50 States of McMansion Hell: Fairfax and Loudoun County, Virginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An example of an actual mansion in Chevy Chase, done by a respected architect. Like PP said, you can't buy taste.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Chevy-Chase/6404-Garnett-Dr-20815/home/10650321

So basically your definition of good taste in architecture is a match box. We get it. Goodbye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of an actual mansion in Chevy Chase, done by a respected architect. Like PP said, you can't buy taste.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Chevy-Chase/6404-Garnett-Dr-20815/home/10650321

So basically your definition of good taste in architecture is a match box. We get it. Goodbye!

DP, 10,000 square feet is not a match box unless you are Lebron James.

[Anonymous]

Oh no I hate that mansion. Bleh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But these people evidently have tons of money and can't hire a decent architect.

I'd rather pay the $1.2 mil I did for my eyesore of a house with some land than $1.2 mil for a tiny townhouse in an urban setting.

Sorry, it's hard to hear the haters within my 6,200 sqft.

Actually I'm sure you hear just about everything in your 6,200 sqft McMansion. Your walls are paper thin and everything is builder grade.

The worst part about visiting a McMansion is using their first floor powder room. You know everyone can hear your unbuttoning your pants, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The joy of McMansion hell is the the reminder that most rich people have no taste. You get to look down on them while punching up. They are people who own small/medium sized businesses like dry cleaners, car dealers, home contracting chains, etc. Some of these folks like to show off their money - the more gold plating the better. They don't pretend to be intellectuals, read big books, or use fancy language. They just provide services that lots of people need and use and create a few hundred jobs while they are at it.

Meh, I’d say non-rich people don’t have much tastes either. Moving to the ugliest condo buildings or a tiny old shot shack because it’s in an urban area that is nearly $1 million dollars.

[Anonymous]

nova wear of arlington is a hellscape filled with GS 15-10s who like this jank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:nova wear of arlington is a hellscape filled with GS 15-10s who like this jank.

^ west

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

I don't like any of the houses the blog mocks and it's fun to poke fun at the houses and speculate how people can have so much money and so bad taste at the same time.

But your comments about sustainability, community and segregation are just as cringeworthy as any badly designed McMansion. And accusing people of being shallow thinkers for not meeting your self-imposed standards and introducing an unnecessary (and highly dubious) morality is also quite cringeworthy. I have a feeling I'd probably enjoy the company of the owners of these McMansions than you and I'm someone who'd far rather live in a small rowhouse in the city and walk everywhere than have 10k sqft.

This comment is a mess. I'm not the first person who commented about sustainability. I was replying to the "Ms. Feminista" poster saying, in response to a comment about "sustainability, community, and segregation,": well, that's their choice, why do you care if it doesn't affect you.

The rest ... like I said, this is a mess. If I understand logic (issues of community affect more than a single homeowner) then I'm telling people to "meet[ my] self-imposed standards"? No, I'm using straight logic. Community, sustainability, and segregation do affect more than the homeowner. If you would like to make a case that the first PP (and blog author) are wrong that McMansions negatively impact those issues, feel free. But trying to sound superior by defending poor reasoning isn't working for you.

The comment isn't a mess. It's quite straightforward. You (presumably it was you) who dictated that "community, sustainability and segregation" were moral issues and the owners of the McMansions were to be judged for clearly failing to meet your standards on these three issues.

They're your issues, not other people. Take the segregation one, for example. How are these McMansions contributing to segregation? I imagine the owners of McMansions are a rather diverse bunch given that quite a few of them in NOVA are owned by non-whites. Sustainability? They're new houses and likely are much more energy efficient than most older houses. Community? Highly subjective. I've lived in both suburbia and dense urban areas and the best sense of community I ever had was the cul-de-sac. In my urban neighborhoods in London and DC and New York I never knew any of my neighbors.

I suspect you resent people pointing out that imposing these meaningless standards is shallow and judgmental, for you are being judgmental through applying standards that you came up with and which are not uniformly accepted or believed in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

So you don't like McMansions.... what's your suggestion then? Everyone live in townhouses? Increased traffic, pollution, environmental impact. sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

I don't like any of the houses the blog mocks and it's fun to poke fun at the houses and speculate how people can have so much money and so bad taste at the same time.

But your comments about sustainability, community and segregation are just as cringeworthy as any badly designed McMansion. And accusing people of being shallow thinkers for not meeting your self-imposed standards and introducing an unnecessary (and highly dubious) morality is also quite cringeworthy. I have a feeling I'd probably enjoy the company of the owners of these McMansions than you and I'm someone who'd far rather live in a small rowhouse in the city and walk everywhere than have 10k sqft.

This comment is a mess. I'm not the first person who commented about sustainability. I was replying to the "Ms. Feminista" poster saying, in response to a comment about "sustainability, community, and segregation,": well, that's their choice, why do you care if it doesn't affect you.

The rest ... like I said, this is a mess. If I understand logic (issues of community affect more than a single homeowner) then I'm telling people to "meet[ my] self-imposed standards"? No, I'm using straight logic. Community, sustainability, and segregation do affect more than the homeowner. If you would like to make a case that the first PP (and blog author) are wrong that McMansions negatively impact those issues, feel free. But trying to sound superior by defending poor reasoning isn't working for you.

The comment isn't a mess. It's quite straightforward. You (presumably it was you) who dictated that "community, sustainability and segregation" were moral issues and the owners of the McMansions were to be judged for clearly failing to meet your standards on these three issues.

They're your issues, not other people. Take the segregation one, for example. How are these McMansions contributing to segregation? I imagine the owners of McMansions are a rather diverse bunch given that quite a few of them in NOVA are owned by non-whites. Sustainability? They're new houses and likely are much more energy efficient than most older houses. Community? Highly subjective. I've lived in both suburbia and dense urban areas and the best sense of community I ever had was the cul-de-sac. In my urban neighborhoods in London and DC and New York I never knew any of my neighbors.

I suspect you resent people pointing out that imposing these meaningless standards is shallow and judgmental, for you are being judgmental through applying standards that you came up with and which are not uniformly accepted or believed in.

Straightforward is not your forte, I see. Again, that was first PP, and even she attributed the argument itself to the blogger. She said "the blogger focuses on broader problems with McMansions," the OP of this subthread said, "so what, that's their choice, it doesn't impact you" (not disagreeing with the assertions, just brushing them aside as none of first PP's business) and I said, "all of those issues would, in fact, impact people other than the homeowner."

I just don't like ugly houses or people who can't follow (or make) a coherent logical argument. Since I didn't impose any meaningless standards, literally only said "yes, issues of community or segregation affect more than one person," your presumption of my resentment still makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

So you don't like McMansions.... what's your suggestion then? Everyone live in townhouses? Increased traffic, pollution, environmental impact. sigh.

No one is seriously stupid enough to think that townhouses have a worse impact on any of the bolded than McMansions. Troll fail.

[Anonymous]

I would imagine that most of these homes were builder spec homes where the builder just uses a draftsman to come up with plans that the builder likes. No legitimate architect with any credibility would design homes like this. But people end up buying them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

I don't like any of the houses the blog mocks and it's fun to poke fun at the houses and speculate how people can have so much money and so bad taste at the same time.

But your comments about sustainability, community and segregation are just as cringeworthy as any badly designed McMansion. And accusing people of being shallow thinkers for not meeting your self-imposed standards and introducing an unnecessary (and highly dubious) morality is also quite cringeworthy. I have a feeling I'd probably enjoy the company of the owners of these McMansions than you and I'm someone who'd far rather live in a small rowhouse in the city and walk everywhere than have 10k sqft.

This comment is a mess. I'm not the first person who commented about sustainability. I was replying to the "Ms. Feminista" poster saying, in response to a comment about "sustainability, community, and segregation,": well, that's their choice, why do you care if it doesn't affect you.

The rest ... like I said, this is a mess. If I understand logic (issues of community affect more than a single homeowner) then I'm telling people to "meet[ my] self-imposed standards"? No, I'm using straight logic. Community, sustainability, and segregation do affect more than the homeowner. If you would like to make a case that the first PP (and blog author) are wrong that McMansions negatively impact those issues, feel free. But trying to sound superior by defending poor reasoning isn't working for you.

You are connecting McMansions with community, sustainability, and segregation with no proof. That's where your logic is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

So you don't like McMansions.... what's your suggestion then? Everyone live in townhouses? Increased traffic, pollution, environmental impact. sigh.

No one is seriously stupid enough to think that townhouses have a worse impact on any of the bolded than McMansions. Troll fail.

Oh really? Density has no problems? Why are people concerned about National Landing's traffic impact then? You don't have more garbage per square mile with more density? You don't have more pollution with more density? Yes, density has a worse impact on these elements than McMansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The girl who makes this site is uber annoying. I’m not a fan of oversized McMansions either, but let people live and like what they like.

She's a woman, not a child. Her writing focus is not just aesthetic - but how these homes lack sustainability, undermine sense of community, and exacerbate de facto housing segregation.

Sorry Ms. Feminista

And yeah, again that’s their choice. Why invest so much energy into something that doesn’t impact your life. The gi...err woman who writes this just comes across as sad and desperate. I’d never even want a home like this, but if people want to spend money on these giant wastes of space, good on them.

NP but if you don't realize that sustainability, community, and segregation impact lives outside of the homeowners, you're a very shallow thinker.

I don't like any of the houses the blog mocks and it's fun to poke fun at the houses and speculate how people can have so much money and so bad taste at the same time.

But your comments about sustainability, community and segregation are just as cringeworthy as any badly designed McMansion. And accusing people of being shallow thinkers for not meeting your self-imposed standards and introducing an unnecessary (and highly dubious) morality is also quite cringeworthy. I have a feeling I'd probably enjoy the company of the owners of these McMansions than you and I'm someone who'd far rather live in a small rowhouse in the city and walk everywhere than have 10k sqft.

This comment is a mess. I'm not the first person who commented about sustainability. I was replying to the "Ms. Feminista" poster saying, in response to a comment about "sustainability, community, and segregation,": well, that's their choice, why do you care if it doesn't affect you.

The rest ... like I said, this is a mess. If I understand logic (issues of community affect more than a single homeowner) then I'm telling people to "meet[ my] self-imposed standards"? No, I'm using straight logic. Community, sustainability, and segregation do affect more than the homeowner. If you would like to make a case that the first PP (and blog author) are wrong that McMansions negatively impact those issues, feel free. But trying to sound superior by defending poor reasoning isn't working for you.

The comment isn't a mess. It's quite straightforward. You (presumably it was you) who dictated that "community, sustainability and segregation" were moral issues and the owners of the McMansions were to be judged for clearly failing to meet your standards on these three issues.

They're your issues, not other people. Take the segregation one, for example. How are these McMansions contributing to segregation? I imagine the owners of McMansions are a rather diverse bunch given that quite a few of them in NOVA are owned by non-whites. Sustainability? They're new houses and likely are much more energy efficient than most older houses. Community? Highly subjective. I've lived in both suburbia and dense urban areas and the best sense of community I ever had was the cul-de-sac. In my urban neighborhoods in London and DC and New York I never knew any of my neighbors.

I suspect you resent people pointing out that imposing these meaningless standards is shallow and judgmental, for you are being judgmental through applying standards that you came up with and which are not uniformly accepted or believed in.

Straightforward is not your forte, I see. Again, that was first PP, and even she attributed the argument itself to the blogger. She said "the blogger focuses on broader problems with McMansions," the OP of this subthread said, "so what, that's their choice, it doesn't impact you" (not disagreeing with the assertions, just brushing them aside as none of first PP's business) and I said, "all of those issues would, in fact, impact people other than the homeowner."

I just don't like ugly houses or people who can't follow (or make) a coherent logical argument. Since I didn't impose any meaningless standards, literally only said "yes, issues of community or segregation affect more than one person," your presumption of my resentment still makes no sense.

So because you think a house is ugly, that means they have no argument?

Also, wtf do McMansions have to do with segregation? Segregation of whom exactly? Because more POC own those McMansion than white people do in this area.