What will happen to all the McMansions in the 1T?

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2019, 03:24 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(05-20-2019, 01:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: McMansions were wasteful from the start, and if they start to be foreclosed upon, they will be destroyed for the most efficient housing available.



Built 1962, demolished 2005. Would you like to live in such a place? Grain elevators with windows.

I am guessing that this photo is one of a housing project similar to Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. I have mentioned to people that one day many of the huge houses you are referring to could become the next generation of flop houses in the same way that some of the old mansions in Chicago's inner city did. But it is probably far enough off that most of not all of us on this forum will not be around to see it.  But were any of the predictions mentioned here were to come true, it would have to be accompanied by the acceptance of smaller living spaces, quite the opposite of what the trend has been since the end of WWII.

It is. It is the sort of housing that people tolerate until children start appearing. With lots of other kids with little  else to do around, these places become crime-infested nightmares. Such a 'middle class value' as owning a car there is not so easy. It is possible to manage such a place if one has such an organization as the KGB, Stasi, or Comites de la Defensa de la Revolucion in the area... but that somehow offends American sensibilities. We are not a nation of snitches.

...It may be that childless families will become increasingly normal due to the cost of housing. For such families, one bedroom and one bath might be adequate -- with a two-car garage. Those were the 'starter homes' of the new post-WWII middle class. Such housing was better than the pre-WWII flats that people got out of as housing shortages got a solution.

Living space is a luxury beyond a certain point. So might be having children.

Quote:Between the two wars the big housing trend in and around Chicago was the bungalow, those quaint houses you will see lining many streets particular on Chicago's northwest and southwest sides. Today these areas are home to many city workers who are required by law to live within city limits. Might we possibly see a revival of buildings such as rooming houses, which would be a big benefit in solving much of the problem of homelessness? Not too long ago I read a book titled "Generation Priced Out". It's author, Randy Shaw, lay much of the blame for the problem at the feet of zoning laws and homeowners associations, which have conspired to hogtie developers so that nothing but single family homes and pricey condo projects can be built. It is an issue we so far seem to be very reluctant to address.

The assumption has been that the quality of housing affects the quality of life -- and of people living in such housing. Question: do people really need mansions? Quarter-acre lots?

Rooming houses have typically been temporary situations, as for farm laborers who go to the cities to work in the burgeoning industries of the time. They are not places to which one brings home a date, as they afford no privacy necessary even for intellectual intimacy. They often offer no parking. People on probationary status on the job might as well live in such places.

Figure also that Big Business prefers that people not live in temporary accommodations. People might be more scared to lose their jobs if they have something to lose, like having to decide what clothes, furnishings, and entertainment  devices and media they must chuck so that they can put everything into the trunk of a car and move on.

Real-estate interests are powerful in America. I wonder if people will trust those interests so much after Donald Trump, the slumlord of the soul.