Why is a large modern house a “McMansion”?
Posted on October 11, 2009
And why is anybody who wants one “obsessed”? This hate-speech from America’s Green/Left now seems to have arrived in Australia. See below. It is just a sneer at ordinary people who don’t follow Green/Left fads. (NSW is the Australian State of New South Wales)
” NSW’S obsession with the McMansion is as strong as ever. While the rest of Australia opts for smaller, more efficient abodes, new homes being built in NSW are 22 per cent larger than the national average. Data from property research firm BIS Shrapnel has revealed the average size of new homes in NSW grew 3 per cent this year to about 308.3sq m, compared with a national reduction of 0.8 per cent to 253.1sq m, The Daily Telegraph reports.
AVJennings NSW general manager Rod Killick said the figures revealed NSW buyers still believed “bigger is better”. “It has been clear for some time that Australians are starting to prefer homes which are more efficient with their use of space,” Mr Killick said. “That means smaller homes in terms of square metres, but it doesn’t mean less comfort or amenity. “NSW homebuilders are clearly bucking that trend. “In fact, while NSW’s homes were exactly the same size as the national average in 1990, they are now more than 50s m larger – that’s more than the size of a double garage.”
According to BIS Shrapnel, while the national average house size had grown by almost 12 per cent over the past decade, the NSW average had almost doubled. “In the last 10 years, NSW homes have grown by 23.9 per cent. That’s double the national growth average and shows that home builders in NSW still believe bigger is better,” Mr Killick said. However he expected obsession with size to wane, with trends suggesting buyers were becoming focused on design and quality.
Mr Killick said he didn’t expect the outlandish growth to continue. “AV Jennings is finding that customers are starting to prefer spending their money on smaller homes with better quality inclusions and combined living areas, rather than paying the same for a larger home,” Mr Killick said.
Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here
» Filed Under News, Political Correctness, Property Rights, environmentalism, liberalism
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “Why is a large modern house a “McMansion”?”
Leave a Reply
Generally speaking, the “McMansion” monkier is given to larger homes built in tract neighborhoods (which are usually too large for the lots they’re built on). I have no problem with wanting to own a large home, but the “McMansions” I live near are obviously owned by people who *want* to look wealthy. If they were actually as well off as they hope to appear, they wouldn’t buy a home on a lot that’s barely bigger than the house that’s built upon it.
On what planet is 1011 sq ft (308 sq m) a ‘McMansion’?? IMO, McMansion is a moniker used by those who wish they had a nicer house in a better neighborhood.
I suppose I own one of these terrible McMansions, 3100 sq ft, 10000 sq ft lot in a ‘tract’ neighborhood. I have a nice view of the river and city. So what? I’m not trying to ‘impress’ anyone – I bought a nice home for my family, in a quiet, safe neighborhood, with excellent schools.
Where I live (Portland, OR), the elite, ever-so-green city leaders would have had me spend my $600K on a 700 sq ft cement box in the Pearl District, where I could ride the street car, and shop in ’sustainable’ grocery stores like Whole Foods (for twice the price). If you dare to live outside of this hell hole, then you pay the price of driving in all day, engineered congestion while all transportation dollars go to bike paths and light rail that serves 2% of the population. Nevermind that you can’t find a living wage job downtown. Hypocrits, all of them!
Viva la McMansion!!
Agreed with both of the above. It is the free market that – sigh – at this time in history deems that building contractors only see fit to build absurdly huge (in the U.S.A. 1,000-1,500sm…that’s 3,000-to-4,000 sf) single family homes to make a profit.
But that’s why I’ll buy an old fixer-upper and make it right…I’m grateful I still have the choice.
Reply to T:
There is a “correct” ratio of house-size to land-size?