It is a very challenging dilemma for first ring suburbs in particular. Long term viability, redevelopment is a key positive factor in maintaining and increasing the demand for a particular neighborhood. The alternative is actually less desirable for the community long term. Just look at the once grand neighborhoods of just about any major city.

It appears that this is a story in search of a controversy...nobody is seizing this guy's property, and in fact he mentions at the end he's considering offers to sell. The former vision of suburban ideal giving way to the updated version.

My question is, does he have a fence around his back yard? If not, then I can't see where he's giving up any more privacy, since the previous neighbor could see into his yard. While I'm not a big fan of these big houses going up (we have a couple in my neighborhood in St. Louis Park) because they look so out of place, but I hope, that since I am planning on selling my home hopefully sometime in the next year, that it will help with property values of the area.

These new homes are a nice addition when they are an appropriate size (no, don't build a McMansion on a 50 ft. lot) and have architectural details that "fit" with the surrounding houses. And while we're at it, it would be nice these new homes didn't have massive, two story, 3-car garages that took up the entire front of the house. That is just plain ugly.

I think they look stupid sitting hugely and blocking sun light. If he gardens it could change that for him.

This reminds me of my hometown in the 60s when people would complain about how bad the traffic was downtown, particularly around the holidays. Then the malls came and solved the traffic problem. Be careful what you complain about because it could be worse.

Edina's neighbors to the east (Richfield) would welcome JMS with open arms to start knocking down a few homes to build new homes.

Joni Bennett - here's a thought Ms Marxist. Let the market decide whether or not this is a good investment. If the developer can't sell the house without taking a bath and new owner sells it for a loss or experiences a slower rate of return (Obama cause housing market issues aside) then the market solved the issue on its own. There will be less similar houses built and sold. On the other hand, perhaps the neighborhood will flourish and all home values will increase and/or increase at rate faster than they would have if these homes were not there. Further, a home of greater value would generate more tax revenue. Gee - then you could find even more ways to waste our money; like more round-abouts, another light rail study, or how about another environmental study? Maybe these "big" homes are displacing grey squirrel habitats.

smithawDec. 13, 1212:38 PM Joni Bennett - here's a thought Ms Marxist. Let the market decide whether or not this is a good investment. ____________LOL..you wouldn't know a Marxist if they were standing in front of you. Nothing that this woman was quoted as saying for this piece was in any way "Marxist."

"I think they look stupid sitting hugely and blocking sun light. If he gardens it could change that for him."... good point - In LA, codes prohibit blocking your neighbor's sunlight without the shadowed land owners written permission. (Provided technical support in a blocking case several years ago.) The local burbs should get that into the zoning laws, and McMansions would be in check unless their own lot can support their shadow.