`Mansionization' tied to loss of open spaces

The Boston Globe ^ | November 10, 2003 | John McElhenny

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In this "bigger is better" era of SUVs and super-sized meals, Massachusetts residents are living in ever larger homes on bigger lots, even though fewer people live in each house, according to a new study.

The report by the Massachusetts Audubon Society, New England's largest conservation organization, also finds that 40 acres of Massachusetts forest, farmland, and open space are being developed every day, about 90 percent of which is being used to build new homes.

[jjm2111]

You mean McMansions? Those cookie cutter sub-division of overly large, poorly constructed homes? My cousin lives in one of those. Give me an older house, or smaller, more well-built one any day.

[raybbr]

The problem, Breunig said, is the type of development Massachusetts has undergone. Sixty-five percent of the land developed for new homes between 1985 and 1989 went to homes that are set far apart on large lots, the report found, which strains surrounding habitat more than smaller homes or multi-family units on smaller lots would.

These idiots bring this on themselves. We had 2 acre zoning where I built. Now, it has to be 2 acres of usasble land. Lot sizes are much bigger as a result. This enviros just don't get it.

[wunderkind54]

The environmentalists will never be happy...their view of living consists of being packed like cockroaches in a can.

Americans have traditionally yearned for the wide-open spaces to call their own, and since they pay the taxes, and pay to have these mansions built, who the heck are the enviros to look down their noses?

And spare me the lost wetlands B.S., technology is here...deal with it...living in the past is a dream.

[kitkat]

***Clarke, of Mass. Audubon, said the goal is to recreate the density of the villages in which New Englanders traditionally lived. He said that would make Massachusetts a more attractive place to live and work.***

This is the first step to SMART GROWTH. Cram them all into the tiniest possible space in substandard apartments. Crowd the roads, make the taxpayers pay for new schools, libraries, police forces, etc. etc.

Do I smell kickbacks from builders?

[Khurkris]

"Clarke, of Mass. Audubon, said the goal is to recreate the density of the villages in which New Englanders traditionally lived. He said that would make Massachusetts a more attractive place to live and work.

"Businesses will pick a place like Massachusetts because of the quality of life," he said. "They're certainly not going to live here for the weather."

Lets do a bit of real life math.

1)For a business to exist it must have employees.

2)Employees usually require a place to live.

3)Living costs, transportations costs and general costs of life must be agreeable to both the employees and the projected pay range of the company.

4)@$750,000.00 per home, how many companies are going to be paying their employees in the range needed to afford these McMansions?

I know the argument can be made for tele-commuting and work-at-home, etc. However, there will be a need for some butts in the seats. How are these people going to afford this?

Just my $.02's worth.

[Jim Noble]

"If you care about affordable housing...this is really bad news," Breunig said

More newspeak.

Anything that is being created at this rate is, a priori, affordable.

If houses were unaffordable, prices would be falling and vacancy rates would be high.

Instead, prices are skyrocketing and vacancy rates are nonexistent.

Far from being unaffordable, prices are obviously too low.

[laredo44]

You mean McMansions? Those cookie cutter sub-division of overly large, poorly constructed homes? My cousin lives in one of those. Give me an older house, or smaller, more well-built one any day.

Yeah, choice...ain't it great?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Give me an older house, or smaller, more well-built one any day.

I tend to agree with that assessment. With two incomes, the urge to overextend trumps common sense. Then that nice house can sit empty while everyone does their own thing. But I do defend their right to buy and build what they want. Herding everyone into town and onto public transportation isn't the American way - freedom's way.

[laredo44]

Jack Clarke, director of advocacy for Mass. Audubon

What do you want to bet this pompoous ass made up that title himself?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

This enviros just don't get it.

What environmental group was it that was selling off huge parcels of "protected" land to people like Jay Leno (for a steal) and then getting a large contribution back?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Do I smell kickbacks from builders?

Gosh, kitkat they've have to keep their campaign war chests filled.

[laredo44]

Clarke, of Mass. Audubon, said the goal is to recreate the density of the villages in which New Englanders traditionally lived. He said that would make Massachusetts a more attractive place to live and work.

The good news is, when you make something more attractive, people will gravitate toward it. No need to legislate greater attractiveness, although I doubt that's what Mr. Clark has in mind at all. I suspect Mr. Clark would like nothing better than to prohibit all development that he is opposed to, being the arbitor of attractiveness he fashions himself to be.

[mewzilla]

Around here its McMansions built on postage stamp-size lots all cheek-by-jowl. You spend that much money on a house and you wanna live right on top of your neighbor? Go figure.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I've never been able to figure that out.

[LadyDoc]

Massachusetts, like most of New England, was once farms. The farmers moved west in several migrations, starting in 1820's and the latest in the depression. If you go thru these "prisine woods" you will find apple trees and chimneys.

Indeed, as the Atlantic article "1491" points out, the land was full of Indians farming, and was depopulated, partly by the climate changes of the 1200-1500 and partly by smallpox and other western diseases accidentally introduced into the Americas and which devestated the American indians, starting in the 1530's and repeating periodically in epidemics, spread by local traders between tribes

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm

.By the time my ancestor set sail on the Mayflower, Europeans had been visiting New England for more than a hundred years. English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese mariners regularly plied the coastline, trading what they could, occasionally kidnapping the inhabitants for slaves. New England, the Europeans saw, was thickly settled and well defended. In 1605 and 1606 Samuel de Champlain visited Cape Cod, hoping to establish a French base. He abandoned the idea. Too many people already lived there. A year later Sir Ferdinando Gorges—British despite his name—tried to establish an English community in southern Maine. It had more founders than Plymouth and seems to have been better organized. Confronted by numerous well-armed local Indians, the settlers abandoned the project within months. The Indians at Plymouth would surely have been an equal obstacle to my ancestor and his ramshackle expedition had disease not intervened.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

How rude of us.

Today native Americans are raking in billons as casino operators.

[palmer]

McMansions built on postage stamp-size lots all cheek-by-jowl

Some do and some don't. At least here (northern VA) there's a choice. Where I came from in MA there's no choice.

[mewzilla]

You know what the size of the average house was in Mayflower times? 100 sq. ft. Things have changed :)