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

Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

mcmansionhell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–388 of 388 posts

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#381

Post by closeparen »

dionidium wrote: post #373
closeparen wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... how is that not being a NIMBY? You want fewer homes in your neighborhood (1 vs. 2 on a lot), on aesthetic grounds. What else did you think anyone meant by NIMBY?

What do you think NIMBY means? The term originated to describe opposition to the placement of unpleasant developments that wouldn't be objected to if placed elsewhere (think landfill or meat-packing plant). It now roughly refers to anyone opposing greater density in urban environments. (This is different enough, already, that we should probably coin a new word for it.) You're using it to mean -- what? -- opposition t…

Opposing any level of density or capacity beyond single family houses with low lot coverage in your (urban/inner suburban) neighborhood is straight down the middle of any definition of NIMBYism I've seen in recent use. Particularly when you live somewhere that normal-sized houses go for $800k (!).

I'd also (tacitly) oppose large single family homes replacing small single family homes, but that's because I'd prefer to see even larger apartment/condo buildings. When each project is so politically expensive, it's important to get as many new units as possible out of each one. (Looks like defen is on board with this idea).

When two single family homes on a lot is encroaching on a community's threshold for permissible scale, usually a large apartment building would be out of the question. So I'll take what I can get.

At a 2:1 or better multiple (new units : demolished units), these conversions might be decent. You could increase a city's housing stock 2x that way, and it'd be a less drastic change than dozens-hundreds of skyscrapers needed for the same effect.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#382

Post by iosDrone »

bleepity wrote: post #336
iosDrone wrote: post #182

I'm never in favor of any speech being censored (especially fair use speech), including in this case. But as someone who wants to one day buy a huge McMansion in Vegas just for personal gratification, fuck all of these self-righteous snobs.

Except that she points out McMansions are shoddily built and won't last-- one of her photos shows a McMansion with especially severe water damage, for instance. Re-roofing that wackadoodle roofline is so cost-prohibitive you might as well just burn the thing and start over. If you ever have the money for "personal gratification", why not buy an actual mansion built with actual quality?

This is kind of splitting hairs. Obviously it's not smart to build something with shit quality that won't last.

To me, the biggest difference between a mansion and a McMansion isn't build quality, it's size. I probably won't have the money to build a place that's 10,000 sq. feet, nor would I want to. But 3500-5000 is feasible.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#383

Post by droithomme »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #221
amyjess wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can also make the argument that it's only fair use if you're using the photos to criticize and parody Zillow or the services they provide. She's not criticizing Zillow or its services but rather the subjects of the photographs.

That's an interesting construction of the Fair Use terms that to me, IANAL, seems entirely wrong; but interesting. Like you could stop someone using your image in a parody because you took the picture of your tie and they instead parodied your suit wearing. Doesn't work, the image stands by itself, the supposed purpose of the image is irrelevant to the copyright ... or am I wrong? If I take a picture from Zillow's si…

Yeah I do agree. However amyjess reasonably brings up an important aspect of this case. SCOTUS has distinguished between satire and parody. If this goes to court it is likely Zillow will claim this is satire and not parody since parody claims of copyright exception have a long history of vigorous acceptance. However this all relies on an interpretation that only photographic composition and metaissues are acceptable criticism targets and the actual subject of the photo is somehow not related to the content. That is a novel argument and unlikely to prevail should this be adjudicated.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#384

Post by softawre »

nothis wrote: post #167
uses wrote: 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…

>The Wrong Type of people were getting the chance to design and build large houses, and of course they're applying their Bad Taste that's neither Genuine nor Authentic. They don't know about the traditions of Fine Architecture so of course they were doing it all wrong...how embarrassing for them! Leave out the "wrong type of people" part and you got pretty much every criticism ever. Bad movies, bad books, bad food...…

> It's not like we're making fun of homeless people for having dirty clothes.

Ok.

> Plus those damn houses are visible

Like the dirty homeless people? At least with homes they are on private property.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#386

Post by pyre »

cookiecaper wrote: post #379
pyre wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to the case where that woman posed as a high school student and drove a girl that her daughter didn't like to suicide via cyber bullying. They tried to charge her under the CFAA for violating Facebook's ToS against misrepresenting yourself. Edit: It was MySpace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Drew > United States v. Drew[1] is the final decision in a criminal case that charged Lori Drew…

Thanks for the reference. It's great that that the absurdity of the CFAA was reigned in on that case. My understanding is that since this decision occurred at the district court level, it does not have a precedential effect, so I don't think anyone with a pending case can necessarily relax or assume that a similar outcome will be easily obtained. Note also that in this case, a guilty verdict was entered for the defen…

I realize that the amicus brief isn't part of the decision, but it was just including it for reference.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#387

Post by CaptSpify »

noobilicious wrote: post #57

Welp, you guys know what to do. http://archive.is/ https://web.archive.org/ https://www.webcitation.org/archive Edit: the blog just disappeared for me. I managed to archive the last 13 pages of it in archive.is.

ipfs link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14640115

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#388

Post by falsedan »

mcphage wrote: post #256
falsedan wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for making my point, but thank you to the undeservingly moneyed lumpenproles who spend their wealth on the wrong things and also in a way which deserves ridicule.

Your point was that it's punching down. Careersuicide [correctly] responded that it's not punching down, it's punching up. Tell me again how that make your point?

> Anyone who can afford a $1 million 5000+ square foot house deserves very little sympathy for their bad taste

You are disparaging people who are not as knowledgeable as you (elitist); they didn't design the homes, nor approve the development, nor set the zoning. Their casus belli is that they are wealthier than you, and unaware that they're buying the wrong kind of house.

Making fun of rich people for buying stupid stuff isn't punching up; it's making fun of their ignorance, regardless of whether they have more or less money than you, and can be equally applied to poor people making poor purchasing decisions.

Post reply on HN