Live data from Hacker News

Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

mcmansionhell.com

181–190 of 388 posts

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#181
post #69

I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing... However, something about it really bothers me. There was an episode of 99% Invisible where the guest was talking about their McMansions blog and how it makes fun of these Horrid dwellings. The whole thing stank of classist elitism. The Wrong Type of people were getting the chance to design and build large houses, and of course they're applying…

I thought I was the only bothered by that blog (the 99pi episode was based on it). I agree with practically all of its conclusions (ugly, oversized, out of place, generic, etc.), but the entire thing was a bunch of worthless value judgements: this is bad, that is bad. Not: this is bad because of function, but literally "this should never happen" -- no explanation. Real example from way back machine, from the blog's m…

>>A transom should never overwhelm the door or window [...]

>... that's it. No explanation [...]

The explanation is ~'it shouldn't overwhelm it'. Of course that's a value judgement. Like saying the front bumper (aka "fender") shouldn't be too big on a car; or a persons hat shouldn't be too big for their hat (tell that to JK, https://goo.gl/images/ztdusQ).

The implicit point is that the transom is ostentatiously large, enlarged beyond the reviewer's sense of propriety.

Surely there is nothing else. It's a judgement of style?

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#183

So I don't get it. This girl sounds really, really petty, and the 99pi episode is probably their worst. So what if someone wants to build a huge house? How is that harming anyone else? If I were wealthy I would totally build a McMansion because I want it, I like it, and I would love to live in it. Who cares?

So you like houses that incorporate inefficient interior plans and incoherent external features that don't understand what they ape, don't ape it all that well, and don't create a cohesive whole with the house or environment around it--but do sport poor, cheap construction and expensive-means-good internal features designed around checking off boxes rather than achieving the goals those features are ordinarily designed for?

Math checks out to me.

(Oh, and she's not a "girl", she's in her twenties, unless we're going to play the "use the term 'girl' to minimize a woman" game and we're not, and that 99% Invisible episode strikes me as pretty good because it reveals what people don't think about, as is their stated goal.)

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#184
post #69

I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing... However, something about it really bothers me. There was an episode of 99% Invisible where the guest was talking about their McMansions blog and how it makes fun of these Horrid dwellings. The whole thing stank of classist elitism. The Wrong Type of people were getting the chance to design and build large houses, and of course they're applying…

I grew up in Northern Virginia among these McMansions, and frankly I don't buy the elitism angle. These folks have a lot of money (top 5% at least, if not even top 1%) and are among the best educated in the country. And these aren't dwellings driven by the need for functionality. It's not like people here have big families they need to house (empty nesters can afford them more readily than people with families!). The…

[deleted]

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#185
post #173

So I don't get it. This girl sounds really, really petty, and the 99pi episode is probably their worst. So what if someone wants to build a huge house? How is that harming anyone else? If I were wealthy I would totally build a McMansion because I want it, I like it, and I would love to live in it. Who cares?

If I were wealthy I would totally build a McMansion If you were wealthy why not put in the tiny bit of extra effort build a well constructed, nice, huge house that will last for generations?

I don't think OP read enough of the article to know what "McMansion" actually implies...

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#186
post #4

McMansion Hell is exactly the shock therapy the United States needs. Someone lend this blogger a hand!

Never heard of it before now. :( I bet it was enlightening.

You can find some of the posts by searching http://www.mcmansionhell.com/ on archive.org.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#187
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give Redfin a shot, if you're just into browsing homes for sale. Better search and UI, in my opinion.

Never heard of this before, thanks for sharing!

More importantly, Redfin's data is actually current.

I'm trying to buy property. Back when I was using Zillow, I missed out on a couple because literally the day I found out about them was the closing day of offers. WTF? Redfin updates much faster. I still get emails from Zillow, often with listing changes that Redfin emailed me several weeks prior.

Oh, and don't get me started on Zillow's incredibly shitty data. Their job is to clean the data. A trivial effort would fix the endless 6,000-acre properties for $350k...

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#188

IANAL. We give large companies far too much lenience to bully in this country. The legal system is fundamentally broken in this type of matchup, a small player pitted against a public company with billions of dollars floating around. Her only hope to win the fight is to be picked up by a nonprofit like the EFF, but my experience is that they're very restrained about where they'll lend assistance (that is, they're use…

> Her only hope to get through the next five years without having her life substantially wrecked by a totally unnecessary lawsuit (which she will likely lose if it goes to court) is to comply with the C&D and hope that Zillow calls off the dogs. If she would likely lose in court, then Zillow has a legitimate case against her and is doing her a favor by sending a cease and desist instead of going straight to court and…

IANAL

>If she would likely lose in court [...] I don't see why you would feel sorry for someone in that situation.

A law's existence is not an automatic justification for its invocation. Copyright law is pretty draconian on its own, and automatically-accepted browsewrap/clickwrap Terms of Use generally constrict action even further, making almost anything a breach of contract. Fair use exists, but the standard is fairly high, and it is not really practical for a normal person to get it, especially since each use must be considered in isolation.

Other types of intellectual property would probably also be involved here, including an accusation of "trademark dilution", i.e., harming their mark's value by using it improperly. I haven't seen the C&D but it probably includes various other claims along these lines, all of which she would have to defend, which means big $$$ even if she did win (and if attorney's fees are eventually awarded, they will cover only a tiny fraction of the overall costs).

A large company with giant law firms seeking to punish individual authors for failure to unpublish unflattering blog posts should make you feel sorry, even if those giant law firms are able to contrive a case that shows the conduct was technically illegal. It's not hard to do, especially when there is such a massive resource differential.

In the real world where we're allowed to widen our perspective beyond the legal minutia, this is a blatant attempt to silence press that Zillow doesn't like. The fact that it is possible for big companies to do this to people should seriously frighten everyone.

>doing her a favor by sending a cease and desist instead of going straight to court

A C&D is part of the process. It's not mandatory, but my non-lawyer understanding is that it looks bad to file a suit in this type of case without first asking the defendant to cease and desist (that is, issuing a formal C&D).

Lawyers don't send a C&D to be nice. They do it because the court wants to see that the plaintiff a) sought non-legal remediation before filing a lawsuit and b) because plaintiffs have a responsibility to mitigate ongoing losses when they are able to do so.

The job of the lawyers is to maximize outcomes in favor of their clients, and that means crossing the ts and dotting the is. Failing to send a C&D leaves an opening for the defendant to try to soften your damage claim, pointing out that you did not attempt to mitigate the damage.

If Zillow actually had been damaged by this operation, they would continue the lawsuit after the would-be defendant ceased and desisted and try to recover the damages they suffered. Since this is just a tactic to pressure the other party into unpublishing their content via the legal strongarm, money won't be wasted on a lawsuit after the publisher has been bullied into submission.

IANAL

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#189
post #28
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, there are many tactics a well-paid lawyer can do to simply run anyone out of business based on a false or spurious copyright claim.

Why wouldn't a judge throw this out as spurious if it clearly falls under fair use? (procedural question; not asserting that it does or does not meet fair use in this case).

While people here are making an argument that this is fair use, it's not quite so simple. You have to pay money to argue in front of a judge, and unless no counter-argument is provided, summary judgement is far from an inevitability.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#190

So I don't get it. This girl sounds really, really petty, and the 99pi episode is probably their worst. So what if someone wants to build a huge house? How is that harming anyone else? If I were wealthy I would totally build a McMansion because I want it, I like it, and I would love to live in it. Who cares?

I don't have any problem with someone building a huge, and subjectively "ugly" McMansion-style house if they want. What I have a problem with is where they usually locate these houses.

In many (not all, not most) cases, the builders locate the house in an area completely unsuited for the property. They'll find some low-cost home in an established neighborhood of 30-40 year-old ranch homes (for instance), then tear that house down (or maybe they'll buy two lots next to each other!), then build the monstrosity that towers over everything else in the neighborhood. They'll get variances and whatnot to build nearly up to every property line within fire-codes.

It becomes a nightmare for the rest of the property owners; usually their homes will decrease in value as a result, due to nobody wanting to purchase or live in their home with such a structure nearby. Of course, this may cause them to sell their property at a loss - perhaps to another developer who puts up another such McMansion...

There's such a thing, when you are building in an established neighborhood, to be a good neighbor and build something that fits in (both style and size) with the rest of the homes. Same if you modify the existing home; you don't want to go too crazy with style or structure, because this can devalue properties around you. It all comes down to whether you have any empathy for other people; whether you can place yourself in their shoes and say to yourself "if someone were doing this to a house near me, would it be a problem?"

Unfortunately, too many people that do this don't care, or can't empathise - or if they can, again - they don't care. They just want to build, and flip it for the cash. It's a grab, plain and simple. Rarely do the people who build these live in them, because that would put them at the ire of their (now ticked off) neighbors.

Post reply on HN