Here in Southern California, many "McMansions" are built by foreign-born immigrants who house multiple generations under one roof. I know that Orleans isn't writing about them, but maybe, just maybe, people have reasons other than ostentatious display for building a big house. Per square foot costs actually go down in a larger house, too. And Frank Lloyd Wright isn't exactly the poster boy for housing for the masses.

I agree that I don't understand the obsession with McMansions in the burbs, but I kind of understand the gigantic vacation homes they have for rent in places like Hilton Head. I've gone on several family reunion type trips where we purposely sought out huge homes like that because we needed lots of space (even more than the house she mentioned). We were packed to the brim, no fears of having wasted rooms! (In fact, my extended family used to go to Hilton Head every year for a while, but it was before I was born and before such large houses were available, so they ended up in condos.)

agree with everything....I am as anti-McMansions as they come but big vacation homes serve a purpose. They aren't generally rented by couples but families or groups of friends who want to be together.

Two things:

1.) America was founded on the notion that economic freedom through pursuit of personal property is the noblest endeavor. Big houses-for better or worse- are symbolic of the thing most cherished in our culture.

2.) I think it speaks to our romantic attachment to the bucolic. Before the technological comforts of the 20th century, cities were synonymous with cholera and tenement fires. Many immigrants landed in NY (having escaped the poverty of their own urban blights) with the idea that they could eventually move west and have their own place. Being king of one's own castle is distinctly American.

Extended family going away on vacation together? It definitely sounds like a situation calling for lots of space. Yeesh. Sorry for the locals, otoh, most of your economy is probably derived from tourism, so suck it up, I guess.

You might enjoy Daniel McGinn's c2008 House Lust: America's Obsession with our Homes. I think Americans have been falling out of love with mega-mansions. Mcmansions here usually look bad because their lots are too small and they clash with their more modest neighbors.

I've been reading for some time that residential (not vacation) houses have been being built smaller and that smaller houses are increasingly popular. A smaller home can be sufficient, and easier to maintain. Sarah Susanka's Not so Big series makes many good points.

I don't get the fascination for big houses. When buying my home this winter I looked at house after house that was just TOO big for me. Even with children I couldn't imagine a need for a 4 bedroom house with a finished basement! It seemed it was easier to find something that was humongous than something that was small and nice. I eventually found a great two bedroom, but I have to be honest and say that I haven't spent more than 20 minutes in the finished basement...I can't imagine having 5 more bedrooms!

I think that bluemamie's second assertion is somewhat sounder than the first. Back projecting contemporary consumer triumpahalism onto the early Republic would be *merely anachronistic* if it weren't being done to legitimize (and to de-legitimize) contemporary choices. Because bluemamie is adducing bogus history to declare materialism "distinctly American" it might be worthwhile to note that predominant strands in early American thought (i.e. Enlightenment civil virtue, most Christian denominations) would have seriously challenged the notion that the accrual of property was man's "noblest endeavor."

One might reasonably doubt the same assertion today -- despite threat of being labeled unAmerican.

I would doubt that most of the homes in Hilton Head and other beachside property were originally constructed for the purpose of being rented to large groups. The author makes a good point about enormous homes when the presumable goal is not to be at home at all. Are triple-height ceilings and enormous bedrooms really necessary in a vacation home? I think the author is saying that it is completely feasible to build a multi-bedroom vacation house suitable to be rented that isn't so large, gaudy or ostentatious.

One of the reasons for big homes in prime locations like (oceanfront) Hilton Head Island is that the lots are simply too expensive to build something small or to keep the smaller home that was built there forty years ago.

I agree wholeheartedly!

My family has had a beach bungalow for three generations - 2 bedrooms & approx. 800 square feet. We have an actual yard around our house and I find that space to help to promote the fantastic bay breezes that keep us cool and refreshed, and to allow us to see the bay from all four sides of the lot.

However, over the past decade or so, as some of the older residents have sold off their properties, their houses - perfectly lovely bungalows - are being torn down to build those monstrosities that Orlean talks about.

They block the views. They block the breezes! The (tiny) island is becoming very congested with these giant homes on postage stamp-sized lots. And these are, for the most part, not rental properties. And they're rarely, if ever, accommodating a large family. It's actually the older, smaller, one-storey homes of the families who have been there for years that are filled to the brim with houseguests!

I despise it - American right or not. I find it ostentatious.

One common eyesore here is when the original small house on a lot is scraped and replaced by 2-4 mcmansions that don't sell. Or, only one house is built on a scraped lot, but it's such a monstrosity that someone clearly had too much money and not enough taste. I read that a good architect tries to make a house fit in well with its surroundings but, for different reasons, that rarely happens here lately.

I am fortunate enough to have 2 vacation homes. One in the Adirondack mountains and one in Puerto Rico. the BEST thing about both houses are their size... size SMALL with lots of land/yard/lake/jungle around us. i rent out the mountain house to families who actually like to jam themselves into a small living space with 2 bathrooms and 5 (ok 3) bedrooms.
No condo for me.. land and a small space to sweep.

The house may be big and gaudy, but she and her family rented it! So there was something about this house that met their family's needs and they were willing to pay the price. That's why these homes exist - there is an entire market built around knowing that people with lots of money from elsewhere want to come down, play golf, and have a luxurious vacation right on the water.

Since these homes aren't typically rented year-around, they have to pay the entire year's bills with summer and "shoulder" season rentals. More bedrooms equals more rent, which hopefully covers the exhorbitant costs of waterfront property, water/sewer/services, insurance, taxes, and the rental management company's fees. Renting a small bungalow on the beach for three months a year simply doesn't pay the bills - unless the owner is lucky enough to own the property outright, the incentives are strongly stacked in favor of "upsizing" to capture more rental income.

Why a big house? For me, I need a spacious gift wrapping room all to myself. And don't tell me to use the art room down the hall to wrap gifts in -- the art room is for art, and besides, it's already starting to fill up with excess items from the puppet theater room, the thank-you letter-writing room, and the bow-tie-tying room.

@mdanger - I completely agree! My mother would really like to downsize from her current home, but she has not been able to find anything small but really high quality. Buying a lot and custom building a smaller home would cost more than her big home is worth.

Speaking as someone who wound up in a vacation home that was supposed to "sleep 12 comfortably" but wound up being a 2-bedroom bungalow with sleeper sofas in common areas ... yeah, I agree, when you're getting a large group together for a social activity, a multi-bedroom big house suddenly seems to make sense. If everyone stayed in motel rooms, they'd be using more square footage than a really big house (and they wouldn't be able to have a kitchen/laundry/private yard, etc.).

America isn't the only country with McMansions. For whatever reason, in the west we are tending to feel the need to have huge homes for small families. One of the latest add-ons here is the "alfresco", which would be more alfresco if it didnt have three walls & a roof - surely the yard would be alfresco enough?
The environmental impact of these (yes, you have a water tank but frankly it's doing nothing more that watering a few pots) is horrifying.

Actually, most of the ginormous houses found in places like Hilton Head and Duck WERE built to be rented to large groups. How do you think the owners could afford flood insurance if they couldn't charge an arm and a leg?

If you want a big house and, more importantly, can afford a big house, you should be able to get it. Without judgement.

Thanks for the financial explanation of why such big vacation houses were built. People "should" so freely in matters of taste and perspective that judgements about size may fly from both directions no matter a house's actual size. Aside from legal conflicts, e.g., zoning code non-compliance complaints, usually you don't have to do what those in judgement like, and they don't have to like what you do.

The nuveau riche have always had ostentatious taste - huge houses with faux luxe finishes are just one example. They rarely fit with their neighbors and are very energy inefficient. In addition to all the bedrooms and bathrooms, there are often great rooms, media rooms. Living rooms, dining rooms, eat in kitchens. Why, unless you're building it to rent to large groups?

That "immigrant" comment is ignorant. From what I can tell as a follower of real estate news and trends, buyers who "downsize" to a 3,000 sq. ft. new construction monstrosity are white bread Americans with no taste who have never even been to Italy but want a "Tuscan"-style kitchen. With granite. Of course.

@Jane Jones - and how is your comment any less ignorant.

Polishhilton, I could probably have explained my point better, my apologies.
While I agree with your points about the Enlightenment and religious doctrine, don't forget that the founders considered the term "pursuit of property" before deciding on "pursuit of happiness" for the Declaration of Independence instead. But you are correct, there is nuance.

Jane Jones, I don't know how mentioning the well known historical fact that immigrants in the 19th century fled European and later, American cities due to cholera is ignorant. Perhaps you incorrectly imagine a world in which we always had germ theory and running water?