noMcMansions.org

Upcoming Events

Event Calendar You're invited....
5 Things you can do today!!
1. Post your new yard sign. Wear your t-shirt to the grocery store and/or flash a bumper sticker and talk to interested neighbors.
2. Go visit the McMansions for sale in your neighborhood. Respectfully tell the selling agent that you do not appreciate what they (including their developers) are doing to our neighborhood.
3. WRITE (not just email, but letters and phone calls) your Council member and the Mayor. There is only one thing that trumps commercial interest, and that is NUMBER OF VOTERS. So if you don't show your support, how are they supposed to know we need this Overlay?
4. Show up at Council/Plan commission meetings - number of people in attendance is the primary way they measure how important this issue is!
5. Spread the word to your neighborhood associations, any reporters you know, and please, if you know any sponsors or businesses who want to "chip in" by carrying NoMcMansions gear, send them our way!

posted by Jason English @ 1:01 PM 11 comments

Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development to Demonstrate at City Hall Thursday, October 20, 2pm

Come out and show your support!
Demonstration to promote the drafting of a proposed ordinance to protect reasonable limits on new housing construction in established Dallas neighborhoods

A brief demonstration of Dallas citizens who support responsible housing development will be conducted outside Dallas City Hall tomorrow, Thursday October 20, on the north side of the building facing Young Street.

At issue is a proposed Neighborhood Zoning Stabilization Overlay ordinance, which was originally proposed by the Dallas Single Family Housing Task Force in November 2004. The purpose of the original ordinance was to allow a neighborhood to voluntarily choose, or not choose, certain maximum size, height and setback limits for newly constructed houses in established, stable neighborhoods.

“If we are going to realize the increasing value and quality of life of our established neighborhoods, we need to think beyond short-term profits and consider the rights of Dallas citizens,” said Jason English, communications director of the non-profit organization. “We encourage both redevelopment and renovation of existing neighborhoods, but we need an Overlay ordinance because of certain cases of extreme speculative development that are disruptive to our neighborhoods.”

The proposed overlay document would be a “Conservation District Lite” and allow a majority of citizens to select a set of size and placement maximums without regard to specific style or materials. But since the ordinance was proposed, well-organized and funded groups of building and realty lobbyists have been actively campaigning against any means of residential self-governance.

The proposed ordinance has made its way through zoning and planning commissions, with key controls removed from it at every step. We currently have no idea what is even on the document currently under consideration by mayor Laura Miller and the City Council. However, the secret document appears to have been proposed by the Home Builders’ Association (HBA), and would impose an impossible set of voting conditions to put any limits in place.

The demonstrators are proposing that the council should pass the Overlay document as originally drafted and passed by the Dallas ZOAC commission. This would give us a reasonable ordinance that is both legitimate and enforceable by neighborhoods, without hampering renovation or eliminating new reconstruction. DCRD would like to ensure these points survive in the Overlay ordinance:

1. That 60 contiguous houses or 3 acres of land be considered enough of an area for a “neighborhood” to be able to define itself and apply to Dallas for an Overlay District
2. That the citizens of a proposed neighborhood have at least 6 months, and preferably 12 months, to gather the required signatures to put an overlay in place.
3. That a majority of 50% +1 be all the signatures of households required to achieve an approval status for an Overlay. This standard has been in place for 100 years in other types of zoning and more restrictive tools such as Conservation and Historic districts. To make the “majority” requirement higher would make achieving the required signatures very hard for private citizens in almost every neighborhood (as many houses are rented, and much canvassing is required to catch every citizen at home and explain the benefits of an overlay)
4. That we only require ONE signature per household – requiring both spouses to sign a simple petition doubles the difficulty of any petition.
5. The overlay must allow limits on overall building height (usually 30-45+ feet), front and side setbacks, and either lot coverage or building size. Builders and realtors have been trying to remove these meaningful methods of putting any controls on size.

It is the residents of Dallas who pay the majority of the taxes in this city, and not the building industry, so we are demanding that we have reasonable sovereignty over the destiny of the neighborhoods we live in.

Why is this happening?

If builders had shown a sense of self-restraint or consideration for existing neighborhoods, no political action would be necessary.

We’re familiar with the phenomenon. A speculator “flipper” makes a fast-buy offer and tries to get a commitment to buy a house on an existing residential block before it even appears on the market. A developer then gets a large loan and levels the house, quickly erecting a new 5,000+ square foot house which consumes most of the surface area of the lot, and towers over neighboring houses. A realtor then sells the “supersized” house to an incoming suburbanite or someone from outside of Dallas who values the proximity of the house to the city. The parties involved can make anywhere from $80,000 to $200,000 per house.

Neighboring houses are now “overshadowed,” and since they are now expected to follow suit by selling, the value of the existing smaller houses is reduced to the raw land value, discouraging renovation and reinvestment as the character of the neighborhood is changed.

While many neighborhoods have broad constituent sympathy for the idea of limiting construction that disrupts a neighborhood, people are often unaware how to do anything about it. Neighborhood associations typically are not touching the issue for fear of creating a “hot potato” by offending certain individuals with an economic interest in the redevelopment. Well-spoken and well-funded representatives from the development and realty industry say a zoning overlay would severely limit individual rights, and have attempted to delay any action and dissipate Dallas into smaller neighborhood groups that have little collective influence.

The citizens group Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development (DCRD) conducted a broad awareness campaign over the past 3 months to promote the idea that new development in existing neighborhoods needs to be “better, not bigger.” Yellow and red yard signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts are appearing around established neighborhoods and at community events, city meetings and open “McMansions.” The goal of the group is to educate Dallas citizens on the reality of their property rights, and demonstrate to the Dallas government that citizens need an effective tool in place to provide some reasonable limits to new construction in existing neighborhoods.

About Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development (DCRD)

The goal of DCRD is to get a meaningful and enforceable Zoning Overlay passed by demonstrating a visible level of support within Dallas and disseminating information through the site that educates homeowners and provides suggestions on how to show support for responsible development. In addition to the outward signs of the awareness campaigns, many citizens are working directly and meeting with Dallas council members, city officials, and other community advocacy groups to ensure that reasonable building limits and controls are part of the proposed zoning overlay.

A zoning overlay is not intended to stop homeowners from renovating or improving their own houses. But development companies are attempting to spread the idea that the zoning tool would create a “block war” within communities that have differing opinions on what limits should be. In reality, the overlay would primarily affect only new developed houses and limit their overall size, setbacks and height to proportionate levels in comparison to neighboring houses. It would eliminate that quick-flip profit of a larger house, which isn’t a popular notion for certain developers and realtors currently enjoying the lack of zoning controls.

Unregulated construction not only destroys the character of a neighborhood, it provides little economic benefit except in the short-term – for the parties who profit from the sale. Unregulated development is now rampant on many Dallas streets, with development companies running hundreds of crews to feed the teardown boom. The unregulated construction is not only disturbing and hazardous to existing residences, it is fueled by a low-interest economic housing “bubble” that has spiraled out of control and will leave behind an inconsistent legacy in many neighborhoods.

Press Contact: Jason webmaster@noMcMansions.org

posted by Jason English @ 7:45 PM 0 comments

Is it rude, opprobrious and downright criminal to speak up for your neighborhood?

Jim Chester, we demand an apology for your inappropriate comments about our effort in the Lakewood Life flyer. We are doing nothing more than speaking our minds. Hey, we wanted to talk about this at our own Lakewood Neighborhood Association meetings, but as LNA president, you wouldn't allow discussion of this issue in any form or fashion. Nor did you care to talk to anyone here about the problem. So go ahead and say you are not declaring sides, but we know who's buttering your bread. We know you don't represent us.

We "No-Macs" are not taking a scorched earth policy or pitting "neighbor against neighbor" as your byzantine realtor/developer friends say. We are simply providing awareness and input to a process we'd like to be able to manage with some reasonable standards. How can a few yard signs be more offensive and shameful to you than a massive, wasteful and tacky speculative house that hurts neighbors?

Scorched earth is the very thing we are fighting... we like redevelopment fine, as long as there is some consideration. We're talking about the process of cutting down every tree, then quickly building and paving all the way out to the edge of a lot that was never intended to hold such a big structure, in order to maximize profit.

This movement is happening because completely unrestrained development is hurting us. This is creating land tax hikes (but not home valuation), increasing the infrastructure burden, drainage problems, bringing often unsupervised crews into our neighborhood, discouraging us from reinvesting in our own homes, and creating what we believe are eyesores. New houses can be built excellently with more value upside, but we are fighting against the runaway abuse cases.

Yes I know, the signs are a little garishly colored and over the top. But they got your attention. And we'll take the free publicity too. Because you can unfairly malign us, but nobody believes you. There are hundreds of us now, and we are upstanding, contributing, regular neighbors in every way.

You can lie about this movement being "slanderous vandalism" but it's just people speaking their minds on their own property. We have NEVER condoned any sort of criminal or aggressive behavior, unlike certain builders who have both stolen the signs out of our yard and physically threatened residents here.

posted by Jason English @ 3:10 PM 0 comments

NY Times mentions Dallas: Are McMansions Going Out of Style?

By FRED A. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 2, 2005

LAST year, McDonald's phased out its "supersize" French fries and soft drinks. Portions, it seems, had gone about as far as they could go.

Could the same be true of the supersized houses known as McMansions?

After more than 30 years of steady increase, the size of the typical American house appears to be leveling off, according to statistics gathered by the Census Bureau.

"The Generation X-ers who are becoming home buyers right now want more amenities - and they are willing to trade away space to get them," said Jerry Howard, vice president and chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders.

Sandy Kennedy, a real estate agent, said the house she and her husband, John, are building in Cheshire, Conn., will be around 3,500 square feet, which is larger than the national average but smaller than many homes in the area. "We could afford more, but we want to limit ourselves to spaces we'll really use," she said. "We're looking more at quality than quantity of space."

A few years ago, she might not have felt that way. The size of the average American house rose from about 1,500 square feet in 1970 to more than 2,300 square feet in 2001, with a particularly big growth spurt in the late 1990's.

But from 2001 to 2004, the growth practically halted. "That suggests that the size of the average house is stabilizing," said Gopal Ahluwalia, a statistician with the home builders' association. For the second quarter of 2005, the average new detached house measured 2,400 square feet, according to the Census Bureau.

Mr. Howard says consumers are thinking less about space and more about "bells and whistles," including professional-style appliances and exotic woods with names like ipe and wenge.

Ms. Kennedy's house will have high ceilings, a Sub-Zero refrigerator and radiant heating embedded in the floor of a glass-walled "conservatory." And there will be lots of architectural moldings, her architect, Melanie Taylor of New Haven, said.

In a 2004 nationwide survey, the association asked homeowners: "For the same amount of money, which of the following would you choose: a bigger house with fewer amenities, or a smaller house with high quality products and amenities?" Only 37 percent of the 2,900 randomly selected respondents wanted the bigger house. Sixty-three percent said they would prefer the smaller house with more amenities.

In 2000, when the association asked the same question, the results were sharply different. Back then, 51 percent said they wanted the bigger house; 49 percent opted for the smaller-but-better house, Mr. Ahluwalia said. He added that he believes that even more will choose "the smaller house" when the association asks the same question in its next survey, in 2006.

Across the country, developers say they are seeing signs of that shift. "More and more people who come in are willing to talk about less space," said Catherine Horsey, a vice president of Urban Edge Developers in Dallas. She said new houses at the company's Urban Reserve development will average 2,500 square feet.

That, she said, is small for Dallas.

Of course, megahouses that outrage neighbors - and keep armies of contractors employed - are still going up in affluent areas. And companies like Toll Brothers that build thousands of homes each year say that some of their biggest models are also among their biggest sellers.

But even at the high end, where master bedrooms suites the size of tennis courts are common, there are signs that the trend toward bigness has abated.

Richard Warren, a planning consultant on the East End of Long Island, helps clients obtain zoning approval for new houses. In the last few years, he said, the number of people looking to build the largest permissible house has declined. "There will always be people who want big houses, but we're not seeing the grossness we'd been seeing," he said. "People are thinking twice about why they need all that space."

There are many reasons the appeal of bigger houses may be waning, including the high cost of maintaining them. "In a city where $1,000-a-month air-conditioning bills are not uncommon," said Ms. Horsey of Dallas, "people are beginning to say, 'Maybe I can have less space, and spend the money on a trip to Europe.' " Increasing fuel prices are likely to make large houses even less appealing, Mr. Ahluwalia and others said.

Rising interest rates and land prices also make large houses harder to afford. And an aging population increasingly includes empty-nesters who are looking to downsize, said Ms. Taylor, the designer of Ms. Kennedy's house in Cheshire.

Then there is the cost of furnishing the houses in a style appropriate to their dimensions. Robert A. M. Stern, the dean of the Yale School of Architecture, said he believes many McMansions are actually empty nests. "You walk in the door, and there's not a stick of furniture - certainly not furniture large enough to justify the spaces," he said.

But it may also be that Americans have simply attained all the space they need. The home builders' association, in its polls, asks consumers how big a house they would like to have. The average response in the 2004 poll was 2,426 square feet - barely bigger than the average house built this year. Mr. Ahluwalia, who has worked for the association for 29 years, said the gap between how big houses are - and how big people would like them to be - has never been so slight.

Mr. Stern, himself the designer of many large houses, agreed. "I think we've reached a size that satisfies most people's ambitions," he said.

George Suyama, a Seattle architect, has designed more than 100 houses in the Pacific Northwest. During the 1990's - the peak years of the dot-com boom - he was designing houses so large that he declines to give their dimensions. But now, he says, the houses he is being asked to design are far more modest.

"At least in Seattle, the people who can afford to do really huge houses have already done them," Mr. Suyama said.

Mr. Warren, the planning consultant on Long Island, said that several clients had "built large homes, and after they were finished they decided they were too big and they sold them to move to smaller houses."

Ron Jones, the owner of Sierra Custom Builders in Placitas, N.M., near Albuquerque said, "There's been a shift in the culture: More and more, people are realizing that it's not just the square footage. They're thinking more about issues like durability, and they're open to the idea of flexible spaces."

The public perception of big houses may help explain the shift. Owners of oversized homes are routinely portrayed as architectural yahoos whose "plywood palazzos" leave neighboring buildings in shadow. Some also associate the big houses with greed. In the corporate scandals of recent years, "a persistent motif was the grotesquely large houses of the perpetrators," said James Gauer, author of "The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes" (Monacelli, 2004).

At a recent zoning board meeting in New Canaan, Conn., speaker after speaker described new megahouses as intrusive. Residents demanded measures to reduce the so-called loom factor, or the degree to which new houses overpower their neighbors.

In less populous areas, builders of large houses are derided for despoiling the natural environment. Arthur Spiegel, who is retired from the import-export business, is building a 10,000-square-foot house in Lake Placid, N.Y., in the Adirondacks. The hilltop house has brought protests from the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, and construction has been halted by local building authorities.

Mr. Spiegel said that the house "is only 6,500 square feet, unless you count the basement," and that it's the right size for his extended family to gather in for ski vacations.

It may also be that, in the way skirts get shorter and ties narrower, housing styles change. For decades, houses with historical details - often rendered in a kind of fake stucco - have been in fashion. Ornaments reminiscent of Versailles or Buckingham Palace require extensive facades.

But those looks appear to be losing some ground to a style that harks back only to the mid-20th century, with flat roofs, generous overhangs and large glass walls.

Modernist houses stress connections between indoors and outdoors. Well-designed terraces, architects say, expand livable space, without requiring heating or air-conditioning.

While magazines like Architectural Digest regularly feature chateau-sized houses, upstarts like Dwell show modernist homes as small as 1,200 square feet.

Many architects are happy to see the tide turn away from big houses. Ms. Taylor of New Haven began her career 25 years ago designing 600-square-foot houses in Seaside, Fla. But in the 80's and 90's, she said, it became harder and harder to find people who wanted smaller houses, and her projects crept up as high as 11,000 square feet.

"I worked on houses, especially for developers, where you just had to fill the space because it was there," Ms. Taylor said. "It just seemed ridiculous. You just keep wondering what people are going to do with all those rooms."

Mr. Ahluwalia of the home builders' association can't hide his relief that houses aren't continuing their rapid increase in size. He called the new statistics "a ray of hope."

But aren't members of his association hoping houses will keep getting bigger? "If the consumer doesn't buy it, the builder is stuck with it," he said. His job, he said, is to tell builders what people want in a new home.

Added Mr. Howard, the association's chief executive, "What builders build is entirely market-driven. And the market appears to be changing."

posted by Jason English @ 7:32 PM 0 comments