McMansions

[quote author="QH Renter" date=1247706513][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1247699576]

In a perfect world, everyone would get the huge lot with the pretty exterior and the best floorplan... in Irvine, you can get that but you have to pay for it (Shady). If you want something that's affordable (well... not right now), you have to make sacrifices, whether it be smaller lot, ugly exterior, no dining room or (gasp!) no 3-car wide garage. In the end, it always boils down to the first 3 rules of real estate, otherwise move to the IE and you can get whatever you want for 1/4 the price.</blockquote>


Not everyone has the same tastes, but there are certain design principles that are true. I agree that compromises must be made, but I think that TIC's designs have robbed too much in aesthetics to create the larger floorplans (and beefy profits). There is no balance and as we've seen these homes do not age gracefully due to their poor design. The current crop of homes are even more out of whack and will be <strong>undesirable in 25 years</strong>. Caveat emptor.</blockquote>


Unless energy cost sky rockets (a distinct probability), I don't think there will ever be a time when the general public would prefer a smaller house to a bigger one, if they could afford it.
 
[quote author="autox" date=1247736149][quote author="QH Renter" date=1247706513][quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1247699576]

In a perfect world, everyone would get the huge lot with the pretty exterior and the best floorplan... in Irvine, you can get that but you have to pay for it (Shady). If you want something that's affordable (well... not right now), you have to make sacrifices, whether it be smaller lot, ugly exterior, no dining room or (gasp!) no 3-car wide garage. In the end, it always boils down to the first 3 rules of real estate, otherwise move to the IE and you can get whatever you want for 1/4 the price.</blockquote>


Not everyone has the same tastes, but there are certain design principles that are true. I agree that compromises must be made, but I think that TIC's designs have robbed too much in aesthetics to create the larger floorplans (and beefy profits). There is no balance and as we've seen these homes do not age gracefully due to their poor design. The current crop of homes are even more out of whack and will be <strong>undesirable in 25 years</strong>. Caveat emptor.</blockquote>


Unless energy cost sky rockets (a distinct probability), I don't think there will ever be a time when the general public would prefer a smaller house to a bigger one, if they could afford it.</blockquote>


Well with the so called Green Revolution, we are all supposed to be thinking about sustainability and 3000+ sqft homes are not hip anymore. Even if energy costs are cheap to heat and cool such a home, think about your carbon foot print. Wow...did I actually type that ;-) I don't even really like recycling and have some serious doubts about this whole global warming thing.
 
And then there is the whole issue of upkeep.



cleaning one of those monsters could take your whole weekend, or you have to hire someone.
 
I am really proud of the posters who understand that a house is not about square footage. Developers are robbing consumers of their yards and charging more for building a bigger house that consumers don't really need. Consumers super-size their meal at McDonalds and consequently the same for McMansions. Both are extremely unhealthy.



This years Gold Nugget Awards in housing there is a huge shift of philosophy. Judges finally understood that bigger does not means better. The grand winner was a firm that created 800sf-1200sf homes. The Conover Common cottage my avatar was the creation from this Seattle architect that swept many awards this years.



Housing trend is going smaller house with bigger lots. NAHB has announced that the last 3 decades in housing there were just too much unnecessary waste created in sf, consumption of our precious energy and raw materials.



Green planning principle is promoting that the proper ratio of man made structures such as roads and homes to green space should be 20% coverage allowing surface water runoff to be adequately absorb into the 80% of green space and captured water is used to replenish the need of landscaping to filter the pollutant found commonly in our air.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1247795362]I am really proud of the posters who understand that a house is not about square footage. Developers are robbing consumers of their yards and charging more for building a bigger house that consumers don't really need. Consumers super-size their meal at McDonalds and consequently the same for McMansions. Both are extremely unhealthy.



This years Gold Nugget Awards in housing there is a huge shift of philosophy. Judges finally understood that bigger does not means better. The grand winner was a firm that created 800sf-1200sf homes. The Conover Common cottage my avatar was the creation from this Seattle architect that swept many awards this years.



Housing trend is going smaller house with bigger lots. NAHB has announced that the last 3 decades in housing there were just too much unnecessary waste created in sf, consumption of our precious energy and raw materials.



Green planning principle is promoting that the proper ratio of man made structures such as roads and homes to green space should be 20% coverage allowing surface water runoff to be adequately absorb into the 80% of green space and captured water is used to replenish the need of landscaping to filter the pollutant found commonly in our air.</blockquote>


KB seems to believe that small is better now:



<a href="http://www.builderonline.com/sales/mark-to-market.aspx">KB Open Series Floorplans</a>
 
KB during the recession thrives the best among its competition. Its project in HSTeacher Valley is a testament to its offered value. It is also true during the recession aesthetic and beauty are not a main concern for the consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top