What exactly is wrong with the mcmansion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where are you finding these? Both are equally bad IMO.

Yes, because they're the exact same house, mirror image and different facing notwithstanding. You didn't notice?

I did...but I was trying not to break pps heart because she obviously owns one of them, lol! They are terrible sister wife houses.

There is a weird obsession with these two particular houses on DCUM. First, there was a thread about them. Then, someone puts them up every time there is a discussion about big houses or mcmansions. I was the first person to note, hey, those look like two pretty nice, new houses, and I'm sticking with that sentiment.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So every house with a front-loading garage and cosmetic shutters is tacky, in your opinion? That's fine, I suppose, to each his own. I just think it's a nice house, I don't really understand what makes it less attractive than the little boxes in Arlington and Alexandria and elsewhere.

I really hate large garages out front. That may be my own weird and unique prejudice and I can admit it. Hey, I grew up in a house like that, and spent many happy hours practicing my tennis serve against those garage doors.

But the shutters.... I don't care that they're non-functional. I'm not creeping up to see if they actually have hinges on 'em. But if they're supposed to be "cosmetic", doesn't that imply "attractive"? Why this resistance to at least making them look like they could possibly fit the window to which they're attached?

You might have a thing against short women in skinny jeans. Or bald guys with combovers. Or poodles in show cut. I have a captial-T Thing against bad architecture. And just like you would go all wide-eyed and incredulous if the combover guy stated "No one can tell I'm bald!", I react that way when people say they "like" the looks of these sloppily designed houses.

Exactly. Unfortunately, quite a few posters here have no clue about the concept of architecturally correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So every house with a front-loading garage and cosmetic shutters is tacky, in your opinion? That's fine, I suppose, to each his own. I just think it's a nice house, I don't really understand what makes it less attractive than the little boxes in Arlington and Alexandria and elsewhere.

I really hate large garages out front. That may be my own weird and unique prejudice and I can admit it. Hey, I grew up in a house like that, and spent many happy hours practicing my tennis serve against those garage doors.

But the shutters.... I don't care that they're non-functional. I'm not creeping up to see if they actually have hinges on 'em. But if they're supposed to be "cosmetic", doesn't that imply "attractive"? Why this resistance to at least making them look like they could possibly fit the window to which they're attached?

You might have a thing against short women in skinny jeans. Or bald guys with combovers. Or poodles in show cut. I have a captial-T Thing against bad architecture. And just like you would go all wide-eyed and incredulous if the combover guy stated "No one can tell I'm bald!", I react that way when people say they "like" the looks of these sloppily designed houses.

Exactly. Unfortunately, quite a few posters here have no clue about the concept of architecturally correct.

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So every house with a front-loading garage and cosmetic shutters is tacky, in your opinion? That's fine, I suppose, to each his own. I just think it's a nice house, I don't really understand what makes it less attractive than the little boxes in Arlington and Alexandria and elsewhere.

I really hate large garages out front. That may be my own weird and unique prejudice and I can admit it. Hey, I grew up in a house like that, and spent many happy hours practicing my tennis serve against those garage doors.

But the shutters.... I don't care that they're non-functional. I'm not creeping up to see if they actually have hinges on 'em. But if they're supposed to be "cosmetic", doesn't that imply "attractive"? Why this resistance to at least making them look like they could possibly fit the window to which they're attached?

You might have a thing against short women in skinny jeans. Or bald guys with combovers. Or poodles in show cut. I have a captial-T Thing against bad architecture. And just like you would go all wide-eyed and incredulous if the combover guy stated "No one can tell I'm bald!", I react that way when people say they "like" the looks of these sloppily designed houses.

Um, no? Does it seem unbelievable to you that some people don't lose their shit over this petty type of stuff? Quite frankly I think you are being a snob. I consider myself an artistic person, I paint, I draw, I took design classes in college, and this kind of attitude is really annoying. People can find things aesthetically pleasing without them being "correct" or getting your permission. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

That's your garage, right?

[/img]http://www.oldhouseguy.com/images/shutters/IMG_6727_garage_shutters.jpg[/img]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

taste is subjective your own shit may taste good but to other's it would be bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

Quick, pp! Go through the entire thread and remind everyone who disagrees with you that they have bad taste! The apocalypse might happen on the 21st and they'll dye ignorant without your help! Go, go!

[Anonymous]

*die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

That's your garage, right?

[/img]http://www.oldhouseguy.com/images/shutters/IMG_6727_garage_shutters.jpg[/img]

You may know about shutters from 1800s but you fail at 1990s internet image tag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

That's your garage, right?

[/img]http://www.oldhouseguy.com/images/shutters/IMG_6727_garage_shutters.jpg[/img]

You may know about shutters from 1800s but you fail at 1990s internet image tag

That's true! Thanks for noticing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no? Does it seem unbelievable to you that some people don't lose their shit over this petty type of stuff? Quite frankly I think you are being a snob. I consider myself an artistic person, I paint, I draw, I took design classes in college, and this kind of attitude is really annoying. People can find things aesthetically pleasing without them being "correct" or getting your permission. Calm down.

I disagree. All kinds of painting and drawing and sculpture can be pleasing. But architecture is rooted in math and environment. Buildings which ignore both cannot be pleasing to anyone who knows the least bit about the subject. To have this "to each her own" attitude about architecture is to admit complete ignorance. There really is a right and a wrong.

and back to the topic at hand, McMansions have a whole lot of wrong going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup 20:51....you got me....that last one is my house.

Happy now?

one roofline and very eco friendly. I really like the hand scraped bricks and sustainable lumber roofline

Now that is cozy and has a ton of charm AND character. I mean it has the original stonework and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

taste is subjective your own shit may taste good but to other's it would be bad.

In architecture, it's not quite that subjective if it's incorrect. Different from preferring chocolate to vanilla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who gives a shit, I would rather have a lot of room for my young kids to run around and play over a tiny architecturally perfect house.

You are entitled to have bad taste.

Quick, pp! Go through the entire thread and remind everyone who disagrees with you that they have bad taste! The apocalypse might happen on the 21st and they'll dye ignorant without your help! Go, go!

Working on it! Thanks for the encouragement!