This is going to start a riot.
As long as the development is within the legal requirements of the area, then people should not be dictating what others do with their property. "Charm" and "Character" are highly subjective terms and it's pointless to argue about them. What's "charming and oozing with character" to one person is "urban blight" to someone else. I've seen some good and bad examples of infill development in this city. For the most part, I've seen good examples ... and the infill developments are vast improvements over the shoebox homes that were on the lots previously. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's worth preserving. And not everyone wants to cram themselves into a small house/apartment.

The article says Chevy Chase has "3,000 residents" which is probably accurate, but please don't think it's a small town. Chevy Chase is less than 10 miles from Washington DC. Median income is over $200,000 and the residents are extremely educated.

As someone who is very familiar with the McMansion boom in the DC area, I sympathize with those who want to preserve the older homes, but not with the ones who would egg someone else's. McMansions are not all the same, despite the name. 5,000 square feet for two people is decadent, but I had a neighbor who had four kids and elderly parents. Eight people in 5,000 square feet is not unreasonable. So it's all relative. I think what the residents are really opposing are those who want decadence for decadence sake, and the quote in this article "don't take up any more space than you need" captures that.

Here's that article. It gives really good clarity into the fight, which hasn't changed much since 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101470.html

Perhaps they could put size restrictions on new construction that is based on lot size. This could take care of the space issue. And inadvertently might take care of charm/historical issues. I do agree with JamieO2 that charm and character are pretty subjective. In Indy, I have seen some nice examples of new construction fitting in on long, narrow lots with older homes nearby. However, if you really want that sprawling, usually generic McMansion, maybe you should build in the 'burbs instead of next to the home built in 1930.

I am thankful every day that I got my shoebox (I consider it a jewel box) in the DC area before it could be demolished. I have a wonderful 2 mile commute, easy access the city, a small house to heat/cool/clean, and a large sunny lot. If the day comes that one of my neighbor's houses is demolished, and a behemoth towers over me, I'll have to move.
The sad fact is you cannot regulate the taste or needs (or income!) of others. The only thing that can be done is to regulate the amount of a lot that can be built upon and the height limit. That needs to be done before the house is built. This is not necessarily about "charm," as no amount of charm matters when the sky is blocked out. If however, your county/city just wants the tax dollars, then the regulations will reflect that--and house size will be maximized.

I am familiar with the situation in Chevy Chase and live in a similar nearby community. In my neighborhood, there have been many infill "McMansions" added over the last few years. They definitely stand out from the more modest bungalows and capes on the street. Most of the new homes are being built to replace some seriously run-down properties, though. We're talking questionable electrical, plumbing, crumbling plaster, leaking roofs, you name it. Land values in areas like this are very high, and the only way for an owner to make a profit is to tear down and build something much larger. You would likely take a loss if you did a down-to-studs remodel with existing square footage. Many of the infills do try to at least keep a similar "style" as the nearby homes. I have seen many well-done craftsman-style new homes. Overall, I welcome the new additions. They are generally replacing unattractive properties, and bringing up property values for the whole neighborhood.

7 years of this crap? Why doesn't the zoning board in Chevy Chase get off their asses and vote to change the lot coverage percentage in the ordinance??

Every zoning ordinance has a section about lot coverage rules, meaning you can't cover more than a certain percentage of your lot with impermeable material (house, driveway, patio, etc). If they are building 5000 sqft homes on quarter acre lots, then the legal lot coverage percentage for new construction there is extremely high. If the board votes to lower it you will see home sizes come down or lot sizes increase, or you'll start to see 3 story homes.

I think the residents would be happy if a construction company built homes more in the style with the historical homes, like CSTR said. I saw a lot of Cape Cods that were just adorable from the outside, but run down on the inside and also featured second floor additions with 7 foot ceilings. The second floor felt claustrophobic and cramped and I knew I couldn't live there. Those homes could have been improved if someone were to built a new Cape Cod in its place (with normal height ceilings).

Besides rectrictions on heights and square feet, some neighborhoods can be classified as "historical" or as of "interest" in order to preserve character/uniformity. This is not only for nineteehth century streets or areas planned by Wright or Eichler, but also, say, for more modest mid-century development (those not designed by famous architects).

This seems like one of those issues where people might be quick to jump on the "preserve it!" bandwagon until it's their house. Then gigantic bathrooms and walk-in closets take precedence. Of course both of these things can exist together, but it is a matter of taste and sense. I've seen some lovely new homes and some terrible ones. And not all old homes are treasures. In my opinion the best scenario is when people are able to renovate and put on additions without completely demolishing the existing home, but it's not always possible.

It is a bit of a wonder that house size has increased so much while the family size on average has been on the decline. I could not see myself in a McMansion unless they removed half the walls and cutouts to create a more open floorplan. Having lived in Baltimore County I did get to see many new developments in the area which did nothing more than remove the all the foliage and relocated all activity to a few strip malls.

I saw a good point in a discussion about infill in my town, which is both historic and run down (a lot of supposedly temporary post war and post Halifax explosion story-and-a-half bungalows went up hastily which have just stuck around). The poster pointed out that people who build ugly vinyl-sided big houses in charming city streets are profiting from the charm of the neighboring houses while not adding anything to the streetscape. I actually LIVE in a big house which was well-redone on the inside but the previous owners couldn't have made the outside more bland if they tried. It's not quite in the budget to reside (plus it seems a shame to landfill perfectly fine siding) so we're trying to add charm in other ways.

I do think the answer is to designate historic districts for special neighborhoods that at least have some kind of standards .... e.g. height and lot coverage.

That said, historic district regulations can be very frustrating when you're on the wrong side of them. A friend of mine just renovated his Montreal bungalow, which has about 6.5 foot ceilings on the second floor, and he was limited to adding a shed dormer because they wouldn't let him raise the roof. Despite the fact that many of his neighbors had already raised theirs before the designation. If he had known just how strict the designation was he probably would have bought elsewhere.

As a former city planner, stories like this make me sigh and shake my head. This is NOT a new trend. If smaller homes and more open space is truly a value of the community, then they'll have no trouble adjusting their zoning and subdivision regulations to reflect that. They've had many, many years to address the McMansion issue. If they still have regulations that allow homes that are out of proportion, well...they could have done something about it. As other commenters have mentioned.

If a community has inadequate regulations, it's still possible that homeowners and developers will build homes that are scaled appropriately, and fit in aesthetically with their surroundings. But too many communities leave that up to chance, in my opinion.

Just read the linked article from Pi - all I can say is I certainly do not have the same values as the people insisting on newer and bigger. And the article mentioned the increase in home values, etc. and people seemed to feel very entitled to their large homes. I would be curious to see what they think post-Oct 2008... ie in today's market.

Gehry, Frank - "In the end, the character of a civilization is encased in its structures."

Morris, William - "These old buildings do not belong to us only, they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do with as we like with them. We are only trustees for those that come after us."

Shankland, Graeme - "A country without a past has the emptiness of a barren continent; and a city without old buildings is like a man without a memory."

I always wonder - if a neighborhood was that nice, wouldn't everybody be trying to preserve it? I think the answer is "yes" if people are attracted to the character of the neighborhood. If it's about the location alone, then the answer is no. Maybe McMansions are the price you have to pay for living in a highly desirable location like Chevy Chase?
Also - after looking at Real Estate listings for Chevy Chase, MD, I am having a very hard time feeling bad for them because of the "blight" in the city. I wonder what they would consider half of the houses in my neighborhood - uninhabitable maybe?

I really really hate the huge MacMansions and I was involved in a 10 year long neighborhood fight against a property developer, in one of the oldest, most historic towns in the country. It finally went to the State Supreme Court and we lost. Now we are working to change the laws that enable this to happen.

I think it will require both a carrot and a stick. I mean, a change in laws that allow property owners to do pretty much anything they want with their land and big houses getting too expensive to live in. Twenty years ago there were a ton of huge antique houses sitting on the market at low prices, just because they were too expensive to maintain and heat. At some point that will happen to all these humungous monstrosities that are mushrooming up around the nation.

"If however, your county/city just wants the tax dollars, then the regulations will reflect that--and house size will be maximized."

This is basically what it is all about. Scraping off older existing bungalows on smaller lots has happened in the city where I live all around me and especially in the pricier neighborhoods. It would be nice if there were some guidelines in place--that homes may need to fit the existing character of the neighborhood. I think most of these homes were built by speculators with the intent of making money as the people do not stay in them for long--just the required 3 years and then they sell and now due to the economy the huge homes sit for months on end, even when slashing prices by as much as $30K or more. Some sit empty for months on end. This has occurred where I live where an existing brick ranch home with a large lot was scraped and replaced by a much larger home. It has been on the market for over 4 years and the asking price was $1.2 million. The builder intends to sell the rest of the lot to build another home exactly like the one he just did. The economy has halted some of this, but not in some areas. The city is too greedy and will continue to allow this since it is all about tax dollars.

I'm in favor of preserving the past, when its something worth preserving. However, is It really necessary to preserve every 50+ year old house in this country? Are all of them historically significant and do they really enrich our lives? Some people love them, and some people hate them. Those that love them will preserve them, but everyone shouldn't be forced to do that.

A bit of a reply to Dulcibella -- your comment, "a change in laws that allow property owners to do pretty much anything they want with their land" is interesting. By this token, the elderly folks who let their properties crumble around them should be penalized just as much as those who want to build a new construction mansion. Look, we can't force our neighbors to have the same values and tastes as we do. Zoning laws are in place to limit what we can do with our properties to a large extent. If you want to live in a place with more limitations on property owners -- then perhaps you should consider moving to a neighborhood with an HOA or one with historic preservation restrictions. I am willing to put up with both unkempt properties and with McMansions (side-by-side in many cases) to live in a vibrant walkable community. YMMV.

How about building a house that makes good use of space instead of just taking up a bunch of space? I'm a huge fan of architect/author Sarah Susanka and her "not so big house" approach. Her homes are still bigger than an old bungalow but she encourages people to work within the constructs of their existing neighborhoods. (And she's been featured on This Old House!)

I agree with her approach and principles as building better and smarter isn't always a matter of building bigger. I applied this to my home before I'd ever even heard of her. My neighbors have a family room addition, but they don't use their living room. If they had small children maybe they would use that additional space more, but it is hard to say. I have a friend who likes the open room concept of the kitchen opening up to the living room, etc., and I don't. She felt sequestered and ignored in the kitchen and preferred having it open, while I don't mind having some separation, although I did open up the kitchen to the formal dining room.

Unfortunately, they'll have to go through govt channels to change zoning laws. I'm surrounded by this same kind of activity. In recent years Seattle reworked the zoning laws to support density.
Short of buying everything around me, I have no control. I even had a developer tell me I should tear down my lovely 118yo house and cram some townhouses on the double lot. Um... no thanks.

The picture for the article does not reflect a McMansion, but a large house with plenty of lot space.... In the city that I live the McMansions are buit in small lots, with 5 ft easements.
The environmental aspects of building a mansion for the common folk... higher energy bill, change in flood patterns (less water is absorbed during downpours), sunlight and air circulation is diminished.

I am not a fan of mcmansions to be sure. However, there are many areas in which my 1200 squarefoot home for myself, my husband and two kids would seem decadent. Plus, anyway you slice it, almost all Americans (and other westerners to a lesser degree) use more than our fair share of the earths resources. It seems self-righteous to say that someone else's extravagance is "too much" when really all of us are really taking too much. I'm just saying that it's not just the mcmansions that are the problem. It's a deeper more systemic issue.

sigh ... not all new construction falls into the "McMansion" category, unfortunately too many people throw that term around and apply it to any new construction that they, personally, don't like.

I've lived in an old house and a new "McMansion" (sublet) and I'd take a 100 year old house over a new big house any day. So no, if you bought the property, feel free to put whatever you can afford (really afford, not pay yourself to death "afford") but if there is a well preserved older house, maybe it's worth preserving.

replying to my own post: I am a big fan of very modern architecture. The picture above is to me though a show of distorting traditional building structure "McMansion". So yeah, either old or very modern.

Fledder, post-2008, things have not changed so much in the D.C. area. D.C. is largely insulated from the U.S.'s economic woes, because it's a company town for the government, and business in that realm is still very good. I grew up there and have a friend who is a real estate agent, and the prices for things she posts never fail to amaze me. And the 4-bedroom house my parents bought in 1980 for $100k and sold in 1997 for $250k is now worth $600k.

"If however, your county/city just wants the tax dollars, then the regulations will reflect that--and house size will be maximized."

I can't disagree more. Where I live, the historic districts are among the most expensive areas to live and therefore suffer some of the highest property taxes. Here, taxes are calculated by the value of the property, not strictly by the square footage of the house. And, frankly, it is the value of the land that has the most weight. For my property, as an example, the cost of the land is 90% of my total taxable property value according to tax rolls.

It really comes down to choice. Some people want to live where there are more extensive rules for house construction and maintenance. Those people can live in HOA neighborhoods or historic/conservation districts. Others feel that they payed for the property, they should be able to do what they like so long as it meets health/safety codes. There are areas that allow for that, too.

I am in a conservation district, and while I feel that my district has struck a decent balance in preserving the feel of the neighborhood without being unreasonably restrictive, still there are times where I feel I ought to be able to do what I want with my house and not have to wait for a quarterly meeting to get X approved.

I can also tell you that preserving the older homes comes with a price. They are smaller and more expensive to upkeep. They are less energy efficient unless you spend a ton of money ripping out and replacing insulation, windows, roofing, electrical. Closets are generally non-existent, and rooms are not set up the way a modern family likes to use their house. Many bedrooms and one bathroom is the norm. Tiny kitchens and unattached garages. How many parents would like having an outside door into their kid's room? It's common here.

This post reminds me a lot of when I watch various real estate or house hunting shows on HGTV and they always have the couple on that walks into a master bedroom and instantly cringe at how small it is. In the meantime you look around your own house and think my entire first floor would fit into that bedroom so I can only imagine what they would think of my house.

It is very disheartening that the conversation immediately turns to the usual four topics:
1. More regulation
2. "Historic" preservation
3. Property taxes/value
4. Development profit.

While -as many posts have noted- style and charm are subjective, quality is not. The fact that the trend in home-building has consistently veered towards bigger and bigger houses built with cheaper and cheaper materials is undeniable. In Houston, where there are no zoning laws, development has focused on cramming as many as 8 "townhouse" units on the site where one house used to stand - without consideration for accommodating the 16 cars that now have to fight to park on the street.

It boggles my mind to see how Function and Sense are completely absent from the conversation. The perception of the American home dweller has unfortunately been warped so much, that it’s no longer even part of the discussion. It’s really sad, but it reflects the attitude of “us vs. them” that permeates our society, as opposed to the more collaborative “we”. Most, if not all of the posts above, are in one way or another pitting one thing versus another. Developers vs. neighborhoods, “historic preservation” vs. “modernization”, etc.; instead of arguing for quality and long term value.

Asking for more regulations (1) only leads to more headaches, and eventually only benefits the lawyers and rewards the party with the bigger pockets. It limits creativity, it halts progress, and it strangles the possibility for mixed, sustainable neighborhood development.

“Historic preservation” (2) is even worse than (1) because on top of all the hindrances, it aggravates the issue by outright denying progress. Old is not better than new in the same way that new is not better than old. Better is better. Trying to “preserve” a neighborhood by painting it with an old brush is condemning it to being a sterile display of what once was, and effectively forcing its inhabitants to live in a museum. And who said that “Victorian” is more valuable than “Tudor”, or any of those other invented names for things that are just plain old. Rome is historic, Chevy Chase’s “historic” is just a mediocre copy of an interpretation of a period when style was dictated by the available technology to try and hold up to the elements. There ARE things worth preserving, but they could probably be counted with the fingers of one hand. If you want fake castles or enormous, inflated “cottages”, go live in the suburbs.

Property values and the taxes they pay (3) are yet another impossible conundrum. Why would anyone want the value of their house to go up, unless they are planning on selling it? The sad truth is that everyone in this country is unfortunately focused on just that: making a buck. Therefore, nobody designs a house where they may want to live, raise a family and inherit it to their grandchildren, and their grandchildren in turn. Instead, everyone designs a house for the minimum common multiple, for the blandest and most beige, so that it can be quickly offloaded to someone else, who can then offload it to someone else. All homes are now designed, specified and built so that they don’t match anyone in particular, or in other words, they are designed for NO-ONE. If, instead, the true value of a house were measured by the quality, and longevity of its structure and the flexibility of its design to accommodate generations, as opposed to speculators, then I would venture so say that retaining its value would be much more important, and worth the effort to pay the corresponding taxes.

But who am I kidding? The ONLY focus of the era is short term profit. And the quicker and easier it is to make a few dollars off the ignorant masses, the better. Everyone is so convinced –at their very core– that bigger is better, that nobody seems to see how unnecessary these extra big houses, extra big couches, extra big cars, extra big TVs, extra big shopping centers really are. Greedy developers are not the problem, they are just a symptom of it; an opportunistic parasite feeding on the trend. Good for them! But do we have to keep feeding them? Should we continue to focus on “growth” instead of long term sustainable value? No, I don't think so.

I’m not advocating for smaller anything, but rather for right-size. What is wrong with THE RIGHT SIZE?

If the house on the lot isn't big enough for the buyer then why don't they just buy a bigger house somewhere else?! Would be cheaper to buy a bigger house to begin with than to have one custom built (with the idea that they'll just flip it in a few years anyway). And why enter an established neighborhood already knowing that your plans with destroy any potential relationship you may have with the neighbors & the community. People who do that must know ahead of time that the existing neighbors will hate them from the start. Maybe they don't care about establishing roots, making friends, & raising their kids there because they don't plan on staying for longer than the flip time? It's so stupid. There are already PLENTY of McMansions sitting vacant from the previous owners foreclosing because they bit off more than they could chew. How about buying one of them? Humans are so selfish & greedy. It makes me embarrassed sometimes to be a member of the species.

I'm lucky enough to live in Bath, UK which is a World Heritage Site and protected accordingly. We have fairly strict planning laws which is great. We recently doubled the size of our house but because we kept it all in keeping with the neighbourhood, it was approved without issue. It's perfectly possible to extend without making things look awful, and without upsetting your neighbours! Our house is vastly better now without its flat roofed extension and with new gates and so on.

As someone who works in this neighborhood every day- I can completely vouch for this as being absolutely true.

I absolutely hate when people build these abominations, but they are within their rights and I wouldn't bother them over it, no matter how depressing and tasteless I think they are. As long as they don't expect their neighbors to lay out the welcome mat after waging war on the neighborhood with their tacky mcmansion, they can enjoy their tasteless, community-less home all they want without interference.