Small House in McMansionized District (Dallas, Forney: rent, movers, mortgage)

[TheOverdog]

people want the whole first floor of their house to be a big open barn-like space where no one can ever get away from the noise and activity of everyone else. And if you don't keep an immaculate kitchen, you are looking at dirty dishes from every other part of the house.

That's what the second story is for.... If your house is small, that's what going outside is for. And oh the horror!! Dirty dishes!!! People live in this house!! Keep that evidence away, the neighbors whose opinions about architecture you hate so much might notice! Dirty dishes create character, but only bad character!!


It's funny, but everybody points out the price increases as 'California-ization' of Texas, but nobody points out the fact that relentless complaining about what other people are doing with their private property is also 'California-ization' and something they have down to an art. Ever been to the east coast? It's not a New York thing. It's certainly not a southern thing.

Native Texas don't give a rip if you've got an old car in your front yard and your house is halfway painted pink and the rest will be pink when you get to it.

[turf3]

Funny, I thought I WAS a Native Texan. Mother came to TX in 1947. Father and stepfather both born in TX. I was born in TX.

Yet, I think that McMansionization is the triumph of other-directed marketing-created "needs" and the concept "perception is reality" over common sense and taste.

Why do you think that I care if my neighbors see dirty dishes? That is not what I said. What I said is that if you have the new "open" floor plan (cheaper to build, fewer walls, doors, and less planning of room spaces required - wonder if this has anything to do with the way open floor plans are constantly hyped?) you are likely to look at dirty dishes whenever you are in the one big open room. I don't like to look at dirty dishes. We had an "open" floor plan once. I hated it, because we always felt like we were in the kitchen. I don't like to spend all my time in the kitchen, if I did I would have gone to work as a chef.

[Dr. Jake Oil]

Originally Posted by turf3

I call a McMansion something that falls into the following:

- Much larger than historically found in the area. Where the area started out with 1200 sq. ft. 2 bedroom houses on 7500 sq. ft. lots built in the late 30s, a 3000-4000 sq. ft. house is a McMansion. Where they started out with 2500 sq. ft. 4 BR houses on quarter acre lots built in the late 50s, the McMansions are probably 5000+ sq. ft.

Houses have gotten bigger over time. Nobody wants a 1200 sq ft 2-bedroom house anymore.

Originally Posted by turf3

- Occupies a large fraction of a small city lot. Extra McMansion points if the backyard is less than 20 ft. deep. Extra extra points if the house is referred to as an "estate" with a 1/4 ac. or smaller lot (an "estate" means you have tenant farmers).

Land has gotten far more expensive. Doesn't make sense to pay $5M for a 1-acre lot so you can build a house on 10% of it.

Originally Posted by turf3

- Architecturally without distinction; designed to conform to someone's idea of what a "villa"; "mansion"; "estate"; "lugzhury home"; or similar, looks like. Usually the exterior design is a hodgepodge of "features" (turrets; multiple rooflines intended to look like an old house that's been added to over the ages (but they don't)); multiple exterior veneers that are "applied" to the surfaces (you can see shingles, stone (preferably "manufactured stone"), brick, and el-cheapo hardboard siding all on a single house); giant two story entryways, sometimes with Tara-esque pillars made of lumberyard 4 x 4s supporting a featherweight porch roof-let; imitation "Palladian" windows everywhere; three/four car garages, preferably with the garage doors maximally visible from the street so everyone can see that you have a 3 car garage).

This just in: Most people don't care about architecture. They want a place to live that doesn't look like crap. Your idea of distinction and everyone else's is different. Luckily, you can choose where you live, and others can choose where they live! It's a win/win!

Originally Posted by turf3

- Interiors usually feature lots of "open areas" and weird non-square rooms intended to "create drama", plus a multiplicity of "media rooms", "playrooms", "great rooms", etc. - added McMansion points if the construction is of the cheapest-nastiest version except for the obligatory "hand scraped" hardwood floors (which, however, are usually glued right down to the concrete slab). Of course the exterior design is intended to ape what people think "rich folks' " houses look like, but the "open floor plan" is really so Mom can keep an eye on the kiddos at all times while cooking and cleaning up, whereas the real "rich folks" whose houses are supposedly being copied, have nannies and maids; Rich Mom and Rich Dad don't cook or clean.

This is laughable I live in UP and am firmly part of the 1% and I don't have a maid and I or my wife cook for our kids every night. This whole part of the post just screeches "you aren't as rich as you are acting, stop trying to be 'uppity'" which is insecure as hell on your part.

Originally Posted by turf3

- Generally set down in the midst of the cheapest possible landscaping, with a few clumps of "builder grade" shrubs and a couple of stick-like trees to replace the mature pecans/oaks/cedar elms/etc. that were bulldozed at the beginning of construction.

- Extra McMansion points if the type of computer wiring is one of the main points advertised on the builder's flyer.

Heaven forbid these "faux rich" people don't have gardeners or an IT consultant to custom-wire their entire data center in the guest house, huh?

[Lucifairy]

Not all homes in suburbs are cookie cutter mega mansions and not all homes in Dallas are well maintained, upgraded historic charmers. A lot depends on the cost, no matter the location. Age of the house has little to do with condition or charm. New suburban homes can be charming yet have lots of construction flaws. Older homes can be of great quality but look really ugly, even if they sit on a larger lot. Charming homes on larger lots cost big bucks, if you have enough money, you can buy house on an acre in any sought after suburb.

[turf3]

To put it in analogous terms, which is more "insecure"?

a) Drive a 6 year old Toyota that is paid for, and put money in the bank each month to save up for when it needs to be replaced.

b) On the same salary, lease a Mercedes and put the money each month into the lease payment.

What I am saying is that these houses are aping the appearance of certain aspects of "stately homes", out of context, purely for reasons of appearance, and not even doing that very well. For example, a centuries-old manor house is likely to have multiple different exterior surface materials and rooflines as it has been added on to over centuries and construction methods and available materials have changed as time passed. The modern McMansion attempts to simulate that in a new house, where the odd layouts, confused rooflines, and mixed external veneers are done only to simulate an appearance, with no reason to be used. In fact, in a lot of cases these houses give up practicality for the sake of appearance.

Anyway, the point of this was that someone was questioning "what constitutes a McMansion?" and I gave my answer to that.

The ORIGINAL POINT was to ask if anyone had experience in having a small original house in a McMansionized district, since it looks like that is what I will have. I am not interested in selling, or tearing down and rebuilding, a house which is appropriately sized for my needs, in good condition, owned free and clear, and has been in my family for 45 years. But I wonder what it's going to be like when the proportion of McMansions goes from the current say 20% to more like 50% which I predict is the next ten years.

[MckinneyOwnr]

For a "new" poster, you continually seem to post a lot of combative opinions... and usually about nothing important.

[numbersguy100]

Originally Posted by turf3

To put it in analogous terms, which is more "insecure"?

a) Drive a 6 year old Toyota that is paid for, and put money in the bank each month to save up for when it needs to be replaced.

b) On the same salary, lease a Mercedes and put the money each month into the lease payment.

What I am saying is that these houses are aping the appearance of certain aspects of "stately homes", out of context, purely for reasons of appearance, and not even doing that very well. For example, a centuries-old manor house is likely to have multiple different exterior surface materials and rooflines as it has been added on to over centuries and construction methods and available materials have changed as time passed. The modern McMansion attempts to simulate that in a new house, where the odd layouts, confused rooflines, and mixed external veneers are done only to simulate an appearance, with no reason to be used. In fact, in a lot of cases these houses give up practicality for the sake of appearance.

Anyway, the point of this was that someone was questioning "what constitutes a McMansion?" and I gave my answer to that.

The ORIGINAL POINT was to ask if anyone had experience in having a small original house in a McMansionized district, since it looks like that is what I will have. I am not interested in selling, or tearing down and rebuilding, a house which is appropriately sized for my needs, in good condition, owned free and clear, and has been in my family for 45 years. But I wonder what it's going to be like when the proportion of McMansions goes from the current say 20% to more like 50% which I predict is the next ten years.

It would appear that this has been answered: it will approach lot value, and nothing else, regardless of whether the houses around you are McMansions, Mansions, Manors, tract houses, or whatever other term you'd like to use for them.

[Aceraceae]

In this thread I learned old small houses are honest.

I live in a normal suburban house. It doesn't seem dishonest.

[MckinneyOwnr]

Originally Posted by Aceraceae

In this thread I learned old small houses are honest.

I live in a normal suburban house. It doesn't seem dishonest.

Honestly, I think you're kidding yourself.

[Dr. Jake Oil]

Originally Posted by turf3

To put it in analogous terms, which is more "insecure"?

a) Drive a 6 year old Toyota that is paid for, and put money in the bank each month to save up for when it needs to be replaced.

b) On the same salary, lease a Mercedes and put the money each month into the lease payment.

Apples and oranges, one person is getting a new mercedes the other one is getting a 6 year old toyota. It's easy to say that the Toyota guy is saving money, but he's also getting an inferior product. Why not just buy a house in Sanger and drive to downtown each day? You'd save money! ... Because it's an inferior location.

Originally Posted by turf3

What I am saying is that these houses are aping the appearance of certain aspects of "stately homes", out of context, purely for reasons of appearance, and not even doing that very well. For example, a centuries-old manor house is likely to have multiple different exterior surface materials and rooflines as it has been added on to over centuries and construction methods and available materials have changed as time passed. The modern McMansion attempts to simulate that in a new house, where the odd layouts, confused rooflines, and mixed external veneers are done only to simulate an appearance, with no reason to be used. In fact, in a lot of cases these houses give up practicality for the sake of appearance.

Heaven forbid someone want their house to look nice, I know. Those people and their misguided values that don't want the same things you want. HOW DARE THEY.

Originally Posted by turf3

The ORIGINAL POINT was to ask if anyone had experience in having a small original house in a McMansionized district, since it looks like that is what I will have. I am not interested in selling, or tearing down and rebuilding, a house which is appropriately sized for my needs, in good condition, owned free and clear, and has been in my family for 45 years. But I wonder what it's going to be like when the proportion of McMansions goes from the current say 20% to more like 50% which I predict is the next ten years.

You don't need to wonder, if most people are tearing down and rebuilding the houses like yours, then the value of your house will rapidly approach lot value only since your potential buyers will only be interested in the lot. This isn't a complicated question at all.