Whenever a derogatory term enters the popular discourse, it is necessary to examine the explicit and implicit meanings intended and decide for ourselves whether they constitute a truthful representation. One of the more recent entrants is the term "McMansion" which can be defined as a big house (like a mansion) but cheap (like McDonalds food) in relative terms and having negative impacts on nature and community. By big house what is commonly meant is space from around 2,500 or 3,000 square feet to around 4,000. Cheap really depends on where in the country you are talking about but generally refers to what someone not (or not yet) in the "executive ranks" can afford. This typically includes middle management, two earner blue collar families, or young families of the upwardly mobil. A fair representation is any buyer who is south of the upper middle income bracket. "Negative impacts on nature" is hard to define as it is as nuanced as any liberal position on any issue. Similarly, "negative impact on community" is a complex comment. "McMansion" is a term having many and varied layers of meaning which generally say far more about its purveyors than they do about those who would purchase such a home.

Homes and neighborhood are as complex as anything in America. A given price level yields a tremendous range of housing products across this vast land. $400,000 will get you a cardboard box and 100 square feet in some of the lesser neighborhoods of Manhattan or a 3,000 square foot "McMansion" on a half acre or more in some less "desirable," less urban and less urbane locations. The realtors' mantra of "location, location, location" explains some of the extreme price differentials between seemingly similar neighborhoods. But "location" pure and simple is only part of the equation. Real people look at a variety of elements which comprise "location" when they make housing decisions.

The notion of home size is an interesting study of its own. Frequently one can see the "best" neighborhoods consisting of communities and towns where there is no more land for development. These towns have relatively smaller lots and homes but the income levels of residents are far above those of surrounding communities. They are close to such amenities as urban professional and executive job markets, "artistic and cultural centers," and certain other components the wealthy feel are necessary for urbane living. Commonly they are near the places where real mansions owned by genuinely wealthy people are located. A better neighborhood might be adjacent to another town with identical buildings and circumstances but if one inquires why homes in one community are 40% or more greater than those in the "better neighborhood," one is often told that if "you don't know the difference, I can't help you." In every broader housing market there exist these "better neighborhoods" which a mid-level executive, couple of teachers, or young family can not even hope to attain without sticking with lunches of peanut butter and jelly on Wonder bread and dinners out at Applebees (choosing the cheaper items on the menu) maybe once each month. As a result, a large portion of would-be home buyers don't even look at these neighborhoods.

When home buyers make the decision to eschew the "better neighborhoods," they begin looking around at all the available alternatives to "executive living." More often than not they find existing homes in established neighborhoods which are decent but somewhat older, smaller and requiring a lot of fixes. Even these may chase the typical young family who may not have enough time after work to get acquainted with Home Depot or Lowes. So they look outwards from there and grit their teeth over the expected commute. More and more frequently they discover old small towns which have lots of land where new home builders are busy slapping up 2,500 - 3,000 sf. center hall colonials or similar buildings (depending on where you are in the country). Once a potential buyer contemplates the given level of deprivation expected with the home buying event, one quickly measures the differences between surviving in 1,500 sf. of used space with no closets, in need of major repair now or in the foreseeable future, and enjoying 3,000 sf. of brand spanking new space including his and her walk-in closets which needs only the cosmetic, decorating finer touches. Other things being equal more and newer space always seems better.

One of the first elements of almost any home buying decision is the quality of local schools. If you've got kids, you want to know that local schools can help turn them into the sort of adults you hope they become. Even if you don't have kids, you would prefer to know that most of those young whippersnappers are more interested in extra-curricular activities for their college resume than they are in taking your car for a joyride or stringing up your pet cat. The quality of local public schools gives you an idea of the quality of a neighborhood.

The schools in the new "McMansion" neighborhoods are not generally as good as their counterparts in the "better" neighborhoods or those adjacent thereto. But beneath this "better school" layer there is a phenomenon which occurs with greater and greater frequency. When large numbers of this kind of buyer move into an area of newly minted "McMansions," the schools magically begin improving rapidly because the student component comes from homes which will not tolerate substandard academic performance nor setting of the school bar too low. "We didn't mortgage our future so you could slack off or learn easier subject!" So the school element of "other things being equal" begins to equalize with the "better" neighborhoods.

The cultural elements of the "better" neighborhoods are often pretentious attempts at mirroring the big city. And these aspects of life are often available to those in the outlands when and if they need them via a relatively short car ride. I can think of one neighborhood with very expensive, not very big homes which sees itself as within a stone's throw of the local cultural center. The would-be artists in this center are not very talented but somehow they get by. The cultured residents of the "better" neighborhoods think of these artists as their very own but are noticing the owners of not very distant "McMansions" are patronizing the same institutions with greater frequency and shoving the well to do out of the way in the process. This causes some of the animus between upper middle America and others which may have part of the blame for the birth of the term "McMansion" to begin with. These are the "negative impacts on community" many complain about.

"Negative impact on nature" is perhaps the last front in the battle against "McMansions." We are reminded of urban sprawl almost daily and there is some truth to the notion. If you extrapolate the current rate of growth in home building, eventually every square inch of land in this nation will be filled with housing and industry. But that's not a reasonable expectation as there are efforts in densely populated areas to make sure that this does not happen. Often communities which are growing rapidly set aside space for forests, wetlands and other natural habitat. Also, whereas deer, foxes, coyotes and other wildlife do not prowl the city streets of densely populated areas, they can often beeen seen in the McMansion neighborhoods with their half or full acre lots. Housing can pose some stresses on local wildlife but not nearly the impact cities and densely packed neighborhoods of 5,000 sf. lots do. In short, wildlife can actually flourish in the "McMansion" neighborhoods.

The neo-conservationists are not finished with the "negative impact on nature" argument once the wildlife myth is exposed. They continue the onslaught by waving the global warming flag. Obviously a 3,000 sf. home requires more carbon spewing power than a 1,500 sf. one, doesn't it? Not always! Often a circa 1950 1,500 sf. dwelling is so energy inefficient when compared to a newer 3,000 sf. one that it can takes more power to heat and cool. Those making the global warming argument often need to put their copious dollars where their mouths are and seal up their own neighborhoods to compete with the energy efficiency of the newer "McMansion."

I guess it is time to figure out where exactly I'm going with this piece! I don't want to color myself an advocate of the "McMansion" but on the other hand I simply want to question why we need to have such a vitriolic term in our society's discourse. I believe the foundations of the term are close cousins to the notion of "nouveau riche" of bygone times. The upper levels of management and income simply do not want anyone living better than themselves on lesser incomes. They do not like having their local cultural centers filled with lower management, blue collar workers, teachers, and the like. They have filled their lives with notions of grandeur even if they personally cannot afford the real mansions located down the street. They'll do just about anything to maintain their own superiority. And advocating a simple term like "McMansion" makes themselves feel better about having settled for a small space in a cluttered place.