McMansions - Part Deux

I wanted to start a thread from a different angle on the subject of McMansions. The big thread focused mainly on the aesthetic and formal properties of such developments and naturally led to some pretty heated debate. I want to talk more about the functional argument against the American suburb. In the previous thread, many defended McMansions by citing their energy efficiency. Since nobody else really brought it up, I'll make some arguments against that reasoning here. My goal is to educate, not to offend any personal tastes.

What is the main functional problem of the American Suburb in terms of sustainability? It is that you have essentially the same house oriented in many different directions due to the countless cul-de-sacs and winding roads. If you built the same house, built to the exact same specs, in the same neighborhood facing four different directions (North, South, East, West), two of those houses (East and West) would cost much more to heat/cool due to solar heat gain. It's not about R-values, insulated glass, and solar panels. It's about blocking direct sun in the summer and soaking it in during the winter. The materials help, but materials + good design and orientation can make magic. Don't just listen to the builder hype about sustainability. All of the features in the world can't change the fact that your plot faces due west and you'll fight the sun for the life of the home.

Educate yourself and make good decisions. If you're going to buy into a suburban development choose your land well. Make sure your primary glass facade (usually the back side of a McMansion) faces South. If you can't get that, make sure it faces North. This will help you to maximize the effectiveness of all of those "sustainable" materials. If you're really adventurous, go hire yourself an architect, spend a little more up front and get a home tailored to your family, its needs, and uniquely suited to your environment. It will pay off immensely. My phone number is ... :)

... particularly regarding ceiling height.

Most of the patio homes I've seen in Texas have extraordinary volume, compared to square footage. In terms of normal human comfort, that requires heating and cooling a lot of mass, and air. Take all the same advanced materials, and put them into a smaller volume home, and the energy savings would be noticeable.

As it is, even with using advanced construction materials, most McMansions are going to be energy hogs--they would simply be even bigger hogs without the use of those materials.

You make a good point. Large volumes aren't necessarily bad though. They have great aesthetic value and can contribute to the enjoyment of a home. There are good ways to deal with these situations though. The best way to deal with large volumes is to use radiant in-floor heating controlled by a switch rather than a thermostat (or if it is controlled by thermostat, locate the thermostat close to the floor). This only heats the air at floor level, you aren't trying to heat the entire volume. In the summer large volumes can help to dissipate heat, provided you have a way to vent the heat out of the top of the volume.

... made sense, after reading Frank Lloyd Wright's reasoning for doing so in projects such as the hotel in Tokyo. The feet are to some extent thermostats for the rest of the body--increase the temperature of the feet and the rest of the body feels warmer.

The problem might be codes, or the failure of previous radiant heat systems to last. My parents had a problem with slab heat (water leakage from the piping system) and the cost to fix that problem was greater than resorting to baseboard heating.

But, as you suggested in the previous post, siting is important, and the general tendency of developers to put the front face of the house on the road, despite the orientation, is not smart. Especially in suburbia, lot sizes permit more creative orientation, and yet, it's not being done.

But, as for the general notion of heat at the floor, volume is a consideration. Heat rises. That simple point of physics can't be undone, and heating the floor eventually heats the rest of the room. Transfer occurs to the highest levels whether one wants it or not. That may be one of the reasons why Wright's "prairie" houses were long and low to the ground.

Cheers.

The Loren Pope (Pope-Leighey) House (1939) was originally built in Falls Church, Virginia and relocated to Woodlawn Plantation in Mount Vernon, Virginia (1964).

http://www.delmars.com/flwtrip/pope1a.htm (Good photos)

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'm an Urban Designer though most of my work is architectural conservation.

The sustainability of development needs to take account of issues such as the oportunity cost, in energy terms, of embodied energy in existing buildings. Better to try and adapt existing buildings as far as possible; redundant industrial buildings are a good case in point due to their sheer size. And, processed materials require high energy inputs at source, transport miles etc. I expect you know that though.

No time to debate the issues right now but it has a political dimension because of the vested interests of the big suppliers, land ownership issues and the looming energy crisis in terms of servicing suburban areas in the future. Jim Kunstler has a good website about the issues. Google for his site if you want to have a shifty - I don't have it to hand after my HDD got trashed last week.

Interesting debate could be had here.

Thanks

ps my expenses for travelling from the UK would render me too expensive!

Thanks for the input. Thankfully here in the States we're having a burst of urban redevelopment, not without flaws though! I've seen a lot of well-intentioned urban renewal projects that have succeeded in bringing the suburban problems back into the center of the city (plastering the existing urban fabric with EIFS, replacing urban scale with suburban scale, etc.).

Your points about embodied energy are important too. Some solar panels will never produce enough energy to offset the energy used in their creation. The age old car analogy works here, from an environmental perspective you're better off keeping that old gas-guzzling clunker than buying that new Hybrid vehicle because of the energy costs in producing the new vehicle.

...I couldn't agree more. Not just McMansions, but typical suburban development as a while simply does not make sense, from an economic or a social standpoint.

It's ridiculous the millions of dollars counties spend every year just getting these developments built while the central cities are left rotting. The cost of extending infrastructure like roads and utilities to these piecemeal developments is economically absurd, considering there is already plenty of existing infrastructure within the central cities. The cost of updating or repairing existing infrastructure is significantly lower than the massive amount of money that is being used in the counties.

Then there's the social aspect that we've all heard a million times. These developments are designed only to accomodate the automobile, so streets are wider, which make people drive faster and makes it dangerous for pedestrians, and there are almost no sidewalks if any, usually because of cost. So kids are stuck in their house unless they can mooch a ride off mom and dad. Either way, they're not getting enough exercise. I can't believe with all the new obesity studies coming out people can't make the connection between their health and the neighborhoods in which they live.
And beyond the health problems, modern suburban development is acutally encouraging a sort of re-segregation of our society. All those signs you see for new developments advertising "homes from the $200s" or "homes up to the $600s" end up segregating different income levels, and completely destroys any concept of community. It also concentrates people that don't have higher incomes into their own enclaves. Lower income means less choice as to where you live, and by the time you get to the poverty level, you're talking about these neighborhoods (usually in the central city) of just intense poverty. Our society can't sustain itself with this system of quasi-feudalism.
And what really gets me is the people that think, "well I'm escaping all those 'city problems', I just want a better life." Well, that's just BS. Because urban decay works like a cancer, and those inner ring suburbs that marked the start of suburbanization are starting to see decay and disinvestment just like their central cities. And it will spread to those fancy outer-ring neighborhoods too unless we start seriously looking at how we design neighborhoods.
This is not what the American Dream is supposed to be. Its just been forced on us by Developers and builders who stand to make tons of money by it.

you make a good point about the insidious effect of suburbia in the context of monotony and lack of community. Inner urban areas have a range of buildings of various sizes, layouts etc. That creates a varied rental/capital value profile which, in turn, accommodates a range of land uses, housing types and so on. Richness and variety are the end result. That is completely lacking in suburbia.

But, inner urban area redevelopment needs careful handling if it is to avoid the same problems that are created by suburbia. Quite apart from the loss of cultural heritage, complete redevelopment of any given area flattens, and heightens, the rental profile. Variety is killed off as a result and a phenomenon we call "gentrification" occurs.

This is an interesting debate people.

...and things like that. Plowing over an entire city neighborhood is as cost effective (that is ineffective) as building a new subdivision outside of the city.

No need to bring back Urban renewal or anything. Inner city neighborhoods have all the elements that make for valuable housing- good location, quality building stock at least as far as the shells are concerned, and existing infrastructure. All it needs is the right amount of reinvestment to make it an attractive place to live again. Unfortunately, gentrification in some form is unavoidable. By definition, Gentrification is an upgrading of the housing market in an area, and that's kind of what we want. But that's why there are also Affordable housing programs in place to alleviate the problems that come with Gentrification.

provided it doesn't drive out existing communities it's no bad thing.

We have affordable housing policies over here too. Whether they work I'm not qualified to say. Good concept though and one that developers seem to be taking on board in little bits.

I spent a week at the School of Architecture in Turin in the 80's, studying urban layouts...bliss. We have a lot to learn from European practice and by "we" I mean the UK as well as the US. Shared pedestrian/vehicle surfaces, integrated public transport networks, high densities, mixed land use etc etc.

Sorry if I sound a tad evangelical. I could ramble on for ages about this because it is something I've studied with a passion for years.

Passion is good. We need people more concerned about good design, and not just bringing home the bucks for the developers. I'm actually pretty optimistic that there will be more people concerned about sprawl than there has been in the past.

I have noticed that most of the blah beige houses in these subdivisions are built on land that has been scraped sterile. NO TREES! In Florida , no trees, means another $80 or more per month on the power bill for a/c. Seriously. The builder will plant a few twigs that take approx. 8-15 years to reach the size that provides real shade. But other than that , the houses are exposed to the broiling sub-tropical sun.
Not to mention the fact that all those beige houses are just so boring.

leave the AC running all the time, whether they are home or not.

God forbid they even consider putting solar panels on top of those sun exposed roofs. They might actually cut down a little on their impact on the environment.

Most new homes are fitted with programmable thermostats. We program for summer and winter months accordingly. During the day in the Summer, the house is about 78 degrees and about an hour before we come home, cool down starts so the home is comfortable right about the time we walk in the house.

In the winter, we keep the home at about 63 degrees and usually we don't warm it up until we get home.

Saves a bundle on energy costs!

been trying to tell people about these planned sub-divisions. My thought is anyone spending a fortune for these monstrosities should at least look at an aerial map or photo.

I have been conserving historic buildings and areas for 20 years. I am aware of the grassroots conservation movement in the US and I've seen websites that deal with New York.

Pity I have to go and argue with a contractor right now - we could have a fun debate.

regards

McKenzie

ps you actually have County Planners?

on the front of the house?

WTF is up with the whole "slap a garage on the front and make it LARGER than the house" thing??

There is NOTHING that smacks MORE of uber-suburban moron, and LESS of aesthetic than a house who's visual focus is the GARAGE!

I prefer a planned community with a central common area and vistas to each other; common walkways, common play and eating areas; a highly socially engineered environment where the focus is on participation, not isolation.

I see that folks primarily use their over-sized garages for storage of massive amounts of toilet paper and those outgrown, fallen apart walmart clothes.

Less space makes one more conscientious than grand spaces. There isn't the compulsion to fill vapid voids, wherein intimately engineered spaces, one values what one has far more, and makes better use of it.

If you want to really get into the meat of planned communities, check out all of the New Urbanism stuff out there. The major player is a firm called DPZ (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co.). I personally am not a huge fan because it is so easy for these things to become contrived little enclaves of one class of people. All of the hype and literature says otherwise, but what is planned as a diverse community often turns out to be very exclusive. The problem lies in legislating behaviour on a large scale through planning and design, it just can't be done. Diverse urban environments arise out of necessity and density, the planning should be invisible. Once it "feels" planned, the vibrancy is dead.

We may fgo with a different community close to this that will have larger lot sizes.

As you can see from that picture, the lot orientations are all over the map (see my original post). If you can get in early and pick a good lot, it will make a big difference. Just be careful, a lot of times when these communities flop, they flop big! Do you know the firm involved with the planning? Looking up their past work will give you a good idea of how this one will fare.

one just opening up.

My needs are fairly simple, though. 1/2 acre or more for lot size (no more than 2, though). Back of the house must face south (most of these designs always open up the back more than the front). My preference is the house would sit on a lsight slope so that we could get the walk-out basement.

In the previous thread, a number of people in new suburbs defended them on the grounds of energy efficiency, and the environment friendly activities that the owners were undertaking, like recycling.

I believe that those people were making the wrong comparison. Whether you are in an old house in an old suburb or city, or in a new house in a new suburb, you can still carry out those environmental activities. If I carry out a lot of recycling, don't drive much and use solar panels, I still can't justify living in a new suburb -- because those activities could be carried out anywhere. That analysis makes the wrong comparison. The comparison is not between an environmentally conscious person in a new suburb vs a non-environmentally conscious person in an old area; it is between people doing exactly the same thing in a new area and old area. It's just scientific logic: you need to control for the variable we are talking about -- in this case, new suburbs vs old suburbs or cities.

The main difference -- the real variable -- is greenfields vs brownfields, as the terms are used in environmental law. Greenfields are wilderness and farmland that is converted to urban or suburban or industrial or office uses. Brownfields are areas that have already been used for those purposes.

The biggest environmental issue we face in this country is that all the incentives, even some perverse incentives in environmental law, cause people to prefer greenfields over brownfields. This means we destroy wilderness and farmland rather than redevelop already damaged or disturbed land. One perverse incentive in environmental law is that you may be liable for cleanup of a brownfield site, even if you did not do the damage, but some prior owner did; therefore, companies refuse to develop brownfields, out of fear of environmental liability.

Developing greenfields reduces habitat for animals and plants; contributes to sprawl; extends supply lines of commodities and utilities, driving up costs and energy use; reduces the water processing capacity of land; and takes land out of natural uses forever, because once disturbed, it is almost impossible for such land to be recolonized by nature. No matter what you do environmentally friendly on your new suburban home, you are starting out with a huge environmental deficit or debt to repay, compared to someone who redevelops a brownfield site.

No matter what you do -- environmentally friendly or not -- in a new suburb, the environment would always be better off if you did it on brownfields, rather than greenfields.

Sadly, you cannot move onto a half-acre or couple of acres of land in a greenfields area, and be a "steward" of it. Your very presence destroys it.

If you want to be environmentally friendly, build on or redevelop a brownfield, and leave the greenfields to nature. Here in NYC, ironically we are very environmentally friendly, because for every apartment or urban house we occupy, that's one more acre of land that isn't being destroyed in nature.

I agree with much of your post, redevelopment should be a priority and there should be incentives to move development in that direction. I don't necessarily agree that development equals destruction. Developers need to be smarter and more creative in their development of greenfields.

I think all of the design/planning issues in this country stem from a lack of education and understanding. Humanities classes have all but disappeared in our schools. Art is a minor endeavor and Architecture is virtually non-existant. Given the general lack of compelling architecture to serve as a living laboratory, it is no surprise that we as a nation have chosen to embrace mediocrity in design and planning.

intended to help cities rebuild and improve their water facilities, but also ended up funneling millions in federal funds to counties extending water service further out into new development. The history of Planning has really been a lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

But if you have do develop on Greenfields, which I don't think will go away completely, there are still plenty of options, such as Cluster Zoning, which clusters the development at one point of the parcel and leaves much of the open space. Some other people made good points about designing the houses to face away from the sun to cut down on cooling costs. There are ways to be more efficient even in suburban areas, we just need to use them.

would opt for smaller homes. A few years ago, there was a documentary about sexual activity among teens in the suburbs. There was an outbreak of venereal disease which led to the discovery of sex parties and widespread promiscuous sex. One of the factors was the immense houses the kids lived in...the families didn't live as families. More like guests at a hotel. There was very little personal contact. Mom and Dad couldn't overhear their kids talking with friends. Hell, Mom and Dad didn't even see the friends. These houses are so large, everyone has their own bathroom, bedroom, and TV area. One teen was living in the guest house by the pool. He just came and went as he wanted. And he was in high school. The parents didn't even spend time together. Everyone was in their own room with their personal TV. Might as well live in another country. So, there is an emotional cost as well. How close can a family be if you never see each other?
You don't need to spy on each other. Some space is healthy. But it is helpful to see each other at meal times, watch TV together, see what your kids are wearing to school, hear their chatter with their friends, and know where they're going, when they're going, and who they have as friends.

Yes, you would think that would be the case. In all of my experience however, the problem of suburbia is distinctly apolitical. It is a societal problem stemming from poor arts and humanities education coupled with pressure to get things done fast and on the cheap. We are turning into a speculative culture and our architecture displays this in the form of disposable non-descript buildings built for everyone rather than someone. I try not to think of deveopers as evil, but it's hard sometimes! Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he at least understands that quality is important as well (however gaudy that quality may be!).

They're planned for looks, not for living in. Huge entryways where you can't find the coat closet. Vast "Paladian" windows that look great on the outside of the house but are impossible to curtain properly on the inside. Huge spaces that require outsized furniture to look right (have you noticed the massive stuff the furniture manufacturers are putting out lately?). Acres of cheap, white-painted drywall. Cheap stained pine "trim."

Yech.

I have nothing against real mansions--I'd love to live in one--but those McMansions are just horrible. Give me an honest 1928 craftsman house any day.

http://solarhouse.com/

------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

PV is a requirement for us.

of links to progressive listings where you can find builders and what-not :)

------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

I live in house built in 1979 in a typical 1970s subdivision. One thing that began to strike me was how unfriendly my subdivision and the many, many others like it was to walkers--that the streetscape really didn't encourage and reward walkers. So I put bench and chair near the street (in a little grouping with large pot and mini-flag and a very small brass plaque that says, "Dear Neighbors, a place for you to rest." I also began to focus my gardening efforts nearer to the street instead of foundation plantings and the backyard. That's my comment; now for the question.

There is a new section to my subdivision with much smaller (and more sensibly sized lots). Would it be possible (and not cost prohibitive) to move and re-landscape existing homes and reclaim some of the land for new homes. What I'm talking about is moving and/or re-orienting them on their own or adjacent lots and then combining the freed-up land for new homes (to cover the cost (plus profit)). You'd have to have everyone in a given area on board (dicey), but if the new neigborhood was nicer (although higher density) that would be an incentive. This question was sparked by the comment about brownfield vs. greenfield and a reluctance to say tear it down (I'm more inclined to think correct problem and reuse). The other advantage would be saving gas (here, I'm thinking more in a macro sense). Going further and further out to built more sprawl seems to the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Guess this is more compacting existing housing stock.

BTW, I think each and every subdivision new, old, and inbetween should a one little cafe-shop that served drinks, snacks, ice cream, sold a few magazines and newspapers, stamps, allowed patrons to play cards and/or board games, and had a neighborhood message board. Somewhere with a sort of a pub (although without the alcohol--too many hassles and in some parts of the country opposition) atmosphere.

In my opinion, we need to do more with this idea. Most of the homes built by this company are quite small - main floor 650 sq ft or less plus loft space.



The link below has more photos of this neighborhood and the interiors of some of the homes. By clicking on the "projects" link at the top of the page you'll find links to photos of some other pocket neighborhoods developed by this company.

http://www.cottagecompany.com/cctscgallery.html