281–290 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to have to disclose the fire. May as well use it to get lots of people looking if you're confident in the rebuild. I do like imagining trying to sell it during the fire based on apparent damage done and the perceived capabilities of the fire dept. in stopping it.
The Crassus approach? https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/crassus-fire-briga...
Interview with the author https://www.digitalesbild.gwi.uni-muenchen.de/inexplicably-b... "KP: Is it important for you that the photos actually originate from real estate marketplaces? If so, how do you verify their origin? AD: Yes, that’s actually really important, otherwise the blog is just unverifiable user-generated content. If an image is submitted without a link, or no agent’s logo on the image, or I can’t find…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McMansion Hell isn't about taking the piss out of one's superiors, it's about looking down on the lower classes without the refined architectural taste of the author and audience. It's punching down.
Have you actually visited the McMansion Hell website? It is literally the exact opposite of what you are describing. It's looking down on people with >million-dollar, ten-thousand square foot homes that are also designed and decorated in an ugly and/or antiquated manner. And the author is never shy to admit her own low-key low-brow style preferences; I don't sense any refined/pretentious vibes at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Write-off is an accounting term that would seem not to have a meaning outside of taxes.
Its meaning outside of taxes is something which has dropped to zero value. So if you damage your car beyond repair, for example, that would be a "write off". It means it's not worth the repair costs because it's cheaper to buy a new one.
Except this part:
> because it's cheaper to buy a new one.
is not true. A write-off is because the repairs exceed the fair market value of the thing being written off. But the thing is used, not new. The fair market value is likely to be well below the cost of replacing it with something new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I viscerally dislike McMansion Hell. It's so mean-spirited and snobbish. People build themselves homes in the suburbs for their families to live comfortably and safely, and some jerks on the internet act all superior about how they have better taste. It sucks.
> to live comfortably and safely... If the design goals for the houses presented on McMansion Hell were simply that - comfort and safety - I'd have to agree with your assessment. But houses appear there because they seemingly have one over-arching design goal which is to appear impressive and thereby signal the owner's wealth. Most of the content points to the sheer purposelessness of certain architectural features,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you actually visited the McMansion Hell website? It is literally the exact opposite of what you are describing. It's looking down on people with >million-dollar, ten-thousand square foot homes that are also designed and decorated in an ugly and/or antiquated manner. And the author is never shy to admit her own low-key low-brow style preferences; I don't sense any refined/pretentious vibes at all.
Possibly. But I also tend to think that the idea is to mock the tastelessness of new money, but not, the more educated and refined tastes of old money families.
Finally, somewhere to share my a list of dubious property listings! In Norway agents hire house stylists to make a house look good. Airbeds dressed up to look like somebody just got up, magazine pictures on the wall, etc... often to a farcical level in a rundown house. On a similar theme is Zillow Gone Wild https://twitter.com/zillowgonewild and McMansion Hell https://mcmansionhell.com/
I viscerally dislike McMansion Hell. It's so mean-spirited and snobbish. People build themselves homes in the suburbs for their families to live comfortably and safely, and some jerks on the internet act all superior about how they have better taste. It sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. But I also tend to think that the idea is to mock the tastelessness of new money, but not, the more educated and refined tastes of old money families.
Well, yeah. The nouveau riche are targets, because they're scorned by both the people without money, and by people with money. Combined with a combination of insecurity about their newfound wealth, and a lack of the cultural norms and social ties that old money has, and hilarity ensues.