noMcMansions.org

Dallas NSO article in The Economist!

NOT IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD
Nov 3rd 2005

Monstrosities, or just monsters?

"THIS I would regard as a very polite mega-house," says Ken Lampton, a Dallas realtor (estate agent). The house in question, built in the past few years, has the arched doorways and brick-and-stone-facade that mark many of the new mansions in the Lakewood neighbourhood. It is about 3,000 square feet (279 square metres), Mr Lampton reckons, roughly double the size of the area's original houses, which were built half a century ago. Its redeeming feature is that the garage is at the back, rather than the front. Its width is also tastefully shrouded by greenery.

Driving through Lakewood is an eye-opening experience. On some streets, every fourth or fifth house has been torn up and replaced by a "McMansion". A few are so big that they barely have a garden at all. Some of the modest original houses, priced in the low $200,000s, are surrounded by new $700,000 monsters. Scaffolding, plaster and other signs of construction are everywhere.

Many Lakewood residents are fed up. "When I bought a home here, I bought into a neighbourhood that had trees, that had houses with certain setbacks, that had mostly one-storey homes," says Wendy Segrest, who moved to Lakewood just a year ago. Now, a 4,500-square-foot mansion--three times the size of her home--has gone up next door, with seven trees bulldozed to make way for it. Ms Segrest worries that her house has been reduced to its value as a vacant lot. "If I were to sell right now, I don't know if I could get somebody other than a builder to buy it," she says.

Ms Segrest has planted a few "Don't Supersize Dallas!" signs in her front yard. She and other residents have appealed to the local government for help. They emphasise that they are not against construction, but simply want the new houses to fit in better. The city council is currently considering a measure allowing neighbours a say about what new houses in their area should look like. For example, if a majority agreed, they could specify limits for
height, garage (at the back, please) and how far the house is set back from the street and from neighbouring lots. A vote is scheduled for November 9th.

Most property people (with the exception of Mr Lampton) are aghast at the idea of any such restrictions. McMansions are "market-driven. It's what the consumer wants," says Peter Urrutia, director of government affairs for a Dallas-based realtors' association. The idea of "a few individuals deciding what you can or cannot do with your property" is a fundamental issue of property rights.

That is a powerful rallying call in the sprawling suburbs of the South and the west. In most of the battles between growth and nimbyism (not in my backyard), growth has won. But Dallas is not alone in spurring wars about the disproportionate size of some buildings.

Houses across the country are getting bigger: the national average now stands at 2,349 square feet, a 12% increase from ten years ago, though the spurt has slowed in recent years. Some new palaces are close to 20,000 square feet. And from Queens to Salt Lake City efforts are afoot to change zoning rules to limit sizes.

See this article with graphics and related items at
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5115338

posted by Jason English @ 7:41 AM