An LA Times article on McMansions is here (available for one week only without subscription).
I'm not going to wade into a debate over McMansions in LA, but just a couple of observations:
1. According to the article, tony Beverly Hills has a McMansion ordinance that limits home size to 1,500 square feet plus 40% of lot size. A 6,000 square foot lot there will support a 3,900 square foot house. By contrast, Austin's ordinance permits only a 2,400 square foot house on a lot that size (assuming the building envelope would accommodate a house that size). Just 2200 square feet, if it has an attached two car garage.
2. Prices have been in the stratosphere in LA for years, and I'm sure developers have been replacing small houses with large ones for years. Why the outcry now? Or why does opposition now have enough support to be taken seriously? I obviously don't know, but I wonder whether it's related to the percentage of homeowners who bought recently. It seemed to me during the Austin McMansion debate that many of the most vocal supporters were recent homebuyers. Since they paid a premium to live there, and probably don't have much equity on average, they're the most vulnerable to change. Just speculation.
