Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

mcmansionhell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#11

Post by egypturnash »

mitkebes wrote: post #7
mikgp wrote: post #4

This is interesting but I was recently in England at a country house, which should be a pinnacle of architecture and it like I assume many of them were just added onto over and over again over the years leading to all the problems described. Still gorgeous, but certainly not “good architecture”. Much more McMansiony.

Adding onto a house over and over would probably create the same issues with inconsistency and mismatched styles. With later additions, there's at least a decent reason for that inconsistency though. McMansions lack that consistency from the start.

Perhaps this lack of consistency is deliberate: “this house is trying to look like a miniature version of an estate that grew over many generations”.

Curse not the McMansion. Rejoice in The People’s Gormenghast.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#13

Post by spamizbad »

froggertoaster wrote: post #8

Generally speaking, classifying a house as "McMansion" feels like a form of gatekeeping. If the person who lives there enjoys it, who are we to judge?

There's actually a housing shortage in the US so it's not like this is an architecture that is responsive to consumer or cultural preference and demand - local zoning laws do not even permit such freedom.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#14

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

Seems to me there are two possible definitions of good architecture which might be in conflict. The American mansion-style suburban home is good architecture in the sense that the people who want to buy homes in these places and of these sizes are happy to buy these homes. It is bad architecture in the sense that architecture nerds, who do not even live near these mansions and are not affected by them, don't like them.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#15

Post by MarkusQ »

bluebarbet wrote: post #12
froggertoaster wrote: post #8

Generally speaking, classifying a house as "McMansion" feels like a form of gatekeeping. If the person who lives there enjoys it, who are we to judge?

That logic would make all cultural criticism verboten.

You don't have to sell me on it, I was already convinced.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#16

Post by jollyllama »

steveBK123 wrote: post #5

A lot of my friends enjoy sending links to this around from time to time, and for me I just don't care. It just all comes across as very elitist navel gazing. I don't actually care what other peoples properties look like. It's also kind of faux populist because while the homes they are criticizing are certainly higher income for their area, a lot of these are like $500K homes in exurbs. The people that enjoy laughing…

Don't worry, the people in the McMansions do not care that coastals correctly point out their lack of aesthetic sensibility.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#17

Post by kodablah »

> Design Principle #1 [...] The secondary masses should never compete with the primary mass.

> Design Principle #2 [...] shows multiple violating their own mass rule as good examples

While there are some ugly/gaudy houses out there, the gatekeeping behind what is a "McMansion" is subjective and silly.

Re: McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

#20

Post by bluebarbet »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #14

Seems to me there are two possible definitions of good architecture which might be in conflict. The American mansion-style suburban home is good architecture in the sense that the people who want to buy homes in these places and of these sizes are happy to buy these homes. It is bad architecture in the sense that architecture nerds, who do not even live near these mansions and are not affected by them, don't like the…

By that standard, a Picasso painting is only good art because it's expensive.
Post reply on HN