Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are certainly examples. Del Paso Neuvo, affordable housing project in Sacramento area, is pretty infamous for the houses falling apart in five years. That's because they weren't built properly. In Seattle, the nine-year-old high-rise McGuire was torn down because it was unsafe. Your average home will no more start to fall apart in five years than your average high-rise will be fit only for demo in nine. They weren't properly built.
Major problems like what? A lot of modern houses are improperly built because they were rush jobs built by inexperienced builders. That happens every time you have a building boom. Quality goes down, sloppy practices abound. That has nothing to do with modern buildings falling apart in five or ten years or high-rises being torn down en masse in ten.
Elmhurst neighborhood was built in 1940-1950. As you can clearly see (/sarcasm) they've all fallen down and been replaced by newer construction. That's 60+ years old, not 30. Obviously you have a bit of a problem proving that a 1970s neighborhood, like I grew up in, the houses won't all suddenly start falling down in the next ten years. But considering they "only last 30" and are *ehem* still all standing...
I did a search on Redfin for houses built after 1980 in the area, you know, when all these houses fell down. Guess how many there were? None. Quite a few built between 1950 and 1980 though... hmm but that can't be true, they all fell down!
I'm pretty sure those aren't pre-war construction, how about you? So what are they doing in pre-war neighborhoods? Even in North Oak Park (turn of the century), you'll see many much newer homes. Why aren't they lasting indefinitely like they should? And why are they so... basic and not exquisitely crafted lovely homes built with care and loving and craftsmanship mean to be handed down from generation to generation like the "Fabulous 40s" homes. Oh, wait, that's right working-class people owned homes in 1910 too. The good news is all those "fall down in 30 years" modern construction homes that are 60 years old in South Land Park are really, no really, going to all start falling down soon. They might have over built them a bit back then, not like the '70s homes which will all fall down within 30 --err I mean 50, excuse me -- years, but they're on borrowed time for sure.
You know what's absurd? To claim that "stick" construction only lasts 30 years. It's a like claiming the earth is the center of the universe. Mighta worked before we knew for a fact it wasn't true, but well... just too many 60 year old "stick" constructed homes still standing.
You know why we used balloon framing predominantly from 1880-1930? Cheaper and required much less skilled labor. You didn't need someone who could dovetail anymore, just pound some nails in. And, like, who cares about insulation or fire? Balloon is older and older is better. Hah! Uh, no. It's not like platform framing, which we've used since then, is all that dissimilar. It's just faster and cheaper... and technology is always bad, mm kay? There's absolute proof that all platform construction will only last 30 years, unlike balloon construction of the turn of the century that will last to infinity and beyond.
You want to know what was really lucrative for lawyers? Asbestos. Those damn things are still popping and they are GOLD.
Were you replying to me? If so please go back re-read (slowly this time so you can understand it) and try again. Try reading only what is written an not inserting things you think might be said by someone. Maybe you were responding to someone else. I certainly never said the things you are claiming. Maybe it is just a reading comprehesion problems or forgot to take some medication?
To me major problems is anything that costs more than $50,000 to repair. Usually what I see is structural problems. Framing sagging or breaking. Frequently improerly or poorly made windows and resulting rot and/or mold. Often is it a combination of 20-100 small problems that accumulate into a major problem.
I did say that some builders design houses to last 30 years. I do not think anyone said houses fall down in 30 years. Do you understand the difference?
In designing a house architects and engineers have a lot of choices to make. They have to balance cost vs. quality. Certainly they can make a house today that will last 200 years, but it will cost twice as much or more than other larger houses with more bling. Instead, they go for larger size more bling and design only for 30 years. That does nto mean the house will fall down, that does not mean it is designed to fall apart in 30 years, it means the design goal in balancing cost vs. quality/longevity is to make it last 30 years. Making it last longer than 30 years is not a goal. In fact, it is better for hte company if it does not.
Some houses do fall down sometimes. A few of the major builders have had to quickly and quietly settle lawsuits where a house or several houses collapsed entirely, or where one floor collapsed. However that is not common. More commonly houses expereince a myriad of problems, cracks walls and cielings, leaks, bowed structural members, failed trusses. Sometimes it is design, sometimes poor qulaity lumber, sometimes they just didnt put in nails or enough nails or the right sized nails. However the problems that i see are all generally within ten yars of competion or sale of the house. In most states, beyond ten years, the owners have no rights to sue the builder for defects. Some states allow less time. Most houses will hold up past ten years with only a few singifacnt problems. However a substantial number do not. My guess is that is about 10-20%. Will there be modern houses still around in 100 years. Sure there may be a few that survive. SOme custom homes are certianly built to last. However there will not be hundreds of thousands of them that make it to 100 or 150 years old.
I do not know who made you think technology is always bad, but if you search my prior posts you will find a lengthy post somewhere that sets out many o fhte things that are better as a result of technology and the things that are now worse (where technology has led to cheapening products to the limit). It is a mix. Some things are better (drainage, and plumbing or electrical safety for examples) some things are worse. Very few things are worse due to technology. Some are worse due ot materials running out. Some are worse due to modern preferences or the pursuit of profits. For exmaple force air heat is less efficient, less comfortable, and less healthy, but it is far cheaper to instal. That is not technology, it is a choice to use an inferior system or product in order to cut costs. That is the primary reaon that new houses have gotten so bad. Cost cutting to allow bigger homes with more bling at lower prices. hy are older houses generally smaller? Were families smaller? No families were bigger. However they did nto sacrifice quality for size. They also were ot able to tell how weak they could get away with making things, so they tended to engage in overkill. Today, we can firugre exactly how chintszy a house can be and still last 30 years. thus, we do nto need to build houses that will last 100 or 200 years, unless we choose to pay for that. The problem is sometimes, we miss the 30 year goal and the house starts having problems in 5 or 10 or 18 years. Sometimes we miss the other way. There may well be modern houses that last 50 years with no major problems. Not many, but there will probably be some.
By the way, the asbestos lawsuts have nothing to do with houses. Asbestosis as a product is harmless. The lawsuits are about people who work inn factories or on shis or as mechanics where they breathed clouds of asbestos dust all day every day for decades. No one got asbestosis from products inside a house. Due ot the problems factory workers had, they tell people to get rid of asbestosis and never grind it up wihtout all inds of protective gear, but it is really just hype. There is no identified danger from stable asbestos products in buildings.
I'm curious to see what people here would consider a McMansion.
And unless you're against using the term McMansion in the first place, you would probably consider large new homes where the developer is too cheap to even clad the side of the house in brick
In this OP, here is actually a major indicator--materials used in a stage-set manner.
Like most signifiers in this definition, it's not conclusive but it is a good indicator.
Aesthetically, materially, the front is completely divorced from the sides & rear.
It's fake, it's a stage set, and the presumption is that we can't see around corners.
Ironically enough, the family arrives on the side of the house in their SUV (is this our house?!)
and their outdoor recreational activities are at the rear (also typically vinyl siding).
The front exists entirely to make an impression upon strangers and guests.
Who, we must hope, cannot see around corners or view the house from an angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
I have never heard of tract houses, or the subdivisions they are built in, being referred to as McMansions.
Now you have
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
McMansion refers to prefabricated homes with simple architecture designed to be rapidly built on small pieces of land. The homes are typically oversized for the size of the lot. So think of 3500 Sq Ft on 1/3rd acre lot. They are built with lower quality materials during the prefab process than standard homes.
Definitely not pre-fabricated, although it is possible. "Simple" architecture is being far too kind--often the problem is exactly the opposite--builders throw every pretentious architectural conceit at the facade and see what sticks (many do):
Often indeed crowded on lots but that is irrelevant. Lower-quality materials--again typical but not definitional.
You can build a McMansion out of top-quality materials--just use them in a distinctly ungrammatical fashion. The most important thing is to use materials and architectural symbols in as pretentious a manner as possible, and the more sadly pretentious, the more of a McMansion you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The term "McMansion" has more to do with the house than the neighborhood.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
It's a coined term thus it doesn't have an official definition.
Unfortunately that article is repeatedly rewritten by some obscure architectural 'academic' at some obscure college who keeps insisting that he invented the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog
My McMansion definition: small lot, large house, something like 70%+ house. An equal number of bathrooms and bedrooms. Every room has 10+ foot ceilings, rather than just the public rooms (ie, bedrooms and bathrooms too). The house has 4000+ sq ft, and the bathrooms are the size of a regular house's bedrooms with mostly empty floorspace in them.
Again, typical indicators but most can also apply to a real mansion.
Quote:
The architectural style (or lack thereof) is irrelevant,
Actually, the lack of architectural integrity is often the crux of the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Just to clear up any confusion:
Real historic Central Europe:
Fake Historic Central Europe:
Real Pirates:
Fake Pirates:
Real Beer:
Fake Beer:
Real Mansion:
Mcmansion:
Any questions?
Your examples are amusing and on point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
I cannot tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.
This is about architectural integrity most likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
Were you replying to me? If so please go back re-read (slowly this time so you can understand it) and try again. Try reading only what is written an not inserting things you think might be said by someone. Maybe you were responding to someone else. I certainly never said the things you are claiming. Maybe it is just a reading comprehesion problems or forgot to take some medication?
You nearly condensed all internet-forum-angry-response memes into one paragraph; well done!
Again, typical indicators but most can also apply to a real mansion.
No, because a real mansion is not on a small lot. It's all those factors I mentioned together. The different materials for the front and sides is also very much an indicator. I forgot that one.
Also the architectural style doesn't matter, because arch styles are determined by the relevant timeperiod and by the group of people creating them. They don't have any natural order or rules except ones defined by the original designer. Some might have had natural rules to them, but mostly they were just made up. The fact that they were made up in the past is cool because there is value to history but it doesn't mean they were in any way 'correct'.
It's the equivelent of saying modern cars don't have have any 'architectural style' because they look different than the Model T or from Duesenburgs. They do, it's just different. Of course, this doesn't mean they can't be ugly.
Many "real" mansions in the Los Angeles are are on small lots. Especially up in the Hollywood Hills.
I did a quick check and didn't find any "real" mansions on less than 1.75 acres. I'm sure there are "real" mansions on small lots but it seems 'many' isn't that many to take "small lot" off the criteria of a McMansion.
Many "real" mansions in the Los Angeles are are on small lots. Especially up in the Hollywood Hills.
You are correct, and the same is even more true for older cities such as Boston, Chicago, Washington, Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans, London, Paris, etc etc etc. A Mansion, or a McMansion, can be on any size lot. If you expanded or contracted the size of the lot it would not change the character (or lack thereof) of the house one iota. It would only change its situation.
A mansion can very well be situated on a small lot, especially when it is in a prime location like right on the beach. An estate on the other hand is almost always on a large sprawling lot.
I did a quick check and didn't find any "real" mansions on less than 1.75 acres. I'm sure there are "real" mansions on small lots but it seems 'many' isn't that many to take "small lot" off the criteria of a McMansion.
What was it you checked?
(BTW: 1.75 acres up in the hills is considered a huge amount of land.) Google Tom Brady's house in L.A. It's pretty typical for a mansion on a small lot.
It's very interesting to read some of the descriptions of American McMansions. Here in Australia, the term seems to be applied to virtually any newly built house in the outer suburbs, even if it is a single-storey 3-4 bedroom, 2 bathroom, 2600 sq ft house. Vinyl siding is pretty much never used here except for dwellings you'd find in a caravan park and for patching up old weatherboard on houses built decades ago. Most "McMansions" are brick veneer all around, often with a rendered concrete facade. New house plans must meet a 5-star energy efficiency rating to be granted a building permit which makes them typically much more energy-efficient than more traditional and prestigious housing, and new estates often have both fresh and recycled water mains.
One interesting complaint against them in Australia that I've seen is the lack of traditional lawns and gardens - people are favouring low maintenance, low water consumption, grit mulch, pavers and concrete courtyards. To me, the "traditional" approach is really an English mentality taken way out of context and the "new, McMansion" approach to gardening is far more appropriate to the reality of the Australian climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
