Please post McMansion pictures here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. Is. Heinous!!!!!!!


Still laughing at the Monticello posting and whatever palace the other pic was.

Is this your house crazy person?

Interesting. I found the blog where this house had been posted years ago.

The blogger was a minister-in-training who railed at length against various things he didn't like for several years until he realized it was a waste of time and energy. His blog had exactly one follower.

Think about it.

At least he realized. Some people never do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I hope I see it when the "McMansion" property owners sue posters who can't afford to be sued, of reputing their photos here. ALL SORTS of potential charges......

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to bother people with more money than you?

Gosh, no wonder you people don't get ahead. No brains. None.

You really don't understand the concept of "public domain" do you? When you put a house listing up and allow an agent to post photos for the listing via the MLS, those photos of your house enter the public domain. The simplistic version is that as long as the person who uses those photos is not making financial profit on the use of those photos, there is nothing you can do about them using it. There are no libelous damages that are incurred for describing some property as hideous.

Any actionable damages for the use of these photos is merely in your head.

I think the old adage quote from Abraham Lincoln applies to you: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Not all of these photos are from MLS, Einstein.

Inanimate objects like buildings, unlike people, are not legally protected under publicity or privacy laws. They don't have inherent rights of privacy or publicity like people do. That they are owned by people is entirely irrelevant. People have rights of privacy and publicity because they are specifically written as laws. In no federal or state statutes is the word "property" used along side of "persons", "privacy" or "publicity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. Is. Heinous!!!!!!!


Still laughing at the Monticello posting and whatever palace the other pic was.

Where is this located?

It reminds me of the blue collar areas of Long Island, NY where people think they have made it. So ugly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

the first two and this one I have no problem with. This one looks like it will actually be quite nice. I wonder if the haters are all those people still living in the tear-downs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd take this in a heartbeat.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd take this in a heartbeat.

+1

That looks like a traditional, normally-proportioned (albeit large) Colonial. Not a McMansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd take this in a heartbeat.

+1

That looks like a traditional, normally-proportioned (albeit large) Colonial. Not a McMansion.

Looks very boring and squarish like modular building with fancier finishes

[Anonymous]

It has real stone, cedar shake roof, real shutters, copper gutters and copper metal roofing.

This house is legit. Anybody that refers to this as a mcmansion cannot be satisfied by anything. It is large for it's lot but it isn't obnoxious. To me it looks like a 5,000 SF house on a lot that is a little less than a quarter acre. This house is legit.


If you can't get your head around this house, just come out and admit that you would protest any house larger than 2500 SF and call it a mcmansion (which is a term with no imagination by the way)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the first two and this one I have no problem with. This one looks like it will actually be quite nice. I wonder if the haters are all those people still living in the tear-downs

Of course they are! If they actually had options, do you think they would be trying to mob the rich??!!

[Anonymous]

...that's a koi pond there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...that's a koi pond there.

I get the green wing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is this a duplex?!

Either that or this family has some strange need for two mailboxes, two garages and two front doors (one on either side of the house).

Actually one half of this is in the McManse category. The left half. As in why mix faux eyebrows with a Dutch gambrel roof line. Note the use of "elegant" columns at the entrance, the near-standard oriole window.

The right is more evocative of Prairie style...or something one would find in the midwest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...that's a koi pond there.

I get the green wing.

LMAO!!! You put up a picture of my house! How dare you.

No really combined sq footage this maybe more than mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has real stone, cedar shake roof, real shutters, copper gutters and copper metal roofing.

This house is legit. Anybody that refers to this as a mcmansion cannot be satisfied by anything. It is large for it's lot but it isn't obnoxious. To me it looks like a 5,000 SF house on a lot that is a little less than a quarter acre. This house is legit.


If you can't get your head around this house, just come out and admit that you would protest any house larger than 2500 SF and call it a mcmansion (which is a term with no imagination by the way)

+1

What a bunch or bored, jealous, bitter imbeciles. We all know the type. Losers.

We get it, you can't afford a large, new house. Do you think the people who live in those houses are worried about your kind? Do you think they got where they are by acting like you?

Hint: NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/11630-Cedar-Chase-Rd-Herndon-VA-20170/52839508_zpid/

land of mcmansions

Yeah - Loudon in general is just pretty terrible. Ashburn blech