The Wall Street Journal published an article observing the zeitgeist. American towns are rebelling against mega-mansionsIt depicts efforts to rein in the construction of mega-homes in some areas long established as havens for the wealthy, such as the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard — a move that, of course, comes after a flurry of super-sized homes have been developed in the area.
What’s most interesting, reading this article carefully, about the various objections, at least to Journal reporter E.B. Solomont, is the lack of any clear basis for objecting to these cancerous buildings. What you read is discomfort with what the objectors see as a widely shared, if hard to define, feeling that these very large houses constitute an unpleasant excess.
To make this point even clearer, consider some zoning issues associated with perhaps over-ambitious building projects elsewhere. In New York City, we heard about an ultra-rich individual who had purchased adjacent townhouses on the Upper West Side (we have names and addresses, but they are not important to the logic of this post). The townhouses were in a landmarked area, so the facades had to be preserved. But his goal was not to join or even consolidate the properties above ground. He began excavating to create a huge basement beneath the three properties.
The neighbors (not only on the same street, but also on the back streets) were outraged. Not only were the noise levels insane, but they were worried that the excavation and digging would damage their properties. But there was no way to stop him; they could only sue if they were harmed. They couldn’t find a sufficient legal basis (even under NYC’s strict building codes) to prevent possible future damage. Maybe the homeowners could pass a protection bill, but not enough to stop this particular project.
In communities, compromises are often made between builders who want to protect their property rights and existing residents. Also, New York City has air rights, which are traded regularly to prevent overdevelopment and to keep all of Manhattan from becoming a densely built-up area that is shaded for most of the day. Similarly, vacation and resort areas often limit the height of buildings near the waterfront so as not to completely block views from older homes.
There doesn’t seem to be any real, practical concern expressed here about how new development might damage the property values of current owners, and how far it would be reasonable to go to protect them. Rather, this seems to be a new aesthetic, much like the rebellion of people with decent taste against nouveau riche who not only drive gold Cadillacs, but also match the color of their curtains to their cars.1
Similarly, in some cases, communities enforce appearances, such as Santa Fe mandating adobe homes in certain neighborhoods.2 And I can see why houses that are too big for their lot size can make an area look bad. For example, if you go to the Beverly Hills flats, you see very nice, typically older houses that make the most of the land. The houses are nice enough that having a bunch of them next to each other doesn’t look too bad, but the individual houses and the block as a whole would look better if they were spaced farther apart.
However, the article does not cite specific examples of grotesque acts, but rather writes about a rebellion against increasing grotesqueness. Paragraph 4 Certainly, certain claims are valid, but the specific quotes do not neatly refute them.
Towns from Aspen to Martha’s Vineyard are in the midst of a mansion frenzy that critics say is ruining neighborhoods’ views and curb appeal, using up too much energy and driving up prices.
The hypocrisy is astonishing. Many of the people who complain about obnoxiously large houses are likely to travel by private jet or helicopter, and therefore are in no position to protest about excessive energy use. They may also be building small buildings that are an eyesore. They don’t like bulky buildings, but it’s not clear that their objections are really to that, rather than to the profit-guzzling nature of them.
I suspect this silence is ultimately due to Mark Bryce’s observation that “the Hamptons are not a defensible place.” In an era when overpopulation is ridiculed and income and wealth disparities seem to grow endlessly, some of the wealthy are increasingly concerned about personal risks, and some see reducing their extravagant pretensions as protection from threats.
“How big will the houses be?” mused Jeremy Samuelson, a city planner in East Hampton, New York, where a working group recently proposed cutting the town’s maximum residential size in half, from 20,000 square feet to 10,000.
At the May meeting, Mehring read a letter from architecture critic Paul Goldberger, who said: “We want to be East Hampton, not Levittown-by-the-Sea.”
“This is really shocking to a lot of us. These are huge homes, the size of some pretty big hotels,” said Julia Livingston, president of the Martha’s Vineyard Neighborhood Working Group in Edgartown, Massachusetts.
The article notes that several towns have imposed size limits, including 3,600 square feet in Tartu, Massachusetts, near Cape Cod, 7,500 square feet in Routt County, Colorado, home to the Steamboat Springs ski resort, and 9,250 square feet in Pitkin County, Colorado, home to Aspen. The reason for the limit in Pitkin County is stated to be energy use.
This section makes clear that reservations extend far beyond huge homes that infringe on neighbors’ property rights.
The East Hampton task force is also working on “iceberg homes,” which have basements as large or larger than the homes above.
Until now, basements and attached garages have not been counted in a home’s total floor area, encouraging homeowners to dig huge, fancy basements. Under this proposal, garages and finished basements would now be counted.
At the May meeting, Samuelson pointed to an 11,863-square-foot home on a 6,100-square-foot lot as a real-world example.According to Samuelson, the basement features “two guest rooms, an entertainment room, a wine lounge, a wine cellar, a theater, a technical room, a spa, a sauna, and more.”
“That’s all great. It’s wonderful. I’m so envious of these people’s wealth and lifestyle,” Samuelson added. “But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this is the right size home for this lot.”
Oddly, I didn’t see any comments about these huge houses with lots of rooms attracting large numbers of visitors from time to time, which I would consider a nuisance (noise levels, perceived safety risks).
Mind you, I’m no fan of these palaces disguised as homes, but it seems instructive to watch the mind games being played by opponents who presumably live in big houses in these upscale neighborhoods, but who make an exception for their own buildings while opposing these enormous structures.
And maybe some of the super-rich and next-to-rich are beginning to realize that panic rooms aren’t a great solution to resentment over their excesses (no matter how well-supplied they are, they can’t stay there forever), and that not engaging in resentment-inducing behavior might be at least as good a defense.Of course, paying the lower classes higher salaries would make them significantly less vulnerable, but it’s unlikely anyone, let alone many of them, will ever experience that sort of Damascus conversion.
____
1 According to tax experts who focus on studying many subcultures in the United States and around the world, these people do exist and even have cultists.
2 This provision should not be taken as mandatory as Adobe is truly suited to the local climate.
