Google 'McMansions' and two things become apparent: (1) It is a very well used term, and (2) while its origins may have started in the US, Australia is now an equal partner in their creation. The wikipedia definition says that a McMansion is "is a pejorative term for a large new house which is judged as pretentious, tasteless, or badly designed for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion is a large house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, and at variance with established local architecture." Interesting is that the Wikipedia moderators, as part of their editorial quality roles have put a banner at the top of the McMansion page which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2011)"

What this definition and banner, in conjunction with the numerous results found by googling 'McMansion', demonstrates is that although we - as individuals - may believe McMansions are bad for a number of reason, there is no single, agreed definition of a McMansion, and by extension, no definitive reason why they are bad or should not be built. Policy objectives resolve this problem. Each policy objective is supported by an aim, set of principles, solutions and actions which assist the interpretation of an issue, in this case, McMansions.

Based on ABSA's five policy objectives McMansions are problematic because:

• the majority are designed without accredited assessors or professionals with unique knowledge being involved until the very last stage of the process (policy objective # 4), or using Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) methods of approval (policy objective # 3)
• the metrics (both DTS and simulation) do not have metrics that support effective use of space, instead metrics that faciliate normalisation and comparison (policy objective # 2)
• there is no single point of accountability within the political governance system to manage the problem (Policy objective # 1).

We know they don't meet these policy objectives because an examination of the aim and principles supporting each policy objective, in conjunction with research to understand how McMansions are built and what they have become, highlights that McMansions do meet the following principles:

• Policy Objective 4
• Quality outcomes can only be assured if accreditation of assessors is mandatory across Australia
• Designing sustainable housing requires unique knowledge, not adequately taught as part of the construction training process
• Policy Objective 3
• The building design process must facilitate innovation rather than encourage ‘one-size fits all’ construction
• Policy Objective 2
• Extension of metrics beyond heating & cooling loads to include other sustainability indicators (ie water, waste and embodied energy), all of which are translated to carbon dioxide equivalents
• Policy Objective 1
• A clear vision, targets and objectives for building sustainability and integration with national urban and cities policy
• A single point of national accountability (ie Minister) for building sustainability.

Now that we understand why McMansions are bad, we can develop solutions to the problem by referring to the policy solutions included in each policy objective, and combining them relative to the current building landscape, stakeholders, political will and consumer concern.

UNFINISHED