Transferable McMansion development rights

Trying to get caught up . . .

From Time Magazine, on Boulder County, Colorado's new McMansion ordinance:

Michelle Krezek, Boulder County land use manager, said the commissioners "want to allow property owners who either have or want smaller-scale homes to be able to sell a portion of their 'unused' square footage." Homeowners willing to sign away their option to someday add additions to their houses would receive a one-time payment as well as lower yearly tax assessments on their homes. The forfeited enlargement rights would then be available for purchase through a specially established market. Residents planning to build or expand homes larger than the recommended thresholds — 7,000 square feet on the plains, 5,000 square feet in the mountains — would be required to purchase additional development rights at prices determined by the market, which might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per property. Krezek adds: "This will allow for an ongoing diversity of housing stock and allow for people of varied means to own homes in Boulder County."

Although both Boulder and Austin now have something called a "McMansion ordinance," they are nothing alike.  Austin's ordinance targets "McMansions" as small as 2,300 square feet (or smaller, if the owners have the temerity to include an attached two-car garage).  Boulder's is aimed at 5,000 to 7,000+ square foot homes, two to three times the size of the average new American home. 

But the bigger difference is probably the method of regulation.  Austin has chosen a heavy-handed command-and-control regime, with dense regulations that specify everything from gable height to roof pitch to the jogs ("articulation") in side walls.  Austin's regulations also freeze current entitlements in place, rewarding those who have already added to or redeveloped their property at the expense of those who have not.  Boulder has chosen a more flexible, market-like approach.  Owners who put a high value on extra space can buy the development rights from owners who do not. 

I think Boulder's ordinance is infinitely superior to Austin's.  I think both are wrong to arbitrarily cap the total square footage of housing space.  But at least under Boulder's system, the square footage will be allocated efficiently.

I'm not sure how Boulder justifies its ordinance, though.  It cannot be justified by concerns over massing, scale, neighborhood character, shadows, backyard gardens, or the privacy to lounge naked in your backyard with the salamanders, because super-size homes can still be built in the midst of smaller homes as long as the owners are willing to pay a premium.

Boulder's ordinance reinforces my belief that at root McMansion regulations are about status anxiety.  The home and neighborhood a homeowner chooses signal his relative status.  Tear-downs in a neighborhood change the relative rank of homes, forcing owners of older homes down the status ladder.  This may not be a big deal for those who are already at the bottom, or for those at the top who could match the new construction if they wanted to.  But it could matter a lot to the status-sensitive in the middle who can't help being outclassed.  (Whether our land-use regulations ought to cater to middle-class insecurities is of course a separate question . . . )