American communities are taking a stand against massive houses
In a country fixated on increasing size, American homes continue to expand. Now, local officials are working diligently to address the issue of excessive mansion sizes.
What is the size of a house? Jeremy Samuelson, the planning director for East Hampton, N.Y., reflected on the recent proposal to reduce the maximum-allowed house size in the town. The working group suggested cutting it in half, from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
“It’s worth noting,” Samuelson highlighted during a public meeting in May, “that while there are restrictions on constructing a large retail store exceeding 15,000 square feet in this town, our house size surpasses that by an additional 5,000 square feet.”
Communities from Aspen to Martha’s Vineyard are embroiled in a heated debate over large residences. Some individuals argue that the increasing number of large houses negatively impacts the beauty of the surrounding landscapes and the unique character of local communities. They also claim that these mansions consume an excessive amount of energy and contribute to rising property prices.
What’s the challenge? The horse, or more accurately, the thoroughbred, has already departed from the barn.
Jaine Mehring, the founder of Build.In.Kind/East Hampton, a land-use group, is against the construction of excessively large homes. Her Instagram feed is inundated with poop and vomiting emojis from her 1,700 followers whenever she posts photos of luxury homes. One person sarcastically commented on a 12,000-square-foot spec house listed for nearly $12 million, expressing their disapproval of greed. “Exquisite architecture, huh?” scoffed another person.
During the May meeting, Mehring shared a letter written by architecture critic Paul Goldberger. In the letter, Goldberger expressed a desire for East Hampton to maintain its unique identity, rather than becoming a generic coastal town.
According to data from the Census Bureau, there has been a significant increase of 150% in the size of houses in the United States between 1980 and 2018. In 2022, the average size of homes reached 2,300 square feet, with a few exceptionally large mansions exceeding 100,000 square feet. Notable examples include “The One” in Los Angeles and billionaire Ira Rennert’s estate, famously known as The House that Ate the Hamptons.
Does someone truly require a 4,600-square-foot house in a small rural town? I don’t mean to be critical, but it seems excessive. Darrell Shedd, from Truro, Mass., wonders about Cape Cod’s northern tip.
In 2017, Truro implemented a limit on the size of new homes at 3,600 square feet. However, according to Shedd, officials later introduced an amendment that permitted larger builds with special permits. “I’m not implying any covert actions,” remarks Shedd. Our town meetings seem to go on and on. I must have been in a state of indifference.
Shedd is now advocating for the closure of the loophole. “We simply hope to avoid the town resembling Nantucket or the Hamptons, which are experiencing significant issues.”
In June, Routt County, Colo., which is home to Steamboat Ski Resort, implemented a new regulation that limits the size of houses to 7,500 square feet. The hot-button issue sparked intense debate and drew large crowds to public meetings for months.
“Should our landscape be filled with trophy homes?” questioned Commissioner Sonja Macys, supporting the caps.
Commissioner Andy Benjamin presented a contrasting perspective on the caps. “It’s a lofty ideal…but it’s not really aligned with American values.”
Large homes in unincorporated Routt County are not a significant issue: According to county officials, currently only 2.7% of properties exceed 7,500 square feet. That has prompted locals to raise doubts about the strict measures on size.
“It seems like an idea that stems from misguided envy and resentment,” commented Pete Neidecker publicly. “Why does the County penalize achievement?” questioned Doug Button.
Button, a long-time resident of Routt County, strongly opposes county officials dictating people’s actions and choices. “We are pioneers,” he stated.
In Pitkin County—home to Aspen—officials reduced the maximum size of new homes from 15,000 to 9,250 square feet last November. They emphasized that larger houses contribute to higher greenhouse gas emissions and have a greater impact on the environment.
Now, they are considering reducing the size to 8,750 square feet. We are witnessing a surge in affluent buyers eagerly acquiring pre-existing mansions.
“There is speculation that there may be additional restrictions on home sizes in the near future, prompting some to consider purchasing now,” comments Tim Estin of Aspen Snowmass Sotheby’s International Realty. In the spring, a massive estate measuring 22,000 square feet and boasting 11 bedrooms was sold for a staggering $108 million.
“It’s quite surprising to many of us – these enormous houses are as large as substantial hotels,” remarks Julia Livingston, the leader of a working group in the Martha’s Vineyard enclave of Edgartown, Mass. Livingston’s group recently proposed a bylaw, commonly referred to as the “big house bill,” to limit the size of homes.
However, a critic argued that it could potentially target family compounds in an unjust manner.
“It is important to preserve our family compounds,” stated Benjamin Hall Jr., a local attorney, during a public meeting in February. “We should aim to prevent the departure of large families from the Island.”
However, in April, Edgartown voters overwhelmingly approved Article 96, a bylaw that restricts the intensity of residential lots, with a vote of 132 to 35.East Hampton’s working group is also addressing the issue of “iceberg houses,” where the size of the basements rivals or exceeds that of the homes above.
Traditionally, basements and attached garages have not been included in the overall square footage of a house. This has incentivized homeowners to construct large and luxurious underground spaces. According to the proposal, both garages and finished basements would be included in the count.
During the May meeting, Samuelson provided an interesting real-life illustration: a house measuring 11,863 square feet situated on a lot originally intended for only 6,100 square feet.
The basement, as Samuelson pointed out, features two guest rooms, an entertainment room, a wine lounge, a wine cellar, a theater, a tech room, a spa, a sauna, and so on.
And that’s all wonderful. That sounds impressive. Samuelson expressed a strong sense of admiration for the wealth and lifestyle of these individuals. However, the size of the house is not relevant to whether it is suitable for this property.
Kirby Marcantonio, the owner of a lifestyle magazine called Hampton Life, happens to be a neighbor of the impressive house featured in Samuelson’s presentation.
“It’s this enormous Taj Mahal-like structure, surrounded by a neighborhood of modestly sized houses,” he remarked.
Builder Phil Kouffman expressed concerns about the potential impact of additional building restrictions on the livability of East Hampton, stating that it could become increasingly challenging and potentially discourage second-home owners.
Samuelson attempted to provide reassurance that individuals are still able to construct multiple accessory structures. According to our code, it is permissible to construct multiple poolhouses…”Perhaps you desire more than one,” he remarked.
