Beneath it all, the land

I don't know about the outer 'burbs, but in places like Cambridge and Somerville, there are maximum ratios of indoor square footage to outdoor lot size. Old houses are grandfathered in, but new houses must comply. So you couldn't supersize a house on a tiny lot if you wanted to.

Plus, NIMBYism is a Massachusetts tradition. Large houses might contain, egads, children, so they are only permitted on proportionally gigantic lots, so we get as few of the rugrats as possible in our communities.

As my oldest always says, "Are you kidding me?"

Take a drive through Newton off of Needham St. In Needham, drive on Greendale. There are lots with huge new McMansions on them squeezed in to the point of being able to shake hands with the neighbors through the windows - only slightly exaggerating.

But, this isn't new. Go through Wellesley, Newton, Arlington, Lexington. Older homes are on lots of a 1/10 of an acre, either by design or by selling their land for money. So, don't blame the McMansion and new builders. It is why living out past 128 is so appealing to most.

I live out in Natick, past 128 and there are some houses that are being squeezed onto 1/4 acre plots of land. That's right 1/4 acre plots of land. They are huge, and they look like the owners switched houses and plots of land with someone in dowtown Arlington, Newton or Quincy where you basically have a large house taking up most of the land leaving no more than 5 - 10 feet of space between the house and fance that has to be put up because the neighbors don't want to look at the monstrosity of a house that has just been shoved down their throat y some outsider that has spent most of their lives living in places like Arlington, Newton or Quincy. Not that Arlington, Newton or Quincy are bad, but come on. Why move to a place like Natick if you want to live like you did in these other places. These houses don't fit into neighborhoods like those in Natick. Maybe Weston and Wellesley or towns out by 495, but not in middle class towns like Natick, although there are a couple neighborhoods in Natick that can accomodate them. The McMansions are "not scaled properly," to quote an architect I spoke to. They don't look right. In Arlington and other similar towns/cities, a lot of the homes tenements or two family/three family homes in crowded neighborhoods that were designed for such buildings so they don't look out of place. But a large colonial or other such large house in a neighborhood designed for small ranches or Capes on 1/4 acre plots of land with room for kids to have a swing set or pool or dog and it's house? Sorry, but that is just stupid and inconsiderate to others who live in the neighborhood that are looking to enjoy a little country living not close to but not far from the big city. A life portrayed in many a TV show and movies that many people dream of having. If people want to live in a large Colonial or other large home they should move out to the 495 beltway where they can afford 1/2 acre to 1 acre plots of land more suitable for such houses, or they should buy a two or three family in downtown Arlington or Newton or Quincy instead of living the poor man's version of the life lived by those in towns such as Wellesley or Weston.

The days of the McMansions are over. People are not going to want to heat or cool 4,000+ sq ft homes with energy costs spiraling out of control. The McMansions out in the burbs where people have to commute 40 miles each way to work will die even quicker.

In my own defense, I do know there are lots of McMansions around and they are close to one another. They are like what my cousin Bernice was complaining about. However, what is happening in Mahattan Beach, Brooklyn is a horse of a different color. The lots are all 40 by 100 and there is zero land showing when they are done. Parking is directly in front of the house, so the front yards are concrete or asphalt. No back yards at all; there is barely room to paint. Very much like parts of Boston and immediate cities. The problem is this used to be an area of beach bungalows near the ocean. The character is changing, IMHO, for the worse. In Lexington, many of the tear-downs were 1950s capes and ranches, like what I grew up in. I see those as no great loss to architecture.

I have few clients who go for McMansions, so I don't see a lot of those neighborhoods, I have one client looking for a tear-down, who looked at some last spring.

If the days of the McMansion are over, why are people breaking the law and fighting with zoning authorities to build 'em bigger than allowed by law? Do they just have more money than brains?

I live south of Boston in an affluent town , 20 miles from downtown in a 3400 sf contemporary colonial circa 2003. I have almost 2 acres and best of all I can't see or hear my neighbors 99% of the time. I love it, but I wonder sometimes if I am alone in not wanting neighbors up in my business or invading my privacy with noise pollution etc. I used to live in a 15 lot subdivision with pie shaped lots and I got the heck out of there after a few years. It felt like living in a campground but with 1/2 million dollar houses instead of tents. And don't get me wrong I have 3 rugrats myself, I just don't want to have deal with someone else's rugrats. Just a thought for the day.

It is funny how our vocabulary shifts to reflect our politics. To some these are mcMansions and are ugly. Others would call this higher density housing. When you think about the cost of fuel, building houses tighter to one another makes sense rather than the sprawl of huge lots that need more fuel and fertilizer to mow. America's top crop is not wheat or corn its suburban lawn grass.
I take a libertarian view. Its my land, its my dwelling, I will build what I think makes sense. If I want less yard, I will build a bigger home.
A lot of towns use the zoning rules merely to prevent new development as they would need to then expand schools and add more municipal expense (thats the excuse for anti development).