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

[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.

I don't want to live in a tiny townhouse in the city either. I have nothing against 6200 sq ft houses. I just want it to be attractive.
this is far more attractive than what is shown in that blog -- http://www.redfin.com/city/23223/VA/Great-Falls/filter/property-type=house,min-sqft=5k-sqft/page-4?property_id=9837580

[Anonymous]

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.

Some of us enjoy architectural criticism. This is just that applied to certain residential architecture.


but let people live and like what they like


exactly. if some enjoy that site, let them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

When the majority of the market is buying them and doesn't care, the person who is the idiot it the complainer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sustainability? They're new houses and likely are much more energy efficient than most older houses.

this is quite off topic (mcmansion hell is about aesthetics) but this argument is stupid. The alternative to building a big new 6500 sq foot mcmansion is not building a 1500 sq ft 1950s rambler. No one is building the latter. Its building SMALLER new units. In many areas (esp in NoVa) the alternative, absent SFH only zoning, would be several more units on the lot - either THs or a multifamily building. That would provide more housing in desirable places (so helping with economic segregation, at least in some places) and with sustainability (fewer sq ft per person would be less energy per person, plus more people closer to transit/jobs)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

When the majority of the market is buying them and doesn't care, the person who is the idiot it the complainer

By that standard pictures of sad clowns are the best paintings.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

A theory completely lost on these people. Misery loves company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, dimwit, because you are repeatedly attributing to me an argument I did not make. Go ask the person who ties your shoes to read the thread and explain it to you, I'm tired of holding your hand.

[Anonymous]

I love McMansion Hell and enjoy reading what a trained architecture critic sees that my eyes would skip right over. There's no need to take it so personally. My own home's roofline would give her an aneurysm, and the houses she likes don't appeal to me. But that doesn't mean she's wrong about, say, the gables in #6.

Most people who own these homes had no say in the design, and aren't architects anyway. Unless you designed or built a home like this, she's not mocking you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

When the majority of the market is buying them and doesn't care, the person who is the idiot it the complainer

McMansions aren't the majority of the market. They sell well enough, though. Plenty of people like them. If you like them, carry on.

[Anonymous]

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.

DCUM regularly mocks capri pants, green bean casserole, Yankee candles, Coach purses, and anything else it finds tacky. Hard to believe that y'all are getting so butthurt because someone mocked your house.

Y'all need to get a thicker skin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sustainability? They're new houses and likely are much more energy efficient than most older houses.

this is quite off topic (mcmansion hell is about aesthetics) but this argument is stupid. The alternative to building a big new 6500 sq foot mcmansion is not building a 1500 sq ft 1950s rambler. No one is building the latter. Its building SMALLER new units. In many areas (esp in NoVa) the alternative, absent SFH only zoning, would be several more units on the lot - either THs or a multifamily building. That would provide more housing in desirable places (so helping with economic segregation, at least in some places) and with sustainability (fewer sq ft per person would be less energy per person, plus more people closer to transit/jobs)

If you live in NOVA you'd already know there's plenty of cramped infills of 3-4k sqft houses jammed on tiny lots. What is your point?

Rich people have always built big new houses. This is nothing new. Remember the robber barons?

American real estate isn't meant to be a socialist dream where you tell other people the morally correct way to live. Never has been and never will be.

Anyway, these good homeowners of Great Falls and Potomac are already taking big depreciation on their home values.

[Anonymous]

I'm just disappointed that my favorite McMansion model didn't catch her eye. I drove by one of these that is visible from Georgetown Pike and burst out laughing. It's just that over the top.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/804-Hortense-Pl-Great-Falls-VA-22066/246582720_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Have you thought about the possibility that the architects they used had better sense and taste than you do and your just thinking of your shitty taste too highly?

Some butt-hurt folks up in this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, dimwit, because you are repeatedly attributing to me an argument I did not make. Go ask the person who ties your shoes to read the thread and explain it to you, I'm tired of holding your hand.

NP here. I too was confused when you mentioned segregation. What does that have to do with this at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, dimwit, because you are repeatedly attributing to me an argument I did not make. Go ask the person who ties your shoes to read the thread and explain it to you, I'm tired of holding your hand.

NP here. I too was confused when you mentioned segregation. What does that have to do with this at all?

I. DID. NOT. BRING. UP. SEGREGATION.

Jesus Christ.