What exactly is a McMansion?

[Anonymous]

Op here. Thanks all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house.

Ha! No.

My friend bought a McMansion and uses the term herself. We both bought last summer at nearly the same price. She chose a large house, I chose a small house in a walkable neighborhood. Yeah, my yard is a postage stamp, but I don't say people call it that b/c they are jealous of my location, just like she doesn't think McMansion is a way to knock her down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house. Do you ever hear people with nice, big houses using the term? Of course not! I don't have a big house, but that doesn't mean I can try to rip apart others - it would just mean that I am miserable. Why tell everyone?

I disagree, it's a term for people who want to justify spending twice as much money for a tiny, outdated 1940's house

[Anonymous]

You are only offended by McMansion if you have one and are embarrassed by it.

[Anonymous]

You only start threads about them if you secretly wish you lived in one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it is a term that people use when they can't afford a big house. Do you ever hear people with nice, big houses using the term? Of course not! I don't have a big house, but that doesn't mean I can try to rip apart others - it would just mean that I am miserable. Why tell everyone?

Sorry, but no. It's a term used by people who have some education about architectural integrity, who understand the value of a short commute, and value quality above quantity.

Sorry, but no one can be judged wrong for not subscribing to your urban paradigm. You don't really know how long someone's commute is unless you know where they are commuting TO. Does the entire world work in your office building? And quality and quantity is not an either/or proposition. This area is full of houses that are both small AND crappy. And not everything built over 50 years ago is automatically museum quality. They built crap at that time, too. It's silly to get all breathy about houses because of nothing but a time stamp.

[Anonymous]

To each there own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no one can be judged wrong for not subscribing to your urban paradigm. You don't really know how long someone's commute is unless you know where they are commuting TO. Does the entire world work in your office building? And quality and quantity is not an either/or proposition. This area is full of houses that are both small AND crappy. And not everything built over 50 years ago is automatically museum quality. They built crap at that time, too. It's silly to get all breathy about houses because of nothing but a time stamp.

NP. Regarding architectural integrity: any architect, any designer, anyone with a basic sense of aesthetics will agree that many, if not most, McMansions are a tribute to bad taste. While taste is relative, there IS something called bad taste -- and you know it when you see it, unless you are advocating a strong version of architectural nihilism. But hey, people are entitled to have bad taste.

Regarding commute: yes, obviously not everybody commutes inside the Beltway to work. But many/most people do - one strong reason for price differences. I'm not saying that -- the market does.

Finally, I live in what you could call a cookie-cutter "crappy" rowhouse from the 1930s. I acknowledge that they didn't use th best materials or the best architectural details. But my little humble house is vastly superior in terms of beauty, attention to detail **and construction quality** than McMansions that were built 10 years ago and that are beginning to fall apart. "Crappy" back then was waaaay better than average now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Regarding architectural integrity: any architect, any designer, anyone with a basic sense of aesthetics will agree that many, if not most, McMansions are a tribute to bad taste. While taste is relative, there IS something called bad taste -- and you know it when you see it, unless you are advocating a strong version of architectural nihilism. But hey, people are entitled to have bad taste.

Regarding commute: yes, obviously not everybody commutes inside the Beltway to work. But many/most people do - one strong reason for price differences. I'm not saying that -- the market does.

Finally, I live in what you could call a cookie-cutter "crappy" rowhouse from the 1930s. I acknowledge that they didn't use th best materials or the best architectural details. But my little humble house is vastly superior in terms of beauty, attention to detail **and construction quality** than McMansions that were built 10 years ago and that are beginning to fall apart. "Crappy" back then was waaaay better than average now.

There's good construction from the 1930s, as well as a lot of bland stuff that has little architectural merit. Many older rowhouses have had their interiors gutted, so they now have interiors that aren't much different from a suburban townhouse.

It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.

[Anonymous]

My best friend bought one 13 years ago, before I knew what they were. I just thought it was so lame. It was huge, about 4,000 sqft. But it was soooo cheezy. I remember wondering about the super tall winding staircase that led to a poorly enclosed landing. If they had any kids that would be so unsafe. Plus the master bedroom was downstairs, and the upstairs bedrooms were tiny. Yes, there was five of them, but they were small. The master bathtub was HUGE, made of marble and took an hour to fill. You would be out of hot water half way through filling it. LOL! They sold it to some dumb couple two years later and made A LOT of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.

Haha. I'm not making any extra effort or need to convince myself -- the market speaks for itself. Good luck enjoying your McMansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.

Haha. I'm not making any extra effort or need to convince myself -- the market speaks for itself. Good luck enjoying your McMansion.

Sure you are. The market giveth and the market taketh, and if DC's fortunes ebb you'll be stranded in sub-par New Deal-era housing in a city with remarkably poor schools. Hope you have a good Plan B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a big surprise that people in a cookie-cutter 1930s rowhouse in places like Petworth and Glover Park have to make an extra effort to convince themselves that they are living lives of distinction in areas of refinement.

Haha. I'm not making any extra effort or need to convince myself -- the market speaks for itself. Good luck enjoying your McMansion.

I do think the market has not been uniformly supportive of Petworth real estate, which suggests that location is a lot more important than style.

[Anonymous]

AnonymousSure you are. The market giveth and the market taketh, and if DC's fortunes ebb you'll be stranded in[b wrote: sub-par New Deal-era housing [/b]in a city with remarkably poor schools. Hope you have a good Plan B.

Haha. Coming from a McMansion lover, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Sure you are. The market giveth and the market taketh, and if DC's fortunes ebb you'll be stranded in sub-par New Deal-era housing in a city with remarkably poor schools. Hope you have a good Plan B.

Haha. Coming from a McMansion lover, I'll take that as a compliment.