Oct 3, 2012

Are ‘McMansions’ benign?

'McMansions' cop some unwarranted criticism, but the claims made by the Institute of Public Affairs' Chris Berg that they're a benign mark of economic success don't stack up.

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

Stainless – video by Adam Magyar

I’ve argued before that some criticisms of McMansions are ill-informed and unwarranted, but I’m not very impressed with Chris Berg’s defence of them in the Fairfax press the other day.

Mr Berg, a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs, makes two points: The first is that “suburban living in general is more environmentally friendly than inner city living.” The second is that large homes aren’t a problem but a sign of our economic success as a nation.

I think it’s disingenuous, at the very least, to claim that “suburban living in general is more environmentally friendly than inner city living.” He cited the well-known Consumption Atlas prepared by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) to support his case:

A study conducted by the Australian Conservation Foundation (no fans of consumer capitalism) concluded that, even taking into account car use, “inner-city households outstrip the rest of Australia in every other category of consumption”.

What he’s glossed over here, though, is the ACF doesn’t conclude “inner city living” is less sustainable than suburban living. Rather, it finds inner city households are less environmentally friendly than their suburban counterparts.

Of course the built environment of the inner city is more sustainable than the outer suburbs! On average, it has smaller dwellings, more mixed uses that support walking, shorter average trip distances, and vastly better access to public transport.

But on average it also has wealthier households. They consume more goods and resources than outer suburban households because they can afford to. That includes flying a lot more for business and leisure.

They are smaller on average too, with many comprising only one or two persons. The consequence is their per capita consumption of space nullifies the advantage of living in smaller dwellings.

These two factors overwhelm the sustainability benefit of living in denser neighbourhoods. However it doesn’t neutralise the benefits of “inner city living” – if these wealthy residents lived in the outer suburbs like their counterparts in most US cities do, their environmental footprint would be even larger.

I also think Mr Berg’s proposition that McMansions are an innocent mark of our success as a rich society – we buy big houses, he says, because we can – skates over the important issues.

That’s true as far as it goes but he should go further – there’s much more to the story. As a matter of public policy, we’re concerned about what cost that choice imposes on the rest of us in terms of emissions, pollution, energy consumption and cost, traffic congestion and infrastructure costs.

McMansions aren’t the only instance of “excessive” space consumption though. As the ACF’s analysis makes clear, we need to think in terms of space per occupant rather than the total size of the dwelling.

I don’t have access to any the figures right now, but I’d expect there are at least as many existing dwellings being extended and renovated across the established parts of our cities each year as there are new McMansions being built on the fringe.

On top of that, every year there are more and more empty nesters and elderly singles rattling around in large family houses and terraces. And then there are an increasing number of young buyers of studio and one bedroom apartments who only a generation ago lived in group houses where they shared facilities and consumed less space per person.

Households who consume a lot of residential space per capita, whatever the built form and location, need to pay the full social cost of that benefit. So do those who fly a lot. Fortunately, at least in the former case, we’ve started to deal with the issue in Australia by way of the price on carbon and mandatory energy ratings.

There are other areas we need to improve too. They include the under-pricing of transport (both private and public) which promotes long commutes from far-flung low density areas, as well as implicit subsidies for home ownership that encourage excessive investment in housing.

Fortunately, I’m not aware of anyone who seriously proposes an upper limit on the size of dwellings. That sounds as feasible as imposing size limits on ovens and fridges, or on the number of flights we’re permitted to make, or the amount of meat we can eat, or the number of children we can have.

If they have to pay their real social cost, households will have an incentive to reduce their use of resources and hence of space. Couple that with eliminating frictions like stamp duty and regulatory constraints on housing supply, and there should be a better match between household size and dwelling size.

(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “Are ‘McMansions’ benign?

  1. Dylan Nicholson

    boscombe, actually in many of the suburbs that they occur the only thing presented to the major streets are fences! I don’t really understand the thinking behind this – maybe it provides a bit of extra safety for kids, but frankly I suspect it puts kids (and others) off from exploring their neighbourhoods on foot at all, which is perhaps the saddest thing about them, and one reason I wouldn’t want my kids to grow up in such an area. But yes, on the minor streets, having half the street frontage of each property taken up with unlovely garage doors is fairly visually depressing – however in that case it’s largely the choice of individual house owners/builders, so what is ‘alienating’ to you or me may simply not bother those that live there.

  2. boscombe

    McMansions aren’t environmentally sustainable, where I’ve seen them, because they are built without gardens and need air-conditioning, they mostly present a big garage door to the street, which is alienating, and they don’t have any local, walk-to shops.

    The best houses, for a hot climate, that I’ve seen on this trip, have been in Charleston. Houses, built close to the street, are one room wide (for ventilation) and go down the block, not across it, with verandahs on each storey on the hot side of the house. The vacant strip down the block, which might be only 4 or 5 metres wide is densely planted with shady trees and bushes. You can sit on your verandah and look at your lush and shady little garden, see people on the street out walking their dogs, kids skateboarding past. Very nice neighbourhoods. Of course in the best neighbourhoods the houses are big, but if you were building today (and didn’t own 2000 slaves) half the size would be fine.

    Perhaps the easiest thing we could do to improve suburbs like mine is put the power lines underground and plant street trees (I like Jacarandas) for summer shade.

  3. IkaInk

    @Dylan – Do you know where I might find anything on the ban? It would be interesting to do some reading on that.

  4. Dylan Nicholson

    I’d also say, the impression I get from many of the newer suburbs characterised by ‘McMansions’ is that they are largely the result of unimaginative and overly prescriptive urban planning and zoning. You can travel for kilometres and see nothing but fairly uninteresting houses, then pass some huge shopping centre that appears to house the only businesses in the entire suburb, and it’s typically possible to count the number of actual human beings you’d see on one hand. It just feels very artificial and completely lacking in any sort of spontaneity. But I will say a) generally the houses and gardens are very well maintained, and a good deal less ugly than the typical suburbs developed in the 60s and 70s and b) the roads in such suburbs are far better for bikes than in most older suburbs, with most major roads having clearly marked lanes.

  5. Dylan Nicholson

    I’m no fan of McMansions either, but slightly unbelievably recently my city council voted *unanimously* to basically ban anything that might be considered a McMansion in heritage precincts (which must include a fair chunk of Boroondara – and it’s obvious 100+ years ago there were no shortage of Nouveau Riche throwing up the turn-of-the-century equivalent of McMansions throughout the region).
    It seems to be purely an aesthetic objection rather than anything based on environmental or other concerns, but banning really should only ever be a last resort when there is some unavoidable risk factor involved in what a private citizen decides to do with his own land.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details