I’m not sure there is anything objectively bad about these designs. Does it affect the utility of the house? Or is there some inherent ugliness that comes with affordable and popular things?
I think a lot of these bloated houses are extremely impractical to actually live in. For example, I live across the street from a McMansion that I fondly call “The Hotel”. It has an ornate front entrance on the main street that the owners never use. It might as well be sealed shut. Instead, they enter and exit through the basement garage, or by walking down a rickety set of stairs from their kitchen to the side stree…
At least in New England, it's a bit of a joke how many houses have "formal" entrances (not necessarily elaborate but obviously designed to be the house's entrance) but everyone just uses the kitchen/mudroom/garage.
There's this thing that the more sophisticated the home, the more emphasis on the garden that surrounds it. I've seen a few Bali Villas on the internet, where it's a glass house in a walled garden, and it gives this living in paradise vibe.
Well, the Bali climate sort of lends itself to that (in addition to the availability of cheap labor to maintain said garden).
Who builds these things and why is BOTH the architecture and workmanship so shoddy? Who opted for this instead of making a well-architected and well built home 2/3rds the size (All you save in fake columns and moldings probably gets you some area back). Where I live, a new home is always built by the first owner. That is, the first owner together with the architect creates the home including every plan, every materia…
> Who builds these things and why is BOTH the architecture and workmanship so shoddy? They are the direct result of having more money than taste. If they like it, who am I to criticize?
Wait if criticizing rich people bad taste is off limits why even have an internet?
Who builds these things and why is BOTH the architecture and workmanship so shoddy? Who opted for this instead of making a well-architected and well built home 2/3rds the size (All you save in fake columns and moldings probably gets you some area back). Where I live, a new home is always built by the first owner. That is, the first owner together with the architect creates the home including every plan, every materia…
Actually, Disney built Celebration, FL. It generally looks better than McMansions, IMHO.
I must agree. I'm doing well for myself, and I'd love to have a house with some of the features that are mocked on that site. Except the house has to be net zero or close to it. The nice thing about my house is all the environmental stuff is well-hidden from the street.
Having different tastes is fine. It doesn't mean the author is "envious" somehow because they don't like the same thing you do.
I think this is the architects idea of McMansion hell. My idea of McMansion hell is how closely they build them together AND the placement of them. For example, many of the big communities built here in Central Florida have your living room facing the ACs of your neighbors unit, and your living room windows facing into their bed room windows. If your homes are less than 8ft apart, JUST BUILD TOWN HOMES...
I agree that the aesthetics of large houses on small lots is bad, but it is more practical, which is why they get built and snapped up. Land is expensive, and whether in Florida where it's hot, or in Canada where it's cold, you get far more use out of enclosed climate-controlled space than a yard which gets occasional use. And with a detached house you don't have condo fees, have less noise, etc.
My town was incorporated in 1918 and was largely developed post WWII in the 1940's and 1950's. It's a very affluent "old money", suburban area. The latest craze has been to buy these old houses and then raze them and build a McMansion on them. The problem is the houses just look at of place. They also look as fake as tits on a porn star. I don't know how people can be happy living in them - then again, what do you make of people razing charming old houses? The most ironic thing is the charming old houses were better-built than the garbage they're replacing it with. Just goes to show just because you have money doesn't mean you have sense. Or taste.
I always find these critiques so out of place. Yes, many large houses have weird architectural elements that basically consist of "we copied bits and pieces of historically significant works of architecture". But I've also seen numerous houses that didn't do this, which I often describe as the "assembly hall". It is a house that has no distinguishing features at all. It looks like where you would go to a city council…
A lot of people would not call 1000sqft "tiny". It's a pretty standard-size UK family home. My family (4 of us) lives in ~800sqft. When you start from this perspective you may realise that the size bloat is just overwhelming well before you get to the detailing. You may be standing too close to the wood to see the trees... %-P
If you look at the website, none of those homes are under 2000 sq. ft.
We live in a Queen Anne era house, 120 yrs old. Same idea of quirky mish-mash of styles, but they had less styles to choose from back then
That's an interesting point. I agree with the blog that McMansions are ugly but my neighborhood has multiple Queen Annes and I like those. In 100 years will people find McMansions charming?
I think a lot of these bloated houses are extremely impractical to actually live in. For example, I live across the street from a McMansion that I fondly call “The Hotel”. It has an ornate front entrance on the main street that the owners never use. It might as well be sealed shut. Instead, they enter and exit through the basement garage, or by walking down a rickety set of stairs from their kitchen to the side stree…
At least in New England, it's a bit of a joke how many houses have "formal" entrances (not necessarily elaborate but obviously designed to be the house's entrance) but everyone just uses the kitchen/mudroom/garage.
Isn't that how it is with most homes with garages, both with and without ornate front entrances? In most cases, the occupants of that house will rarely enter through the front door. Even in cases where they park in the driveway/street, they often will enter through the garage because entering a code or using a remote control is easier than using a key on the front door.
I think this is the architects idea of McMansion hell. My idea of McMansion hell is how closely they build them together AND the placement of them. For example, many of the big communities built here in Central Florida have your living room facing the ACs of your neighbors unit, and your living room windows facing into their bed room windows. If your homes are less than 8ft apart, JUST BUILD TOWN HOMES...
I agree that the aesthetics of large houses on small lots is bad, but it is more practical, which is why they get built and snapped up. Land is expensive, and whether in Florida where it's hot, or in Canada where it's cold, you get far more use out of enclosed climate-controlled space than a yard which gets occasional use. And with a detached house you don't have condo fees, have less noise, etc.
I know a bunch of people who live in these (buying the biggest house possible was The Thing To Do), and I tend to disagree. What I've observed is that you trade a too cold or too hot yard for enclosed space you also only occasionally use. Which you are paying to climate control, clean and fill with stuff so it at least looks like it's being used. The formal dining room you use once or twice a year. The 5th or 6th bedroom in a house with 3 or 4 people living there. Sure...more WFH offices these days, but I've seen so many 'gym rooms' that have become 'just put those boxes and other crap in there rooms' it's a bit of a joke now. The 'bonus room' whose door hasn't been opened this decade. Realizing that this or that part of the house smells funny because no one has used the 4th or 5th bathroom in so long to water has evaporated from the toilet and they're getting sewer gas leaking back. Less noise, tho, sure.