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.
The way I described it to my realtor was that we're often called on to host corporate events and entertain at our homeand we'd like something a little more "stately" than "homely" (or at least with more glamorous areas), but it still has to be comfortable enough in the other areas for our kids to not have to be uptight all the time. Concord was great, but the homes were more familial than stately.
I focused on what I perceived to be a need for big entertainment spaces. You can find what I think of as stately houses in Concord, but to have big entertainment spaces for corporate events, I think the price tag is pretty high. The alternatives are the kinds of houses on Caterina Heights and Mattison Drive. I think Sudbury has lots of them.
I like to think that if I had 1.5m+ to spend on a home, I'd choose a piece of property that was a little more unique or possibly architect designed. Personally, I'm big into historical integrity of a home and it drives me crazy to see a house that is a mish mash of eras.
Then again... 1.5 just isn't that much around here. All it gets you is a newer home as opposed to a renovated mid century home. If you want a true "mansion", your budget needs to be a lot more... at least in the "circle of wealth"
i love this thread. i really think whatever community is lucky enough to get you will be blessed to have you. i love your enthusiasm and spirit
Thanks for the compliment, Scriptkitten. That's very kind of you to say. I think you're right about price point. People who don't have $1.5M to spend on a home usually aren't aware of what is realistic for that price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 495neighbor
Stately means classic with gracious sophistication to me. It could be contemporary or historic.
I could not agree with you more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackshaw
I apologize for the potentially derogatory term.
No need to apologize, really! I didn't assume or feel you were being derogatory (or even implying anything), You've been nothing but helpful! I realize that the term has become a distinguishing reference and a shorthand for an otherwise unnamed style. But I did come across some posts in other threads in which people did clearly intend to be derogatory with that term. So this response is really in response to rather than you, jackshaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accufitgolf
I think when she originally said a "stately" looking home, she opened the door.
I can agree with that...because of the nature of this forum. It's a conversation I'm happy to share my opinion on.
So what I'm getting out of this is: Those who would be disparaging toward "McMansions" generally feel that they are too big, too disproportionate to lot size, too modern, too disingenuous to any particular architectural style, too uniform, and (per other threads) too wasteful of resources.
I guess what I don't understand is why it has to be a point of contention. A person's preference in favor of a McMansion is just as much a matter of personal taste as any other home purchase, but seldom do I hear/read others insulted for their preferences of Tudors or Cape-Cods. To the architectural purist I see how such a house can be considered a mish-mash of styles and eras, but I think to the people who buy McMansions this is part of the appeal. It's rather presumptuous to think that they are all trying to be like historic landmark Colonials. Perhaps they are trying to incorporate the elements of that style that they like, and discard the ones they don't. I know many who like the elements of different styles, and why shouldn't they be entitled to a home that brings those elements together. To mock a person's taste in housing style based on the fact that it doesn't adhere to any one historic style is to me as silly as mocking someone who decides to satiate their palate at dinner with a plate that consists of lasagna, a taco and an egg roll. So what if it's not technically a Mexican, Italian, or Chinese dinner? It would be rather snobbish to say that the variety of food a person choses to consume somehow reflects a lack of refinement in their tastes. Not every meal is gourmet, but that doesn't automatically imply that is on the level of fast food; and not every large home is custom, but that doesn't automatically imply that it is tacky.
I absolutely ABHOR the gambrel roofs on Dutch Colonial Revival homes, but I'd never refer to them in a derogatory way, try to convince anyone to despise them as much as I do, or judge someone else's tastes for liking them. It just seems that when it comes to "McMansions", the sheer moniker alone seems to do all of the aforementioned. Why the degradation? The heterogenous architectural characteristics of these houses may not be historically founded but neither were ranch-style homes prior to the 1920's. My point is that everything historic had a starting point and a period prior to it in which it was unconventional or nontraditional, so the historical veracity of a style, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value to me in the debate about whether an architectural style should be considered tasteful or not.
Clearly, a new architectural style is emerging or has emerged. Perhaps a less offensive way to refer to it would be "NeoMansion" or "Modern Mansion". It's really the "Mc" part that conveys a substandard connotation. Now before anyone says it, yes, some NeoMansions are built with substandard materials and/or workmanship. But I know first-hand that some are not. And this is not something that other architectural styles are or have been immune to either, so to me that should not be a defining characteristic of the actual form. Toll Brothers puts out some shoddy work, but they are also capable of building durable homes where the market dictates. The quality of a house is not something that can be determined without actually seeing the home or knowing the exacts specs. It is prejudicial to assume from just looking at the architectural style, lot size, or even the builder that a home is shoddy. We all learned that ol' saying in grade-school about judging a book by it's cover, right? And speaking of a new style emerging, that brings up the issue of uniformity. Many homes that belong to those other, better-defined styles, are similar to each other, aren't they? Few people seem to mind that all Mediterranean style homes share commonalities, or that all split-level homes have… well…split levels. It's the things that are similar among them that DEFINE the style, further proving that the NeoMansion is its own, albeit poorly nicknamed, architectural style. A street full of ranch-style homes is seldom knocked for all being built next to other ranches. So in my opinion that seems a double standard.
As far as scale and proportion: I've lived in many places so I've seen many neighborhoods, and believe me when I say there exists, maybe not in the northeast (I just don't know yet) many areas where genuine (perhaps even historic) mansions are built right on top of each other as well. So again, that is not exclusive to NeoMansions. I'm fairly certain those "true" mansions were not built in the mass quantities that recent master-planned communities produce, but again I wonder, quality notwithstanding, why does that matter? That's more of a supply-demand debate for economists to argue.
Large rooms = personal preference, ornate kitchens and master baths = personal preference, neighborhood uniformity = personal preference. One man's "cavernous" is another man's "bright and roomy", just as one woman's "small and cozy" is another woman's "cramped and confined", and one person's "mish-mash" is another's "eclectic". 4000+ square feet with vaulted ceilings feels comfortable for one person and 1200 square feet with overgrown landscaping feels comfortable for another.
I used to work in academia and often helped to facilitate a number of programs that brought students from the arid, flat and open Southwest to a green and lush area of the Midwest for the purpose of recruitment. It was soon determined that one of the main issues negatively affecting the retention of these students was that they all felt quite claustrophobic amidst the green, towering trees and rolling hills. While as for me personally, I would shrivel up and die if I were in the brown, dusty environment from which they had come! But I never and would have never bad-mouthed their region of the country. It's their HOME for goodness sake! We are each comfortable with different things, and entitled to respect for our own preferences.
Now as far as energy efficiency, NeoMansions would probably get the advantage, generally speaking of course. It's short-sided to assume that merely the size of a home indicates how much resource it drains. Many, many older homes that have not been renovated, and I mean recently, are very inefficient relative to new NeoMansions because (1) standards were lower at the time of build and (2) materials are both old and outdated. Not to mention older homes have a greater chance of containing materials that are toxic to life and land. Technological advances in products and the mere age of the home give the NeoMansion an advantage. They are certainly not more wasteful than true older mansions, and they are not always as wasteful as smaller older homes. Now does that mean they aren't wasteful? Of course not! But that's because we Americans are a pretty wasteful people, relatively speaking. NeoMansion owners don't corner the market on that attribute.
To be honest, at worst the NeoMansion-bashing sounds like "bitter grapes syndrome". At best, it sounds like some very opinionated people who genuinely don't like NeoMansions due to their tastes, but who don't realize how snobbish and condescending they sound by disparaging other people's tastes as cheap, tacky, or somehow inferior. If a NeoMansion is not for you, then it's not for you, but, like I said of those students, don't forget that somebody calls that home.
Part of this whole debate is a culture thing inherent to where we live, in the Boston area. The housing stock is older and a lot of metro areas are built out, so there isn't a lot of room for new construction to begin with. So newer construction homes tend to be crammed in, either replacing a cape/ranch in a neighborhood of capes/ranches and looking out of place or squeezed into a plot of land that used to be the yard of the house next door, or else a bunch of them pop up at the same time in what used to be somebody else's scenic vista - shrinking woods or farmland. So that's where some of the derision comes from - it's not always about what is there so much as what *used to* be there and the visual shock of seeing green space (whether wilderness or the space between houses) shrink.
I wrote a response a few days ago that was eaten up by C-D and I gave up instead of trying to write it again, but the upshot was this: The thing about stately homes in MA is there aren't a ton and they tend not to be newer.
A lot of the expensive homes are older but are very well located or get a lot of their value from their history. Thanks to Puritan roots which still influence in terms of displays of wealth and austerity you'll see why some very expensive homes - particularly in towns with strong Yankee roots like Concord - look more familial than stately. The conceit among many who come from money is that they're just like everybody else - which also explains a lot about how we dress here! The rich guy in the room is wearing jeans and a sweater and loafers or hiking boots, and his house is a modest historic home with shingles. The jeans and loafers are well made and the home authentically historic, but from a distance and without knowing context it looks more homely than impressive. (Nantucket is a great example of this)
As for more stately homes, many Victorian and Gilded Age homes were built to be monumental and impressive and often have the grounds to support that. And there was a period around maybe the 30s-50s when new neighborhoods were built with homes that were meant to look impressive - another poster recommended Needham, Lexington, and Milton when "stately" was mentioned and I had had the same thought, that those areas would be perfect. I might add Newton and Belmont to that list as well.
Folks from the northeast are used to living in older housing and while older homes certainly have their disadvantages, they are still standing and there is an appreciation of their good construction and architectural features. I know they might not be everybody's cup of tea, especially for folks coming from areas with more new construction, but they might be worth a second look!
Ok, sleepy and rambling, so I'll stop here. Hope you find the best house for you!
Why ask the meaning of a term if you don't want our opinions on it
I've often thought McMansions will look much better in 40 years once the owners' individual landscaping matures and little customizations take root. Just like a Louis Vuitton bag, a house looks best with a little patina.
As a mid century mod enthusiast, I recognize that new home styles take time to become accepted. The history lesson was presumptuous as to our own backgrounds.
No bitter grapes here. I'm not going to describe my home on a public forum but I assure you it's totally awesome.
More than an architectural style, the term "McMansion" also speaks to the general culture of American consumerism. We all need bigger and bigger homes, cars, toys.... We can no longer make do with a modest lifestyle. Families are forced to stretch themselves too thin, work too many hours, kids get the shaft, communities lose their heart because everyone is too exhausted just keeping the bills paid. Hey, I'm as guilty as everyone else, trust me, but it doesn't mean I don't recognize a problem when I see it.
Too bad I didn't know earlier as I have friends who just sold their house of the NeoMansion variety. It was on the market for a while. Great for entertaining. I know of another house that will come on the market -- also empty nest parents that has been extensively renovated but is probably more homely than showy. My guess is that it would be in the $1.4 MM range, but who knows.
Why ask the meaning of a term if you don't want our opinions on it
I've often thought McMansions will look much better in 40 years once the owners' individual landscaping matures and little customizations take root. Just like a Louis Vuitton bag, a house looks best with a little patina.
As a mid century mod enthusiast, I recognize that new home styles take time to become accepted. The history lesson was presumptuous as to our own backgrounds.
No bitter grapes here. I'm not going to describe my home on a public forum but I assure you it's totally awesome.
More than an architectural style, the term "McMansion" also speaks to the general culture of American consumerism. We all need bigger and bigger homes, cars, toys.... We can no longer make do with a modest lifestyle. Families are forced to stretch themselves too thin, work too many hours, kids get the shaft, communities lose their heart because everyone is too exhausted just keeping the bills paid. Hey, I'm as guilty as everyone else, trust me, but it doesn't mean I don't recognize a problem when I see it.
I'm not sure how my stating my opinion reflects that I didn't want others opinions. I asked the question because the term means different things to different people. And being that folks were giving feedback, at least initially, on this thread to help me find an area that is right for me, and that my preference towards a stately home "opened" me up to this, it's necessary that I understand the context of the term as it was being used here, as opposed to elsewhere. What I didn't want to do was presume to know what a person's definition of that word is. As I said, this was not in response to anyone on this thread in particular, but to a broader understanding of the term.
I agree with you the "McMansion" concept is less of an architectural style than a culture. That's exactly the reason it think it's important to maturate the discussion, hence my "history lesson", which I don't find presumptuous in the least bit, but I apologize that it offended you. From what I've read, when people defend the term "McMansion" the basis is usually framed stylistically instead of environmentally, economically, or culturally. In my opinion that is a double standard. Because as you said, many people are guilty of lifestyles that perpetuate a McMansion culture even if they live in other types of houses. If we as Americans are over consuming, it's not the architectural details of a house that we need to be critical of, however style is the recurring theme when people are pressed to define that term. Since style speaks to a person's tastes, and tastes are personal, that makes the criticism seem unfairly personal and skewed.
A case in point of the personal nature of the criticism of one's home is your own response: I didn't say you were (or anyone here was) vocalizing a "bitter-grapes" attitude, and I'm sure your home is lovely. But whatever kinda way you felt that compelled you to defend your home as "totally awesome", is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's your HOME, of course it's totally awesome! Homes are a reflection of their inhabitants. But people living in "McMansions" think their homes are awesome too, and feel that same kinda way you must have just felt when what can be interpreted as demeaning monikers are used to describe what they like.
And it all seems so unnecessary to me. I personally don't live in a McMansion, either, which is why it's odd that I seem to be defending them. But actually, I'm not defending them. What I do stand for and will always defend, though, are the attitudes that we don't have to be disagreeable in order to disagree, and give to others the respect you wish to receive from others.
Implications that people who own large, newer homes have subpar style or are somehow more culpable than others with regard to eroding the modest lifestyle where kids get the shaft and communities lose heart is unfair. Mansion owners, executive high-rise condo owners, and many others can and are usually just as liable. There just doesn't seem to be as much criticism towards them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for criticizing anyone because I think discussion is more effective when we don't disparage each other. I'm just saying the current dialogue is 2-dimensional and therefore comes across as condescending to one particular group of tastes. I'm actually in agreement that the current American lifestyle often has an eroding effect on family and community. But if I, SunnyHoney, moved into a McMansion tomorrow that would not make me any less likely to meet my neighbors, prioritize my family and kids, or protect resources, environment, and family finances, than I already currently do or would if I moved into any other home.
As for more stately homes, many Victorian and Gilded Age homes were built to be monumental and impressive and often have the grounds to support that.
This has become a fascinating thread and I'll read more carefully when time allows. Wanted to respond to this point: many imposing Victorian and Gilded Age houses were built on small city lots, very close together, but still with side and back yards. You find these throughout the old suburban ring, or what was considered suburban in the 1880s-- so, Cambridge, Brookline, Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Dorchester. Many other Victorian houses--the typical Brownstones of New York or the brick bowfront houses of Boston were built right next to each other with no grounds at all. It's only in late 20th century/early 21st we've adjusted to the new norm of a big house on a big lot--or even a not-so-big house on a big lot.
To be honest, at worst the NeoMansion-bashing sounds like "bitter grapes syndrome". At best, it sounds like some very opinionated people who genuinely don't like NeoMansions due to their tastes, but who don't realize how snobbish and condescending they sound by disparaging other people's tastes as cheap, tacky, or somehow inferior. If a NeoMansion is not for you, then it's not for you, but, like I said of those students, don't forget that somebody calls that home.
(Uh-oh, now I'm quoting myself, too, MikePRU! )
Let me just get out ahead of this and say I apologize because in re-reading this part of my post, I see that I came across as insulting in saying that some folks sounded snobbish and condescending in their criticism of "McMansions". I had just read a few other threads on the matter that were less than respectful in tone than those made here. I sincerely was not referring to any of the posts on this thread, as everyone gave really respectful feedback. That was my visceral response to those threads and to that term as it is widely understood to mean tacky. But still, that is no excuse; and I can admit when I am in the wrong. I wouldn't want to insult those people, either, even if they were being insulting. It's hypocritical. I do stick to the fact that more than one of the comments on the other threads was down-putting, but that is not something I'd like to focus on or call anyone out on, and especially not on this thread because I'd hate to be a discouraging factor to anyone else wishing to voice their opinion. I have my own strong opinions, not so much about McMansions, but about how people come across to each other at times. Which was my point from the get-go: nobody has to put down another person's preferences in order to defend their own. So I won't do that either.
Last edited by SunnyHoney; 08-28-2013 at 12:10 PM..
Sh, you make a lot of good points with respect to personal taste and style.
One of the things I appreciate about my town is that I'm not judged or disrespected even tho my style of dress is more colorful than most around here. I'll remember to use the same courtesy to others on this board when it comes to their home style.
And yes, my house is AWESOME mostly because its MINE!!
To me, in Massachusetts, a McMansion is a NeoColonial type house that looks sort of like its trying to be a historical Landmark home but the details are ALL wrong because they tried to make it look grand and luxurious by way of "grand" and "luxurious" details that are totally historically incorrect for a Colonial home. They often replaced a 1300 sq ft cape, which means that the house looks ridiculous because its sandwiched between capes and other mid-century homes. Sometimes they are on a street of all brand new McMansions which looks just as silly because they all look the same except for the color of the siding. So many of them are too big for their lots.
I guess its a derogatory term. I like to think that if I had 1.5m+ to spend on a home, I'd choose a piece of property that was a little more unique or possibly architect designed. Personally, I'm big into historical integrity of a home and it drives me crazy to see a house that is a mish mash of eras.
Then again... 1.5 just isn't that much around here. All it gets you is a newer home as opposed to a renovated mid century home. If you want a true "mansion", your budget needs to be a lot more... at least in the "circle of wealth"
I live in one of those expensive towns near Boston. In my neighborhood, it's now about 60-70% McMansions. I think the reason people call them that, is that most of those houses have no real sense of architectural style, or design. And most of them look alike, you can barely tell one from another. I'd say that goes for the McMansion owners too. Most of them don't associate much with the "old timers" (like me) with the tear-downs, or even with the other Yuppies from what I can tell. It's gone from a neighborhood, to now some kind of corporate soul-less bedroom community.
It's like a neighborhood that "stepford wives", (or "stepford people") would live in. I always think, the people who buy McMansions must have no appreciation of architecture, or design; it's just just like buying an appliance for them perhaps? I doubt there's anyone with a sense of design, or history, who would buy one of those things. (Let alone in a 300 y.o. classic, historic New England town! This is not Florida).
BTW, I get that McMansions are very, very popular in some circles, & they don't care about what I or Scriptkitten are talking about . (End of rant--but hey I've had this McMansion phenomena in my face on a daily basis for a lot of years now).....
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.
)
