McMansions – Council’s Decision Soon
Fredericksburg City Council will be meeting again in the next few weeks to discuss limiting the sizes of new residential buildings in the downtown area. The above picture is of 3 houses on Charles Street, near the train station. This area is part of the historic district. The home on the left was built in 1929 and the home on the far right was built in 1909. The home in the middle was built in 2007. This area is in a flood zone which is why the builder had to have the unfinished ground floor, however, the 2007 home is way out of place in this area. It stands a good story higher than any of the homes that surround it and it definitely does not blend in with its historic surroundings.
On one end of the spectrum we have the arguement from the builders that says if the city imposes stricter building maximum guidelines then they stand to lose money. The builders may no longer be able to develop empty lots in some areas, and therefore leaves the city with less tax revenue. On the other end of the spectrum you have neighbors of these houses angry that the aesthetics of the neighborhood have been ruined by these “McMansions.” From a REALTORS prospective I have a hard time selling both types of houses. Not many of today’s buyers want to be located beside a monstrosity of a house. These “McMansions” also seem to be sitting on the market longer than the smaller home during this market downturn. The smaller homes beside a McMansion can also have a negative effect on the value of the larger home. The larger home will not be able to gain the same (higher) value as a larger home amongst other larger homes. It is extremely important, in terms of value, for your home to fit in with those around it.
Regardless of where your opinion lies on this topic, City Council will be making the final decision on the matter. The new proposal limits height restrictions to 27 feet high – from 35 feet, and limits the footprint percentage of each dwelling to 30% of the lot size unless the lot of less than 40 feet wide, in this case the dwelling can be 40% of the lot. If the lot is wider than 80 feet, the footprint can be no more than 25% of the lot size.
Ah, my favorite topic. Lets start with the word McMansion (FYI, it’s not in the standard Merriam-Webster dictionary): Lifted from wikipedia
“a particular type of housing that is constructed in an assembly line fashion reminiscent of food production at McDonald’s fast food restaurants…an indistinct architectural style similar to others nearby, and is often located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood”
So right off the bat, not one of the units being brought up as an issue in the city was done assembly line fashion, and none are indistinct. Most of these HOMES have very specific style cues taken from the surrounding neighborhood, but are built in modern construction methods. Most are constructed up, to make up for newly required off street parking, in the form of parking garages.
What the ordinance doesn’t take into account, is the wide variety of styles, and the benefit that diversity brings to the city. The further restriction of owners rights, will adversely affect value, due simply to the buildout of their lots. It also adds a burden to the owners to create special engineering/architecture, usually to owners that can least affort the high end services and legal teams of more affluent owners.
What the city is trying to pass may work very well for a few neighborhoods surrounding the historic district. What it does not serve is the many other neighborhoods say in Ward 1 away from downtown.
What’s more, the ordinance removes all options for expansion, by limiting both coverage AND height. In a landlocked city that is approaching buildout, there are few options to expand, further degrading value. The only reasonable ordinance here would be to address lot coverage, as that also impacts water runnoff from impermiable surfaces, which affects everyone in the city when flooding conditions exist.
From my research, Roanoke, Lynchburg and Charlottesville have chosen not to take such draconian measures. If there is a problem with character and these houses, this method/ordinance is not the correct solution.
People are welcome to read more (rants and all) over at InTheBurg.info. Search for keyword zoning.
Since you graciously provided a definition of McMansion, I will provide one too! From the Architecture Glossary:
McMansion is a derogatory term for a large, showy Neoeclectic home, usually built without the guidance of an architect. The word McMansion was coined in the 1980s by architects and architecture critics in response to the many over-sized, poorly designed homes being built in American suburbs.
McMansion is derived from the name McDonald’s, the fast food restaurant known for mass producing huge quantities of Big Mac hamburgers. So, a McMansion is a Big Mac version of architecture: mass produced, quickly built, generic, bland, and unnecessarily large.
A McMansion has many of these characteristics:
Over-sized in proportion to the building lot
Poorly proportioned placement of windows, doors, and porches
Excessive use of gabled roofs
Poorly planned mixture of details borrowed from a variety of historic periods
Abundant use of vinyl and artificial stone
Unpleasing combination of many different siding materials
Atriums, great rooms, and other grand open spaces
Quickly constructed using mix-and-match details from a builder’s catalog
Although I can agree with your point regarding applying universal building restrictions to all of Fredericksburg City, I maintain that the historic significance and architectural integrity of the older part of the city needs to be upheld. (I did make a point to state that the example I used in my picture is in the historic district). As much as I don’t like squelching a property owner’s rights, as a professional in the real estate community, I see that the homes that do not adhere to the character of the neighborhood can actually see a reduction in the value of the home, as well as the surrounding homes. As an owner of property just two blocks outside the historic district, I would be upset to have a home built beside me that did not match the architectural significance of my neighborhood. Conformity is an important factor of real estate value. Many of my neighbors do have large additions to their homes and these additions match the period features of the original house. My husband and I also plan on putting an addition on our home, and will make sure that we do not distract from the 1919 details of the original structure.
I appreciate your input, as it is always nice to get the perspective of someone who lives outside the “tourist district.” Thanks Bryan!
Took me a while to get back to this post. You make a point in your post that I’ve been trying to talk to council about, it’s a neighborhood thing. What applies in the historic district, doesn’t apply in Altoona, and what works in the Estates at Snowden doesn’t work in College Heights. To create a single set of coverage and height requirements for all the residential districts doesn’t work in Fredericksburg. What would work better is to ID those neighborhoods or areas where there is architectural consistency and create a set of zoning requirments for that area. It also seems that the fair market is taking care of punishing a few of those large home developers/investors at the moment.
Another thing that should be investigated along with this size/scale ordinance, is giving the architectural review board some teeth. I’m not sure if you requested a special use permit, with some of the large scale homes in and around the historic neighborhoods, if you could find a reason to deny much in the way of a house.
It’s going to be back at the planning commission soon, I highly suggest the realtor market coming up with some suggestions to help the city out if your teams have any ideas.