McDuplex

Frequent commenter Don Johnson, an infill developer, sent me the picture below, which nicely illustrates how the McMansion regulations actually encourage the construction of massive duplexes.

 

Requiring the units to share a common wall guarantees a massive structure.  The building envelope eliminates any interesting architectural variation and forces every structure to the middle of the lot.  Mandating side-wall articulation means a jagged, jumbled design.

The worst provision is probably the common-wall requirement.  The developers I've spoken to say they'd prefer to separate the units, using the garage as the connection.  (Many pre-McMansion duplexes have this form.)  This would result in two smaller units rather than one giant structure.  But the McTask Force apparently felt developers were circumventing our anachronistic lot-size requirements, so they decided to stick us with these hulking structures -- duplexes guaranteed to clash with the existing stock.

Thanks, Task Force.  Thanks a lot.

Comments

[Bruce]

Simply tragic.

This duplex looks very similar to a horrifying infill house just built near me at Justin & Grover, although I don't think that one is a duplex. I wonder if it's the same developer, or if the McRules just pushed both designs in similar directions.

[Bruce]

Here is the project on Justin I referred to above.

(Warning: Large images, slow loady!)

http://www.zionconstruction.us/zbxe/?document_srl=208#0

[AC]

Yeah, it's a different project.

And I'm really not trying to beat up on the developer, who's just following the rules.

[Bruce]

"And I'm really not trying to beat up on the developer, who's just following the rules."

Understood. I'm just trying to determine if these rules guided two different developers towards similar aesthetic results.

[Glenn M]

I'll agree that the common-wall requirement may be stifling some better designs. But after living across the street from a row of super-twos that had flat two-story walls, the articulation is less fugly to me than the hulking flat walls.

And if I was in a small bungalo on either side of the blue beast above, I'd be glad that even if I had to look at the eyesore at least I'd still be able to see the sun.

I won't say that the McMansion ordinance is perfect. But it does fix some problems folks were having as huge beasts were being added to old bungalo neighborhoods. As more big houses are built, it's less of a problem as the houses will be closer to each other in mass.

Just being the contrarian-contrarian :-)

[AC]

Bruce:

Single-family homes obviously aren't affected by the common-wall requirement. The envelope requires that they be centered in the lot, which, again, encourages a mindless uniformity, but otherwise the regs can't be blamed for the bulkiness.

Glenn, who wants to see the sun when its 105 degrees out? McMansions provide shade! What's the deal -- don't you care about conserving energy? ;)

[DSK]

Hey, at least they built that house on Justin on pier and beam rather than a slab. That's better than can be said for the stuff at Mueller, apparently.

[breathesgelatin]

I live near the Justin and Grover house too, and I don't think it's that bad.

[Don Johnson]

This picture is the poster child of what we got from the McTaskforce. Whoever created this didn't sit down and think up this design. They sat down and designed something that adhered our local design guidelines. And no, cool is not dead if you remove budget from the equation. But I really enjoyed the heyday of the duplex while it lasted. There were some really ingenious things starting to happen and the price points were pretty decent considering what you were getting. The tragedy is only beginning to sink in. People should hold lectures based on this photo. You can almost see the subchapters of the McMansion ordinance springing to life out of this exhibit.

[Eric Rauser]

The true punch-line is what the MaMansion rules do to duplexes. Because of the tent and common-wall rules, you can still make duplexes, but they have to look like McMansions.