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.
So would you rather be dazzled by a superficial feature or would you rather purchase something that meets a more functional need for you and your family?
What are you thinking of when you say superficial feature? Superficial to you might be very important for the ambiance and atmosphere the buyer wants to develop in his living space. And why are you assuming people who buy large homes don't consider the needs of their family? On what grounds do you hold that belief? Perhaps it is large because that IS a need of their family.
The standard for a quality home used to be 11-12 foot ceilings on the first floor, at least 9 on the second, 7 or 8 on the third. That shrunk down to 7 foot standard in the midcentury then grew up to 8 foot, recently it has grown to 9 foot. Expensive moldings and paneling used to be standard on the first floor and decent moldings on the second, those disappeared completely, first from the outside of buildings then from the inside. Now you are lucky if there is a single rounded bead molding in the house. Windows used to to a mix of rectangled arched or portholed and with complex moldings, now they are all simply rectangles. A beautiful mantel used to be the centerpeice of a room underneith vaulted and coffered ceilings with a plaster pendant in the center, now no interesting architectural detail exists in a room and its simply plane walls with a plane ceiling. Any return to architectural detail in homes is a step in the right direction, a return to sanity really. These are our homes, where we live out much of our lives, they should be the most significant thing we build/buy/develope in our lives and should be a fitting backdrop, not simply something to most efficiently and cheaply keep away the elements.
I believe that 8 foot ceilings was the standard for a very long time. The only exception I can think of was basements, some top floors and mobil homes which are usually 7 feet. In the 1990s 9 feet became the standard. Now new homes are moving toward 10 foot ceiling.
For those who don't think that is a waste. The difference between an 8 foot and a 10 foot ceiling is going to be an extra 20% plus on energy bills. Probably closer to 25%-30%. Since all that nice warm air will be mostly above your head.
What are you thinking of when you say superficial feature? Superficial to you might be very important for the ambiance and atmosphere the buyer wants to develop in his living space. And why are you assuming people who buy large homes don't consider the needs of their family? On what grounds do you hold that belief? Perhaps it is large because that IS a need of their family.
"Atmosphere" is why mcmansions are a sick joke. They are like living in a cheap movie backdrop while believing they live in the place the backdrop represents.
For example, Neohistorical houses (especially European styles) are especially popular in my area. People think they are getting "old Europe" atmosphere but they are actually getting a ride on "Snow White's Scary Aventure" passed off as an authentic experience:
That is a real mansion made with real, high quality materials and to classic style with exceptional workmanship (and it costs an exceptional amount of money to live there ) Mc Mansion buyers are trying to delude themselves into thinking they actually live that lifestyle at only a fraction of the cost... and they just aren't. They are poseurs.
I think some people here could use a definition of McMansion. Here is the best that I've seen.
Quote:
McMansion
A large and pretentious house, typically
of shoddy construction, typical of "upscale" suburban developments in the late
20th and early 21st centuries. Such houses
are characterized by steep roofs of complex design, theatrical entrances, lack of stylistic integrity and backsides which are
notably less fussy than their fronts. They are often placed closely together to maximize the developer's profits and appeal to people who value perceived social status over actual, physical, economic or historic value.
Although Nancy is just a school teacher,
she mortgaged herself up to her neck to
buy a new McMansion on Woodbridge Road Court in Clayton Hills Valley Estates at North Pine River Hollow Meadows.
"Atmosphere" is why mcmansions are a sick joke. They are like living in a cheap movie backdrop while believing they live in the place the backdrop represents.
For example, Neohistorical houses (especially European styles) are especially popular in my area. People think they are getting "old Europe" atmosphere but they are actually getting a ride on "Snow White's Scary Aventure" passed off as an authentic experience:
That is a real mansion made with real, high quality materials and to classic style with exceptional workmanship (and it costs an exceptional amount of money to live there ) Mc Mansion buyers are trying to delude themselves into thinking they actually live that lifestyle at only a fraction of the cost... and they just aren't. They are poseurs.
So you are convinced that someone who buys a $500,000 dollar home actually thinks that they are living in a multi-million dollar one. On what grounds do you belief this? You think that if someone can not afford stone masons, granite and hand cast terracotta, then they have no business building in the architectural style of their choice? How dare the unwashed masses think they can have ornamental columns unless they are made of pure marble or some such elitist nonsense? Is that the line?
So you are convinced that someone who buys a $500,000 dollar home actually thinks that they are living in a multi-million dollar one. On what grounds do you belief this? You think that if someone can not afford stone masons, granite and hand cast terracotta, then they have no business building in the architectural style of their choice? How dare the unwashed masses think they can have ornamental columns unless they are made of pure marble or some such elitist nonsense? Is that the line?
I'm convinced because I live in a little old house surrounded by former fields that sprouted $500k-1m mcmansions overnight and know most of the people who live in them.
And sure the "unwashed masses" can have columns, but when they can't tell the difference between a Corinthian and a Doric column or even when their "classical" column is upside down and *still* insist they are "fancy" I can't help but chuckle.
Seriously... living in a Mcmansion is like buying a Pontiac Grand Prix with Ferrari badges (at a premium price, BTW), telling everyone you drive a Ferrari... and actually believing your car is a Ferrari because that's what the badge says.
So you are convinced that someone who buys a $500,000 dollar home actually thinks that they are living in a multi-million dollar one. On what grounds do you belief this? You think that if someone can not afford stone masons, granite and hand cast terracotta, then they have no business building in the architectural style of their choice? How dare the unwashed masses think they can have ornamental columns unless they are made of pure marble or some such elitist nonsense? Is that the line?
So you are convinced that some people don't buy these huge houses to show them off? They may or may not know the difference between terra cotta and cheap construction, but at the very least they sure are getting more for their money.
Oh, and no one is suggesting that people can't choose their architectural style, regardless of materials/build, except you.
As is urbandictionary's wont, that's a rather loaded definition. I prefer to use a wider definition of "McMansion" that encompasses any very large (say 3500+ square feet) tract home. There were a bunch in the 1970s and 1980s that were relatively bare of ornamentation; big boxes to the earlier little boxes.
fennec2009's second house is a decent example of the first breed, his first house is a good example of the later breed. Not the worst of them, though -- it may be gaudy but at least it's consistent.
This thing is more what I'm thinking when I talk about random bits of architectural detail:
Tile roof, concrete balcony, wrought iron railing (with a curved top), french doors (actually a slider on the bottom), brick, and that big arch with the arched window. And I think bay windows on the left side. Somehow they just don't seem to go together. At least there's no turret or lions...
I think it's so cool when you're driving around a plain jane area and then this gigantic flashy fancy suburban house pops out of knowhere and makes you look at it. I think it's amazing when you as one homeowner can add so much niceness to a block.
If I become rich one day then I want to one day live in a McMansion in an average area. Most wealthy [suburban] areas have huge lots with very little tight-knitness&interaction; those type of areas are not my cup of tea.
So it sounds like you want to have the giant house towering over all your normal neighbors to stand out.
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.