What exactly is wrong with the mcmansion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So beyond their contributions to sprawl, it's that they're shoddily built (expensive, yes, but still shoddy). The McMansion style is pretty much the same from Delaware to Texas to Oregon, with some style slight regional variations. They're environmental monsters - great rooms, movie rooms, great halls, etc., are difficult to heat, cool light, etc. The rooms and layouts aren't particularly useful, i.e., 1/2 the floor space on the main floor is given over to a vast, formal living room that no one ever uses, plus it goes up two floors, meaning that the bedrooms are large closets. They play poorly with their neighbors in established neighborhoods (cough cough North Arlington cough cough), and they don't add much to Suburbia, either.

I could go on, but you get the point. To PP who rather naively assumes it's all just jealousy, I wouldn't mind having a larger house than our 1500 square foot TH some day, but I'd rather eat dirt at every meal before living in a McMansion.

Why are they shoddy? We found them to be equal or better in terms of construction quality and water resistance. How are they environmental monsters? Our new energy efficient home actually costs less to heat and power than our old 1200 sqrft rambler. You clearly are mistaken and have no idea what a new home looks like or how it is built . The reason for the same style is that it's what consumer demands. You will notice that there are many same looking rambler or cap cods tract homes everywhere because that's what the market demanded back in the 40s-60s.

She's just oozing with jealousy, and thinks her lame attacks will mask that jealousy.

Your fervent desires that I be jealous of what you have just go nowhere. It must astonish you, but I really do think they're crappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not have a problem with the "mc mansion" in general.

I do have a problem when they shove them in a small lot, in an established quaint neighborhood and it becomes an eye sore for everyone around it.

Not to mention that it towers over some of the other homes, taking their sunlight for their gardens, etc. Go out it out in Potomac on a huge plot of land.

Why you gots to be hatin'? I don't hate the smaller homes. new homes look beautiful but I also see the charms of smaller homes. The larger homes really help property values and the more affluent tend to be better with the upkeep and less likely to be a rental. Nothing worst than falling aprt old homes that owners have rented out.

You obvioulsy chose to read one small part of my post. It has nothing to do with it being a larger home. It has to do with greedy people shoving them in lots and on top of their neighbors where they do not belong and they just skae past the inspection points for where they have to be positioned.

And please grow up...who says that?

How do the large homes not belong? The owner pays for the land and owns it and if it is less than 50 feet tall and within he set backs (building codes in maryland) then it's fine. I don't understand your anger. What exactly is greedy about this? Greedy would be if the owner leveled 4 ramblers and took all the land. What exactly is greedy? If you are angry I would suggest some deep breathing meditation and call your county building office and have them explain to you what the maximum size, height etc... of homes are. If you are upset about that and want everyone to have a small home you could start a petition on whitehouse.gov

I have stated how some do not belong in the spaces they are in my initial post. Please learn to read....I cannot help you with that. I am not angry, I am stating my point and opinion. No need to state ridiculous things such as "trying deep breathing and meditation" just because someone disagrees with you.

It isn't worth trying. I think we have some moles from Mickey Simpson on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not have a problem with the "mc mansion" in general.

I do have a problem when they shove them in a small lot, in an established quaint neighborhood and it becomes an eye sore for everyone around it.

Not to mention that it towers over some of the other homes, taking their sunlight for their gardens, etc. Go out it out in Potomac on a huge plot of land.

I agree with this. I also consider something a McMansion if it has no discernible architectural style or is a mish-mash of styles or poorly constructed (i.e., vast expanses of vinyl siding with nothing interesting to break up the monotony, brick facades with siding on the sides and back and no windows on the sides).

If it was built just to be big, I consider it a McMansion. I am not jealous of McMansions.

op here. the first two are "okay" the last one is an eyesore lol

[Anonymous]

My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

You can do that in my 1400 sq though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

What about an open floor plan mcmansion!! DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

It is kind of depressing. I wonder how many parents live in these houses and feel confused about their alienation from their kids.

[Anonymous]

apparently any home with a second level is a mcmansion, i guess this sheds some light in the mental illness known as mcmansionites where everything that's normal sized is huge.

http://blog.historian4hire.net/2011/01/05/mcmansion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

It is kind of depressing. I wonder how many parents live in these houses and feel confused about their alienation from their kids.

That's hilarious, mcmansions caused little johnny to feel isolated from daddy. STFU. A lot of mcmansions have open floor plans with rooms that flow openly into each other. You can see your kids in the living room from the kitchen or from the entry way etc..

[Anonymous]

Every one I've been in has been cold and impersonal feeling. Cheap construction (hollow core doors, thin drywall with no interior insulation) means that when someone slams a door on another floor, you can feel the vibrations everywhere. You can hear every sniffle through the walls. The cost-cutting construction methods lead to clear-cutting of trees (much easier than taking out a select few and working around those that remain), so the houses look plopped down, instead of fitting organically into their surroundings. The layouts and space allocations are often just plain weird. How big does an entryway need to be??

Is that "exact" enough? Want more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:apparently any home with a second level is a mcmansion, i guess this sheds some light in the mental illness known as mcmansionites where everything that's normal sized is huge.

http://blog.historian4hire.net/2011/01/05/mcmansion/

Great link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So beyond their contributions to sprawl, it's that they're shoddily built (expensive, yes, but still shoddy). The McMansion style is pretty much the same from Delaware to Texas to Oregon, with some style slight regional variations. They're environmental monsters - great rooms, movie rooms, great halls, etc., are difficult to heat, cool light, etc. The rooms and layouts aren't particularly useful, i.e., 1/2 the floor space on the main floor is given over to a vast, formal living room that no one ever uses, plus it goes up two floors, meaning that the bedrooms are large closets. They play poorly with their neighbors in established neighborhoods (cough cough North Arlington cough cough), and they don't add much to Suburbia, either.

I could go on, but you get the point. To PP who rather naively assumes it's all just jealousy, I wouldn't mind having a larger house than our 1500 square foot TH some day, but I'd rather eat dirt at every meal before living in a McMansion.

Why are they shoddy? We found them to be equal or better in terms of construction quality and water resistance. How are they environmental monsters? Our new energy efficient home actually costs less to heat and power than our old 1200 sqrft rambler. You clearly are mistaken and have no idea what a new home looks like or how it is built . The reason for the same style is that it's what consumer demands. You will notice that there are many same looking rambler or cap cods tract homes everywhere because that's what the market demanded back in the 40s-60s.

She's just oozing with jealousy, and thinks her lame attacks will mask that jealousy.

Your fervent desires that I be jealous of what you have just go nowhere. It must astonish you, but I really do think they're crappy.

Sure, hon, whatever you say.

You're jealous of my townhouse, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My only complaint is that they are somewhat wasteful; yes they can be efficient than a 70 yr old crappy rambler, but a modest modern home would be even more efficient.

But the sheer size of bedroom sitting rooms, bathroms the size of studio apartments, it all is an emphasis on isolation from the family. Common rooms are actually smaller and more special purpose; kids can comfortably nest in their rooms with all their gear, dad gets his movie room or man cave, that sort of thing. It is an extension of everyone's enforced isolation staring into their portable screen device of choice.

It is kind of depressing. I wonder how many parents live in these houses and feel confused about their alienation from their kids.

That's hilarious, mcmansions caused little johnny to feel isolated from daddy. STFU. A lot of mcmansions have open floor plans with rooms that flow openly into each other. You can see your kids in the living room from the kitchen or from the entry way etc..

Oh, gracious. I said, "I wonder..." You know, as an intellectual exercise, and related to the theories PPs have alluded to, outlined in the excellentBowling Alone by Robert Putnam?

And you can't see from all those vantage points in the McMansions I've been in. Unless - uh oh! - is yours smaller than everyone else's house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:apparently any home with a second level is a mcmansion, i guess this sheds some light in the mental illness known as mcmansionites where everything that's normal sized is huge.

http://blog.historian4hire.net/2011/01/05/mcmansion/

Great link.

the author is clearly mentally ill when he states this is a mcmansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So beyond their contributions to sprawl, it's that they're shoddily built (expensive, yes, but still shoddy). The McMansion style is pretty much the same from Delaware to Texas to Oregon, with some style slight regional variations. They're environmental monsters - great rooms, movie rooms, great halls, etc., are difficult to heat, cool light, etc. The rooms and layouts aren't particularly useful, i.e., 1/2 the floor space on the main floor is given over to a vast, formal living room that no one ever uses, plus it goes up two floors, meaning that the bedrooms are large closets. They play poorly with their neighbors in established neighborhoods (cough cough North Arlington cough cough), and they don't add much to Suburbia, either.

I could go on, but you get the point. To PP who rather naively assumes it's all just jealousy, I wouldn't mind having a larger house than our 1500 square foot TH some day, but I'd rather eat dirt at every meal before living in a McMansion.

Why are they shoddy? We found them to be equal or better in terms of construction quality and water resistance. How are they environmental monsters? Our new energy efficient home actually costs less to heat and power than our old 1200 sqrft rambler. You clearly are mistaken and have no idea what a new home looks like or how it is built . The reason for the same style is that it's what consumer demands. You will notice that there are many same looking rambler or cap cods tract homes everywhere because that's what the market demanded back in the 40s-60s.

She's just oozing with jealousy, and thinks her lame attacks will mask that jealousy.

Your fervent desires that I be jealous of what you have just go nowhere. It must astonish you, but I really do think they're crappy.

Sure, hon, whatever you say.

You're jealous of my townhouse, too?

I live in one, sooooo.... no. How is your town home germane to a McMansion discussion?