This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
McMansion Mania!
There is an article today on the Herald Sun Online titled:
'McMansion' swipe sparks outrage
I did not realise that simply calling excessively large houses what they are to be outrageous. Planning Minister Justin Madden calls it "housing obesity", when talking about the standard kit home fare of 4 bedrooms, 1 study, 1 entertainment room, etc. Minister Madden also called them "water wasters". In fairness, instead of targeting newer subrubs he should probably have included some offenders in older, more affluent suburbs.
My interest lies in the comments made (so far) by people responding to the article:
Why are people still gripping to the idea that the Australian Dream (if there is one) is having a huge house? Is it fair to then complain about water restrictions and traffic when alot of the trouble is self inflicte? Granted, alot of developers aren't willing to shell out a few extra dollars to make sure that the communities they are "building" are efficient and sustainable but at the end of the day, the argument could be is that they are merely answering to what the market wants.
My personal favourite out of the three comments above is from Mark Toohey. I don't see how it can be percieved as snobbery. Area snobbery perhaps? But surely not class snobbery. Both middle and upper classes have their fair share of Mcmansions it's just the cost and period in which they were built which sets them apart.
Why is it always a knee jerk reaction to these matters. I doubt Minister Madden envisioned everyone in Constructivist Russian housing communes, just a little moderation
link: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21743706-661,00.html#comments
'McMansion' swipe sparks outrage
I did not realise that simply calling excessively large houses what they are to be outrageous. Planning Minister Justin Madden calls it "housing obesity", when talking about the standard kit home fare of 4 bedrooms, 1 study, 1 entertainment room, etc. Minister Madden also called them "water wasters". In fairness, instead of targeting newer subrubs he should probably have included some offenders in older, more affluent suburbs.
My interest lies in the comments made (so far) by people responding to the article:
Justin Madden is right in some way. Some of these suburbs are out of control with little infrastructure. You don't build communities, they evolve.
Posted by: Ted of 1:52am today
Maybe we can all come and live with you, Justin. Now that would be cosy and solve the 'housing obesity'. Fat chance.
Posted by: Bobby of 1:45am today
Justin Madden, you must be kidding. Maybe YOUR government should do something about the water crisis, traffic management, and REAL urban planning before you start slagging off people's choices of where and what to live in. Snobbery at its peak.
Posted by: Mark Toohey of 1:19am today
Why are people still gripping to the idea that the Australian Dream (if there is one) is having a huge house? Is it fair to then complain about water restrictions and traffic when alot of the trouble is self inflicte? Granted, alot of developers aren't willing to shell out a few extra dollars to make sure that the communities they are "building" are efficient and sustainable but at the end of the day, the argument could be is that they are merely answering to what the market wants.
My personal favourite out of the three comments above is from Mark Toohey. I don't see how it can be percieved as snobbery. Area snobbery perhaps? But surely not class snobbery. Both middle and upper classes have their fair share of Mcmansions it's just the cost and period in which they were built which sets them apart.
Why is it always a knee jerk reaction to these matters. I doubt Minister Madden envisioned everyone in Constructivist Russian housing communes, just a little moderation
link: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21743706-661,00.html#comments
Comments
-
The article in the Herald Sun doesn't move much beyond water and whether Justin Madden has a big house.
What the article misses is the compounded relationship between the increase in housing sizes by 50% over the past decade (mentioned in the article) and the average number of people per household which has diminished from approximately 3.5 to 2.5 over the decade up to 2001. I believe it is less now.
The other inescapable fact is that larger houses, while perhaps not using more water except for the swimming pool, use more energy in heating and cooling by the shear increase in the cubic metres. Add to this the furniture and fixtures in larger homes and the double garage that houses 2-4 cars in these gated suburbs.
Caroline Springs has the veneer of environmental concern in the water feature (is there a spring at Caroline Springs?) and the bicycle track but there are only three types of houses - big, bigger and enormous. Add to this the fact that there is no employment outside of the supermarket, no industry outside the occasional home office and no where to go, including the supermarket that doesn't require the car.
If the MacMansion is evidence that Australia is the best place on earth then I begin to ask what the big house is compensation for. -
This is such an important topic and it is hard to understand those who feel insulted by the evidence. A while ago, June 2005 (to be exact), I posed a similar question in arch-peace news, I called "Obecity".
I found then some insightful and well informed views which I'll republish here. Shelley made some important observations too and I'll leave up to her to recap:
I have found a few discussions on this issue, the term "obesigenic suburbs" has been used to describe this urban situation.
This comments are describing the effects that these conditions have in people, I wonder whether we could describe the effects that these conditions have in the aesthetics of the suburbs, the environmental, social and economic costs - how does a "obesinegic house" looks like?"Where you live influences your health. Research from Western Australia has shown that if you live in a suburb without footpaths, parks and shops within walking distance, you are more likely to have problems with obesity and hypertension. It is well known that walking is good for you, but apparently only 17% of people surveyed do sufficient to achieve health benefits (30 minutes five times per week).
more here: http://mulubinba.typepad.com/mulubinba_moments/2003/09/
Also at ABC on "fat suburbs": http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s953884.htm
Great response to obeCITY Shelley!
About "lust for life" I wonder... perhaps greed, to the point of obscenity, only occurs when the real value of life is lost. The same way that happiness can be traded with spectacle - a parody of the real thing.
I just found an article written by Richard Neville that I would like to quote. It refers to the US, however, it may be relevant to Australian and this topic:"Eating the planet. America continues to act in its own self interest, regardless of the interest of the world as a whole. While this may have been okay 50 years ago, it is now the ethical equivalent of piracy. How can a country so innovative in its use of technology, become so stuck in the Darwinian swamp, when it comes lightening its earthly footprint? A landmark study backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries, has recently warned that almost two-thirds of the natural systems that support life are seriously degraded. The consequence, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report, are imminent abrupt changes that will harm humans, including the emergence of new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of dead zones along the coasts, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate.
Like it or not, global survival depends on a mainstream mind-shift. While this is understood by many US citizens, the White House is still groping in the dark, dreaming of endless oil, space wars, and the Return of Christ ...."
http://www.richardneville.com/Journal/2004/journal200405.html -
If the number of stars in the appliances or 'houses' makes us feel better our consumption, well let's think again!
Making a farce of five-star
Royce Millar and Liz Minchin
May 21, 2007McMANSIONS lit up like Christmas trees are making a farce of the State Government's green building rules, with new houses guzzling more energy and producing more greenhouse pollution than existing homes.
A damning Government report leaked to The Age has recommended replacing Victoria's five-star energy standard with a new benchmark, capping greenhouse emissions and penalising large houses and apartments.
.
"The energy-related emissions of the average new dwelling are nearly 6 per cent higher than average emissions of existing dwellings," says the report, Options to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions from new homes in Victoria.
While noting that energy savings have been made through heating and cooling measures, such as the use of solar hot water and insulation, the report says "these gains appear to be more than outweighed by growth in emissions from lighting, which is not targeted by five star".-
Those increased emissions from lights, particularly halogen lights, are linked to the expanding size of new homes.
Residential greenhouse emissions from new housing are growing at 532,000 tonnes a year.
Emissions from existing homes are also rising.
Average emissions per occupant in high rise apartments are twice as high as in detached homes.
item contributed by Anthony
Howdy, Stranger!