July 2, 2008
Farewell, My McMansion
The Seattle City Council may put the kibosh on supersized construction, according to the Seattle P-I. City Council President Richard Conlin has drafted a proposal that would limit home sizes on single-family-zoned lots, dropping the current cap of 5,250 square feet down to 4,350. This construction reduction would also increase green space between lots, and would provide wider buffers between houses. (Good, especially when the neighbor kid is drumming along to his Rush albums.)
What’s more, this city-proposed downsize does well by neighbors who feel crowded by behemoth homes, or who aren’t necessarily pleased with the sore-thumb looks of a megamanse in, say, a Craftsman-heavy Seattle ‘hood. And, with 65 percent of the Emerald City zoned single-fam residential, there exist all manner of lots primed for new biggie digs.
Conlin’s proposal, which should see discussion a next month’s Council meeting, seems to be coming at the right time: says the P-I piece, demand for homes in the $900,000+ bracket is diminishing. Likewise the pining for extra square footage, as I blogged last week.
Yet even if the proposal passes, it still may leave neighborhoods in the lurch. Take away 900 square feet, and you’ve still room for a potential view-killer. Plus, a 4,350-square-foot home provides no more urban density than does a place that’s one story taller. Of course, most of the single-family lots in this town don’t allow for subdivision anyhow, and, with the recent crackdown on eyesore townhomes, c’est la guerre.
I do wonder about the motive behind Conlin’s proposal. Is it concern for the architectural aesthetic of Seattle? Is it a community-minded move, spurred by the piles of complaints the city has received due to the steady build-up of these West Egg megahomes? Or is it a green push, one that will ride on the coattails of the bottled water ban in city offices and precede the proposed bag tax and styrofoam container censure?
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I’m hoping for all three.
John said:
Rush “Albums”?
July 2, 2008 1:16 PM
Blaming it on the Burbs | Redfin Seattle Sweet Digs said:
[…] “gas guzzlers commuting to McMansions,” which, not coincidentally, are the most recent fodder of public debate. The suburbs aren’t dead. They’re more vibrant than ever. Technology has pushed the work-at home […]
July 2, 2008 3:32 PM
Allison Arth said:
Sure. Rush, 2112, Exit…Stage Left. Should I have said CDs? Playlists?
July 2, 2008 5:39 PM
Nomar McMansion said:
Take a look at my website and you’ll get a better idea of why people are tired of McMansions in their neighborhood.
http://www.nomcmansion.org
1) Ugly
2) View blocking
3) Gentrification
4) No yard, no trees
5) Tear down perfectly good houses
6) Higher property taxes
7) Only the super rich can afford to live in Seattle
July 3, 2008 7:16 PM
Ellie at Redfin said:
Nomar, my biggest grip with McMansions is your point #1: ugly.
And why, why, why must every McMansion have faux columns around the doors? Is it some kind of McMansion tagging scheme invented by a secret government department?
July 3, 2008 8:28 PM
Allison Arth said:
Certainly, larger homes can be attractive. I think of the stately manses near Volunteer Park. While I don’t think I could live in something with that many rooms (how much furniture can I own, really?), I’d guess that the residents love them for their history and spaciousness.
Gotta say boo on the faux columns, too, Ellie. Greek Revival works on Greek Revival homes; not so much on boxy newbies.
July 7, 2008 4:48 PM
Erik said:
Conlin’s reason for this proposal is nothing new, it’s in an elected official’s best interest to placate to a group of noisy neighbors. (the courts will sort out who’s rights got stomped on in the process, later, maybe, but certainly after 20-30 months and $50,000+ has been spent on attorneys)
Did any of you guys get to the bottom of that article…the laundry list of BS describing what the suckers who own less than 5000SF would lose the right to do?
Conlin said it best:
“It’s very difficult to come up with something that works perfectly,”
Actually, no its not - “others have bought adjacent property to keep it out of builders’ hands.” If green and open is the best use for property, neighbors have the right to buy it and use it that way.
July 7, 2008 7:34 PM
Nomar McMansion said:
Erik,
I would prefer that the city didn’t have to get involved. There seems to be a clear movement in other parts of the country that McMansions aren’t selling. People actually prefer smaller, more efficient homes with green technology and green space. Go figure.
As far as the neighbors buying it, that is pretty tough to do when the flippers are willing to go above market value. Then they wait (not cutting the grass) until they can get the city to go along with their plan for an over-sized house. We would love to have someone who really wants to live in the neighborhood buy the house and gradually improve the property. People who live in McMansions in our neighborhood get tired of watching people come by and point at their house. I don’t think they will be repeat buyers.
http://www.nomcmansion.org
July 15, 2008 12:04 PM
Allison Arth said:
Nomar: Sometimes, however, the city does need to get involved. We can’t always count on folks to have a neighborhood’s best interest at heart when there are dollars to be made.
Erik: I agree that neighbors should be able to purchase adjacent lots. But is that beside the point?
It does seem fishy that the restrictions are placed on lots under 5,000 sf, as you pointed out. So, perhaps, McMansions aren’t going out — they’re just getting bigger.
July 16, 2008 6:07 PM