Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of everyone trying to live as economically (space-wise) as possible so we don't end up building over the entire planet. So the McMansion thing just bothers me. I guess it seems superfluous and greedy and inefficient. I would rather see cities with mass transit and lots of open parkland around them.

Here is what you want, soviet style, everyone has the same amount of efficient space and mass transit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Read the post that started it all, sweetie!

You mean the one quoted within? I wrote it.

Page 1, post 1, toots!

Yes, I read it before my initial post. You aren't making sense. Sweetie.

13:44 - I agree with you. I thought that house was really cute and the author was getting a little overzealous in his labeling everything new "mcmansion."

Anonymous wrote:I dislike them because they tend to be architecturally bleak. I've always liked old buildings and old houses that have lots of details like wainscoting, crown moldings, interesting doorway shapes, unusual windows (that suit the style of the house), built-ins, etc. The houses that fall into traditional "mcmansion" definition are big without having character. they put showy details (palladian windows, etc.) on facades that shouldn't have them, and try to impress with quantity instead of quality.

And honestly, I don't see why a small family would need so much space. it's really wasteful, environmentally speaking, to pay to heat and cool (and furnish and clean) all that extra space when 2,000 SF would probably be just fine for most families.

Plus it irritates me when someone puts a 5,000 SF house on a 6,000 SF lot, so there's no yard left over and the house looms over the neighbors. Save the giant houses for giant lots.

Not jealous. If I sold my $600K arlington house, I could buy a mcmansion (or two) in an outlying suburb. Never. Gonna. Happen.

Average number of kids in the fifties was 3.8 (from Wikipedia), down to about 2.1 now. We entertain less now, too. So a large part of our enormous house size is just to house our things.

Anonymous wrote:
Relative to the existing homes in that neighborhood, yes. It's a good article, and it's a struggle typical to a lot of older suburbs.

It's an insipid article, written by under-employed historic preservation types who chafe at property rights and the fact that other people can afford more living space. They would feel more secure if everyone lived in their drab "historic," "charming" neighborhoods of houses built for proles.

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't understand what you are talking about. I don't see the difference, my rambler didn't have insulation between rooms, in fact there was no insulation between the interior and exterior except for newspapers stuffed better the windows. When we ran the dishwasher or talked in the kitchen you could hear it in all of the bedrooms. Or if we walked in the hallway you could feel it in the bedrooms. Where are these magical silent old construction ramblers? And doors? We had to replace all the original doors in our rambler because they were old and falling apart and chose to do hollow core because we didn't see a need to spend a lot of money when the value of the home didn't warrant the expense. Also new homes are planned and graded to fill in the lot with a central focal point. I am not sure what country you are talking about with these ramblers and new construction homes? Is this the simpsons?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Read the post that started it all, sweetie!

You mean the one quoted within? I wrote it.

Page 1, post 1, toots!

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.

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

Haha! Well I haven't seen many variety, co there probably are some with great rooms that everyone can use. But the central thesis of each member having their own private room(s) isolating themselves is kind of defining of McMansions. There's a reason every bedroom and bathroom are so huge, they are rooms designed to be lounged in, not functional rooms like the water closets of yore. I mean, a sitting area in your master bedroom in your own house? Do you have servants in waiting? And the movie room, as if people had trouble watching enough tv before when it was in the living room.

Part of that also speaks to our post-9/11 world: we don't get out as much, spend more time at home, more time isolated. Not sure if it was fear of terrorism, the explosion of internet, or what, but mcmansions are wrapped up in that bc of their design choices.

I like the idea of everyone trying to live as economically (space-wise) as possible so we don't end up building over the entire planet. So the McMansion thing just bothers me. I guess it seems superfluous and greedy and inefficient. I would rather see cities with mass transit and lots of open parkland around them.

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.

The point is that you think you're enlightened with good taste, and you're just an idiot who has no fucking clue what you're talking about.

That may be, but I have a degree in the field that says otherwise. And you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Read the post that started it all, sweetie!

You mean the one quoted within? I wrote it.

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.

The point is that you think you're enlightened with good taste, and you're just an idiot who has no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I dislike them because they tend to be architecturally bleak. I've always liked old buildings and old houses that have lots of details like wainscoting, crown moldings, interesting doorway shapes, unusual windows (that suit the style of the house), built-ins, etc. The houses that fall into traditional "mcmansion" definition are big without having character. they put showy details (palladian windows, etc.) on facades that shouldn't have them, and try to impress with quantity instead of quality.

And honestly, I don't see why a small family would need so much space. it's really wasteful, environmentally speaking, to pay to heat and cool (and furnish and clean) all that extra space when 2,000 SF would probably be just fine for most families.

Plus it irritates me when someone puts a 5,000 SF house on a 6,000 SF lot, so there's no yard left over and the house looms over the neighbors. Save the giant houses for giant lots.

Not jealous. If I sold my $600K arlington house, I could buy a mcmansion (or two) in an outlying suburb. Never. Gonna. Happen.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Read the post that started it all, sweetie!

Anonymous wrote:

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

Relative to the existing homes in that neighborhood, yes. It's a good article, and it's a struggle typical to a lot of older suburbs.