Like this:

I’ve just finished reading “Is the McMansion Dead?” by Jenny Sullivan in the current issue of Builder. There has been much written and broadcast in the media recently about the plight of the McMansion and I can’t help but sense some animosity in the tone of many of the stories. I wonder if there is a feeling of spite among those living in more modest homes, to see these displays of affluence suffering from the degraded economy and growing trend of a more sensible or green approach to our spending habits. While I generally agree with much that has been said, I can’t help but think that the consumers’ desires for “newer”, “bigger”, “better”, have managed to put bread on our table for many years now.

All that said, my response has more to do with what wasn’t mentioned in Jenny’s story. Here in Central Florida where we are suffering from one of the worst new home markets in the nation, Cost-per-Square-Foot continues to be the overwhelming guideline used by consumers and most real estate professionals, to compare the value of homes for sale. This Cost-per-Square-Foot mentality fueled the boom market with big, boxy, generic floorplans and a cafeteria buffet line approach to design and amenities. With my own unsold masterpiece, twice I’ve lost sales to other homes that were actually more expensive than mine but offered a lower cost-per-square-foot. One of the buyers told me they preferred my home but felt the larger one was a better value. They actually spent more and purchased a home that is bigger than they need because of this brainwashing. In addition, my home is green and will cost much less to run and maintain, which wasn’t even a factor in their decision process. If this rationale carried over to our automotive purchases we would all be driving gas-guzzling SUV’s and be willing to spend more for them than a practical, efficient vehicle. Oh wait a minute…

This past spring, our local HBA Parade of Homes featured the seven most-expensive new homes in the southwest quadrant of Metro-Orlando. They were built by seven different builders but were all basically the same floorplan. As builders and designers we must accept our share of blame for part of the problem. If we persist in building big, glitzy drywall barns with no real discernable differences, then the public will continue to treat housing like a commodity. The solution may be better design. In addition to creative style, our homes should be designed and built to provide low environmental impact, accessibility, adaptability, sustainability and ease of maintenance. Smart design should create a timeless appeal and lasting value, and there isn’t any reason they can’t be exciting and glamorous as well. Think about it.

Advertisement