The Wall Street Journal published a zeitgeist watch entry: America’s Cities Are Revolting Against Megamansions. It describes how some longtime hideaways for the rich, like the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard, are trying to tear down mansions. This comes only after a number of hyper-trophied homes have been built in the area.
After reading the piece with some care, what seems very interesting, at least in terms of the various objections made to the Journal writer EB Solomont, is the lack of a clear basis for opposing these large cancerous structures. What you read is a sense of outrage in what the refuseniks apparently see as a widely shared, though difficult to articulate, sentiment, that these big houses are really making an offensive expansion.
To make the point clearer, consider some zoning issues related to extremely ambitious construction projects elsewhere. In New York City, I have been told (by name and addresses, but they are not important to the reasoning of this post) that a very wealthy person bought there townhouses on the Upper West Side. It was in a historic area, so they had to preserve the facades. However, his purpose was not only to combine or perhaps even to combine the above structures. He began digging to create a large basement beneath the three of them.
The neighbors (not just on the same street but on the back street) are going nuts. Not only was the noise level outrageous, but they were rightly concerned that drilling and drilling would damage their buildings. However, there was no way to stop him. They could only sue if they were harmed. They couldn’t find a good legal basis (even under New York City’s strict building codes) to prevent potential damage. Maybe residential owners can get some protective legislation, but not fast enough to stop this particular project.
Communities always come up with compromises between builders and occupiers who want to protect their land rights. Also, New York City has air rights, which are regularly traded, to prevent over-dense development and ensure that all of Manhattan does not become a war of tightly packed buildings that cast shadows from the street most of the day. Similarly, tourist and resort areas often limit the height of buildings near the coast so as not to completely block views of older homes.
I don’t see any of these practical concerns being raised here, like how new development might hurt the property values of current owners, and how it makes sense to protect. Rather, this seems to be a new aesthetic, in the same way that people of taste respond to the noveau rich who not only drive gold Cadillacs but match the color of the curtains in their house to the car.1
Similarly, there are cases where communities enforce appearance, such as Santa Fe requiring adobe houses in certain areas.2 And one can see why houses that are too large relative to the size of the building can create a less than ideal appearance for the area. For example, if you go to the flat areas of Beverly Hills, you see very nice houses, usually old ones, that come as close as possible to maximizing the available space. The house is nice enough that the effect of so many houses crowding each other is not bad….but they themselves and the block in general would look better if they were further apart.
But again, the article doesn’t talk about specific bad situations, more so the rebellion against the increase of evil. The fourth paragraph makes some sort of case, but some quotes don’t fit that well:
Cities from Aspen to Martha’s Vineyard are in the thick of the brouhaha. Critics say the mansions diminish the natural beauty and beauty of the area, use too much energy and drive up prices.
One has to ask oneself hypocritically. It is likely that many of those who complain about annoying mansions fly in private jets or helicopters, so they are not in a good position to protest about the excessive use of energy. It is also possible to develop a modest eyesore. Although they don’t like big buildings, it’s not clear that opposing it is the opposite of underestimating one’s wealth.
I wonder if this withdrawal is ultimately justified because of Mark Blyth’s observation, “The Hamptons is not an indefensible position.” In an age of mass ridicule and ever-increasing income and wealth inequality, some of the wealthy are increasingly concerned about their exposure and see cutting back on ostentatious displays as fork protection.
“How big is the house?” asked Jeremy Samuelson, planning director of East Hampton, NY, where a task force recently proposed cutting the city’s maximum permitted house size in half, from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet….
At the May meeting, Mehring read aloud a letter written by architecture critic Paul Goldberger, who noted: “We want to be East Hampton, not Levittown-By-the-Sea.”…
“It’s really shocking to a lot of us—these mansions are the size of grand hotels,” said Julia Livingston, head of the Martha’s Vineyard operations team in Edgartown, Mass.
This article describes how some cities have set size limits: 3,600 square feet in Turto, Massachusetts, near Cape Cod, 7,500 square feet in Routt County, Colorado, including a ski resort in Steamboat Springs, and 9,250 in Pitkin County, Colorado, including Aspen. The stated reason for the limitations in Pitkin was the use of force.
This section makes it clear that the reservation goes beyond the big houses that set the rights to the land of the neighbors:
East Hampton’s working group is dealing with “iceberg homes,” where the basements are as big (or bigger) than the homes above.
Until now, basements—and attached garages—haven’t been counted in a home’s square footage, encouraging homeowners to build large underground lairs. Under the proposal, garages and finished basements would be counted.
At the May meeting, Samuelson highlighted a real-world example: an 11,863-square-foot house on a plot of 6,100 square feet.The basement, Samuelson noted, “has two guest rooms—bedrooms—recreation room, wine lounge, wine cellar, theater, technology room, recreation area, sauna, etc.
“And that’s good. That sounds amazing. I am incredibly jealous of the wealth and lifestyle of these people,” added Samuelson. But “it has nothing to do with this being the right size house for this area.”
Strangely, I have not read a single objection to the fact that these mansions, with all their rooms, attract more than the occasional large influx of visitors. I saw that as annoying (noise levels, perceived security risk):
Mind you, I’m not a fan of this pretend-palace-like-houses at all. But it seems instructive to see the mental gymnastics of the opponents, many of whom probably live in big houses in these luxury areas to oppose these beautiful buildings while releasing their own.
And maybe some of the rich and the next-level rich will also realize that panic rooms are not a good solution to resent their excesses (they can’t stay in them forever, no matter how well they are filled) and maybe not participate in them. behavior that provokes anger can be at least as good a defense. Of course paying lower orders better would greatly reduce their vulnerability, but we are far from any, let alone many, having that kind of Damascus conversion.
_____
1 According to the tax planner, who makes it a point to study many American and foreign subcultures, people like this do exist and have admirers.
2 Adobe is very suitable for the climate there, so this system should not be seen as mandatory.
Source link