The Real Estate division at Quinn & Co. has been discussing this trend for quite some time and an article just ran on CNBC.com about, “The death of the McMansion.” Yes, apparently 2010 marks the apocalypse of the McMansion.
Is this really news though?
I guess the most interesting information that came from the article is a recent survey by Trulia in which only nine percent of those polled said their ideal home would be over 3,000-SF (which according to sources is one characteristic that defines a McMansion), and a whopping one third of those polled said their ideal home would be under 2,000-SF. For real?! Under 2,000-SF? Now, do these people mean 1,999-SF or 1,200-SF?
I began pondering this and found it really hard to believe that this was their ideal home size. Then again, whether it is true or false isn’t the question, the interesting question is why.
Let me introduce Suspect A – the media. For nearly three years now, we have been inundated by the press with news about the effects of overconsumption, frivolous spending and irrational debt. So it makes sense that people don’t want to buy a home that could fall into one of those categories. By nature, people don’t want to go against societal norms and right now BIGGER IS NOT BETTER.
But isn’t it only a matter of time before our attention span for this so-called minimalist revolution begins to crumble? One part ad campaign hyping luxury-living, two parts news stories reporting a rising interest in high-end real estate and SHAZAM! A cocktail to cure the post-recession hangover. Once again, people everywhere will be one-upping each other for the biggest and best home. Only this time we will have to come up with a new nickname…maybe Petite Palace? Sounds harmless.
Now I’m not saying this is going to happen nor would it ever be this simplistic, but definitely food for thought to see if McMansions will continue to remain in the ninth percentile of the American dream or once again become a trend.
