RE: Death of the McMansion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 3:23:11 PM)

Can't say I have ever paid the slightest bit of attention to him before.



slvemike4u -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 3:24:32 PM)

Can't say I blame you.....lol



outhere69 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 7:40:45 PM)

FR--

I've been finding that one problem with building small homes is that the freakin' CC&Rs prohibit anything less than a 1500 square feet footprint.  Really!  Hell, I'd live in a studio attached to a pole barn, but many places ban that too.



tweakabelle -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 7:50:44 PM)

Death of the McMansion?

Where? When? Why wasn't I invited to the funeral?

I've longed to dance on its grave for many a year!



Owner59 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 7:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Developers will only build houses that people want to buy. Nothing is greedy about that. Not to mention the thousands of people that were employed building these properties. There are many men and women in the 'trades' that can't wait for thins to turn around and start building again.

Not now, they aren`t.

And a huge amount of them are also dragging down the market, as foreclosures.

There`s more to what drives a market than just more/bigger/cooler.

The "Hummer" from GM was a perfect example of gross conspicuous consumption gone FUBAR.

Don`t see to many of them on the road these days tho.Do we?



SilverBoat -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/3/2012 8:30:27 PM)

The subdivisions full of mcmansions packed wall-to-wall with white-flighters formed a second circle here, as minority pressure pushed into earlier clusters of crumbling ticky-tacky boxes. More of them than their owners expected turned out to be below local flood levels. Despite the relatively good employment rate in this area, the repo-site stats average about 1.5 houses per block as being somewhere in foreclosure. (The banks are still keeping 2/3 or more off the market, to keep from crashing prices.)

So, no, I can't say as I'd mourn the loss of conspicuous speculative housebuilding ...




tj444 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/4/2012 9:46:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
FR--

I've been finding that one problem with building small homes is that the freakin' CC&Rs prohibit anything less than a 1500 square feet footprint.  Really!  Hell, I'd live in a studio attached to a pole barn, but many places ban that too.

and McMansions that could make sense and house 2 or 3 households cant, not legally, unless the bylaws allow for suites, which most dont... And if they do allow for a suite in the home they tend to restrict the size of it and they charge for it so its another cash cow to the city..



outhere69 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/4/2012 12:34:17 PM)

True, especially if you wanted a separate entrance.  Lots of places will call that multi-family and contrary to the existing single-family zoning.  That's what can snag people wanting to build a self-contained in-law suite.



tj444 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/4/2012 11:38:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
True, especially if you wanted a separate entrance.  Lots of places will call that multi-family and contrary to the existing single-family zoning.  That's what can snag people wanting to build a self-contained in-law suite.

the separate entrance isnt a problem imo, lots of rooms can open onto a patio or deck and that would be the separate entrance, its putting in more than one kitchen thats the problem.. jmo..



Kana -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/4/2012 11:54:32 PM)

Funny thing bout those McMansions...

I grew up in an area that epitomized urban sprawl-I'm talking "visionary trend setting suburbs" sorta stuff.
Many surrounding areas were farmland...and to protect the farmland from getting broken up (After many many broken promises by the developer/local politician conglomerates had seen development rise to the point where most incumbent farmers were being taxed out of existence...and who just happened to be on hand to buy their soon to be empty farms but the developers who lined the politicians pockets and campaign funds to allow the growth that had sent taxes spiraling-it's a vicious cycle meant to fuck the farmer completely) the zoning boards passed a law that said any and all plots had to be of a certain size, like an acre plus.Which costs a lot of money-that much land was worth more than a bit.

The idea was to slow development, that by chopping the land into big parcels nobody would buy it.
Instead, the developers went the other way, built giant houses on super-sized lots, then sold em at low interest and adjustable rates to people who had made bundles on the artificially inflated stock market of the late 90's and real estate bubble of the early 2000's.

Yea-most of the time I think they shouldn't call it government-they should call it the law of unintended consequences.
It happens again and again-well meaning people think up wild crap that turns to shit.



outhere69 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 6:56:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69
True, especially if you wanted a separate entrance.  Lots of places will call that multi-family and contrary to the existing single-family zoning.  That's what can snag people wanting to build a self-contained in-law suite.

the separate entrance isnt a problem imo, lots of rooms can open onto a patio or deck and that would be the separate entrance, its putting in more than one kitchen thats the problem.. jmo..

Yep, but if you want to add an additional exterior door, you run into multi-family (at least in some townships/cities nearby).



outhere69 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 7:00:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
The idea was to slow development, that by chopping the land into big parcels nobody would buy it.
Instead, the developers went the other way, built giant houses on super-sized lots, then sold em at low interest and adjustable rates to people who had made bundles on the artificially inflated stock market of the late 90's and real estate bubble of the early 2000's.

Not only did they use large parcels, but those kind of parcels are the ones that tend to require a large square footage, by ordinance. All in the name of "protecting your investment" from folks like me that would rather build a teeny house.



MrRodgers -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 7:42:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Developers will only build houses that people want to buy. Nothing is greedy about that. Not to mention the thousands of people that were employed building these properties. There are many men and women in the 'trades' that can't wait for thins to turn around and start building again.

First. govt. puts in sewer/water/roads. The dev. puts up a few thousand per lot. built into price. The hook up is charged to the buyer. (normally)

Second, local govts. wanted retail and industrial over residential, but for retail, the rooftops must come first. Once that is given the greatest density normally including towns and apts. means all of that county expense to help support the retail where our prices are directly effected by the 'retail rent and taxes they have to pay.

There was support for these expensive homes because of their tax value. They had to add as much additional density as practical all for more support and they are as expensive to operate, more to insure by the foot and with rising taxes...yet they sold and counties became flush.

Speculation in price land owners and builders drove tax receipts even higher. What developers build are an agreement in a mix of densities and the affordability is subject to the same mortgage qualifying and govt. mortgage buying ratios.

So when the fed enterprises continued to raise the FHA, VA insurance and mortgage warehousing buys them up, then are both working outside the market to inflate the price of the houses along with mortgage buying and insurance.

As it stands no, the FHA has no business insuring anything like a $700,000+ mortgage. I wonder why they do that ? Got any ideas ? Think maybe the plutocracy found any better ticket to making millions ?

Blame the whole culture, the land speculators, the rising tax receipts, rising govt. insurance all for rising profits. That's what happens when housing is essentially removed from the free market and most convincingly...NOT in the hands of just the buyers.

Even the condos were $300,000 + when there simply was no market except who...speculators.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 8:05:51 AM)

This large lot shit was the worst. The land is still effectively taken out of production, but with low density, more land is needed. That was the good thing about postage stamp lots
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

Funny thing bout those McMansions...

I grew up in an area that epitomized urban sprawl-I'm talking "visionary trend setting suburbs" sorta stuff.
Many surrounding areas were farmland...and to protect the farmland from getting broken up (After many many broken promises by the developer/local politician conglomerates had seen development rise to the point where most incumbent farmers were being taxed out of existence...and who just happened to be on hand to buy their soon to be empty farms but the developers who lined the politicians pockets and campaign funds to allow the growth that had sent taxes spiraling-it's a vicious cycle meant to fuck the farmer completely) the zoning boards passed a law that said any and all plots had to be of a certain size, like an acre plus.Which costs a lot of money-that much land was worth more than a bit.

The idea was to slow development, that by chopping the land into big parcels nobody would buy it.
Instead, the developers went the other way, built giant houses on super-sized lots, then sold em at low interest and adjustable rates to people who had made bundles on the artificially inflated stock market of the late 90's and real estate bubble of the early 2000's.

Yea-most of the time I think they shouldn't call it government-they should call it the law of unintended consequences.
It happens again and again-well meaning people think up wild crap that turns to shit.



servantforuse -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 9:19:19 AM)

There are many jealous liberals here on collarme that hate big homes and people who have done well. If a large home is what someone wants, they should buy it and enjoy living there. Worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 9:52:01 AM)

Thanks for the advice Servant. So what about us libs on CM who have done very well and can easily afford whatever kind of housing we want? Are we allowed to comment on the quality of our communities, oh great one?



slvemike4u -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 10:01:35 AM)

Now.now Semi...no questioning of pronouncements made by conservatives who know everything.
Simply not fair,because despite knowing everything these poor conservitives never have answers for the questions posed by "idiotic" liberals [8|]



Kana -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 10:12:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

There are many jealous liberals here on collarme that hate big homes and people who have done well. If a large home is what someone wants, they should buy it and enjoy living there. Worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone.


1-Not a liberal.
2-I agree. This is the land of opportunity and freedom-you wanna own a monolith ad have the cash to do so-great-more power to you.
3-What I do object to is the developer/local politician combo which has led to sprawl, ridiculous growth and the replacement of farmlands with cookie cutter burbs-this sleazy combo has destroyed pretty much all the farmland in the county I grew up in and has spread across at least three other neighboring counties.
It's an intentional plan designed to drive out incumbent farmers. Follow these easy steps for sprawl:
1-Develop in rural area where land is cheap and available.
2-As suburbs develop, property taxes rise as the counties base land value rises. As taxes rise, farm production/sales stay constant, meaning that the farmers margin shrinks yearly.
3-Continue development as more and more farms go under, increasing the tax rise vortex, driving more farms under. Simultaneously have local politicos promise again and again-This is the last development, no more, we protect the farmers...but each new house=new potential voters..and they matter more than embedded old voters.
4-See step 3, rinse, repeat.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 10:26:42 AM)

Good post kana. The externalization of the true costs of development is something that seems to escape both the building industry and its conservative cheerleaders. Coming from a county where building was the primary industry, the pattern you describe was exactly what happened. The county and municipal governments became addicted to the tax revenue, as well as the permit fees. They built themselves fancy buildings, paid nice salaries to themselves, the whole bit. The county was more interested in building a county office that is frequently described as the taj mahal, then they were in listening to those of us that believed that the developers of new development should be required to pay for the impact of said developments.

That was then, this is now. The county has overhead it can't begin to pay, and those same fat cat developers are whining that their unfinished projects are being foreclosed on. The lax regulations the county forced through to help the big develops have now been found to be contrary to state and federal lae. So yes, I am all for having a nice house, but they weren't building nice houses. They were building shit. And I think the point about government influence in inflating the housing market is a little too subtle for Servant.



tj444 -> RE: Death of the McMansion (2/5/2012 11:29:37 AM)

In British Columbia (Canada).. there is something called the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).. which restricts development of farm land for other uses.. Vancouver has finite usable land.. there are mountains and an ocean that mean there is not a great amount of buildable land.. It means rezoning into higher densities and better planning, a need for a transit system that works (debateable if Vancouver has that), and higher housing prices.. Vancouver has some of the highest house prices in Canada.. The farmland is protected but there is a financial cost to city dewellers.. I must say tho.. it is nice to be able to go for a Sunday drive to Chilliwack and buy sweet corn direct from the farmer or to drive to Pitt Meadows and pick your own spray-free fat juicy blueberries! (sigh.. miss that)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875