Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's a leap of logic. Are you the same person who hears "sensible gun regulations" and imagines Obama's jack-booted army of The Brotherhood of Islam paratroopers shooting your kids, taking your guns, and putting you to work in some gulag? Metaphors purposefully mixed to reflect a fun cross section of some of the wild eyed pro-gun comments I've read recently.

S/he's not suggesting an enforced policy of sameness, she's saying gently that maybe some people are using more than their fair share of resources.

NO this is about housing not politics and that isn't me .

Well it's a way of showing how some people want everything small, the same and have mass transit, this is what you end up. As an american I am proud of the fact that my country let's me live and buy a home in whatever manner I wish whether it be big small or medium.

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

Anonymous wrote:They are generally ugly monstrosities that require too much energy to heat and cool, etc etc. You're taking a lovely country drive through VA when - BAM! Here are some ugly-ass McMansions ruining the view with their cheap-looking, cookie-cutter construction. Barf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are so much fun to dialogue with, Cupcake!

Anonymous wrote:Hey to be clear 90% of the 30s-50s housing stock around here is mass produced crud that was not intended to be used 70 yrs later (these were not country homes built by artisans, but quick cheap housing for booming towns).

So please do not lament the passing of tiny ramblers for mcmansions; you are simply updating the same mass produced housing to the 21st century.

Call us when a truly beautifully crafted home is razed; the whole idea of preserving these corporately assembled mini-Levitttowns for posterity and never allow updates and expansions is misleading. None of these places are historic in any true sense.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's a leap of logic. Are you the same person who hears "sensible gun regulations" and imagines Obama's jack-booted army of The Brotherhood of Islam paratroopers shooting your kids, taking your guns, and putting you to work in some gulag? Metaphors purposefully mixed to reflect a fun cross section of some of the wild eyed pro-gun comments I've read recently.

S/he's not suggesting an enforced policy of sameness, she's saying gently that maybe some people are using more than their fair share of resources.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?