What exactly is wrong with the mcmansion?

[Anonymous]

besides the fact that townhouses could fit probably 3 to how much space MM takes up.

(I like townhouses, they are quite spacious inside )

[Anonymous]

People are just jealous. Who cares. I live in a townhouse, by the way.

[Anonymous]

Nothing. The haters just have to hate.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

They are a cookie cutter, bastardized version of a colonial and not particularly well sited or built. These houses were built for the gilded age - the 80s and 90s. Like sagging pants, I am hoping that they go out of style soon.

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I live in one. While it is extremely convenient to have tons of storage space, a three car garage, more bathrooms than family members, and a kitchen with all the bells and whistles, my home lacks character. Too many McMansions have high ceilings or two story ceilings with loads of windows. They are hard to make feel warm and cozy. Would have liked an older beautiful home in an established close in neighborhood, but DH wasn't willing to give up the conveniences.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

And the energy savings were comparable after doubling/tripling your square footage? Side eye to that, or you really should have done an energy audit in your old house. You need only drive by new home construction to see how it's built. Would I pay 800K-1M (the going rate for new construction in my burb) for plywood and some builder grade "luxury finishes"? No. And the style isn't the same because it's what anyone demands, it's because the builder slaps 'em up, and people buy them. As far as new home construction goes, it's buildere's choice (McMansions today) or architect. That's mostly it. That's how it was in the 20s, that's how it was in the 50s, that's how it is now. It is the illusion of choice.