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

61–70 of 72 posts

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

#61

Post by pibaker »

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…

I find it interesting that you think this article is bad because it is elitist but at the same time bad because it makes fun of rich people.

I used to follow the author on Twitter. No longer do as I don't agree with her other opinions. But she is definitely not owning million dollar properties anywhere. Populist? Maybe. But definitely not faux populism coming from whatever $5M condo owners you think wrote this.

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

#62

Post by pibaker »

Lammy wrote: post #18

“McMansion” is just a way for The System to shame the middle class for daring to want some space to live in, and I'm disappointed when I see anyone propagate it.

No one middle class is buying humongous houses with more rarely used bathrooms than the average house has bedrooms. These houses are for the top 10% earners of their respective localities.

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

#63

Post by Carstairs »

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…

I remember this from 2016. While they may have had a point about some of it. I think things like this are just an excuse for some to be judgemental snobs.

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

#64

Post by steveBK123 »

pibaker wrote: post #61
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…

I find it interesting that you think this article is bad because it is elitist but at the same time bad because it makes fun of rich people. I used to follow the author on Twitter. No longer do as I don't agree with her other opinions. But she is definitely not owning million dollar properties anywhere. Populist? Maybe. But definitely not faux populism coming from whatever $5M condo owners you think wrote this.

You can be elitist without being rich, and you can also create content aimed at elitist rich without being either.

My comment was re: the friends I have that found it so funny (rich AF).

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

#65

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

asdff wrote: post #22
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…

Might as well say fentanyl is a good drug because its users are really fond of it.

No, I don't think people who live in houses they choose to buy, mostly happily, can be compared to fentanyl addiction. There is something essential lost in the simile.

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

#66

Post by asdff »

MarkusQ wrote: post #57
asdff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, I will shit on the public sidewalk easement.

Again, that's public (shared), not yours. Not sure how (or why) you've gone from "we shouldn't be judging other people's taste" to "I get to defecate wherever I want."

It is a subject of taste is it not?

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

#67

Post by asdff »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #65
asdff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might as well say fentanyl is a good drug because its users are really fond of it.

No, I don't think people who live in houses they choose to buy, mostly happily, can be compared to fentanyl addiction. There is something essential lost in the simile.

How about SUV buyers perfectly happy with terrible mpg, terrible sightlines, multiton curb weights damaging their roads and driveways, built too large to fit into parking spots, and driving like maniacs with their supercharged v8, never once using their blinker? Those people seem content. Still, their choices lead to certain externalities we all now have to deal with to support their "big hulking car" syndrome, wherever it comes from (compensating perhaps).

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

#68

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

asdff wrote: post #67
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think people who live in houses they choose to buy, mostly happily, can be compared to fentanyl addiction. There is something essential lost in the simile.

How about SUV buyers perfectly happy with terrible mpg, terrible sightlines, multiton curb weights damaging their roads and driveways, built too large to fit into parking spots, and driving like maniacs with their supercharged v8, never once using their blinker? Those people seem content. Still, their choices lead to certain externalities we all now have to deal with to support their "big hulking car" syndrome, where…

When was the last time someone died because they saw a McMansion?

The people who live in McMansion land do not consider them to be eyesores. That is why they keep getting built. I do not accept that a McMansion violating the aesthetic sensibilities of people who don't even live near them is a "negative externality."

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

#69

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

asdff wrote: post #66
MarkusQ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that's public (shared), not yours. Not sure how (or why) you've gone from "we shouldn't be judging other people's taste" to "I get to defecate wherever I want."

It is a subject of taste is it not?

It depends what you mean by "it". We were discussing how people style their own property, which, yes, is largely a matter of taste.

For some reason, you keep trying to shift the discussion to vandalizing someone else's property, which you don't own.

In that case, no, property ownership is generally not a subject of taste. Do you really think it is, asdff?

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

#70

Post by asdff »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #69
asdff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a subject of taste is it not?

It depends what you mean by "it". We were discussing how people style their own property, which, yes, is largely a matter of taste. For some reason, you keep trying to shift the discussion to vandalizing someone else's property, which you don't own. In that case, no, property ownership is generally not a subject of taste. Do you really think it is , asdff?

Fine, no poop. I will twerk in front of your house.
Post reply on HN