wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Skip,

You can change this. Go to your friends and neighbors and admonish those who have voted for the current government. Act for change. Change the government. Change the mcmansion law. Change the variance policies.

I think #44 is regarding a rave discussion from a different segment of the show.

Dan

Dan,
Thanks, I did read your post and agree. The problem here is what I stated in #41. People don't realize that "they are the McMansions that will be affected". The population believes that the new ordinance will address the "obviously overbuilt" homes. People are so busy with 2 jobs, economic stresses, kids, etc., they assume their leaders are doing the right thing. This is a complex issue and the proposed plan has a major flaw (clearly recognized by the professionals). For me personally, its not an issue, I can increase my house by probably 50-70%. My concern is that something is being done clearly in the wrong fashion. Changing subjects, whats post 44 about?
skip

I'd love to see and hear this but every damn video posted on utooobe has a music soundtrack on it, and an awful one at that. I was interested in seeing the spectacle and wanted to hear what it really sounded like and not some utoooob vlogger's crappy remix.

Serhat,
You could not have said it better. Its too bad that our elected officials are so bent on "doing something" that they lose track of reality here.
About 1/4 of the residents are going to wake up one by one when (or if) they go to expand. Then its too late.

John,
It is exactly to the point. Besides the fact that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an incompetent architect could design a structure in compliance with any regulation. If Glen Rock is trying to regulate aesthetics and bulk, their methods are not the proper ones. And I am sure nobody in Glen Rock is trying to harm their harm as I am not in business of designing ugly homes...All I am trying to say is that the proposed regulations wont satisfy the McMansion-phobics.

I didn't even notice here vs hear until you mentioned it.
The problem here is that the argument is being made at the high emotional level -- "no one wants these obviously bulky, overpowering, homes". The individuals (14% immediately non conforming, and another 14% or so with extremely limited expandability) don't realize that they are "McMansions" now !!!!

We all knew I meant "hear", right?

Thanks!

Skip,

If that happens, it shouldn't. If that's the way it is, change it. If that is how your town is being run I strongly recommend that you kick the bums out and vote in a new bunch of guys. That the powers that control the town foreclose meaningful implementation is not a reason to squash the legislation. What you've got there is as clear a call to action as you're likely to here.

Dan

Dan,
I am concerned that once the 4 part ordinance is approved (and make no mistake, it will be), the variance route will be a major bureaucratic hurdle do for the average person to attempt to hurdle. Particularly in a town like GR. Whether we like it or not, thats the way it is. Once it becomes a variance request, subjectivity comes into play with who you are, who you know, and how supportive you have been of the town's management. It happens...
Skip

People may always want to build ugly houses, true, but I can envision provision in the regulations we are discussing that would limit the size of the plain, flat walls that seem to be an objection. Requiring a maximum size or some level of complexity regarding each elevation, roofline or profile, or other features is not beyond today's regulatory structure.

Regarding the addition of dormers or other relatively minor modifications, it would seem that there could be and probably should be a procedure for requesting approval for building that may be at variance with the regulations. Such a process would ensure that existing houses would not be overburdened by rules aimed at larger targets.

Contemporary spec home builders love building big ugly houses. They rarely employ capable architects. Large contemporary hopes are usually little more than glommed together collections of marketable options such as supersized bedrooms, excercise rooms, bathrooms..you name it. The well designed large home has a long vernerable tradition. What is a McMansion anyway? A large house that you don't happen to like? Just stroll through the Kalorama neighborhood in Washington D.C. and you will see street after street of magnificent large homes on small lots. As for the role of "market versus governent"...the entire building industry is regulated and has been since the Roman Empire. By the way, if one were to make a mental list of beautiful neighborhoods in the US (such as), Savannah GA, Annapolis VA, Beacon Hill Boston, Georgetown DC, Edgartown MA, Brooklyn Heights, to name just a few, they would all be illegal to build with most contemporary zoning ordinances. Yes we will always need enforcable ordinances but there's a lot more to good design and human scale than f.a.r.,setbacks, lot coverage and height.

Part 2

More people should be talking about how to solve the problem.

IF the current plan will hurt 14% of current homwowners then this needs to be addressed.

Keep on talking and reaching the workable solution that will keep the town looking decent while giving current and future property owners the house they are interested in.

However, I am a firm believer that just because you like a community does not mean you can come in and do whatever you want to do.

Neighborhoods have looks and character based on a number of factors. There are unique houses in each block but they seem to fit in some way.

When 1 house in 3 goes big it makes the 2 other houses near it look 'less-than'

Any futher thoughts? Invite others to chime in.

PArt 1 -- Very interesting exchange, Scott, Dan, Skip.

The idea that serhat akiska, architect of teaneck brought up about being able to create a big ugly house that meets the rules I think misses the point.

Do you or your client want to really build a big ugly house?

There is a middle ground here.

It is good the planning board and borough council are finally addressing this matter.

I can think of a few houses that do not fit in in town already. on Abblington, Fairmount, Delmar to name a few.

What are they going to build on Maple near Bradford. There is teardown and and big hole.

I know a man on the BLVD who lost the sun light in his kitchen because his neighbor built out & up. The neighbor is up the hill from the man.

One problem is an inconsistent building and zoning enforcement. I have heard stories about builders getting approvals with no variances. While homeowners have a tough time getting simple projects approved.

It is community-wide issue.

Dan,
Thanks, I agree that homeownership does not come with unlimited and unregulated flexibility. We already have numerous regulations with respect to building coverage, set backs, etc. The council is proposing additional items (height, slope, and setbacks) that will certainly help. The GFA or FAR ,as the architect above stated, is a density issue, and can be designed around to create an ugly looking, large house.
My concern is that the council, in their attempt to "do something" is killing the ant with a sledgehammer. Too many families will be negatively affected for a GFA FAR rule that has too many loopholes.

Patrick, you should post pictures of ugly glen cove houses on flikr.com. i'd be interested

There are building code limits on construction size in Glen Rock now (set back, height, 3rd floor size relative to 2nd floor, etc). It's not as if there are no limits. My personal opinion is the ugliest new construction is GR is an issue of bad taste not size. Case in point the new house at the bottom of Norwood Ave. Pink masonite at its finest. All it needs is white gravel for a front yard and it could be in Lavalette. On the other hand several homes on Midwood Rd have been very nicely expanded (although lots are bigger there)

when the housing market falls apart, will it be possible to divide these giant palaces into reasonable sized apartments?

Skip,

That's a good point. Drop the word "ridiculous" from my post and the statement is just as valid. Property and structure ownership does not come with unlimited or unregulated flexibility in the use or the modification of the property or structures.

Dan

As an architect, I would like to explain what the "original FAR" is used for. It is not to regulate the mass or uglyness. It is used in urban planning to regulate the density. It is simply not the right tool for Glen Rock. I am sure I could design a house within the proposed perimeters which would look massiv and ugly.

I took the time to view those houses that were "immediately noncorming" being allowed to put a room out the back or raise a dormer would certainly NOT be considered by anyone as "ridiculous" in size. That is the problem with this approach. Other towns are in litigation over this GFA approach. Of the 12 houses that everyone agrees are Mcmansions" each would not have been built with the new height, pitch, and, side allowances. Some could have been built with the GFA allowance because of lot size and location of garage. GFA has many problems associated with it.

Does buying a house mean that you are also buying the right that you can expand the house to whatever ridiculous size you wish at whatever time in the future you wish? I think most would agree that this is not a reasonable or realistic expectation.

Those 500 homes are only the ones immediately non-conforming. another 500 homes will be so limited in size of expansion, they will essentially be unexpandable. The GFA approach has a number of loopholes so as to still allow "bulky" looking unattractive homes. The current ordinance has three other measures on height, roof pitch, and side positioning that will help. The Council wants to politically say "they did something". Unfortunately for almost 30% of the homeowners, this will drastically affect them. The other 70% will be living in a town that loses its attractiveness. Its really unfortunate that political expediency is taking over here.

Scott,

But any such expansion would be new construction. I don't see that as a terrible imposition of the will of the community on the individual property owner. Anyone who owns or buys a house knows that the ability to expand their dwelling is subject to the permitting process and that approval is not automatic.

Dan

dan, great question. if you live in a small house in glen rock and you are one of the 500-800 homes affected, you are out of luck!!!!
It does not only apply to new construction and this is why the public should know about it. if you are planning to expand, you might not be able to do anything. You're house might not have any potential for expansion. You can now move out of town and try to sell your house knowing that it is built to the max.
Scott

One other point about FAR... There are no guarantee that it works. Several other towns have tried and still distasteful homes are being built within new regulations. So, if the FAR will stagnate about 500-800 homes (14%)in glen rock, but no guarantees that it will work, why are we not looking to other alternatives??????
Scott

Scott,

How would existing homes be affected? Would not new regulations only apply to new construction?

Dan

Mc mansions have been around for a very long time. Look and any well to do neighbor hood from the Victorian era. These are giant houses that are squeezed together on small plots. Unless they have been significantly renovated, they are anything but energy efficient…. You can add the invention of urban sprawl to this architectural era when the rich moved out of the cities and started what we now call the suburbs. Even though they are beautiful examples of fine architecture, I’m sure at the time they were built they were thought as wasteful examples of the rich spending their money foolishly. Funny how history can repeat itself…..

I am an architect in glen rock, one of the main issues that was not discussed is the 500-800 homes that will become non-conforming overnight if the new FAR regulations is approved. What about the property values of those homeowners? For more information on the specific glen rock proposal, visit my blog at www.bella-studios.com... We all agree that distaseful design is not what we want, I beleive that the FAR proposal is the "wrong tool" as it will hurt too many homeowners' property rights.

Scott

Buy 2 lots (each 50' x 100') and build one bigger house that fits that that now 100' x 100'

Oh cmon -- go to asia or look at images of nyc 200 yrs ago -- small buildings become big buildings then attached ones.

so long as folks value crappy marble countertops and 8 ft tvs more than lawns this issue is dead.

Re: McMansions. It's not just how they look, because they often replace old unkempt houses. It's that they take up the entire lot, change the character of the neighborhood, take down the trees, usually do not relandscape, use alot of blacktop create more runoff not to mention the power useage. I don't want my town to look like a urban town. Those places are nice but that's why most of us moved to these lovely towns - for the trees, for the yards, for a little bit of nature. And I'm sick of "the market" argument. If I go shopping for a home and all the builders are building are these oversize buildings what choice do I have? I want to see the "Green" provisions in the town planning ordinances.
Haven't any of these builders heard of the environmental factors?
Susan
Rutherford

What about the issue concerning the amount of energy required to heat and coll? Not to mention the electricity consumption!!

I think if something different went up in Jacks backyard, his thoughts about an open market society would no longer apply.

Saddle River has a 2 acre minimum zoning.

Glen Rock has 50 x 100' lots

Today's show should have been titled "Lifestyles of the Rich & Bitchy."

are these giant houses needed by anyone? are they good for the environment
will the market feed us if we've built up our land unwisely. our greed based culture is unsustainable

What you're forgetting to note is the "Mc" element. It is the fact that all of these homes look the same. They have a fake "old" look and they are just distasteful. They are made from a uniform mold with little differentiation and craftsmanship. There is nothing special to them - yet they try to best the other old homes in the neighborhood. They are a sign of overconsumption - how many 2-child families need 5+ bedrooms? It is just gross - distasteful.

I live in Fanwood, a 1 square mile town in Union County, and I’m on the Planning Board. All NJ communities are dealing with oversized homes built on small lots. Our tow is built out, so people are converting Capes and Splits on 50X100 lots to larger homes to accommodate growing families. Our Planning Board spent about six months drafting a new height ordinance that we submitted to the Borough Council. Westfield, a nearby town, just passed a similar ordinance. I grew up on Staten Island where anything goes. We don’t want that happening in our little town.

We do not live in a free-market society. Bear Stearns was bailed out. In a free-market Bear Stearns would be gone.

McMansions are _more_ than an aesthetic issue.

They usually cut down atmoshpere-beneficial trees and other vegetation, replacing them with resource-consuming, wildlife-hostile and water-table-polluting lawns.

Not to mention the massive resource-hogging necessities of the oversized McMansions themselves.

I'm sure there's a lot of research on this; I'm just saying what I observe.

I used to see wild turkeys all the time near the patches of woods in southern CT. No more. Charming lanes have been turned into McMansion alleys with alarming speed.

What impact do these McMansions have on property assessments in the area? In a community where I have a home in Massachusetts, property taxes are being assessed based on real estate values--McMansions drive up real estate "values" for everyone, including those who maintain more modest homes. So it's not just the aesthetics of McMansions or the environmental impact, it's also the financial impact on those living in the area.

McMansions are simply houses that are not the appropriate scale for the site they are on. This can be governed by adjusting the zoning and should be the responsibility of the local jurisdiction.

Why not just legislate that homes cannot have square or cubic footage more than a fixed percentage larger than the average withing a given radius?

I've seen MacMansions in Long Island which mystify me. THey take an old house, add about twelve rooms to it, throw up a giant fence, and create these monsters.

I've always wondered if it were about extended families, since the ones I've seen are inhabited by Asians (Indian, Pakistanis). I can understand the desire to keep the family together.

But what I don't get is when I see an airconditioner in every window! That sometimes makes over ten airconditioners! It seems obscenely wasteful. That's what bothers me.

Well-planned downtowns; community centers; multi-use parks; bike paths; safe streets; enforced traffic laws; local businesses; long-time residents; strong volunteerism... each a vital sign of a healthy community and evidence of good stewardship.

On the other hand, sudden growth of McMansions is the telltale sign of the abuse of a community and its resources. They (along with chain businesses) float in on a sea of fishy zoning variances, ridiculous corporate promises and, of course, cheap immigrant labor.

There is an inverse correlation between McMansions and a strong community.