End Of The McMansion Era?

[TheNiche]

The point was that 'large and functional' are traits which apply to institutional housing. The enduring value of yesteryear's structures is missing. What I see are stage sets; meant to impress from a distance (but don't look too close!), and of limited duration. Might as well tear them down now as later.

Institutional housing? I don't even know how to begin responding to that. Cite some examples, please.

[Highway6]

I think some of you guys are confused to what a McMansion is? To me its the McDonalds part of the name that is key. Its a big tract house out in the burbs with no sense of architecture. Just a bunch of cliche elements all jumbled up together with no meaning, and put up quickly and cheaply without respect to its site or neighbors. That's a pretty good burger for the money, but size alone doesn't make a McMansion. And I will object and say that there is absolutely no Architectural Complexity in any of them. Far from it.

All suburban developments for the last 20 years fall under... tract house, no sense of architecture, no respect to site or neighbors.

I'm not saying that definition is right or wrong, I understand people have different views of what a McMansion is... But if thats your definition - the product that the Pultes, Trendmakers, and Davidweeklys of the world have been putting out for decades and will continue to do so.... then no... McMansions aren't going anywhere. They might start offering smaller homes as well, but your typical suburban homebuilder isn't going to dissapear.

[dbigtex56]

The point was that 'large and functional' are traits which apply to institutional housing.

Institutional housing? I don't even know how to begin responding to that. Cite some examples, please.

My lease is up and I'm thinking about leasing a small freestanding metallic warehouse to live in. By small, I mean a couple thousand square feet month-to-month. All I really need is a toilet, a hose, and a floor drain.

Add a few hundred friends, and you have institutional housing.

[TheNiche]

Add a few hundred friends, and you have institutional housing.

Would that be physically possible? Even homeless shelters don't have that kind of density, much less McMansions.

What's your point again!?

[JJVilla]

One aspect that won't help some of the far flung homes is the ever increasing energy prices. Until realistic transportation fuels and power sources are found they will go up and hurt large, cheap built homes that are generally less energy efficient or expensive to maintain (i.e. less quality but most importantly larger utility bills). Even if transportation is not the issue you still have to deal with variable utilities cost.

As the article I cited previously stated these type of homes will not disappear but the demand will drop.

An extreme view on homeownership from Times but with some valid points:

Homeownership contributed to the hollowing out of cities and kept renters out of the best neighborhoods. It fed America's overuse of energy and oil. It made it more difficult for those who had lost a job to find another. Perhaps worst of all, it helped us become casually self-deceiving: by telling ourselves that homeownership was a pathway to wealth and stable communities and better test scores, we avoided dealing with these formidable issues head-on.

Read more: http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz0xoedQCGW

Hey, not against anybody that builds large energy guzzling homes and drive similar cars. It actually helps us out here!

[LegacyTree]

McMansions are a great snapshot for what's wrong with America's middle class delusion. The finest social engineering subsidies since the 1930's to the tune of "Debt incumbent home owners don't go on strike."

[TheNiche]

One aspect that won't help some of the far flung homes is the ever increasing energy prices. Until realistic transportation fuels and power sources are found they will go up and hurt large, cheap built homes that are generally less energy efficient or expensive to maintain (i.e. less quality but most importantly larger utility bills). Even if transportation is not the issue you still have to deal with variable utilities cost.

As the article I cited previously stated these type of homes will not disappear but the demand will drop.

An extreme view on homeownership from Times but with some valid points:

Hey, not against anybody that builds large energy guzzling homes and drive similar cars. It actually helps us out here!

Gas prices are where they were at about five years ago. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are lower than they were about thirty years ago; and since that time, the average fuel economy for passenger cars has increased by about 50%...along with horsepower. Better quality control standards mean that vehicles break down less frequently as well.

Meanwhile, in Texas, inflation-adjusted residential electricity prices have actually dropped by 0.9% since 1990 (which is as far back as my data takes me.

If anything, cheaper more reliable and fun private automobile transportation and fairly stable electricity prices should translate to more sprawl than ever before.

[RedScare]

Gas prices are where they were at about five years ago. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are lower than they were about thirty years ago; and since that time, the average fuel economy for passenger cars has increased by about 50%...along with horsepower. Better quality control standards mean that vehicles break down less frequently as well.

Mmm...no, in the last 30 years, average overall fuel efficiency has decreased. Since 1987, it decreased nearly 10%. Only in the last year or so have overall averages begun to rise again...slowly. From 1975 to 1987 there was a drastic increase, almost all of that occurring between 1978 and 1983. Suggesting that there has been a continuous rise over 30 years is not just disingenuous, it is an outright falsehood.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm

[dbigtex56]

Gas prices are where they were at about five years ago. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are lower than they were about thirty years ago;

Gee, about 30 years ago gas prices were at an all-time historic high. Didn't we have a fuel crisis in 1979?

Talk about cherry-picking....

[RedScare]

Oops...

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm

[TheNiche]

Oops...

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm

Here's the source I was going by.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/cafe/NewPassengerCarFleet.htm

Although the data is different, the story that's told is the same. Fuel economy increases during the oil crisis, and even as consumer preferences shift to heavier and higher-performance vehicles during the times of cheap oil, fuel economy isn't impacted very much. Thirty years later, we have far more efficient, heavier, roomier passenger vehicles that go faster, quicker.

Your source brings up a valid point, that more consumers have switched to trucks and SUVs, a category for which there has been relatively little improvement in fuel economy over the years, meaning that the fleet average fuel economy isn't much improved. My counterpoint is that the circumstances that supported sprawl are--at the very least--still present. And if consumers opted to switch back to passenger cars, the conditions would favor an even greater propensity for cities to sprawl than has ever previously been the case.

Consumers do have the option of making the same trade-offs that they used to in order to achieve their notion of the big-house-owning American Dream (if that is their dream), after all. If there is a shift away from sprawl and big houses, it will have to do with consumer preference. However...the last time I did a regional household growth analysis of the Houston MSA, I determined that about 22 new households are formed outside the inner loop for every 1 household that was formed inside the loop. I doubt that very much has changed in five years, nor do I have any reason to suspect that it might. There are people who think otherwise, but they tend to be socially isolated from most of society, even when they come into contact with other segments of society with frequency. Those are the kind of people that protest new Wal-Marts. And you wouldn't want to be one of those people, would you?

[RedScare]

You still cherry picked your data...badly. And, while cherry picking a gasoline crisis...and the resulting rush to small automobiles...as your basis allows you to claim that gas cost the same 30 years later (do you also use 1980 to argue that it is cooler in Houston than 30 years ago?), no amount of cherry picking can change the fact that the average cost of a vehicle today ($28,400 according to NADA) is a full 50% higher than inflation adjusted cars of 1980 ($7,200 base to $19,000 in 2010 dollars). Even as a percentage of income, 1980 vehicles cost 57% of annual income, while 2010 vehicles have increased to 61%. Add to that the increased distances traveled by people living in a metro fully twice the size it was in 1980 and no, it is not cheaper.

[texas911]

Red, cars are more expensive, but they are vastly superior to what they were before.

I think the same is true of houses today. People want big houses but the also don't pay a penalty for the utility, at least not the newer homes. Back in the 50-60's, they had low ceilings because they had to keep the volume low because they had such inefficient a/c back then, with no insulation! Its not a coincidence that McMansions with their high ceilings came about when technology made homes more efficient, energy wise. And I love that the City has some semi-tough codes for making new houses efficient. I think they should go even further.

I live in a 1930's 2000 SF bungalow and pay more for electricity than my parents do for their 4000 SF house in Sugar Land!

[Highway6]

I'll 2nd busting the older equals more energy efficient myth.

My former 1800 SF 70's townhome power bill was close to equal to that of my former 700 SF 30's fourplex, and current 700 SF 40s fourplex.

We currently live with the thermostat set on 80 during the day in order to maintain a moderate summer electricity bill, and don't get me started on this past JAn-Feb when 2/3 of my place was uninhabitable due to the inefficient and undersized heater and heat-draining windows and hardwood floors.

It is fair to complain that living in a 4000SF home might be wasted space and inefficient to air condition and heat relative to the number of people living there... but it certainly isn't fair to say that inefficiency stems from crappy insulation and building techniques. A brand new 1800 SF Pulte home (if they come that small) would kick all our electricity bill's asses.

[RedScare]

I don't recall any of my posts claiming older houses were more efficient. In fact, in another post, I said quite the opposite. My post also did not claim older cars were better, merely that they have not improved fuel economy in the last 30 years.

And, yes, the claim can certainly be made that living in more house than one needs negates the gains in energy efficiency.

[Highway6]

Then I wasn't countering what you said, but what someone else said.

And yes.. I agree with your claim.. I said so..... Certainly.

[TheNiche]

You still cherry picked your data...badly.

I went about as far back as my government data. I blame Obama.

[editor]

That's not in Texas. It doesn't have a five-car garage obscuring the actual home.

[texas911]

And, yes, the claim can certainly be made that living in more house than one needs negates the gains in energy efficiency.

What does a person "need," really?

[Ross]

What does a person "need," really?

Whatever it takes to make them happy. If that means 4000 sq ft for a family of 3, so be it.

[20thStDad]

Whatever it takes to make them happy. If that means 4000 sq ft for a family of 3, so be it.

I agree. I don't want to clean or furnish that much space, but if someone else wants to I don't care. Just pay your bills and don't let your dog crap on my hike/bike.

[marmer]

A brand new 1800 SF Pulte home (if they come that small) would kick all our electricity bill's asses.

Not to threadjack or gravedig, but this jumped out at me. Twenty years ago you could certainly get an 1800 SF Pulte house. We looked at several. We wound up in Pulte's then-largest 1-story, which is 1966 SF. Several of their two-story plans have a smaller footprint than our house. What you got in 1990 from Pulte was a fair amount of house and amenities at a pretty good price. What you didn't get was anything better than mediocre build quality or mediocre energy efficiency. You had the option of additional insulation at construction but that was all. Even that additional insulation, plus windows, door fits, efficiency of appliances or A/C, ventilation of attic, any of the traditional energy saving measures were nothing special. Our electricity bill, even with a newer high-efficiency A/C and refrigerator, is crazy high. And where you set the thermostat doesn't matter. You're not going to get below 75-77 in the summer or above 69-70 in the winter no matter what.

I love my house, but if we ever move, energy efficiency will be one of the biggest reasons.

[Pleak]

That's true for 20-year ago builds - but for new builds - even no-name builders are pretty efficient. My in-laws bought a big 2-story last year from a local builder - can't remember who, but I remember there was a website devoted to the shoddy work they did on a development on north side of town (Foxwood maybe?). Their electricty usage is ridiculously low - they are having to pay the extra charge each month for not meeting the minimum usage on the contract they signed.

[RedScare]

The City of Houston has adopted codes for both wind loads and for energy efficiency. The energy efficiency includes minimum requirements for AC units (14 SEER, I believe), as well as minimum insulation requirements. Holes and gaps must be filled with foam, and insulation must be installed both correctly, and at minimum R values. I don't know what happens outside city limits, but my suspicion is that builders probably apply uniform building standards inside and outside the city. It is easier that way. Now, those builders who do not build inside the City may apply lower standards, but energy efficient homes are a big selling point these days. Those who build middle market or higher homes to inefficient standards will have a marketing problem.

The comparison of new homes to the 70s, 80s and 90s is dramatic. The argument that old homes are built much better than new is no longer accurate. Sure, 1920s homes have full dimension 2x4s, but new homes have 2x6 rafters, 2x12 floor joists, OSB sheathing, full insulation, metal strapping, etc. They hold up in storms better, and cost less to air condition. The home building industry (as a whole) is finally figuring it out.

[Marksmu]

Not to threadjack or gravedig, but this jumped out at me. Twenty years ago you could certainly get an 1800 SF Pulte house. We looked at several. We wound up in Pulte's then-largest 1-story, which is 1966 SF. Several of their two-story plans have a smaller footprint than our house. What you got in 1990 from Pulte was a fair amount of house and amenities at a pretty good price. What you didn't get was anything better than mediocre build quality or mediocre energy efficiency. You had the option of additional insulation at construction but that was all. Even that additional insulation, plus windows, door fits, efficiency of appliances or A/C, ventilation of attic, any of the traditional energy saving measures were nothing special. Our electricity bill, even with a newer high-efficiency A/C and refrigerator, is crazy high. And where you set the thermostat doesn't matter. You're not going to get below 75-77 in the summer or above 69-70 in the winter no matter what.

I love my house, but if we ever move, energy efficiency will be one of the biggest reasons.

I had a Pulte track home in Pearland that was built new in 2003....Supposedly energy star certified and energy efficient and guaranteed maximum KWH usage from AC, etc.....I had the exact same experience as you. That house's AC never shut off, and never got the house below 75. The Master bedroom faced west and as a result was never below 80 in the evenings despite the AC in the rest of the house hovering around 76-77....when set at 72

The bills for that POS house were astronomoical 500-600/month for the first year....they tried to "fix" it by blowing in more insulation and resealing some of the doors/windows, but never could make it any better. The problem was with the size of the unit. It was a single five ton unit designed with a motorized damper to cool 3200sqft and it could not do it....ever....they refused to put a bigger unit in the house and I eventually just bought a window unit for the master bedroom.

That was not an expensive house to buy.... but it was an expensive house to own, and it was a total POS. The AC was terrible, the paint was so thin you could just about see through it, the appliances were awful, the walls were not even close to straight, the cabinets were all cheap veneer crap that scratched off if touched with a wet sponge...it was awful. I would never buy another Pulte home after that experience....they simply dress up an otherwise abismal house and make it look nice when you buy it...but they do not hold up.

[Marksmu]

The City of Houston has adopted codes for both wind loads and for energy efficiency. The energy efficiency includes minimum requirements for AC units (14 SEER, I believe), as well as minimum insulation requirements. Holes and gaps must be filled with foam, and insulation must be installed both correctly, and at minimum R values. I don't know what happens outside city limits, but my suspicion is that builders probably apply uniform building standards inside and outside the city. It is easier that way. Now, those builders who do not build inside the City may apply lower standards, but energy efficient homes are a big selling point these days. Those who build middle market or higher homes to inefficient standards will have a marketing problem.

The comparison of new homes to the 70s, 80s and 90s is dramatic. The argument that old homes are built much better than new is no longer accurate. Sure, 1920s homes have full dimension 2x4s, but new homes have 2x6 rafters, 2x12 floor joists, OSB sheathing, full insulation, metal strapping, etc. They hold up in storms better, and cost less to air condition. The home building industry (as a whole) is finally figuring it out.

I believe that 14 seer is the legal minimum that manufacturers are now allowed to make in the US, not just Houston....unless its a window or through the wall unit. (EDIT - 13 is the federal standard and 14 is the Texas standard)

High efficiency units now are19 seer and have variable speed compressors and blowers that allow the unit to remove humidity efficiently...AC has come along way in the last 10 years....

Construction techniques have improved drastically - unfortunately the labor performing the otherwise improved techniques is more often than not far below what the skillset of previous generations experienced. That is my opinion, based on 4 new construction projects that I have been involved in.

The contractors these days have to be watched at all times b/c they are almost always cutting the corners....I could give a plethora of examples but I dont think anyone really cares...

[samagon]

The bills for that POS house were astronomoical 500-600/month for the first year....they tried to "fix" it by blowing in more insulation and resealing some of the doors/windows, but never could make it any better. The problem was with the size of the unit. It was a single five ton unit designed with a motorized damper to cool 3200sqft and it could not do it....ever....they refused to put a bigger unit in the house and I eventually just bought a window unit for the master bedroom.

not to again change the subject :-p

but I would recommend (or get) ductless if I were to supplement an AC unit.

Also, if I had house that didn't already have central, I'd get a ductless unit rather than window units.

in my parents house (built around 1970 out in Alief) I was on the second story and my room faced west, nice big windows let in all the nice sun, and heat. the room never was below 80 degrees in the summer and as a result I am used to living and sleeping in a house with temps that are a bit above 80 degrees. this is great for my electricity bill as now I just can't get used to living, or sleeping in anything below 75. I'd hate to see my heating oil bill if I decided to live in ND or something silly like that.

[RedScare]

I believe that 14 seer is the legal minimum that manufacturers are now allowed to make in the US, not just Houston....unless its a window or through the wall unit. (EDIT - 13 is the federal standard and 14 is the Texas standard)

High efficiency units now are19 seer and have variable speed compressors and blowers that allow the unit to remove humidity efficiently...AC has come along way in the last 10 years....

Construction techniques have improved drastically - unfortunately the labor performing the otherwise improved techniques is more often than not far below what the skillset of previous generations experienced. That is my opinion, based on 4 new construction projects that I have been involved in.

The contractors these days have to be watched at all times b/c they are almost always cutting the corners....I could give a plethora of examples but I dont think anyone really cares...

You are correct. National standards require 13 SEER. And, the City of Houston raised its standards to 15 SEER in October 2009.

You are also correct that you must watch your contractors. This is not quite as important in Houston, since we pay for those inspectors that we are always complaining about. However, in the unincorporated areas, the homebuyer is on his own, as county inspectors are generally only concerned with sewer hookups. For all of our complaining about city services, the residential inspectors really have the homebuyer's back.

[marmer]

I had a Pulte track home in Pearland that was built new in 2003....Supposedly energy star certified and energy efficient and guaranteed maximum KWH usage from AC, etc.....I had the exact same experience as you. That house's AC never shut off, and never got the house below 75. The Master bedroom faced west and as a result was never below 80 in the evenings despite the AC in the rest of the house hovering around 76-77....when set at 72

Sounds like you lived in my neighborhood!

[luciaphile]

So your refrigerator got way more efficient and incidentally no longer has to be unlatched, but your big-screen TV eats up that gain, and all your electronic gaming collectively uses as much power annually as the city of San Diego.

Your car's fuel efficiency has improved, but overall you are filling it up a lot more than you did in the eighties, because then you looked cute driving around in a Nissan Maxima, but now for some reason you need to drive a small bus.

Your little thirties-era Sears kit house was much draftier than what others are unkindly calling your "McMansion," but since you made no real effort to cool it, just opened the windows, turned on the fan, and drank lots of tea, or fell asleep from the torpor, it didn't really cost much, energy-wise. And in winter, Meema shut the doors to all but the living room and lit the "stove," whose roaring heat and gassy fumes were sort of like the atmosphere of Venus, but effective.

But hey - you're recycling your giant plastic jug of detergent, your big plastic jug of OJ, and your 64-oz container of sour cream from Costco, and several dozen Dasani bottles a week! They're becoming plastic park benches and, uh, other stuff, probably. And you've cut way back on red meat. You're eating mahi-mahi flown in from Hawaii instead. You're so damn green.