Homebuilders shrink American dream, spark wrath

[riverdeep]

Source: Reuters via yahoo news

As the U.S. housing slump accelerates, homebuilders from California to New Jersey are now being forced back to the drawing board and the local planning board to downsize the American dream.

"I've lived here in Vacaville since 1976 and we moved from a neighborhood that was a cookie-cutter neighborhood," Lopez said. "It wasn't a bad neighborhood. But you kind of move up that ladder."

It never fails to generate tension with local governments, which favor the bigger homes and fancier facades that attract upscale buyers and their tax revenue, said Kahn.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081203/us_nm/us_homebuilders_downsizing

---

Seems like Americans are going to go kicking and screaming into the new reality.

[LibDemAlways]

1. Any move away from McMansions will be welcome

news to many. Not everyone wants to live in a 3000+ square foot box. My house is 30 years old and 1750 square feet. There hasn't been one built close to this size around here in decades. About time the homebuilders started building affordable, reasonably sized homes again for the masses. There will be a huge market for them.

[riverdeep]

4. "There will be a huge market for them."

I hope you're right. The article says that people themselves are resisting the downsizing of homes.

Around my neighborhood, the difference between new and old homes is so stark, you wouldn't believe it. The old homes are like the garage on the new ones.

[TommyO]

12. The people resisting are the ones who bought the big houses already

They "moved up the ladder" to the McMansions, and now smaller homes are going to be built in "their" community. It's just the "have mores" complaining, not all people.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Oh noes, the riff-raff is coming, the riff-raff is coming!! The sort of lowlifes

willing to live in 2000 sq ft or less!

[TommyO]

37. Exactly! Heaven forbid somebody pay less than they did for

a more usable house.

[LibDemAlways]

32. Here in So Cal young people and empty nesters would

flock to smaller, more affordable new homes. All that's been built in my area in the last couple of decades are huge houses in the million plus range. I'm glad the homebuilders are finally coming around to the idea that there are other types of buyers besides people willing to go into debt to the tune of 6 figures.

[WriteDown]

9. I don't mind a house between 3-5K sq ft....

Just don't put in on a 1/4 acre lot next to 1000 homes on other 1/4 acre lots. What a waste. I have a nice 3/4 acre lot with a 2K sq ft house all to myself. I couldn't imagine not having the yard.

[superconnected]

46. That's my gripe too. My citys legalized 2000sq lots. Seriously.

We have tons of homes in back of homes now, no yards to speak of, it's ugly. I can't believe people buy those. I'm talking a large house in the back yard within feet of the older house that was already there in many many neighborhoods in my city.

[donco6]

2. We downsized in our last move.

Best thing we ever did. Our new house is more efficient, fits our lifestyle, and we used the differential to pay off our debts.

McMansions are like a plague here. Enormous, open spaces to heat, cool. Every room is ridiculously large. Huge, water sucking lawns. I hate them.

[daleo]

3. Utilities will be cheaper, commuting would be shorter on average

It would actually be a good thing for the environment.

[dysfunctional press]

20. how does the size of the house have anything to do with commute time???

that would be an issue of location.

besides- with mcmansions, the garage door is often closer to the street.

[daleo]

23. Ability to put more houses in the same space

Therefore, more density, and less commuting distance on average.

[dysfunctional press]

27. more density means more traffic and therefore more delays.

damned if you do, and damned if you don't...:shrug:

[riverdeep]

30. I think it depends on how you set up the grid.

With public transportation, density has the advantage of paying for itself.

[dysfunctional press]

44. bullshit. here in the chicago suburbs, the PACE bus system is heavily subsidized.

since most of the people in any one subdivision all commute to different places in different directions, it would be very difficult to provide effective mass transit- let alone expect it to pay for itself.

[daleo]

40. I was thinking distance rather than time

Which ought to reduce gas consumption overall. But, you have a point, it may not seem like less time on the road.

[yardwork]

33. Infill.

Smaller houses and condos can be tucked into existing urban lots.

[XemaSab]

42. Most smaller houses are built near the urban core

Most larger houses are built out on farmland.

[dysfunctional press]

47. and the prices for both tend to be similar.

we sold our two-flat in the city last year, for a nice 4br ranch house on a little over an acre in a 40-year old semi-rural subdivision- we have well water and a septic system...and there's no way i'd want to move back into the city- it's too confining. our place in the city sold for about $70,000 more than we paid for our current home, which we bought two years ago.

IF there is a bad economic downturn- we might have been better off having the rental unit to provide some income...but here we also have the space for a huge garden- which has gotten a bit bigger each year.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Come on--we can't get enough of 3000+ sq ft, pointlessly complex rooflines (the more

faux peaks and dormers on your roof, the more clearly superior you are, plus it looks vaguely European-manor) and ugly-ass three-car garagehouses (where the actual house is appended like an afterthought behind the garage)--what will happen to the McMansion lifestyle if these builders don't keep catering to the snob crowd like Mrs. Lopez? If you can't tell, I really hate the building industry for the crimes committed against architecture and American communities in general.

[riverdeep]

11. Oh c'mon, how would guys like this feel special?

[TwilightGardener]

14. LOL! Is he famous? I do applaud him for trying to adhere somewhat to an actual

architectural style (Italianate?) Otherwise...ack!

[riverdeep]

18. I don't know who he is, I got the image from a 'mcmansion' google image search.

But I went back and looked it up. It's from this thread on a city-data forum. The thread is titled "Outer Borough Townhouses, why do they look like ****? (New York, Boston: gated, mcmansion)" and was started on 7/18/07, when the even the dullest were sensing something wrong with the housing market.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york-city/118519-outer-borough-townhouses-why-do-they-2.html

This guy apparently lives in Whitestone, New York. I'm guessing it's quite ritzy.

(google map of whitestone, ny)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=whitestone%20new%20york&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

[dysfunctional press]

21. i don't think that's what most people consider a "mcmansion"...

it's not exactly a cookie-cutter design. it may not be everyone's cup of tea- but it does have some individual style.

[riverdeep]

22. I do suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This might be more of the typical McMansion then, more nondescript.

[riverdeep]

29. Really though, it was the dude that struck me more than the home,

the guy just seems so proud of himself. Within his framework of belief, he's actually a success.

[lurky]

24. Whitestone is a neighborhood in outer Queens.

It's one of the more suburban parts of NYC, but I think of it as more middle class than ritzy. Maybe I'm wrong, though... :shrug:

[Franzia]

26. holy crapoli, that thing is ugly!

[scarletwoman]

31. OMG! The designer of that monstrosity needs to be arrested by aesthetics police!

Yuk!

[tledford]

39. Oh, man! That looks like a cheap white wine hangover! eom

[Sinistrous]

49. That place looks like it is made of Lego blocks. n/t

[yardwork]

35. Are you an architect? I've been wondering why U.S. housing architecture is so dull.

I can't figure out why all the houses look alike, with a bizarre melange of styles that adds up to no style. Instead of building interesting spaces designed for the way people live in the 21st century, homebuilders keep turning out huge unimaginative boxes with wasted space and energy-sucking rooms.

Why can't we have attractive built-ins to hold electronics and neat little cubby holes and things like that instead of huge massive ugly things?

[TwilightGardener]

50. Nope, not an architect, but have been interested in historic architecture

for a while--I just know that most homebuilders today are just throwing up a "curb-appeal" mish-mash of older styles, copying each other, with no thought to good design, as you say.

[llmart]

6. I, for one, welcome the change....

I'm sick of those ugly, McMansions. Two people living in 6,000 square feet. How stupid is that?

[Xithras]

7. My sister used to own in a neighborhood like that.

The neighborhood was planned in the late 80's and started in the first couple of years of the 90's as a large custom and semi-custom development. When the recession in the early 90's hit and the housing market died, the builder came back and retooled the roughly 2/3's of the development that hadn't sold yet. They ended up with 3500 square foot deluxe customs on quarter to half acre lots sitting alongside 1200 square foot starters and 1500 square foot blue collar homes on zero-lot line parcels.

To be honest, the neighborhood was a nightmare. The wealthier neighbors constantly had landlords in court over the homes that were converted to rentals, and the police were called over even the slightest infraction. If your radio could be heard outside at 10:01 PM, it was a given that the police would show up. The poorer neighbors, in turn, were constantly letting their kids play in the yards of the larger homes because their own homes had no yards (zero lot lines meant that there was only 5 feet of space between the homes, and that the back "yards" were only 10 feet deep). The larger homes had parklike front yards that attracted the local kids, and the homeowners desire to keep people off of their property was the source of even more local conflict.

She was very happy when she moved out of that neighborhood.

[riverdeep]

15. The most significant thing about 'new' neighborhoods to me

is that they are generally built without sidewalks. To me, that says it all. You will not meet your neighbors in this neighborhood. The only people that walk in these places are children (when they actually get outside or aren't being chauffeured) or the elderly (who are still stuck to those damn walking ways!) or the indigent. The latter will be promptly shown the door of the community via the local police.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Or spark delight...

depending on your point of view.

You summed it up perfectly with "kicking and screaming into the new reality"... it's astounding how much in denial so many Americans are!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. Houses ceased being homes and became "investments".

We're going to be forced into a new (old) reality.

[screembloodymurder]

17. I don't think you understand where we're headed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wadala_slums_-_Mumbai.jpg

[pattmarty]

13. Turn them into cheap apartment bldgs, I think we are gonna need them.

[DinahMoeHum]

19. Or better yet, duplexes and triplexes.

n/t

[cliss]

25. Ugly fact:

there are too many homes in the U.S. Too many, period. Big, small, medium, condos you name it.

I just heard on PBS radio, an analyst was concerned about the number of people who are currently homeowners. He said currently, "it's at 70% of the entire population are home owners. That's too much. It should be closer to 60%".

This means that the US has an oversupply of homes. If the builders would quit building, then some kind of equilibrium would be reached. :smoke:

[riverdeep]

28. Assuming you're correct,

this microcosm reveals the essential weakness of humanity- we grow past the point it's healthy, in ways that meet the immediate needs of a small group (i.e. wealthy) rather than the majority.

[ozone_man]

34. Not an essential weakness of humanity

so much as an essential weakness of capitalism, and the growth mentality that it fosters and requires. We are a civilization obsessed with growth, and yet there is only one finite Earth that can't sustain us any longer.

Well, now the GDP is shrinking, along with the number of homeowners, due to foreclosures. We were way overextended. We have to move toward sustainable economics, but that would likely mean an end to capitalism as we know it. At least a death to corporate capitalism. Small market capitalism can be sustainable, but the present corporate welfare/military industrial complex is certainly not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Only 60% of people should have somewhere to live?

The fact that 70% of the population are homeowners does not suggest that there are too many houses. 100% of the people need homes, some of whom will rent. The question is how many homes are unoccupied.

[MadMaddie]

36. My partner and I have not bought a home

because they are too big. Most of the new homes are zero lot homes, 2 story houses, 2 car garages 4-5 bed 3-4 bath.

We would rather have a 3bed, 2bath house and a larger yard. I am glad that they are changing what they are building.

[Doremus]

38. How about we get rid of developers?

We could send them all to trade school and we could keep what little green spaces we have left in America.

Or, alternately, they could go back to developer school and learn how to revitalize the places they've already developed instead of ruining pristine land for more gawdy McMansions, shopping centers and exurban sprawl.

Sounds like a plan. :)

[Mari333]

43. someone tell me, what is the psychology behind needing a mcmansion?

i lived for 20 yrs in a huge old farmhouse when i raised my kids. when they became adults i downsized to a little house, very small, and its perfect for me and my animals. i am not saying whats good for me is whats good for anyone else, but i do cannot wrap my mind around why anyone would want a 5000 sq foot house made out of cheap materials on some lot with spindly trees. why wouldnt you put the same money into an old farmhouse and fix it up if you want a large home?
where i live there used to be little cottages and now in some of the outlying parts of town (and some in town also), there are these AWFUL faux mcmansions, that look like they were thrown together with spit.
they are, to me, the ultimate in bad taste. if anything, the mega houses make a community look cheap .
oddly, tho, i see for sale signs in front of many of them.
so why would anyone want to live in one?

[yellowcanine]

45. False choice. It is not "cookie cutter" vs. McMansions. Small, moderate and multifamily units can

be built in the same neighborhood with plenty of variety and attractive landscapes. Also, some McMansion developments look pretty "cookie cutter" to me as well.

[BlueIris]

48. Kicking and screaming indeed. And how. nt

[Warpy]

51. They're building smaller houses here in NM

but unfortunately they're still crammed onto small lots, nothing facing the street but an expanse of blank garage door with HOAs making sure you don't do anything interesting with it like commission a mural or change the damn door to something more visually interesting. The houses all hide behind the two car garages (the minimum) and there is nothing particularly human facing the street.

Some people are embracing the new reality, though, and my own neighborhood of post WWII cracker box houses has held its inflated value through the crash. The houses are modest, cheap to heat and cool, and centrally located. They're still selling quickly.

[SlicerDicer-]

52. Well Rio Rancho has all but tanked

The Gigantor houses out here have tanked in price too.

[HamdenRice]

53. Anyone? Anyone? Walt Starr? nt