Curbing McMansions? L.A. studies limits on the size of houses

LAT: Curbing the big, the bad, the ugly
Los Angeles is studying citywide limits on the size of houses. Could McMansions become a thing of the past?
By Gayle Pollard-Terry, Times Staff Writer
August 27, 2006


ONE MAN’S CASTLE: Mansionization has hit many L.A. areas, including Cheviot Hills.
(Beatrice de Gea / LAT)

As hard as it might be to imagine, new McMansions — those large homes crowding small or average-size lots — could one day become an endangered species in Los Angeles.

City Councilman Tom LaBonge has asked the planning department to come up with citywide guidelines on how big is too big. He is seeking to replace the temporary solutions and current hodgepodge of neighborhood-specific restrictions with an ordinance that applies to all teardowns and to vacant lots on hillsides.

"I would hope we could rethink it to allow a person to build their American dream, their castle," LaBonge said, "and have them in scale with the neighborhood."

He's got plenty of support from people who own one-story houses and prefer not to live in the shadows — literally. They want to preserve the character of their streets by keeping out towering villas that block sunlight, eliminate views, destroy mature trees and create sightlines that invade the privacy of bedrooms and backyards. But there are others who view the construction as an improvement over the small, old houses — some of them decrepit — that the McMansions are replacing. Plus, there are plenty of buyers who want four or more bedrooms.

Nationally, 39% of new homes built last year had four bedrooms, said Steve Melman, director of economic services for the National Assn. of Home Builders. That compares with 23% in 1973, despite the fact that the average American family shrank to 2.6 people from 3.1 in the same period....

http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-re-mansion27aug27,0,6250412.story?coll=la-home-headlines

What a waste of energy those things are. Someone needs to rein in this ridiculous overconsumption for everyone's sake.

smaller house

just sayin

would be more efficient than either.

if McMansions were to become subdivided in the coming years.

IMO, not a good investment unless you have unlimited cash for taxes and utility bills.

And all those big rambling homes that got turned into apartments in later years. Of course, at least some of the time those homes of the past actually housed a lot of children; but were still reserved to the richest in the communities during another period of great income disparity.

Hawaii supports Ohana zoning, homes where multiple parts or an extended family lives. Its often the only way people can afford housing there. I feel that is coming to other areas, esp on both coasts.

We are looking at building a new home soon. It will have a parents' apartment integrated into it. By sqft it verges on McMansion, though its far from opulent. Its an efficient extended family design. This is becoming more popular over time.

Used to be a lot of beautiful farmland in those two places; now, there's a lot of soulless McMansion developments.

and those slightly used McMansions are now sitting on the market in perpetuity, they finally decided to act.

Old men doting on trophy wives will simply have to rip up a piece of wilderness from now on to build those monuments to their own egos.

Limiting the size of a house would limit the appraised value and therefore the property tax that can be collected for that house.

Works just fine, here.

Otherwise they would build them out to the easements.

And it hasn't had any downward effect on value.

I would NOT be happy if those houses started going in around me, even within the limits we have. I live in a 60's 3 br ranch house neighborhood, all mature yards and trees. I would cry if those monster homes started going in, I never even thought about the possibility of it happening. Ack!!

That is how we avoid that problem.

Any and all profile construction must be approved by every neighbor within sight-line. Paint color must be approved by the Town Council.

And we have some beautiful homes here ranging from 2 to 35 really big piles of dollars.

Then again, that's why I don't live in the kinds of towns you're in and why we are more than happy to let you guys have your covenented gated communities when you retire to our town. :)

I would never retire to a gated community

Here is where I live. This pic was taken a couple hundred yards west of my house.

It's like Santa Fe, all construction has to meet a particular aesthetic to fit into the cultural and artistic image the city wants to present. That's fine for folks who want to live like that, it would just drive me bonkers. While we do have some codes where I live, signs, housing size, parking restrictions, etc.; we aren't quite to the point of dictating housing colors. We do, however, have gated communities that have all that stuff in the covenants and that's where folks from communities like yours (not you necessarily) retire to when they come to our town. 40% of our town is over the age of 45, big retirement town. They don't like to live in the 60's ranch house neighborhoods like mine, which is alright with me. Different strokes and all of that. See what I mean?

It is not about a particular aesthetic goal.

It is all about sight-line (interference) and to keep the Arabs and Russians from painting their houses in Day-Glo colors.

Tiburon/Belvedere is one of the funkiest communities on the planet.

Our town charter states that every business must be independently and locally owned.

No chains of any sort.

And we have a ban on trans-fats in the restaurants.

Come on out and see what I mean.

There is no cooler place in the Nation. And our population is 5,000.

And we have 12 fine restaurants and no gas stations.

A 20 minute ferry ride across the Bay from San Francisco.

I'll buy lunch.

and I love the entire San Francisco area and always have. But still, no, I wouldn't enjoy living someplace that relished their restrictions so. I live across the street from the most godawful sky blue house with windows blue trim, and even hokey pinwheels in the front yard. But I'd rather that than people who think you can regulate utopia. It's all I can do to tolerate the group we've got, along with the right wing wackos that want their own set of regulations like refusing to show R rated movies or having a video arcade. I'm sure you have a lovely lovely place there, it's just not for me.

want us folks in the smaller homes to pay more in taxes because it is "unfair for a house to be taxed more because it is larger"...and they have a republican pinhead running for state office who is trying to win on this message...

Wow, that's pretty ballsy. They just never stop with their bullshit excuses to fuck over those that they're already fucking over in order to have the money they have. Do you have any news articles on that because there's a few people I'd like to give them to.

for state representative. He doesn't think that the 1% transfer tax should be levied any more on homes that are sold....he claims that for a person buying a $300K house to pay a $3K transfer tax is obscene and way too much. He has been going door to door in the new and old neighborhoods bitching about the inequity of the taxes in our area. That the "poor folks" in those big homes are going to get "taxed out" and that we had better do something about it...but the money has to come from somewhere and they want tax "equity"..

A former public official I know has also been bitching and moaning too...he sold his paid off home to buy a much larger one...and now is just aghast at how high is taxes are...."it isn't fair"...he says...he and others like him are pushing for a new tax assessment so that the older folks who "haven't been paying their fair share"...will be taxed more to alleviate the suffering of those who are in recently transfered property or in the much larger more grand homes...

Someone does financially well enough to afford a larger home - and is then shocked that he's paying more taxes??? Just - wow. I don't think we have a transfer tax or anything like that, but I don't think we trapped ourselves quite as badly as some states did when they reformed property taxes many years ago. It is stunning how they keep pushing their tax liability off on the poorest.

We also have to obtain approval from any of our neighbors who can even see our house before any silhouette remodeling can be done.

I live in Arlington. There are several neighborhoods where the average size of the homes is about 2800 sq. ft. They are nice homes but one neighborhood has a (gotta be) 10,000 sq. ft. McMansion on it! Its a beautiful home but looks out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. It looks ridiculous and pretentious. The lot it sits on would be a nice size for a 3000-3500 sq. ft. home but this place makes the lot look so crowded with all the landscaping, huge pool, tennis court....it looks ridiculous.

JG

living, family, eating nook, formal dining, game and craft rooms and office.. on and on they go. My son in law just built one, holy criminy it's huge. But only 4 bedrooms.

all specify how many bedrooms....that's why you see these huge houses built with "bonus" rooms. Technically four bedrooms.