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.
LOL, you just keep digging yourself in deeper. You really do not know what makes a McMansion, do you?
Hilarious isn't it? I challange anyone to find any actual McMansion with that sort of ornamental brickwork. Let me guess, that's called something like the "Regency Randstad" option by Hovnanian? "Recalling the fine ornamental brickwork of old Dutch cities and 19th and early 20th century English architecture, we will import skilled bricklayers from northern England to reproduce these herringbone and zigzag patterns. Victorian Polychrome extra."
Consider the fact, that the average new home in 1970 was 1,500 sq. ft. In 1990, they had grown to 2,000 20 years later, to 2,500 in 2000, and today the average new home is 2,700 sq. ft. That is half new construction is less than 2,700 sq. ft. and half of all new construction is over 2,700 sq. ft. In 2016 20% of all new homes run between 3,000 and 4,000 sq. ft. Prices will vary around the country considerably, but sizes are what we are talking about. We are not talking about high end luxury homes, but normal tract homes, homes built on infill lots, and in places land is hard to come by, with tear downs and build a new home. The upper income (not rich) working families are doing what they halve always done, they are building larger homes than the previous generation. It is called keeping up with the Jones. By 2040, they will be building bigger homes than today.
What it really comes down to, is people that cannot afford large homes, or ones that do not like large homes, environmentalists that feel they use too much of building supplies, or use more energy than they think people should use, hate them.
And people with a little more disposable income, will always buy a home in the large size. At about 3,000 square feet and up, a lot of people hate any home of this size, and call them McMansions. They want everyone to buy a home in the size and even design they prefer. Lot sizes are smaller and less yard with big homes today, because the cities are demanding smaller lots to preserve land for future building, and less cost to maintain utilities and services. The big lots of the past, are a thing of the past, and no longer available in many parts of the country. It used to be small lot for smaller homes, and big lots for big homes.
I know when I developed lots, we developed them for the size of homes that were going to be built. Today, many cities set the lot sizes so small, that the bigger homes being built today take up much more of the lot.
A lot of people that hate what they call McMansions today, will really hate the next generation in about 20 years when homes take another big jump in size.
You're seriously showing a doll house to conflate? And now you're "disliking" iconic historic architecture that isn't even anything close to today's Mcmansions?
Italianate Victorian was from the 19th Century, started in England and spread all over the world. They were large because they had alot of people living in them. Often more than one family.
Has nothing to do with the topic of "comfortable" or inviting or intimate - which is again just a personal choice. I don't even like old fussy houses but this one is adorable.
But TONS of people disagree anyway. Cape May NJ is a very popular tourist spot of Victorian homes. And people are crazy about them. Like CULT level. Same with San Fran.
And no, that cottage makes my nose itch just looking at it.
OK, this post has nothing to do with the thread, except that the coincidence is absolutely not to be believed.
Runswithscissors didn't seem very happy about my posting a couple of dollhouse pictures to prove my point. He also posted some links and the picture of the pink house above in his/her post. Nobody's going to believe this but........I thought the house looked a little familiar, so I went through some of my old dollhouse catalogs tonight. And look what I found:
Apparently this dollhouse is based on the real house, and that real house is the pink house Runswithscissors posted a picture of. I never knew the dollhouse was based on a real house and I had never seen the real one until Scissors posted the pic. Thank you, Runswithscissors!
It just goes to show, you never learn anything from people you agree with!
"What it really comes down to, is people that cannot afford large homes, or ones that do not like large homes, environmentalists that feel they use too much of building supplies, or use more energy than they think people should use, hate them."
Nope, for me that's not what it comes down to at all. I don't mind large houses per se. I dislike large ugly ones in neighborhoods of many similar looking, large ugly ones. There are still, in so far as it makes sense to say it, "mansions" being built today that are every bit the quality of the mansions of yore. But they are very rare, comparatively. Again, going back to my post on page 1, because the people who have both that kind of money and the ability to recognize quality architecture and building methods and materials are rare these days. Which one could actually be seen as an overall positive socioeconomic development: it's because there's more economic mobility compared to the pre-WWII era that a bunch of people can afford to buy big ugly houses even though they didn't grow up in a big not-ugly house. (in addition to a host of other factors such as modernization in the building trades: it would be harder to build a McMansion without electric power tools!) (Furthermore some economists might debate whether "jumbo financing" "stated income loans" "lowering of income tax rates since the 1970s" etc. are actually signs of economic progress, but I digress...)
But I will grant it's a loaded term, and maybe "McMansion" does represent those things you mention (environmental waste, etc) to many people. But I've heard people with large, historic properties use the term derisively and they can only mean it in an aesthetic sense...since they have large properties that use a lot of energy, too.
That article defines McMansion as having bad architecture.
Most times I have heard the term the speaker is referring mainly to the size, and often its use of designs that clash with other houses nearby.
There are huge houses that are beautiful, and there are small or tiny houses that are ugly.
Some tiny houses could be described as Junior Whopper.
Agree. The article describes that writer's definition of correct or good architecture.
I think the term McMansion refers more to the quality of the construction, the landscaping, the size of the house vs. yard, and the house in relationship to the neighborhood.
My two cents...I like my McMansion! And we can easily afford it.
It's 4000 sf on 0.45 acres. I would have liked an acre lot but that would have added 200k to the sale price and about $7000 a year in property taxes. So .45 it is.
It's brick front, grey siding. 2 car garage on the side. Not sure what style it is, probably some sort of ripoff of classical I guess? It's pretty subdued. Yeah it has the big window in the foyer with the arch over the door. I thought it was a little much! But we face southwest and wow, the sunsets we can see. Especially after a storm. Glorious.
We use all of the rooms. First floor is your standard dining room, living room which we use for our piano. A kitchen, powder room, laundry room and small 5th bedroom. Love the fifth bedroom, we have a trundle bed in there, so handy for guests. Then we have the great room. Nice gas fireplace. 9 foot ceilings throughout the first floor. We have some of those half-moon windows on top of our regular windows. I love seeing the tops of the trees and the sky. What else? 4 bedrooms upstairs, 2 bathrooms.
A nice screened in porch and our yard isn't huge but it's bordered by Colorado spruce trees. So pretty. We know our neighbors, one of the benefits of the smaller lot. Everyone drops their kids off in here for Halloween trick or treating which is fun. It's in a small development so all of the houses are on the same scale, which I do like. Underground wires. Trees are nicely grown in now.
We started out in an 80s condo with 7.5 foot ceilings. Liked it there too, except for the noise of kids running above us. Then we had a 1800 sf townhouse, that was cozy too. As for the quality of this house? It's been here 20 years, it's going to need some renovations soon but it seems fine. We looked at everything from 50s bilevels to 80s colonials, not sure that the quality was better there. Our basement is poured concrete, dry, finished and has high ceilings, we have a 50 year roof, wooden Andersen Windows which seem to be holding up well.
Anyway, that's my take. We have all the space we need and we use it all. We can easily host parties, kids have their friends over, we have weekend guests and we have the space for it all. Tons of storage.
I don't put anyone down who values different things. I read that Tumblr where that article is posted. The writer's favorite style is Brutalism. Ah, ok. That's not my thing but whatever floats his boat. I've lived in cities, I've lived in old houses. I have my opinions but I don't feel the need to start a blog over them lol.
This house is comfortable and cozy and super functional and just lovely. And I guess I don't get the point of disparaging "McMansions" but on the other hand I don't care. Like anything else, sometimes it says more about the critic. All that matters is that we love our home and we do. Or maybe I'm just basic haha
It seems like the main concern is the lack of cohesive design and symmetry. I have to admit the examples used of "good" design were definitely more aesthetically pleasing than those of "McMansion" design. From a practical standpoint, though, I don't really care that much about how the house looks, I'm generally more interested in functionality. As a large part of that functionality is "how often do I have to fix stuff" some of the McMansion stereotypes do push me toward preferring more traditional houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot
I usually hear McMansions used by the people that can't afford one.
I usually hear McMansions from people who could afford one and choose something smaller and closer to the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP48G
the funny thing is that in 50-75 years, the neo-eclectic mcmansion housing stock will be "historic" and "desirable", just like any other architecture trend of the 19 and early 20th century. The numerous flaws indicated in this article will be seen as desirable and of unique character.
There isn't one definition of what a McMansion is--it's a term like "Hipster" that most people use pejoratively to describe stuff they don't like--but I usually associate it with low quality. I don't expect McMansions to last 50-75 years. Once all the junk is gone and only the unusual is left, I could definitely see the unusual choices becoming novel and historic.
rodentraiser, thank you for the picture link of San Francisco. I can still drive to many of the neighborhoods, after seeing one of the pictures. Just think, a majority of them were built on 25 ft wide lots. Look at those colors, the HOA lovers would hate it when you will see any color of the rainbow on the same block. They are proud of their individuality, and call them painted ladies. Note that the design features in many of those homes, are the design feature the author in the link hated, and so many posters on this thread hate.
When 20% of all new tract homes being built are in the 3,000 to 4,000 square foot size, it is ridiculous that some people call them McMansions as an insult. They are just houses, built for working class workers with good jobs. I have seen that same attitude by locals when the tract house sizes, kept enlarging every 10 years or so. Today the tract house for successful middle class is 3,000 plus, and these hate mongers are angry that some people can afford to own something they never will be able to own. So they put them down as a form of reverse snobbery. Talk about what type of materials are used to build them, as if large tract houses are supposed to be built like a fine custom home. Fine custom homes are another category in themselves. The fact is, fine custom homes are built with custom design (which a lot of the lower class snobs hate), higher quality building materials, and features.
Quote:
but I usually associate it with low quality. I don't expect McMansions to last 50-75 years.
The thing is, they are better built, than the much smaller 50 year old homes around the country, that are still standing.
I looked at Cupertino California a few minutes ago, where I spent a number of years in 50s, and 60s. One home I recognized, and remember when they sold for under $25,000. Today 50 and 60 years later, those homes in that housing tract are reselling for $1,600,000 and up, reselling for over 60 times more than they sold for when new.
It seems like the main concern is the lack of cohesive design and symmetry. I have to admit the examples used of "good" design were definitely more aesthetically pleasing than those of "McMansion" design. From a practical standpoint, though, I don't really care that much about how the house looks, I'm generally more interested in functionality. As a large part of that functionality is "how often do I have to fix stuff" some of the McMansion stereotypes do push me toward preferring more traditional houses.
I usually hear McMansions from people who could afford one and choose something smaller and closer to the city.
There isn't one definition of what a McMansion is--it's a term like "Hipster" that most people use pejoratively to describe stuff they don't like--but I usually associate it with low quality. I don't expect McMansions to last 50-75 years. Once all the junk is gone and only the unusual is left, I could definitely see the unusual choices becoming novel and historic.
Another fan of functionality here, and of low maintenance.
Interesting article. The ones I have been in generally are very bland on the inside with low grade materials. I guess that bothers me more than the symmetry. The outside is generally stalely looking and the inside looks like a different house completely. The ones I have seen seem like size was the priority. I looked at a foreclosure a few years back and was surprised by the utter lack of detail in it. Of course it was a bit rough since it was empty and not cared for while the owners were losing it but there was zero appeal. The fireplace basically was a hole in the wall with floor tiles glued around it. The exterior had a lot more detail. It felt like that is where the money was spent.
My cousin owns a McMansion and I haven't seen it as she lives out of state. She is decor challenged and sends me pics asking for advice. I have a hard time making sense of the layout as it is all open. She can't figure out how to paint the rooms or arrange furniture. I think it because it has several rooms combined together so you need the furniture to break up the spaces. I asked my mom what she thought since she has been there several times. All she can say is that it is big. She will try to describe the layout and gets confused because there is a living room but then a dining room and another area off to the side that she thinks is supposed to be an office, and trails off saying...then another room off the kitchen that could be a dining room. I guess I will eventually have to make a trip to see the place myself.
Realistically any new build comparable to the materials of yesteryear is going to be too expensive to build again. Personally my preference was a smaller home with more detail and solid materials.
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.
Or maybe I'm just basic haha
