Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu
First off, even the term, mcmansion, is derogatory. These people who are against everything bigger than theirs need to really get a life...Things change....they are usually just upset that the new homes are driving up their property tax values, and reducing their taxable values to just lot value...if you live in a city, and you own a small house, AND your neighborhood is gentrifying, or the dirt is highly valuable - you should EXPECT that newer homes are going to be bigger. There is no point in protecting these little shacks...they call bungalows. Its not historic just b/c its old...I am so sick of people like the lady in that video. They may be happy in 1000 square feet, but they should not expect others to be happy with that crap, and owners who want more should not have to move to the middle of nowhere to get what they want.
And I hardly consider 3-4000sq ft a McMansion.....they are just nice above average square foot homes. To get into the mansion territory to me, at least, the house needs to exceed 8000 sqft. 7,000 is big - but its no mansion.
9 times out of 10 - these are the same people who want more public transportation, more population density, more government spending, health etc - but just not in their area....they are usually the ultimate hypocrites on all issues...I call them miserable people.
|
I agree it is derogatory, and that is the point to try to shame what is seen as an excessive display of wealth.
I don't think the term is just a measure of square footage but of the land usage and how they fit with the existing community. If entire green space the front yards, back yards and walking spaces between homes disappear for an extra square foot then you have a McMansion. And the loss of green space in lieu of a flat wall designed to maximize the footage takes away the character of a neighborhood and makes it more institutionally urban no matter what accoutrements are put around the door