Monster homes pit old vs. new

Boulder debates whether trend to huge houses has gone too far

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Originally published 08:00 p.m., May 16, 2008
Updated 11:09 a.m., May 19, 2008

Above: Ken Papaleo / The Rocky; Below: Legendary Properties Sotheby's International Realty

How big is too big? This 9,000-square-foot home in Boulder towers over neighboring houses. It's on the market for $22 million. Some Colorado communities are proposing limits on so-called "mansionization" or "monster homes," saying some houses are too big. The dilemma is magnified in urban areas as people bring their suburban lifestyles to the city.

Ken Papaleo / The Rocky

Larry and Ruth Hause have lived at their home on Balsam Drive in Boulder since 1966. The home next door was scraped off to create a larger house. Even though their home is dwarfed by others, they object to government telling homeowners what to do.

A large home is being built over two lots on Seventh Street.

In a leafy old neighborhood here known as Newlands, an increasing number of worn brick ranches and aging bungalows have been demolished to make way for much larger, more luxurious custom homes - some built to within arm's reach of the house next door.

The pattern repeats itself all over this college town, as it has in other sought-after communities across the country. Invariably, it fuels a debate among residents and local governments about whether the trend toward "mansionization" or "monster homes" has gone too far and needs to be curbed - at the expense of personal property rights and growth.

"You'd think we'd get over this," said James van Hemert, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute at the University of Denver.

"But building a house is about much more, apparently, than an adequate place to live."

In the past 20 years, new-home sizes in Boulder County have swelled from about 2,700 square feet to more than 6,000 square feet.

For many of the Boulder residents who have packed hearings on the issue in the past year, the uproar centers on whether government should be dictating what property owners can or can't build on their own land.

Van Hemert and other experts say the dilemma has been magnified in urban areas, which have become more popular among the affluent who no longer want to commute long distances but want to bring their suburban lifestyles - media rooms, three-car garages and master suites - with them to the city.

A new house backing up to Boulder's picturesque Chautauqua Park has just been listed for $22 million and includes everything from a 9,000-square-foot main house to a 1,500- square-foot guest house. Almost six years in the making, it was built for Marvin Caruthers, co-founder of biotech giant Amgen.

It's by far the most-expensive home on the market in Boulder.

The scrape-off trend

The coastal town of Manhattan Beach, Calif., tackled the issue after existing beachfront homes on three adjacent lots were knocked down to make way for a single 16,000-square- foot house.

Last month, Denver rezoned two residential areas - West Highlands and Sloan's Lake - in reaction to a rash of so-called scrape-off redevelopment that involved knocking down homes and building large duplexes.

But even rural areas such as outlying Boulder County and Pitkin County around Aspen have been wrestling with how to lessen the visual impact of sprawling homes built on mountainsides and ridgelines or in the middle of the plains.

Boulder County likely will make a decision next month on how to address the runaway growth that has the median house swelling to 6,290 square feet of floor space in 2006 from 2,881 square feet in 1990.

"Those sizes have skyrocketed over the last several years," said Will Toor, a Boulder County commissioner and former Boulder mayor. "There have always been negative issues over very large homes . . . but there are just so many more of them being built now."

One potential county fix involves limiting the size of a house to no more than 125 percent of the median square footage of the neighborhood unless a property owner can make a case for a bigger structure.

The Boulder City Council started down the path to stricter limits after some new members became convinced while campaigning that residents wanted them to do something about homes that were altering the character of old neighborhoods.

To buy time to devise a long-term fix, the council planned to impose temporary limits recently that would have limited the dimensions of a house to a smaller portion of a lot's size.

What they got was an earful from residents, real estate brokers and others who mostly argued against such a broad-brush approach.

"We know there are very strong and polarized viewpoints," said Susan Richstone, a long-range planning official for the city. "It's not a black-and-white issue."

The city has decided to bring in a consultant to help propose a solution.

Small homes, big yards giving way

The matter becomes especially complicated in Boulder, which generally prides itself on green practices such as energy conversation, a concept at odds with the push to build ever- bigger houses. The concerns run the gamut from the obstruction of views toward the foothills to rising home values and taxes and the shrinking stock of affordable housing.

But the question in many cases seems to boil down to this: How big is too big and who should decide?

"It's really a matter of fitting the larger house into the surroundings," said Dwight Merriam, a Hartford, Conn.-based attorney who specializes in the issue. "There is no answer to, 'How big is too big?' I've seen situations where 2,500 square feet is way too big."

Cities need to be mindful, Merriam cautions, about unintended consequences. "You don't want to create odd-looking buildings by imposing a one-size-fits-all solution," he said.

Because most parcels in Boulder are measured in square feet instead of even a quarter- acre, expanding homes often means adding extra stories. The lot sizes still give many new homes the appearance of having little or no land around them.

Boulder residents Ruth and Larry Hause figure they'll soon have one of the biggest yards - and smallest homes - in their neighborhood. But they view change as inevitable and dislike the thought of their local government dictating what homeowners can build on their own property.

The retirees' modest ranch-style house on Balsam Drive provides them with striking views of the Flatirons. But just a few feet to the west, construction crews have been working to finish a large new stucco home. On the east side, an old brick house has a notice affixed to the front door. It will soon be "scraped" off its lot to make way for a new one.

They know the trend raises the value of their property, but they plan to stay in their house as long as they can.

"I think now ours is the one that doesn't fit in the neighborhood," Ruth Hause said.

The couple even maintained a sense of humor the day they discovered a "porta-potty" on their front lawn. The workers next door mistakenly put it on their side of the property line.

"Ruth always told me she'd like to have a second bathroom, so I put her toothbrush out there," said Larry Hause, who bought his home with his wife in the 1960s.

Several doors down, another portable toilet sits near the curb of a now-vacant lot. A bulldozer rests in the middle of a wide, shallow hole of dirt where a house once stood. Around the circle on Alpine Drive, the conversion to upscale homes is almost complete. One of the remaining small brick houses has a for-sale sign posted out front that helps tell the story. Price tag: just under $850,000.

Property rights at issue

Real estate agents have been among the most vocal opponents of one-size-fits-all limits on new homes or remodeling projects.

"This makes absolutely no sense - what's going on here," said Karen Bernardi of the Bernardi Group real-estate firm.

She recently won a fight with Boulder County to build her own 6,000-plus-square-foot house along South Boulder Creek.

"Wouldn't it be ridiculous if they said you can't build a house that's too small?"

Joel Thompson, a broker associate with REMAX Alliance, contends that Boulder already forces homeowners and builders to jump through hoops to get permits and adhere to restrictions and rules.

A 1975 ordinance called the Danish Plan has been through several iterations but still helps guide housing growth, while a green points program also provides some controls. The permitting process to tear down old houses and replace them can also delay construction.

"It's a nightmare to get approval for a single-family home," said Thompson, who has been in the local real estate business for 34 years. "I think they have plenty of limitations in place. It's almost like you're taking away people's property rights."

But the property-rights argument doesn't sit well with some Boulderites, especially those who help contribute to the city's reputation as an environmentally conscious community.

Take Filip Sokol. The 61-year-old rides his bicycle to his design engineering job across town. He enlarged his house on Mapleton Avenue to finish rooms in the attic, but the dwelling where he lives with his wife and rents space to a tenant still tops out at just 1,700 square feet.

"People have to learn to live with less and be conscious of what they use," Sokol said. "Those (big) houses have to cost more to heat, and the people who live in them usually have large cars."

Boulder County resident David Levin has attended meetings to speak on behalf of the limits the county commission has contemplated.

"Almost everyone builds or buys as big as they can possibly afford," said Levin, who lives in 1,400-square-foot house he bought 37 years ago. "But it's socially wrong to build a large house. It's a social obligation to limit oneself."

Still, some residents say they can't make up their minds about how to resolve the controversy.

The area around North Boulder Park has become ground zero for the transformation from small, look-alike homes to an eclectic mix of shapes and sizes for bigger and bigger budgets. Increasingly, though, only the wealthy can afford to move into the area.

"I came into a nice middle-class community, and I'm now living in an upper-class one," said Miriam Gilbert, who works out of her home in the Newlands area. "To me, it's not just about the houses. It's about the values of the community. We say we're green. But we've become California in terms of houses taking up entire lots and leaving our kids a little plot to play in."

As Gilbert stood in front of her house this week, the noise of power drills and hammers provided a noisy backdrop as drywallers and carpenters finished a nearby home that straddles two lots and dwarfs the others on the block.

"I wouldn't move anywhere else, although I think about it," Gilbert said. "Is it perfect? No. But I wish that house were smaller."

kelleyj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5068

the city and the county - have been weighing options for reining in the size of houses and limiting the impact of "scrapes" - the increasing practice of tearing down older homes to replace them with much bigger ones.

WHERE THINGS STAND:

* City of Boulder

Officials recently attempted to impose a temporary ordinance that would have restricted the dimensions of a house to a smaller portion of a lot's size. Opposition at public hearings prompted the City Council to hold off on a short-term fix and hire a consultant to help propose a long-term solution that likely will involve more than one approach for the city's various neighborhoods.

* Boulder County

Commissioners could vote as soon as next month on limiting the size of a house to no more than 125 percent of the median square footage of the neighborhood unless a property owner can make a case for a bigger structure. A plan to set different limits for the plains, foothills and mountains has been scrapped in favor of a countywide approach.

Also on the table: Expanding a program that allows for the "transfer of development rights." Current rules allow bigger homes through the purchase of rights on vacant land, but a proposal would allow homeowners to buy rights from other homeowners.

• May 17, 2008

  3:07 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  happymike44 writes:

  These laws sound good to me.How big is to big when a home is built to take up a whole lot.Also why not stop destroying older homes.Because this is what happened to a lot of older homes in the seventies.I remember seeing dozens of bungalow homes be destroyed.These home then were old and ugly and down they went.The sad fact is the old bungalows had fallen out of favor.Now they are all but gone.So now it's the fifties ranch homes turn,remember once you destroy them there gone forever.Then how may years from now will people say what a shame that neighborhood is gone.So why keep changing a community and sometimes not for the better.

• May 17, 2008

  8:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  In Steamboat Springs CO, a lot of wealthy people have built very large homes. I heard that they are hard to resell as the extremely wealthy don't want to buy a second hand home. Many of these homes have mortgages. I moved from Steamboat 7 years ago and still get constant offers offering non qualifying mortgages there. Some of these extra large homes will end up in foreclosure. If they are not kept heated, they will suffer damages and if empty they are likely to be invaded by both animals and homeless people. They could potentially be converted to group homes but they are generally in out of the way locations. There are even very large second homes near the Continental Divide between Kremling and Steamboat.

  As I understand history, bungalows became popular because families wanted to live alone as a unit and didn't want the expense of servants. If you look at the model of large homes in Europe, they were occupied by one rich family, relatives that were financially unable to live alone, and servants living usually without even a private bedroom. The heirs to these very large homes often found them financially impossible to maintain or sell. In Greenwich CT beautiful large mansions are being torn down.

  What this really has to do with is that America is becoming, or has become, a fascist state controlled by the super wealthy. According to a recent article in the New York Times, the U.S,. which has less than 5 % of the world population, has 25% of the world's prisoners. Even though I am a U.S. citizen, I was imprisoned by the chief Colorado federal judge, Edward Nottingham, without an independent prosecutor, an evidentiary hearing, or a charge of breaking a numbered law passed by Congress. It now is charged that UBS has helped America's super rich, some probably Boulder residents, transfer money out of the U.S. to avoid income taxes.

• May 17, 2008

  8:18 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  PS. Our home in Steamboat was 4,200 feet plus a basement. We thought we needed extra space for our home office and the basement did work for us. But the 4,200 square feet was too large for our family of 4. We had space we did not use even though we lived there year around.

• May 17, 2008

  8:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  I admire Mr. and Mrs. Hause, who have a wonderful sense of humor. They also have a philosophy of personal rights and government involvement with which I agree. For many years, zoning codes and building regulations have defined the rules under which these new houses are being constructed. In most situations, there was a minimum size for a dwelling unit, and it was to basically protect the housing values from being too low. It is a delicious irony that the upper end was not considered important to regulate. Now we are worried about our wealth. What a situation to be in.

• May 17, 2008

  8:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  KayS.,
  P.S., T.M.I.

• May 17, 2008

  8:37 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  American100 writes:

  It's a shame to see the beautiful old neighborhoods being scraped.

  I don't have a problem with people building large new homes except when they go into an existing neighborhood and change the flavor of those old neighborhoods.

  I don't feel it's anyone's right, however, to tell someone who purchases a large lot in the hills etc, that they can't build a large home if that's what they can afford and what they want.

  We own a large piece of property and built a 7,000sf home on it. The kids are almost grown now so we are looking at downsizing.

  I told a couple of people about it and we have it sold without ever listing it.

  The people who have money, aren't as crunched as the middle working class and have continued to buy the expensive homes.

  As far as need: We never needed 7,000sf, it was a luxury we could afford and one we enjoy.

• May 17, 2008

  8:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  prk166 writes:

  "But the property-rights argument doesn't sit well with some Boulderites, especially those who help contribute to the city's reputation as an environmentally conscious community."

  Another way of phrasing that would be "But the US Constitution argument doesn't sit weil..."

  Once we go down the road of limiting people's right to property, we give government and those who run the government the single biggest tool they need to widdle away at all our other rights.

• May 17, 2008

  9:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Buckwheat writes:

  Well, that sucks...

• May 17, 2008

  9:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  The government should also regulate the width of asses; I am against monster asses. Asses over 17 inches wide should be banned. Fat asses should be required to be adequately covered; joggers and golfers with fat asses should be banned. Monster asses should be banned from all public swimming pools.

  Fat asses are offensive to the general public and should never be allowed on an elevator or escelator. Ridding a bike while possessing a monster ass is unsafe and should be banned. Monster asses need to banned from public transportation. Fat assed people should be required to buy two tickets if the plan to fly. All monster asses should be banned from all ski slopes.

  THE ASS NAZI

• May 17, 2008

  10:12 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  happymike44 writes:

  Well sasquatch I have yet to see a skinny sasquatch yet so maybe you have a point.So maybe we should charge you for two of everything,Order dinner that will be twice as much.People who are just a little pleasingly plump don't need you to dump on them. Also what gives you the right to appoint yourself the fat police.You got the nazi part right,Because you are a real big a$$.So when you see this remember not everyone can be as perfect as you are.So I will forgive you for you really have no clue to what life is really about.It is not the size of the person.It is the size of their heart and soul that will count in the long run.

• May 17, 2008

  10:39 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HollyGoLightly writes:

  This is a sticky situation because I hate the fact that older homes in historic areas are being tore down in order to build a mega-mansion. Observatory Park is one area that comes to mind. A middle class citizen, hell even an upper middle class person, can't afford to live there now because the houses were sold and torn down. On the other hand, I really don't agree with allowing the government tell us what we can and cannot build on our own property. We get enough of that yard nazi business with these stupid HOAs in the suburbs because it's the only place a middle class family can live. We're screwed either way I guess.

• May 17, 2008

  11:07 a.m.

  SASQUATCH writes:

  (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

• May 17, 2008

  3:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  SQUATCHER,

  Thanks for yet another unique perspective. It reveals soooooo much about your mindset as well. Is it any wonder to anybody that you are the last of your kind?

• May 17, 2008

  4 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  My wife and I "swim" in a 2400 sq. ft. home. I can't imagine why anybody needs more space than that. Obviously some do.

  If I had a large family or lived in the European style with lots of relatives, I'm sure that I would feel differently.

  If a very high percentage of people in the world adopted the large house lifestyle, it would consume a vast amount of material and energy resources. I can't rationalize it on any level, but I don't think mandates are the answer.

• May 17, 2008

  5:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Houstongolfnut writes:

  Those Boulder Liberals are gathering some wealth! Must have been blind dumb luck. Or at the expense of others in their zero-sum take on life. It should be redistributed to those who refuse to work.

• May 17, 2008

  5:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  PLEASANTLY PLUMP = OXYMORON

  http://letterfrombangkok.net/images/p...

  That's what I'm taling about...that's what needs regulation!

• May 17, 2008

  5:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  "My wife and I "swim" in a 2400 sq. ft. home."

  Try swimming in the ocean, a lake or pool like the rest of normal America. Quit being an enviro-phobe. Don't you know how much damage that can do to leather furniture and 105-inch plasma??

  My home is twice that size and I'm planning to add a fireplace room with an indoor B-B-Q and meat-smoker. You got a problem with that?

• May 17, 2008

  7:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  SQUATCH, SQUATCH, SQUATCH,

  Okay, buddy you got me there! That was actually funny! There's hope for you yet! or should I say: Yeti(google it!)? Have a good weekend Squatch!

• May 17, 2008

  10:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jacka writes:

  SASQUATCH on point as usual.

  But shouldn't all Coloradans have the right to choose? Agree, vote YES on amendment 47.

• May 18, 2008

  11:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  psychoChicken writes:

  Boulder City Council: Quick! Pass a 3-unrelated rule like we have here in Fort Fun to prevent owners of huge houses from using all of that space efficiently! Save yourselves before it's too late!

• May 18, 2008

  7:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  FrozenDeadGuy writes:

  psychoChicken:

  Too late! Boulder has has the 3-unrelated ordinance for decades. I'll bet Ft Fun got the idea from Boulder!

• May 18, 2008

  8 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ramanboy33 writes:

  God damned Government taking away my property rights. I own a piece of land on the 16th street mall here in Denver and tried to build an iron foundry on it, but for some the City has the power to deny me. We PEOPLE need to band together to fight this unconscionable attack on the most sacred of Constitutional Rights: Property.

• May 19, 2008

  3:49 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KaySieverding writes:

  You could just build it without conforming with the zoning and pay someone off. This can be done. If you go to Steamboat on Princeton Ave (go North on 8th past creek turn right) you will see at the end of Princeton Ave at 701 Princeton 4 buildings. The property owner is registered as Kevin and Jane Bennett. Kevin Bennett was formerly president of the city council. If you look at the Routt County Assessor's report for Kevin and Jane Bennett at 701 Princeton Ave you will see only one building built in 1952. The other three buildings are not on the tax rolls. So if you have the right connections not only can you build in violation of the zoning, you can skip property taxes. Two of the three buildings not on the tax rolls have central heating and plumbing.

• May 19, 2008

  3:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RainbowWarrior writes:

  Sorry to jump in late on this thread, but I turn off the technology during the weekends, save energy and take a break...

  I hate to be the first one to say it, and as much as I appreciate historic buildings and such, many of them are not worth saving and should be scrapped off. Specifically the early 50s right up to some track home developments being built as we speak.

  The real delema is not the Mac Mansions, but a flush inventory of affordable homes that are state of the art, energy efficient and sustainable. Built with a community concept that provides goods and servcies in close proximity, not 50 miles away.

  I must agree with some here that have concerns about property rights, but good zoning and some regulation is needed. I don't think some of you that rant about right of center extremism really want anarchy and no rules at all... the solution is to find that middle ground, and that will mean very few are happy with the best answer because no one can say they won...

  There are ways to build better homes that are just now coming into consideration. To each his own on the size of your home, build it big but build it better because you can afford to. If there were new standards set for energy, toxicity and longevity that applied to all, many of the Monster houses would give way to our 21st Century realities.

  I think that is what Boulder is trying to do, it's not easy to blaze new trails, and be a path finder.

  We need a new type of Parade of Homes that sets these standards, and offer ideas that are applicable at any level, not just the high end.

• May 19, 2008

  10:28 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bugmenot writes:

  And how are they going to define neighborhood for the 125%? In Martin Acres is that going to be the crappy poorly built 40's era 800 s.f. houses? In which case you could never do anything to improve an old poorly laid out ranch. If it's 125% of the 1150 s.f. 1 car garage ranches that dominate most of MA, than my 52 year old ranch is already maxed at 1400 s.f. and I don't have a garage or a dining room.

  And it means that every house in MA that's been popped is instantly more valuable because they'll all be over the 125% limit while the rest of us can't do a thing to add more usable living space to small poorly laid out cramped 50's ranch houses. Not mega mansions, not 6000 s.f. behemoths but reasonable additions.

  What a crock!!!!

• May 19, 2008

  10:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bugmenot writes:

  Woops, on re-reading I now realize the 125% is the county not the city of Boulder.

  But the basic premise stands. If the size limit is too severe (yes, yes, exactly what is too severe) those that already have larger houses in these neighborhoods have been given the real estate equivalent of a winning lottery ticket, and prices of those houses will soar even higher as those with money outbid those with more modest means.