Comrades raise your pitchforks and take back the neighborhood(web.mit.edu)
web.mit.edu
Comrades raise your pitchforks and take back the neighborhood
http://web.mit.edu/cultureshock/fa2006/www/essays/mcmansion.html
5 comments
So what? If they have the money and the land, go ahead and build what you like. That is what makes America free. This article is quite an example of class-ism.
I would incline more to libertarian views like this if the full downstream cost of your decision was brought back to you to pay. But it never is.
Example where I live: new building is almost all McMansions because the new wealth wants that crappy design. Trouble is, the buildings have no eaves, so they get really hot (+100F) in summer when the sun hits the walls. They must have air-conditioning. Electricity capacity wasn't designed for that, so we need new generators and an upgraded grid. All users bills have gone up by 50% in 3 years to pay for it.
Why are my bills going up? I haven't done anything. The McMansion owners should pay the full cost. The only way for that to happen is by government order, thereby defeating libertarianism. Or, design rules should be changed to forbid eave-less building, also defeating libertarianism. It's catch-22.
Example where I live: new building is almost all McMansions because the new wealth wants that crappy design. Trouble is, the buildings have no eaves, so they get really hot (+100F) in summer when the sun hits the walls. They must have air-conditioning. Electricity capacity wasn't designed for that, so we need new generators and an upgraded grid. All users bills have gone up by 50% in 3 years to pay for it.
Why are my bills going up? I haven't done anything. The McMansion owners should pay the full cost. The only way for that to happen is by government order, thereby defeating libertarianism. Or, design rules should be changed to forbid eave-less building, also defeating libertarianism. It's catch-22.
Sounds like the problem is sprawl and the fact that most of the houses near you are McMansions is besides the point. All houses in a climate that nears 100F are going to want AC.
Money is power and with power comes responsibility. Houses like this are wasteful and irresponsible on many, many levels.
It’s true, focusing on this of all the problems facing us today is a little silly. And I don’t think it is the government’s place to discourage this. But it is our place to discourage it. This is something culture has to change. It should not be culturally acceptable to purchase McMansions. The owners of McMansions shouldn’t have the respect, envy or admiration of their neighbors and peers. They should face scorn and derision. Eventually people will stop wanting them and stop buying them. And they will stop being built.
Instead, we should encourage those with the money to build and purchase homes that have been built as sustainably as possible. You shouldn’t be trying to one up the Joneses with a home that is bigger, more wasteful and more ostentatious. You should be trying to one up the Joneses with a home that has a smaller environmental footprint, that makes better use of the land it sits on, that is more off the grid and more carbon neutral.
It’s true, focusing on this of all the problems facing us today is a little silly. And I don’t think it is the government’s place to discourage this. But it is our place to discourage it. This is something culture has to change. It should not be culturally acceptable to purchase McMansions. The owners of McMansions shouldn’t have the respect, envy or admiration of their neighbors and peers. They should face scorn and derision. Eventually people will stop wanting them and stop buying them. And they will stop being built.
Instead, we should encourage those with the money to build and purchase homes that have been built as sustainably as possible. You shouldn’t be trying to one up the Joneses with a home that is bigger, more wasteful and more ostentatious. You should be trying to one up the Joneses with a home that has a smaller environmental footprint, that makes better use of the land it sits on, that is more off the grid and more carbon neutral.
Or you should just build the house you actually want and then worry about more important things. Your car(s) will do much more ecological harm than your house.
Worse, spending effort on reducing the ecological impact of expensive homes to an absolute minimum is a game of diminishing returns. It wastes resources that would be better spent encouraging more modest levels of change at far broader levels that would lead to a much greater reduction of the total human footprint.
This is why these objections are much less about the natural environment and simply NIMBY reactions to a change to the social environment.
Worse, spending effort on reducing the ecological impact of expensive homes to an absolute minimum is a game of diminishing returns. It wastes resources that would be better spent encouraging more modest levels of change at far broader levels that would lead to a much greater reduction of the total human footprint.
This is why these objections are much less about the natural environment and simply NIMBY reactions to a change to the social environment.
Your (dbingham) argument is full of subjective arguments. Very judgmental.
Can we give developers some incentive not to do this? Is there some better configuration of homes that will give them more money (higher margins), or can we change the culture so that people won't buy these houses? Or maybe regulation is the only way to prevent this?
There really isn't anything we should do. It's not really a problem. The entire thing is a rant about how he doesn't like the style. He makes a couple vague references to build quality but that's beside the point of his main rant. Nothing good came come of legislating aesthetic values.
It amazes me that people have a lot of $ but no class. If I had a few mil to drop on a house, I'd build or buy something special and cool, I wouldn't want to live in an expensive subdivision.
I agree. Can't stand subdivisions.
But if you have kids, a subdivision, with its easy access to schools and parks, becomes more attractive.
But if you have kids, a subdivision, with its easy access to schools and parks, becomes more attractive.
I'm not your Comrade dude.
Of all the things to get worked up about in one's community, the fact that some people have large, dull-looking houses is about the lamest, laziest, and least politically cognizant.
Or put another way, if the biggest problem in your community really and truly is that some people have McMansions...count your damn blessings.
And citing zoning variances? Really?