Mansion mania.

The Los Angeles Planning Commission wants to combat "mansionization"--when property owners tear down a home and build a bigger one in its place, often dwarfing nearby homes. So the Business Journal asks:

Do you think mansionization should be restricted?

Stephen Cohen 

Owner

Stephen Cohen Gallery

Yes, people have a right to build on their property. However, other people in the neighborhood have rights, too. They have the right to views and light that Cohen are not obstructed by "McMansions." So I favor regulation of these mansions, both their footprint and their height. Other places have restrictions--just look at Greenwich Village in New York. Then there's the question of taste. I've been in some of these McMansions, and they are grotesque and lack any taste. They are cavernous, like hotel lobbies, with living room after living room. It's all about trophies and excess, that "Mine is bigger than yours." Besides that, there's also all the energy needed to have these mansions lit, heated and cooled.

Daniel Edwards

Vice President of Strategic Marketing

Matt Construction

I would rather see less regulation and more diversity in housing. Let the market decide. Big homes are built because there's a demand for them, it reflects our society, values and what's important to people.

Adam Daneshgar

Financial Consultant

CB Richard Ellis Group Inc.

Individual citizens should have the right to build homes to the size of their choosing. But in this circumstance, I understand local government motives for wanting to impose restrictions on the mansionization trend. When I lived in Madison. Wis., I remember that the height of homes and overall square footage were limited, creating consistent, aesthetically soothing neighborhoods. When oversized homes are built on small lots, it is inevitable they will be built to significantly greater heights than the homes of their neighbors, blocking sunlight, views, and potentially decreasing the value of neighboring homes. I recognize me government's responsibility to impose restrictions in situations like this and feel that in order to maintain the character, charm and architectural integrity of a neighborhood, it becomes a necessary mandate.

Steve Fifield

President

Fifield Cos.

I agree that some homebuilders have pushed the limits. The city of Los Angeles needs to rethink the bulk limits of lots. If lot coverage ratios, fixed area ratios, frontyard and backyard setbacks and height limits were set like other cities, the scale of the homes would be small enough to reduce the home sizes without limiting the designers and users' freedom to come up with their own great home designs. Height limits of two and a half stories would prevent new homes from towering over the neighbors.

Ann Gray

Publisher

Balcony Media Inc.

Mansions offend people mostly when they are ugly and the architecture ignores its context. I've seen very large houses that are set back or beautifully designed that are not offensive at all. It's a good topic for neighborhood councils to answer for themselves. Locally I see no problem with smaller zones of higher density. A citywide ordinance reeks of the one-size-fits-all planning solution that never works.

Aaron Webb

Financial Analyst

Staubach Co.

Redeveloping a submarket by building bigger homes could bring some value to the area. When you build a mansion, you increase surrounding home values, thereby increasing equity in the homes, and bring more disposable income to families that might not have it. Mansionization is challenging though, because L.A. zoning is already so dense in certain submarkets.