The Canary in the Coal Mine

For those unfamiliar (are there such?), the purpose of a caged canary in a coal mine is to react (by dying) to early and undetectable gas accumulations, so miners will know a disaster is imminent, and they will get out of the mine.  More generally, the concept is intended to suggest seemingly minor and subtle irregularities that herald more dire eventualities.  The purpose, of course, as with coal miners, is to allow reaction to the minor and subtle irregularity, before the bigger problem comes.  Ideally, the bigger problem can even be averted.

For not entirely clear reasons, people do not like to recognize dead canaries, and they do not want to address the problems that resulted in the canaries' deaths.  It could be laziness, or it could be general lack of initiative, or sometimes, for those short-sighted enough, it could be a disinclination to commit to, and pay for, whatever will avert the impending big problem.

In the Village, we have streets that are shredded at the edges.  About 10 years ago, Village residents who live on the canal complained about water leaching up into their homes when the tide was unusually high, like after heavy rains.  More recently, some Village residents have complained about water pooling (literally) in the streets after heavier rains.  Sometimes, those spots on those streets are not easily passable for a while.*  There appears to be general agreement about a rising water table in south Florida, affecting the Village as well.  On 121st Street, between 11th Avenue and 11th Court, there is an access point to a drainage reservoir, and the iron access cover, as well as the support around it, have sunk about 4-5 inches below street level.  Apparently, this devolution is not new, since we have attended to it with patches over the years.

(* Last week, I was at Costco after a significant rain.  About 1/3 of their parking lot was so under water that no one could park there, and then walk to the store.  If it could have been argued that the heavy pooling would be gone in several hours, that fact would not have done Costco any good.  Had I not happened upon a spot where the grade was higher, Costco would have lost my business for that day.)

It is perhaps arguable whether this water problem is coming from above, in the form of excess precipitation, or from below, caused by rising seas and a rising water table.  What should not be arguable is that our current mechanism for removing water is not working well enough to protect our ground from oversaturation.

Some of us hope that the fix is easy, with only a necessity to clean out the drains and reservoirs we already have.  Others are concerned that we may need rebuilding, redesign, or even new construction of the water diversion system upon which the Village relies.  Unfortunately, there are some among us who don't even want to know the problem exists.  If they can somehow look the other way, explain away what the rest of us can see, or just get a car which rides higher off the ground, they can declare that there is no problem.  It's not surprising that those whose properties are directly affected are more vocal about the problem, and those who argue that there is no problem are not as directly affected.

What's also interesting is that if I think of the neighbors who are most vocal in arguing that there is no problem, or at least not one that needs to be fixed, some of them are among the more fastidious about maintaining their own personal residences.  They are also among those who are less willing to pay higher property taxes.  It seems as if their dedication and their commitment is to the building where they sleep and cook, not to the Village as a whole.  "Home," to them, is narrowly defined.

These neighbors don't want a canary in our coal mine.  It's not that they have any special affection for canaries.  It's just that they don't want to have to do what has to be done when the canary dies.  At this point, the canary appears to be having some significant distress.  It is, as they say, not at all well.

I Think I Understand, Although I'm Not Sure I Agree

At last night's Commission meeting, the subject of "McMansions" came up.  We have new construction in the Village, and some of the new structures, replacing old structures, are considered by some to be "McMansions."  The label is clearly intended to be pejorative, and the very clear implication is that those who so label these new houses don't like them.  In the discussion topic, as it was presented, one portrayal was that the new BP "McMansions" would look good in Doral or Palmetto Bay, but not in BP.  I tried to understand how that conclusion was arrived at, but I couldn't get a straight answer.

Three things should be understood, before we talk more about the new structures.  First, BP has Codes, which must be followed.  Second, some architect, knowing the Codes and having familiarized him- or herself with the Village, proposed the designs.  Third, the Planning and Zoning Board, which is sometimes frankly more restrictive, strident, and controlling than I personally like, approved the proposed structures as satisfactory with respect to the Codes, and adequately "harmonious" for the neighborhood.  That a proposed structure or addition, or even a paint color choice, should be "harmonious" with the Village is a decision P&Z are authorized to make, and it is the area over which I most often disagreed with them when I was a member of that Board.  I found them not permissive enough.  The light, then, was very green for the new structures some of us brand as "McMansions," and the last obstacle was the most restrictive of all.

I don't really know what a "McMansion" is.  The first time I heard the term used, it seemed intended to apply to new and large homes, seemingly the grandest in whatever was the neighborhood in question.  The name is clearly intended to recall McDonald's, although the connection is unclear.  Most likely, the association was to the imposition of something cookie-cutter, insubstantial, and pervasive.

During the discussion, I asked for a definition of "McMansion."  The sponsor of the discussion topic told me to "google it."  If I thought there was a definition, and that I could find out what it was, this kind of response suggested to me that there wasn't, and I couldn't.  So I asked my friend Judith, who lives in some upscale burg in Connecticut.  It seems she knows all about "McMansions," and she used words like "garish," "atrocity," "super-sized," "mass-produced," and "incongruous" (with the surrounding homes, I assume).

The Village is a unique place, and part of what makes it unique is its eclectic range of styles.  We have single story houses, and two story houses.  Our Code permits two stories, but not more.  We have old homes, and new homes.  We have Spanish style, Key West style, contemporary style, and plain old CBS.  We used to limit the color choice to white, until some brave ancestors of ours branched into off white, too.  Now, we permit many colors.  In a community like ours, it would be hard to think of a design style that was not "harmonious."  We don't do harmonious.  We do "have whatever you like, but keep it nice."  And some of us don't even do the latter.  (We're tightening that now.  We're starting to ride herd on the less fastidious of our neighbors, and some of them don't like it.  Funny enough, the current Commissioner who has been most protective and permissive when it comes to resisting a level of upkeep and property decorum is the same one who doesn't like "McMansions."  And that Commissioner, who doesn't like to control the design and upkeep preferences of BP homeowners, was quick to tell us we shouldn't be allowed to have fences or walls in front of our homes.  Go figure.)

Two properties were cited in last night's discussion.  They were considered to be the worst examples of neighborhood-destroying McMansionness.  One was what has replaced the "Larry King house," at 119th and Griffing, and the other is the super energy-efficient home on the south side of 119th Street between 8th and 9th Avenues.  As it happens, I have familiarity with each of these properties.  In about 2006 or 2007, I looked into the "Larry King house."  I was considering moving there.  But it was not a good layout.  It was disorganized, with apparently ill thought out additions, and parts that did not go together.  I passed.  A couple bought it a few years later, but they moved out.  They had wanted to add on a garage, but the property and setbacks couldn't handle it.  So the house was demolished, and there's quite the imposing two-story structure going up now.  It's still bare cinder block, and it's hard to tell what it will look like.  But whatever it is, I'm sure it will be a lot better than the house that didn't suit Larry King, or me, or the couple.  It will likely be a credit to our most upscale street.

The other property is in the block next to mine.  The new construction replaced a decrepit tear-down.  I had seen a virtual walk-through of it, and I later had an actual walk-through, when it was unfinished inside and out.  It's a magnificent property.  I made an offer, but it was not accepted.  I offered what the developer said he wanted, but by that time, he realized from recent sales that he could do much better.  It really is a spectacular home.  It's two-story.  As is the home two houses east of that one, the one catercorner from that one, and the one just east of that one.

Both sites look more imposing now than they will when they're done.  More than anything, they are partially concealed by protective tall and covered chain link fences at the front property edge.  Once those fences are gone, and the landscaping is in, I think we'll all be pleased.  Well, maybe not "all."

But in a neighborhood like the Village, it wouldn't be fair to consider these constructions "incongruous."  Every house is "incongruous," in the sense that they're all different.  These two are also unique: not at all "mass-produced."  "Garish" or atrocious?  Not to me.  "Super-sized?"  The replacement for the "Larry King house," looks like it's going to be very large.  Not too large for the lot or for the Village, according to the architect and the Village's P&Z Board.  The other house?  Roomy, but politely so.

I still don't confidently know what a "McMansion" is.  But if these two new homes qualify, I personally don't have a problem with them.  They're just part of the neighborhood.  I'd like to imagine we would come to be the kind of neighborhood in which they fit well better than poorly kept properties do.