McMansions: Apex Of American Consumerism
“Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years.” — Frank Underwood
The term ‘McMansion’ has become widely recognized in American culture and is often used to describe large, “glitzy” suburban homes. These homes are typically characterized by massive square footage (3000 sq ft+), a jumbled mix of architectural styles, and often lousy craftsmanship. They have come to symbolize American consumerism and excess, and for many, they represent a concerning trend toward prioritizing size and appearance over quality and sustainability.
Despite criticism, many people desire McMansions, but there is a growing trend towards eco-friendly, sustainable housing options such as tiny houses!
The Rise of McMansions
A “McMansion” is a large, cheaply made, mass-produced house marketed towards the upper middle class in suburban communities in the United States and Canada. The rise of the McMansion can be traced back to the late 20th century, a period of economic growth and expansion of the American middle class. The desire for more luxury homes grew with increased disposable income in the 1990s. A consumer culture that equated success and status with the size and grandeur of one’s home further encouraged this trend. Popular TV shows and movies also played a role in glamorizing the idea of sprawling mansions, leading many to aspire to own a “McMansion” as a symbol of their achievements.
Shows like “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” and “MTV Cribs” offered tantalizing glimpses into the lavish homes of celebrities, igniting a collective desire for such excesses among the general public. Homebuilders were quick to capitalize on this demand, aggressively marketing McMansions as the apex of the American Dream.
Virginia Savage McAlester coined the term Millennium Mansion and first described the common features that define this new building style. However, the term “McMansion” has become more popular as it associates the generic quality of these luxury houses with that of mass-produced fast food, similar to McDonald’s. Other terms used to describe “McMansions” include “Persian Palace,” “Starter Castle,” and “Garage Mahal.”
Design Flaws and Criticisms
McMansions have faced criticism from architects and design experts for their lack of architectural integrity. These houses are usually a mess of design elements borrowed from different historical periods and styles, resulting in a confusing appearance that values size over coherence. The construction of McMansions is often focused on maximizing square footage rather than structural quality and good design principles. This leads to many underutilized formal spaces, such as grand foyers and redundant living areas, resulting in wasted space and inefficient layouts. These ‘big cookie-cutter’ houses are often built on small lots (to maximize the development size), leading to decreased green space, and decorated with ersatz details such as ‘fakeo’ chandeliers and foam-filled columns, giving them an ‘appearance’ of luxury despite being poorly constructed.
Architects and urban planners have been vocal in their critiques of McMansions, decrying the lack of context-sensitive design and the disregard for the surrounding environment. These towering structures often dwarf neighbouring homes, disrupting the visual harmony of established neighbourhoods and standing as imposing monuments in excess. The construction of McMansions is often done without consideration for the surrounding environment, leading to a disregard for the ecological impact of the homes.
McMansions vs. New Classical/Traditional
While McMansions represent one approach to large residential design, a contrasting architectural movement—the New Classical or Traditional style—aims to create well-designed large homes.
- New Tradition Style is an architectural design that follows consistent, well-known traditional styles, such as Georgian and Greek Revival.
- The materials used in construction are of high quality and regionally appropriate.
- The layouts are thoughtfully designed, ensuring proper room scales and flow, while the proportions are carefully studied to be authentic.
- They also emphasize quality craftsmanship. Due to the high-quality design and materials used, the construction cost for these houses is generally higher.
- One key difference in this style is that these houses are built as a singular development, not as part of a larger one.
McMansions and Consumerism
This wonder has deep roots in cultural values surrounding homeownership and pursuing material wealth in the United States and Canada. Owning a large, impressive house has long been associated with the “American Dream” as a symbol of success and social status. In Canada, homeownership is a significant aspect of the nation’s identity, often viewed as a source of pride and a reflection of one’s standing in society.
The appeal of McMansions speaks to an American desire for glory and validation through the acquisition of material possessions, perpetuating a cycle of one-upmanship. For some, owning a McMansion serves as a status symbol, not a place to live but a way to project an image of success and affluence to the world.
Sadly, this craze has led to a distorted landscape where excess and flamboyance have become the new norm, often at the expense of functionality, quality craftsmanship, and environmental responsibility. The presence of McMansions in a neighbourhood sets a standard for what is considered acceptable or desirable, which others emulate to maintain their perceived social status.
A combination of economic prosperity in the last few decades, easy access to credit, and a cultural emphasis on material possessions as markers of success have fueled the popularity of McMansions. While pursuing the American or Canadian Dream may have once been rooted in more modest aspirations, the McMansion trend has distorted these ideals, perpetuating a cycle of one-upmanship and leading to the unsustainable acquisition of material possessions.
Property Tax Policy and House-Munching
The failure of property tax policies, particularly the Current Value Assessment (CVA) system, in North America, including the Greater Toronto Area, has unintentionally promoted the construction of McMansions. By basing property taxes on a home’s market value, the CVA system incentivizes developers to build more elaborate houses. A larger home with more features typically commands a higher selling price, translating to a higher assessed value and potentially more property tax revenue for the local government.
This focus on market value is a problem. It encourages a practice called “house-munching,” ( or “bungalow munching”) where smaller, more affordable homes are demolished to make way for McMansions. This trend disrupts the character of neighbourhoods once known for their mixture of housing styles. As McMansions become dominant, these areas become increasingly homogenous, losing their unique charm and potentially displacing residents who can’t afford the larger homes, aka gentrification.
While the CVA system strives to be fair by taxing properties based on their current worth, critics argue that it overlooks crucial factors. One is the environmental toll of McMansions, with their larger footprints and increased energy consumption. Additionally, the social costs of this trend, such as potential strain on local infrastructure and a decrease in community cohesion, should be addressed. Rethinking these policies could play a crucial role in curbing the spread of McMansions and promoting the development of housing that better serves the needs of communities and the environment.
Widening the Gap
The expansion of McMansions in Canada has also worsened housing inequality. Soaring housing prices, particularly in major urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, make McMansions even more out of reach for many Canadians. This creates a stark divide between those who can afford these extravagant homes and those who are priced out, struggling to find affordable housing options. The concentration of McMansions in certain areas can lead to social segregation as wealthier individuals cluster together, potentially limiting interaction and fostering a sense of exclusion for those who cannot afford such housing.
The grass may be green on the other side.
Despite their continued popularity, new housing trends are challenging the values of McMansions. The Tiny House (>350 sq ft) movement has gained more traction recently, particularly among younger generations. This movement prioritizes simplicity, functionality, and sustainability, reflecting a more general shift in societal values away from the “American Dream.” Unlike McMansions, which frequently associate square footage with desirability, Tiny Houses promotes a simpler lifestyle that prioritizes experiences over possessions. This emphasis on efficiency and reduced environmental impact resonates strongly with younger generations, who will inherit a planet facing the worst ecological crisis in eons. The Tiny House movement is about more than just living small; it’s also about redefining what makes a desirable home. It values financial freedom, environmental responsibility, and a strong sense of community, all of which can be fostered in a well-designed, smaller space. As these values gain traction, the definition of desirable housing will shift away from "maximizing sq ft” toward a future that values the quality of life.
Laneway homes (500–900 square feet) have also become popular as an alternative that questions accepted housing standards. Built usually in the backyard of already-existing homes, these little homes provide a unique combination of privacy and community involvement. Laneway Housing tackles problems of urban density and cost by emphasizing sustainable development and effective land use. Laneway homes are in crowded neighbourhoods of Canadian cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and Edmonton.
By incorporating eco-friendly design principles and context-sensitive planning, we can create living spaces that are aesthetically pleasing but also functional, energy-efficient, and respectful of their surroundings. Ultimately, our housing decisions have far-reaching consequences, affecting our well-being, the environment, and the communities in which we live.
By Devesh Vaswani, Development Coordinator for Urban Minds
