« Tales of two border cities | Home | Community spirit and crime prevention »
October 1, 2007
New McMansions and Historic Neighborhoods
Who should decide what size and style of new home is appropriate in an existing neighborhood?
Should the residents have a say? Should the planning department? Or, should developers be allowed to build according to (their perception of) market demands?
A recent article by Erica Noonan in the Boston Globe raises a myriad of issues surrounding new development in historic communities. Her article centers around a controversy in the affluent Boston suburb of Wellesley. There, many residents are mortified by a 5900 square foot house built in an historic neighborhood of 1700-2800 square foot homes. The developer claims he was responding to market demand (although the house hasn’t sold in 2 years on the market), while some residents claim that it is out of place with the neighborhood’s character and historic charm. Others in the community see bigger houses as inevitable and necessary for more families to move in.
These and other issues raised in the article are being seen– or will be — in metropolitan areas around North America in the coming years as certain cities grow and from generational change, particularly baby boomer retirement and relocation.
One key issue is who should decide on what new housing is appropriate in an existing neighborhood. Some in Wellesley are pushing for a “review board of residents” that would have a say regarding any proposed home above a certain floor area ratio (to property size).
This idea has some merits, but also some dangers. The merits are that developers knowing the community will need to approve the project, will likely need to make a bigger home match the existing character in order to have a chance of approval. Communities attract people in part because of their authenticity - a tie to a historic past and that includes in the housing architecture. It’s often worth preserving that character.
The danger emerges from the overall precedent. NIMBYism and CAVE people could take over residential boards, stopping change, with detrimental consequences for overall metro area planning. For example, what if the controversy was not over a 5900 square foot mcmansion, but over allowing duplexes or townhomes in an area of single family houses — increasing density. If metro area planners want to limit sprawl, many communities in the future will have to embrace more dwelling units in the same amount of space. Citizens review boards could prevent this change, which will have the result of increasing sprawl, and reducing housing affordability in their existing neighborhood.
Balancing new housing development, metropolitan planning demands, and existing resident concerns will be important as cities and communities evolve going forward.
Topics: resident attitudes, planning policy, urban history, real estate, communities, development conflicts |
October 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Part of the problem is that we don’t seem to know how to zone dynamically, to allow not just growth to happen somewhere, in a sort-of orderly fashion, but for cities to develop as cities, increasing intensity in important places. Zoning that allows this to happen would be pretty phenomenally cool, I think–you would get intensification, but somewhat slowly, so that you can maintain historical continuity (which is what makes places meaningful).
If you went with a neighborhood review board, you’d need to find some way to represent potential future residents, not just current ones.
Well said and good point Greg. The issue really is how to allow a neighborhood to evolve organically and dynamically, but also in a way that reflects heritage rather than dismisses it (which tearing down historic architecture and replacing it with giant boxes tends to do).
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Austin enacted a McMansion ordinance last year. I hate it; I think it’s death for organic growth. FWIW, my posts are at http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/the_mcmansion_ordinance/index.html
Thanks for linking to your McMansion blog posts. You offer some great information and examples, as well as provocative arguments about them. I’ll look to pick up on your ideas (perhaps arguing a different angle) in future blog posts here. WW
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
My suggestion for encouraging orderly growth while avoiding some of the more jarring mismatches is to start with a maximum floor-to-area ratio tied to the neighborhood’s existing average, and then gradually raise the maximum, which I suppose is a type of dynamic zoning.
(http://austinzoning.typepad.com/austincontrarian/2006/09/a_better_mcmans.html; the other posts are in the 9/06 archive). (Wendy, I promise not to plug my own site again for at least one month!
A typical older Austin neighborhood has an average home-to-lot size of, say, .3 with one standard deviation of .05. Austin adopted an across-the-board maximum FAR of .4. It would have been better to tailor the maximum to each neighborhood by setting it at the neighborhood average + 1 SD (.35 in my example) and then gradually raising it by .05 or so each year. Bigger lots would be redeveloped first, because developers would have an incentive to hold back small lots until they could build something bigger.
This would avoid two of the most serious problems with a McMansion ordinance like Austin’s. One is that it freezes a smaller housing stock in place. Some think that’s a good idea, but the real effect is to push people looking for larger homes (particularly families with children) elsewhere.
The other big problem, often overlooked, is that McMansion ordinances based on FAR really screw the small-lot owners. A piece of property’s price depends partly on its future development potential. Developers will pay less for small lots under a McMansion ordinance, at least when the ordinance keeps the developer from providing the size demanded by the market. (Developers can make mistakes, of course, as the example you cited shows.)
AustinContrarian - you can cite your blog anytime. I love seeing cross-dialog between blogs — it brings new people and ideas into the discussion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I grew up on that street. Went by the other day.
It’s out-of-character for the neighborhood, and since they owner bought into a historic district, he should be prepared for difficulties, especially if he’s willing to irritate all his neighbor to make a buck. Things were bad enough twenty years ago with kids unable to buy even a modest single-family home similar to their parents’ home, now even more of the small homes are gone and only the wealthy can live there.
If the town wants that teardown and profit attitude with little continuity and fewer longterm residents, fine by me.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
McMansions are so stupid…. is it me… or are the majority of new homes being built in the US absolutely hideous! Is it that Americans don’t really care what their homes look like? What happened to taste?
I grew up in Australia but now live in the US. In Australia, almost every home built is unique. People take a significant interest in the architecture of their dwellings…. I feel that in America people have no problem buying their homes from a book. I guess McMansions are cheaper since the cost is shared amongst millions of similar designed homes and building supplies… but really, what happened to taste? The only home industry I have respect for is the pre-fab industry which seems to be making strides in well designed, green homes. It’s as if prefab architects actually care about how a home looks and feels… which is obviously light-years ahead of the thought process by architects who build McMansions (which make up the majority of new homes being built in the US). It’s as if every kid going to school as an architect was taught to design the same type of houses, what ever happened to creativity?
Pre-fab homes are extremely well designed. Why can’t these same design principles be applied to the rest of the home industry in the US?
Perhaps my whole thought process is somewhat flawed because my thought of design is more contemporary and perhaps people prefer the design of a McMansion over that of something like a pre-fab home.
People.. tell me this, what would you prefer? A McMansion? Or a home that looks the ones designed by these people: http://www.livinghomes.net/primer.html
http://www.re4a.com/
I think it’s only a matter of time till the pre-fab industry builds up enough steam to achieve the same economies of scale that McMansion manufacturers have achieved already. McMansions are cheaper because Americans are stupid enough to buy them on a massive scale. I hope that the green movement prompts home buyers to look at the advantages of prefab (less waste in building materials, more attention to energy efficiency, homes built quicker with far less resources, recycled products are used in homes…etc…..)
That’s my rant about the home industry in America…. It’s quite sad in my opinion.
16
Posted on January 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm by Aaron
May 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I am an interior designer and refuse to work on McMansion style new structures. I will work on large square footage projects that deal with adaptive re-use or historical restoration. I prefer to work on cottage style or bungalow homes. I feel that the average family home does not need to be larger than 3500 square feet at the most. Larger homes tend to lose their charm and keep families from forming close bonds; they also use far too many resources and take up valuable land that could be put to better use for communities or farming.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:49 am
PS: Aaron, I will add that the houses that you propose are equally un-appealing to me. I detest post modern design. The house may be a machine for living (LeCorbusier) but people are not machanical robots. I prefer a softer habitat to one with far too many angles.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Realty Forum - Australia’s #1 Real Estate Forum. Our aim is to provide an Australian specific communication network to property orientated individuals. Also, our vision is to become a sufficient reference resource for users’ endeavours.