000 sf house is an 8,000 sf house, regardless of ceiling height. At 1 ton of AC per 600sf, you're looking at 13 tons of AC or more, 90% of which goes to cool rooms that a typical family of 2.86 never uses.

The fact remains that no one needs that much space to live. There are other variables at play, mostly relating to a person's perceived need to impress others. However, since my neighbors' houses that are 3 to 4 times the size of mine are also VALUED at 3 to 4 times mine, and therefore are TAXED at 3 to 4 times mine, I suppose the least I can do is to make the occasional insincere comment about how nice their oversized home is. It sure beats having to pay a higher share of taxes.

[TheNiche]

The fact remains that no one needs that much space to live.

There are a lot of things that people don't need to live. But why live at subsistence?

[RedScare]

There are a lot of things that people don't need to live. But why live at subsistence?

To suggest that anything less than 8,000 sf is subsistence is intentionally ignorant. A better question is what is it about one's lack of self esteem that is cured by wasting valuable resources? I recognize your belief in free market self-centeredness. Some chose to live life at a higher moral level. Note, I did not advocate outlawing narcissism, merely pointing out it's place in the moral spectrum.

[TheNiche]

To suggest that anything less than 8,000 sf is subsistence is intentionally ignorant. A better question is what is it about one's lack of self esteem that is cured by wasting valuable resources? I recognize your belief in free market self-centeredness. Some chose to live life at a higher moral level. Note, I did not advocate outlawing narcissism, merely pointing out it's place in the moral spectrum.

I wasn't. My point was that when people have incomes that provide substantial surpluses over substistence, they're going to find ways to use the money. Granted each additional dollar made and spent results in declining marginal utility, but again...if the money is there, it will be spent. If they're satisfied in other respects, then why not on oversized housing?

Morality is subjective. What more can you do than to live and let live?

[sevfiv]

To suggest that anything less than 8,000 sf is subsistence is intentionally ignorant. A better question is what is it about one's lack of self esteem that is cured by wasting valuable resources? I recognize your belief in free market self-centeredness. Some chose to live life at a higher moral level. Note, I did not advocate outlawing narcissism, merely pointing out it's place in the moral spectrum.

some folks just have different priorities

...and/or a really high credit line

[nmainguy]

Perhaps, though the increased volume of space to be conditioned still requires more tonnage of AC. The bigger problem with high ceilings is HEATING them, when all of the heat rises. And, an 8,000 sf house is an 8,000 sf house, regardless of ceiling height. At 1 ton of AC per 600sf, you're looking at 13 tons of AC or more, 90% of which goes to cool rooms that a typical family of 2.86 never uses.

To carry that further, the wasteful way most homes are ducted makes for a constant-and expensive-fight against physics. With ducts in the ceiling you are constantly forcing hot air down from where it will end up anyway: back at the ceiling. Why not let it rise up from the floor to heat you and the room on it's way to the top? Why not bring cold air up which will settle at the bottom rather than forcing it down from the top where it will never stay in the first place?

But I imagine if you can afford 8000 sq/ft of crap then you probably don't really care about the incredible waste of materials and energy your McMansion has consumed not to mention your four-car garaged filled with your penis compensating Hummer and a car for each of your spoiled children.

Now THAT'S livin'!

[Pumapayam]

If done correctly, can't higher ceilings result in lower A/C costs? I mean, since warm air floats upward, it could be allowed to exist in the space above people's heads, with just enough cool air pumped in (from under the floor, I imagine) to keep things comfy. Right?

EDIT: I'm a Partisan now! Yay me.

Congrats on the Partisan Level!

I would think in general, having more volume to condition equals more electricity to provide the amount of air changes needed for ventilation and in general, it takes longer to remove any heat load. When I do this for work, we take all the interior dimension and consider them when sizing an HVAC unit for the space.

[MidtownCoog]

The fact remains that no one needs that much space to live. There are other variables at play, mostly relating to a person's perceived need to impress others.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

[webdude]

The fact remains that no one needs that much space to live. There are other variables at play, mostly relating to a person's perceived need to impress others.

Conservatism is a Mental Disorder.

[MidtownCoog]

That's cute.

I don't know if Red is a Liberal or Conservative, but it's usally the Liberals who want to enforce their standards and perceived norms on others.

If you can afford and want a big house, I say go for it.

My computer equipment takes up an entire room in my house. Am I supposed to go buy a notebook and work in my kitchen?

[webdude]

That's not cute.

I don't know if Red is a Liberal or Conservative, but it's usually Conservatives who want to enforce their standards and perceived norms on others.

And the deviation to political labeling doesn't compute, its usually conservatives who live in those mcmansions and in the suburbs.

[RedScare]

That's cute.

I don't know if Red is a Liberal or Conservative, but it's usally the Liberals who want to enforce their standards and perceived norms on others.

If you can afford and want a big house, I say go for it.

My computer equipment takes up an entire room in my house. Am I supposed to go buy a notebook and work in my kitchen?

I am neither liberal, nor conservative, though I adopt views from both camps. However, depending on where one fits in the spectrum, they may see me as one or another. However, you will note from my post that I do not advocate outlawing McMansions or bad taste. I was merely commenting on what may make a person feel the NEED for an 8,000 sf home...just as I wonder why some people must have that Hummer. Niche's response is what I expected, given his usual views. But, not all money WILL be spent. There are numerous examples of those who save money instead of buying a new car or house...Warren Buffet comes to mind...but, in Niche's world, money is made to be spent. In some other worlds, such is not the case. I just find it interesting what goes into forming that view.

Couple of points. My response did not infer a political point of view, but rather a mental mindset. Secondly, wasteful spending is not generally considered a conservative trait. Perhaps Coog is identifying suburban Republicans with McMansions, explaining his post. However, those Republicans are not fiscally conservative. There is a difference, even if most people use them interchangably. And, while I agree that many liberals wan't to enforce their standards and perceived norms on others, so do social conservatives. In the end, I don't think any of this relates to why a person feels they must have an 8,000sf house.

[VicMan]

Those who can afford the really expensive homes tend to be a bit older and are either empty-nesters or are preparing to be. This trend is particularly pronounced within HISD or other less prestigious school districts. As long as they've got just enough room for a jacuzzi or small pool, backyards tend to be the very first things to get cut out of these buyers' budgets because they just aren't used as much, but contribute greatly to the cost. Again, the cost is a matter that is more pronounced within the city.

The funny thing is that many Bellaire McMansions (The City of Bellaire attracts families with kids in public and private school) also cut out backyard space. I.E. I have a friend who goes to a New England boarding school. His family lives in a house without a backyard.

[nmainguy]

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Anyone who believes that MAY have a mental disorder.

[TheNiche]

Niche's response is what I expected, given his usual views. But, not all money WILL be spent. There are numerous examples of those who save money instead of buying a new car or house...Warren Buffet comes to mind...but, in Niche's world, money is made to be spent. In some other worlds, such is not the case. I just find it interesting what goes into forming that view.

So what happens to all that money that Warren Buffet has saved? Surely it isn't sitting under a mattress...

Savings = Investment. Buffet's money is merely loaned out to individuals that produce or consume goods and services or that increase the capital stock as per their time preference and risk-tolerance.

Despite the correlation, the single ultimate goal of an individual is to have a better standard of living, not to have a high net worth. How individuals define 'standard of living' is up to them...and it consistently transcends mere financial measures.

The funny thing is that many Bellaire McMansions (The City of Bellaire attracts families with kids in public and private school) also cut out backyard space. I.E. I have a friend who goes to a New England boarding school. His family lives in a house without a backyard.

Hence the use of the phrase "tend to". Nothing is an absolute.

[RedScare]

So what happens to all that money that Warren Buffet has saved? Surely it isn't sitting under a mattress...

Last time I checked, he is giving it away...$30 Billion to Bill Gates' charity, and 6 Billion to various family charities.

[TheNiche]

Last time I checked, he is giving it away...$30 Billion to Bill Gates' charity, and 6 Billion to various family charities.

Yes, well as I said:

How individuals define 'standard of living' is up to them...and it consistently transcends mere financial measures.

[MidtownCoog]

In the end, I don't think any of this relates to why a person feels they must have an 8,000sf house.

Well I don't think you'll see any 8,000sf McMansions as a result of a tear-down inside the Loop.

[Pumapayam]

In the end, I don't think any of this relates to why a person feels they must have an 8,000sf house.

Check this out. It is a growing trend, what is in store 20 years from now.

I great quote, and so true about why the housing developers are feeding this to us

Way Beyond Keeping Up with the Joneses

That is fueling it big time. Everyone wants to say they own the bigger home, (not thinking about the land the home sits on.

[MidtownCoog]

a growing trend

Pun intended, I am sure.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see why houses are bigger now than they were in the 50s.

We just have more stuff. Let's go Taleban and get rid of everything and shrink back to the future.

I am sure the cavemen were all up in arms when the first guy moved to a bigger cave.

[sevfiv]

Check this out. It is a growing trend, what is in store 20 years from now.

I great quote, and so true about why the housing developers are feeding this to us

That is fueling it big time. Everyone wants to say they own the bigger home, (not thinking about the land the home sits on.

from the article:

"You know, we are very tenuous," says local architect Ann Surchin. "No one knows when the next 9/11 will happen. And these houses represent safety -- and the bigger the house, the bigger the fortress."

with everything taken into consideration, just sounds like bad cases of affluenza

[Pumapayam]

"You know, we are very tenuous," says local architect Ann Surchin. "No one knows when the next 9/11 will happen. And these houses represent safety -- and the bigger the house, the bigger the fortress."

Are we supposed to battle terrorist from behind the walls of our fortress. . . I mean home?

Silly, I wonder what use people are getting from the nuclear bomb shelters from the 60's. . . none. Maybe just a basement for storage now.

[TheNiche]

from the article:

"You know, we are very tenuous," says local architect Ann Surchin. "No one knows when the next 9/11 will happen. And these houses represent safety -- and the bigger the house, the bigger the fortress."

with everything taken into consideration, just sounds like bad cases of affluenza

Oh, this is a load of crap. She's reading way too much into it.

The funny thing about long-term productivity and real wage growth is that it allows people so much freedom to be themselves. Different strokes for different folks, you know. Unfortunately, the more options that people have with respect to how to enjoy their lives (be it by extreme materialism with work- and debt-centered lifestyles or the ability to afford lots of leisure time in combination with minimalist lifestyles), the less that the polar opposites are able to appreciate one another.

[Guest danax]

Oh, this is a load of crap. She's reading way too much into it.

The funny thing about long-term productivity and real wage growth is that it allows people so much freedom to be themselves. Different strokes for different folks, you know. Unfortunately, the more options that people have with respect to how to enjoy their lives (be it by extreme materialism with work- and debt-centered lifestyles or the ability to afford lots of leisure time in combination with minimalist lifestyles), the less that the polar opposites are able to appreciate one another.

Right, it's really the American way. I've seen a lot of credit reports and loan applications and, it seems no matter how much a person makes, up to maybe $8-10K month, they all end up with only 1 or 2 paychecks worth of money in the bank at most. It is very rare to see someone with 10-20K in savings. So, obviously people in this country like to spend up to their abilities, and beyond their abilities. Why that is would be "affluenza", consumerism, the Jones', or a combination of all of that.

It could be argued that heavy consumers are selfish and contribute to the destruction of our environment etc. and it also could be argued that, without these wide-eyed spenders, half of us would be standing in bread lines, cup in hand.

[TheNiche]

My point was that when people have incomes that provide substantial surpluses over substistence, they're going to find ways to use the money. Granted each additional dollar made and spent results in declining marginal utility, but again...if the money is there, it will be spent. If they're satisfied in other respects, then why not on oversized housing?

See my new signature for the appropriate budget set, utility function, and Marshallian demand correspondence.

Thank you Editor, for richtext, superscript, subscript, and all that other stuff!

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

One area fights the Mcmansion invasion

The mission of McMansions.org is to protect the beauty and serenity of the American River Parkway from the threat of inappropriate development and profiteering by developers and builders within the Parkway Corridor Combining Zone. A tradition of over forty years of loving care, millions of dollars of public and private funds, and thousands of volunteer and staff hours demand that we preserve this beautiful park as a legacy for generations to come.

Mansionization: The Word Spy defines "mansionization" as the act of tearing down an existing house and replacing it with one that is bigger, especially one that is much larger than the surrounding houses. A "Trophy House" is a house used to enhance status and impress other people. Newsweek magazine recently noted that the average single-family dwelling has almost doubled in size over the last thirty years, although family size has gotten smaller. The American River Parkway deserves to be protected from inappropriate and intrusive mansionization

http://www.mcmansions.org/pages/1/index.htm

They wish to keep more of these out of the area....

[DJ V Lawrence]

Mansionization: The Word Spy defines "mansionization" as the act of tearing down an existing house and replacing it with one that is bigger, especially one that is much larger than the surrounding houses. A "Trophy House" is a house used to enhance status and impress other people. Newsweek magazine recently noted that the average single-family dwelling has almost doubled in size over the last thirty years, although family size has gotten smaller. The American River Parkway deserves to be protected from inappropriate and intrusive mansionization

http://www.mcmansions.org/pages/1/index.htm

They wish to keep more of these out of the area....

I can understand the stance of the river areas in Sacremento: They're trying to avoid subdivisions from poping up on otherwise scenic land and river. It's not that people are tearing down homes; it's the fact that their tearing down unreplacable forest and waterways. It's all good, yo.

Houston, however (and I'ma get beat up 4 saying this), I'm all for this mansionization thing. It's replacing old homes, not forest or anything like that. If you want a big house, by all means build it! You shouldn't have to move out of your neighborhood to build a house as big as you want if it's in the same lot space as before. If you wanna waste your cash building a trophy house, go for it. It's your cash, not mine. If the neighbors have a problem with what you want in life, let them cry about it in their own house. No one should stop you as a homeowner from wanting to live in a bigger house while staying in the same old neighborhood, so long as your house is presentable.