The McMansion Question
When my father moved into his two-story colonial in Hunterdon County, New Jersey back in the early 1980's, his house cost approximately $109,000. Hunterdon County, which is in the far Western part of the state, was, at the time, predominantly fields and farms. Throughout the 80's, as others in his generation sought to escape the chaos of Manhattan, Philadelphia and the cities of central New Jersey, housing developers slowly bought out many of the farmers, offering millions of dollars for thousands of acres - the kind of money that many (if not all) of the farmers would never see from the daily toil of working the land. By the mid-nineties, much of the beauty which had originally attracted people to the area had been replaced by developments. Houses in these developments, all variations on the same model which were rapidly built, cost anywhere between $500,000 and $650,000 - the age of the McMansion was upon us.
The desire to leave areas which offered little to families in exchange for nice schools, open air and a world in which locked doors are the superfluous residue of the past is understandable. Equally understandable is the desire by many locals to preserve at least some of the natural landscape that had originally drawn them to the area. Today, houses in Hunterdon County can cost anywhere between $650,000 and $1,000,000, or more. However, all of the parents who moved to the county in the eighties are now alone - their children have moved on, and they are now stuck with mortgages for houses which have become too big for them. Like my father, they are currently looking to sell their houses at the inflated rates of today's market, pay off the remainder of their mortgages, and buy something smaller in the cheaper areas of South Jersey or Pennsylvania, and (hopefully) have a little left over. The market, once so strong, will soon be in glut, and the trends in my generation, as well as the one after it, to rent longer and wait longer to have a family, do not bode well for the people who are now trying to sell houses that are too big at prices that are too high.
Furthermore, developments have some endemic drawbacks. Unlike a town, they have no center, nor common meeting ground - no main street, no commerce, and very little sense of community. As a result the inhabitants of developments have a tendency to behave like Leibniz's windowless monads. In the depressingly childless cul-de-sacs which now populate this part of the state, neighbors do not, generally, communicate beyond a wave over the fence that divides them, usually from the seat of a riding mower. It is a depressingly segregated, isolated and lonely world in which you have to drive relatively long distances to appreciate any form of culture or communication, and in which racial and cultural homogeneity is the norm. It is a false Utopia, not too distant from that propagated by advertisers in the Fifties, which is slowly become a very real dystopia.
In addition to these problems, there is the overbearing one of price. I have recently seen several articles in both the New York Times and The Economist which show that in states like New Jersey and California it is actually cheaper to rent than to buy. The inflated prices of houses in developments like those in Hunterdon County, in addition to high property taxes and the interest most pay on the mortgages they had to take out to "buy" the house in the first place make the probability of actually "owning" a house in these areas slim. In fact, as America's debt continues to climb, many are refinancing and taking second or even third mortgages out, adding more to the original cost of their home. The consequence is that the "home owner" repairs and maintains a property they may never own, while the houses remain the property of the banks, and are essentially passed between the hands of various "renters." There is already a trend of people selling their houses to move back to more community-based, culturally rich urban centers, where their rent is less than their mortgage payments, they don't have to pay property taxes and the landlord is responsible for upkeep.
In the ebb and flow of migration to and from urban and town centers, we are seeing more people opt for a third option. Younger generations have a tendency to stay longer in urban centers, with their rich cultural life, shorter commutes and stronger sense of community, and some baby-boomers are actually returning to the places they once abandoned for the sake of their children. However, the desire to occasionally get away and escape the chaotic lifestyle of cities has not disappeared, so a compromise has occurred. People are staying in urban environments, but buying property in more isolated areas as weekend getaways or small oasis's where they can retire for larger chunks of time.
Enter the PreFab Answer
For some time now there has been considerable buzz surrounding PreFab Modern. Over the last two months alone, there have been articles in just about every major architectural journal on PreFab Modern, including the Architectural Record, Metropolis and Wallpaper*, and there have been a slew of exhibits like the one currently going on at the Vancouver Museum of Art, promoting some of the best PreFab design being done today. It is being positioned as a stylish and economical (if not also, occasionally, environmental) answer to the McMansion conundrum, and the fact that many of these designs include a degree of customization on a client-by-client basis ensures that even if two PreFab houses were placed side-by-side in a development style program, they would not appear as cookie-cutter as the McMansions which currently pollute our countryside.
However, this is not the intention of PreFab housing, rather, like much Modern architecture, these buildings are designed to stand alone, like three dimensional sculptures dropped unexpectedly in the middle of nowhere. The average PreFab Modern home consists of several basic units, offered, usually, in a limited number of finishes, from rust, to exposed steel, blue, red, black and white (a la Mondrian), with extensive glass, etc. These units can be arranged in a number of different ways, allowing for the customization of each project to the buyers' tastes. They are often designed by high-profile firms or name designers, and their cost is determined by the level of customization and the total square footage of the house, as well as site preparation, etc.
There are, however, some significant drawbacks. The more customization the buyer wants to include into their units, the more the cost. Furthermore, since demand is still relatively small, the benefit of true prefabrication - mass producability, which would drive costs down - is still a much anticipated ideal, rather than a practicable reality. On top of these issues, depending on how the PreFab firm handles the actual construction of the units, development and site preparation costs can drive the overall price up even more. In the end, as an article titled "Bringing the Box Back," in the June '06 issue of Metropolis points out, the cost of a PreFab house can (potentially) equal, if not exceed, that of a normal stick-frame house.
But there may be light at the end of the tunnel. In an interesting twist, Beijing-born architect Riken Yamamoto (see Wallpaper* June/July '06: "All the right moves") has gone even further in terms of the potential for customization and mass producability. Instead of focusing on large units, comprised of rooms, Yamamoto has devised a method of construction that allows the buyer to purchase kit parts, and from these very basic units build the structure of their dreams. The parts are all mass produced, which is justifiable because they are interchangeable, smaller units that can be warehoused pre-construction, and each structure is eminently customizable as architects and designers sit with clients to create the PreFab that best matches their lifestyle and aesthetic interests, limited only by the imagination, the size and shape of the various individual units that will eventually go into the structure and cost. To date, this technology has only been used for industrial buildings, but its application to the PreFab housing market, and its revolutionary possibilities are, I think, obvious.
More Questions
Whether or not PreFab housing will ever be the true answer to the McMansion question is still up in the air. Like McMansions, PreFab Modern will be attractive to a specific group of people with particular aesthetic tastes. As they are today, and probably will be for a long time, they will not be liked by all. Furthermore, currently, their cost is still prohibitive, most importantly to the demographic that could most benefit from cheap, well-built, humane architecture - the poor. Because of the limited range of buyers, PreFab hasn't yet had the market necessary for the kind of mass-production that would drive prices down, but with innovations like Yamamoto's kit-style construction and it's wide potential applications (office spaces, industrial complexes and homes), this might be changing, if only a little.
Furthermore, the debate surrounding developments and suburbia which is raging today is still a far way off from any substantial answers, and replacing one form of housing with another will not resolve the deeper rooted problems of these aspects of urban sprawl. But, as technology pushes us into decentralized work environments where off-site employees become a larger part of the workforce and changing demographics with a strong tendency in the West and in Japan towards depopulation (especially where immigration can't keep up with a declining native population) create new scenarios, the PreFab house does have a strong potential market for up-and-coming home owners who want both the advantages of the city and those of the country. If the buildup around ground zero in Manhattan is any indication of the future, we might even see a new permutation of the city, which will become more residentially focused and in which a weekend escape to a remote and isolated oasis is more of a norm than migration to the psuedo-oasis of development culture.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
I wish it were an answer but, it's been touted as an answer since the energy-crisis, environmentally-minded 70's to the housing catastrophe from the tsunami. It never quite lifts off the ground as a complete answer.
I'm kind of lost as to why you're promoting this in place of the lonely, debt-ridden McMansions. Typical consumers of pre-fab housing still overbuild, as far as square-footage, are of a demographic that uses debt as leverage and, they generously continue the tradition of suburban sprawl.
How do you visualize them as an urban fixture? Are you talking about tear-downs in urban residential neighborhoods? And, as an answer to McMansions, it appears you mean this from only an aesthetic viewpoint.
I like what you're driving at in this article, though, and I'm hoping you're open to dialogue.
Thank you for your comment. As you point out, there are still endemic problems with the PreFab industry, some of which I talk about in the last section of this article. Core to the problem is that PreFab doesn't live up to the promise of affordable housing. Yamamoto's innovation may be a solution to bringing the cost of building down, but coordinating with an architect and builder to design a house, plus the expense of land, site-preparation, etc., can all push costs back up. Another problem is that there simply isn't enough knowledge. Since PreFab needs a market to justify building and warehousing the components that will going into the final product, the lack of market pushes prices up, as components have to be built on a case-by-case senario.
What interests me more are the problems posed by urban sprawl and the inherent draw-backs of sub-urban solutions. There is a wide debate on these issues. I think, in the end, this article poses more questions than answers.
As the internet opens options of decentralized work-places, and the expense of urban headquarters sends corporations to suburban areas, the need for viable answers, I think, is become more necessary. Some of these answers will probably be hybrid - PreFab is not a complete answer, it is an option. I know my title for the PreFab section is misleading.
Personally, I see cities investing more heavily in community building on a small scale (along Jane Jacobs's model), and more people staying in urban environments longer.
The worst problem with McMansion complexes is the lack of community. A mainstreet, small-town model, with small shops, etc. to create a focus for the community and bind it together might be a good option. Of course, market forces often undermine "think small" planning.
For example, the new Nets Stadium in Brooklyn, (designed by Frank Gehry) is positioned as a benefit to the communtiy, creating jobs, etc., but residents are justifiably concerned over noise, impact on small business, and the effects of such a large, all encompassing structure on a small community. A structure like this will inevitably warp the environment into which it is being placed, the irony being that the arguments the developers are using are laced with Jacobs's pathos - the residents aren't buying it, and they shouldn't.
The same can be said of the uber-shopping mall, the catch all commercial complex, etc., which often come to replace town centers. Stores like WalMart pull communities apart with low prices; mainstreet remains vacant while the parking lot piles up, and the sense of community slowly erodes into a wave in isle 8. This is why you see some communities resisting so strongly.
It may seem off point, but all of this affects PreFab building, which I do not see as a sub-urban phenomenon. Instead of building in developments where every house has an acre of land, etc., I would prosition PreFab as free-standing scultural structures that should be isolated. The point, after all, is to get away. Furthermore, I'm not sure if I see them as permanent residences - rather long-term escapes.
By creating "small-town" centers, focus can be established for miles, creating the sensation of escape, while offering the option of engagement at a level that isn't as overwhelming as the city can be.
Do you remember the study, done years ago, that showed how people whom lived in raised ranches, if given the chance, would never do so, again, based upon it being an uncomfortable, unlivable, housing design? Yet, they're still built and they still sell well to lower-middle class homebuyers. McMansions, similar story, different economic class.
Knowing this information and, the points that you brought to the table about the alienation of suburban/exurban sprawl without a commiserate 'center of town', hasn't changed the housing landscape. People in the 'housing market' are working in their careers, raising families and, dealing with their lives. They don't have the time to change the market, find and hire an architect/builder with a sound vision, they just need shelter.
True changes typically only occur when it affects the bottom line. (Just look at gas-prices to SUV resale values, as one quick example.) Excess McMansion square footage should be taxed an equivalent percentage higher, for the right to place such a heavy demand on our natural resources (electricity, heating fuels, building commodities like wood). Just being able to 'pay the bills' doesn't account for the community's making certain the electric plant doesn't go into a brown-out covering the increased demand.
Or, conversely, using the same equivalency factors, building codes should be established with the aim at reducing the buildings' overall demands on resources by building in significantly greater fuel/waste efficiencies.
Developers and small builders also don't have an incentive to alter our architectural landscape for the better good. Typical stick construction is extremely wasteful, on-site. Tax breaks for the use of sustainable building practices, like pre-fab construction, would further the goal of building better housing.
And, finally, proper zoning ordinances that take into account the need for focused, people-sized, town centers, would round out the need for stronger social communities.
oops...One more point. Aesthetic tastes in architecture are extremely subjective. Every time period had its' detractors bemoaning the demise of 'good taste'. It all evolves and then, all of a sudden, your faced with a preservation society working to enlighten people to the tastes being shamed. I'd much rather talk about pre-fab in terms of quality of construction than in terms of improving aesthetics, which would be the cart following the horse.
I don't know why you keep accusing me of drawing this on aesthetic lines, when most of my arguments are based on economy, ease of contruction and the negative social impacts of the current development paradigm. If consumers are irresponsible, (ie buying SUVs until there is no more gas and prices rise) that is not the Architect's realm. To provide cheap, sustainable, comfortable (and to the client's taste, aesthetically pleasing) housing is where we can help. The problem with the stick-built houses (and the developments that they clutter) is that they are generally built by developers, not architects. Developers are looking at one thing - the bottom line, how many can they build, how much can they make? (Hence the term McMansion.)
I agree that legislation should be put in place to drive sustainability in the private home industry (including apartment buildings, condos, etc.), but if the commercial building industry is any indication, that will be a long time coming. America has some of the laxest building requirements for sustainability in the world, and when compared to Europe, a building touted in the US as "green" barely makes code in the EU.
However, we are seeing a paradigm shift. Companies (the consumer) who want to use the positive PR of appearing environmentally friendly are building sustainable buildings. But this is a consumer driven phenomenon, and I do not think that we can count on legislators to suddenly wake up and say, "this is a wasteful way of doing things, we have to change it despite the negative effects it may have on voters." I've seen voters switch to a different candidate for property taxes, which go to our under-funded schooling system, how friendly do you think they will be to a reform candidate who wants to tax them for irresponsible consumerism?
Perhaps the greatest difficulty is generating consumer awareness (hence this article) that McMansion-style developments are not only wasteful, but that they are also not the only choice. Despite all of the buzz about how much more educated consumers are, most aren't, especially when it comes to housing.
People buy a house on price, location and aesthetics. Few dig deep enough to see what their house may be doing to the environment, or what the social environment of the area is beyond "is it nice?" - which generally means, "is it gentrified?"
Yes, adding extra square footage to a PreFab house is just as bad as buying a McMansion, yes, putting PreFab housing in developments along today's model would not change the social problems of that model, but expecting legislators to act responsibly is like expecting PreFab to answer all of the problems.
The onus is on the consumer - they can buy a wasteful, over-sized, environmentally irresponsible and socially neglectful home, or they can buy a house that fits their needs (no more), is sustainable, inexpensive and socially responsible. Judging by the SUV phenomenon in this country, they will probably opt for the former because of the "status" it confers upon them.
But that does not mean that PreFab should sit on its butt waiting for the market to wisen up. There are still problems with it, after all, and this should be a time of increased experimentation, with new materials, exploring new social paradigms, so that PreFab housing doesn't become the next McMansion, etc. However, as I put in my first comment, without a market, PreFab will remain just as expensive as its complement, if only because you need a market to justify the mass-production of modules that would drive prices down to a level where the noticable diifference would be significant enough to make it stand out as an obvious competitor.
My first post, instead of being "off-topic" was exploring some of these issues. It would be great if PreFab was more popular, but I think it is better to explore its application in conjunction with different social paradigms, since it is not just the McMansion that is the problem with todays developments, it is the developments themselves, and changing one housing style for another without addressing the under-lying social problems of cul-de-sac islands is not an answer to urban sprawl, etc.
No tax is retro-active and all communities set standards for the future. So, my answer would be: Very.
Even those McMansion-dwellers wish for a stronger sensibility in their community. (Enter your parents.)
I haven't 'accused' you of drawing this on aesthetic lines, I have touched upon the fact that your desire/main premise is to see these prefab "sculptures" placed in open spaces as a retreat for urban dwellers. Which is par for the course of the McMansion formula of creating non-communities. In fact, your idea would be worse. Temporary 'vacationers' do not make sound members of a community.
"The point, after all, is to get away." No, it's not. The point isn't to cater to the 2-home family or, the time-share recipient. The point is to create viable, human-scale, livable communities for the homeowner market.
"they are generally built by developers, not architects."
The super majority of architects don't 'build' houses', they have a cursory knowledge of construction and are involved in the design/clerk of the works aspects. Plus, the super majority of the housing market neither has the time nor the money to bother with what is frequently considered 'a design prima-donna', the architect. So, yes, the developers/builders are driven by their bottom line and need to be coerced through adequate and sensibly created taxation, zoning and building codes.
Fredericksburg in 1978, stores closed after the mall opened...now 30 years later the town is full of new people and the stores open again. It seems many want to live in town not suburbia. They also like the older homes, historical. Just outside of town the suburbs are also growing at rapid rate. The price have escalated in the last 20 years. A home selling for 85k in the 80 now goes for 300k.
I know builders who are using prefab or modular homes, they were in a reasonable price range few years back and mostly one story, or cape cod style. Now we have 2 stories modular homes and the quality is the same as of the average builder. The price was 75 dollars x square foot, and maybe you can still buy at that price.
This is the problem I see. When a developer buys the land he sells the lots only to builders not to private people who may want to build later, or on their own to save money. The builder makes a profit by building big houses not small houses. Every foot of land has to be used to generate profit.
One good thing I have seen is a community built in carolina county, with homes and a square and fountains,pools etc. the homes were designed in the historical tradition with porches etc. Very nice development with land all around as a park like area. I tried to buy a lot there for my daughter to build a home, but could not. Only 4 builder were allowed to have lots and build.
Problem for me was I am not fond of builders or the code they use.
I read a book by susanka few years back, the not so big house and I loved her way of thinking.
I believe that we need to improve on the codes for energy efficient homes and it has to be a consumer driven fight because it affects the consumer.
I began to build my home in 2004 and it was done above code,within 4 months the code was improved and I was still above the requirement of the code.
The idea i have for a community, been thinking for ever about it. is to build homes close like downtown but with land in the rear, and a common area for children to play. The front would be sidewalks rather than grass so people could walk and it the misdt of it you would have one story large home divided in 3 smaller condos for retired people or young couples, large front porch and garden in the rear. I can see this in my mind, a small development close to town but surrounded by trees and privacy.
The only way to get away from big homes is to build homes that are spacious in design not square foot and made with some craft.
Some people will go for the bigger ones because that is the only thing available to buy.
In other areas near by the apartment building in shabby areas are being renovated in to condos.
In Danville one of the textile old building near the river is becoming a condo project. I do see a coming back to the country by those who can afford it. i have a farm for sale now and drawing people from other states to see it. Some are leaving the city to retire in the country.
I can sort of understand why a builder is unfriendly to selling out individual lots in their development. They're trying to market an 'ideal' community to their buyers and, in their marketing mind, a do-it-yourself builder or, a funky, whole-earth home design wouldn't bode well in their brochures.
However, this is also a clear case for stronger community zoning laws which could force a builder to relinquish control over the entire bundle of lots. A requirement of allowing a certain percentage of buildable lots be opened up to the individual market and/or other income brackets. In the 'olden' days their was always one building highly adorned, connotating the mill owner's home and, plenty of mill worker's housing at the bottom of the hill. A community suffers when it's housing is only the upper or lower echelon. Someone's got to build the store and, someone's got to work in the store. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I wanted a smaller house for the lot i had bought 10 years ago when they were still available.
The assoc. required at least 1000 square feet on the first floor for 2 story home. Since the lot was narrow in the front and the back had an easement etc I had to do a 2 story to have a garage and fulfill the requirement.
i added 2 feet to each side and worked out well.
I also redesigned the interior space, it is a square house and in the back part on the first floor I have one large room 14 x 30 with the dining and kitchen combined, in the center I have a small sofa facing the kitchen and my friends love to sit there while I prepare food and talk.
I used susanka 's ideas and made the hall upstairs 4 feet wide and the steps 3.5 wide. All natural wood windows and doors, oak floors and base. I sanded all that trim , and used teak oil on the oak base , no sealer.
I think the less chemicals you use in the house the better. Some countries do not allow the wood floor sealer to be used. I would correlate many health issue with abundant use of carpets in the home also.
The things lacking at this moment are affordable houses for the average first time buyer, I agree with what you say. The counties generally should have a plan and reserve and zone the land before it is sold to a developer. An area close to town or part of a subdivision could be done with smaller homes, town homes and duplexes. if done right it could work very well. I have seen some of it in my town, few miles out townhouses community have grown like mushrooms. Problem is the same,shabyy quality and higher price than it should be. To keep you happy they give you a pool and charge a fee for it.
E b, more town planning needs to be done with an eye for the young,old,first time buyer people and I think we could benefit from a mix in a community rather then relegate the older in some community out of the way.
One day I will build one.
In my experiences (and this doesn't apply to all developers - I worked construction for 2 years before going to Arch. school, and there are good developers with an active interest in well-built homes, and there are the "get it up, get out" developers) the big question mark around this kind of legislation are the politicians themselves. There's a lot of self-interest out there, and there are a lot of developers with big wallets, and a lot of politicians out there with deep pockets, willing to take a little something on the side.
However, I also think that we should look at other models, like the one Liz proposed. I agree that unfortunately, a great number of historical homes are being subjected to the wrecking ball to make way for developments in which poor quality and characterless homes replace them. There are a number of old stone farm houses out by my father's that are just stunning.
There is however, a trend nowadays to just bulldoze the home, and use the land for developments - parceled out appropriately as required by state, county and local regulations. It is sad enough when it happens to a majestic old home from the infancy of this nation's birth, but it is doubly sad when it is, itself, an architectural monument.
Currently, there is a struggle going on to preserve several mid-century modern masterpieces from the wrecking ball. In New Canaan (where the Philip Johnson house is), what is known as the Harvard Five (Marcel Breuer, Landis Gores, John Johansen, Philip Johnson, Eliot Noyes) built extensively. The area is peppered with all form of small masterpiece, but many of them, including the Noyes home, are currently facing the wrecking ball, mostly because they do not have the name recognition Johnson or Wright have, to make their buildings Historical Monuments and Museums in order to pay for the upkeep.
New Canaan isn't the only area in which this is happening, Sarasota, Fla., which is like the New Canaan of the south, and which is also populated with mid-century masterpieces, is also facing pressure from developers, et al, to tear down these homes and build newer ones. This is like burning a Braque because it's not a Picasso, and is wasteful to boot. Conversely, there are areas in which these homes are jealously protected, even from their owners - I think that might be going to far, unless, of course, the owner agrees to live in a museum.
There is also a lot of something that Lea mentioned going on - old factories and other buildings are being renovated. This is common in Williamsburg, Brooklyn (the old meatpacking district) where old slaughter houses have been converted (a lot of the time unsuccessfully) into rentable property. In Jersey City (as in Boston before it, and Philadelphia before that) they are beginning to invest in their treasure trove of old turn of the century brownstones. Of course, they are also building a Trump (developer) tower there as well, but there does seem to be some vested interest by historical societies and the city itself to preserve some of it's history.
My personal opinion is that this kind of preservation and conservation (of materials, etc.) is positive. It too often happens in the ebb and flow of city life, that a neighborhood falls afoul, and a developer takes that opportunity to come in, buy the property at cut-rate prices, and then knock down a beautiful part of that city's history to build another glass and steal monstrosity.
I think that the Brownstone, in particular, is a brilliant example of human-scale building that works (hence the incredible market interest in Brownstones, and their rising prices). If we can find more models like this, combine them with different ways of thinking about main street and suburbia with regulations that promote sustainable buildings, etc., we might be able to answer some of the endemic problems with the current paradigm.
PS - Lea, your house sounds wonderful. Love to see pictures if it's not too prying? Have you posted any?