I interpreted this as design critique. The author doesn't seem to have anything against large houses and uses lots of them as counter-examples for good architectural design.

The author uses a very specific style of houses, and that's fine. But for example none of the houses listed as great design have a garage upfront (and some look like they don't have a garage at all). A front facing garage is a huge convenience but it makes it much harder to have the symmetry the author wants. When it comes to houses form should follow function and that seems to be completely ignored in this critique.

Errr, he named the blog "mcmansionhell", gonna suggest he might have something against them :)

Also note the blog is sort of a tautology.

"Mc·Man·sion

məkˈmanSH(ə)n/

noun

a large modern house that is considered ostentatious and lacking in architectural integrity."

So houses lacking in architectural integrity ... lack in architectural integrity?

Er, can you give some reason why you think this?

The author seemed to go out of his way to ground all of his critique in well-cited design principles. It's depressingly indicative of modern internet discourse that the first recourse is a lazy ad hom.

The guy likes his houses symmetric. That's about all he said.

Well, then you must have clicked a different link from everybody else.

I'm sure it's a component for some people, but really those houses do suck. If you have a million dollars to burn on a house, just hire an architect.

These houses are often built en masse to hit marketable squarefootage numbers and get noticed in listings, for the cheapest possible cost of construction.

You're hallucinating an argument right now. Nobody here wants to infringe on someone's property rights. It's a submission about why some houses are ugly, with a comment thread about why they're ugly.

Your comment is bad, but by that I don't mean "punishable by 15 years' hard labor in a Siberian gulag." Is that hard to believe?

Where was anything said about putting restrictions onto what people do with their property? I skimmed the article again just to make sure, and I can't find any argument in that direction.

Saying "X is ugly" or "X is ugly, here is a rule to try to explain why" does not mean "X should not be allowed to exist".

Even setting aside that the link is criticism and not complaint: are you familiar with negative externalities?

Jealousy would imply some sort of want on the part of the jealous. If someone doesn't like a McMansion they surely can't be jealous of someone who does...

A house can still be an eyesore even if you don't live in it.

Functional and aesthetic design affects the surrounding neighbourhood. So, you get to live on the inside, but you inflict these design choices on everyone else.

No man is an island.

Entire neighborhoods are built in this style because people like these houses and buy them. You might not, but don't assume that everyone else shares your taste in housing. Sure, if one house is built in this style amid a neighborhood with a different aesthetic the complaint might be warranted, but complaining about the design in general being inflicted upon neighbors in all cases is not.