If you spend any time in a McMansion, you will start to notice little things that just feel wrong. The fridge will be placed on the complete opposite side of the room from the island with the stove in it. Closets will be placed in the middle of a wall, creating a room where the bed cannot be placed against any walls. Rooms will be designed without any sense of a traffic pattern, and you'll find that it's impossible to place a couch in your den because it's basically a 30 foot wide hallway because of where the doors are. The dishwasher will block access to the sink when open.
A lot of these things are probably unnoticeable to the owners because of their lifestyle. I know friends whose parents have literally never used a single pot or pan that they own.
Around me McMansions seem to stay on the market forever compared to houses of a similar price. A ton were built where I grew up in the 2002-2007 time frame, and nobody wants to live in them. They neglect literally everything that makes a house a home for the sake of having as much space as possible. I would be surprised if the majority of them make it 50 years without being torn down.
This is actually proper kitchen design (the island being in the way would be a problem, though). It's called a "kitchen triangle" and the proper shape and size of it determines how efficient a kitchen is (the third vertex is the sink).
A properly sized and shaped kitchen triangle can help turn cooking into a very efficient experience. One too large, or with an island in the way, or not correctly shaped (or not even a triangle) can make it a horrible place to cook in.
I will grant, though, that in some cases the kitchen doesn't ever serve a practical purpose, but instead serves as an interior "conspicuous consumption" focal point. Easiest way to tell if this is the case is how well used the appliances are; if they look showroom shiny with nary a splatter, dent, scratch, etc on them - you are likely not looking at a working kitchen.
Finally - all of this is moot if the person cooking is skilled enough. My wife has cooked highly commented meals for hundreds of people out of a kitchen smaller than some McMansion's walk-in pantry, using a stove that only had "on" and "off" (where "on" was set at 500 degrees F), and a work surface smaller than her cutting board (this was a "commercial" kitchen at one of here former employers who had a strange sense of what was the best things to spend money on - maintenance was not one of them).
[1] https://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/16934736/list/kitchen-evolut...
[2] http://lifehacker.com/optimize-your-kitchen-layout-with-work...
If you have a lot of different things being cooked, you want the brigade system with individuals' prep, holding, and cooking areas distinct and the flow across their space minimized. That includes little things like having squeeze bottles of water at their station so they don't have to access a sink to add liquid to something and all the dishes they need to plate what they're working on. If you have labor intensive assembly of a few things, you want assembly line, and then it's more important to have lots of contiguous, double deep counter space so you can stage materials for each step and slide things along. For a brigade system, you usually have an aisle wide enough for someone to carry a hot pan past you while you're working without having to worry about bumping into you if you don't suddenly lurch backwards. Oh, and somewhere to step out of the zone where you have to be on alert for things like that. I've seen that both with one sided prep areas with eight feet or so to the other wall so you can physically back out of the line, or a four foot aisle and walking down the line to the storage freezers (which people aren't going into constantly once everything is prepped) to step away.
In either case, finished materials need to be staged to be removed from the kitchen, and a parallel path needs to bring dishes back without getting in path of the cooks.
But back to the primary topic, most of the kitchens I've seen in houses simply are not functional. When we were house hunting a few years ago I would say half the kitchens were laid out where, due to other constraints of the house, they could not be remodeled into something that wasn't a pain to work in. It's fine to have to cook in some place that's a pain once in a while, but in your own home? Yeesh.
That said, I have always felt ridiculing other people's taste to be fairly mean. And while there are/were some solid points in the blog about design and things that 'look right' and things that 'look wrong' it could often come across fairly harshly. And even if you disclaim that with "I'm talking about the house, not you." since the owner likes the house enough to own it and not change it, it really is kind of about them too.
No one finds the tech reviewer 'mean' for saying the processor is slower at particular benchmarks according to our present technological measure. Why is this so different - if in fact what is being put to the measure is a human technology and not simply taste. And even then, many 'tasteful' architectural features only exist because of some function - and missing that function they are actually only taste.
Most denizens, I suspect, probably feel that something is not quite right but couldn't put their finger on it quickly enough to stop their purchase or possibly more cynically, don't care until they flip the house.
If you look at these, you'll notice something: they're by and large consistent within themselves and the author of that piece is often (and I say "often" because it's a pop piece) able to tell you what aspects the architects of that style are focusing on. Any given style of architecture might not be your thing, but I bet that you can see commonalities of design within a given design family. In particular it's worth looking at horizontal lines (stories of a house); it's sometimes fashionable for different stories of a house to differ stylistically, but do different parts of the house, including the roof, differ notably on that horizontal line?
One of the deadest giveaways as to whether you can reasonably call it a "McMansion": look at the windows. Some of the houses on McMansion Hell have six different styles of window on the same story of the house. Sometimes they just look plastered on, like the house was built and somebody said "let's add a window there". It's not just bad taste, which has a lot of variance--it's also incoherence, and while there is some taste in evaluating whether various elements that a design adopts cohere together, there's a reasonable-person test there that doesn't really exist for like-it/don't-like-it. McMansions like the ones under discussion are incoherent because they're not designed for coherence, they're designed to tick off boxes in a "How To Increase The Value Of The Thing You're Flipping" checklist. (Few McMansions are built by the owners.) They're zits on a good neighborhood.
Ever heard the adage, learn the rules in order to break them? An analogy that I like is with regard to painting: a cubist Picasso and realist Courbet are both technically masterful and appealing works, but if you mash them together the point becomes that they don't work together at all. And that can be fine--maybe the point of what you're doing is to highlight that discordance--but if you do it without understanding how and why they work, you're just creating a trainwreck.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/07/apis-cor-3d-printed-hous...
* No clear architectural style, or a haphazard/incoherent mix of styles
* Brick or stone facades in front, and cheap siding on the (less visible) sides
* Non-structural arches and columns
* Oddly placed/sized windows
* Multiple roof lines, chimneys and dormers
To the extent that a "Recently built house in a more or less modern style" incorporates these elements, it can be considered more or less a McMansion.
Isn't that just a new style?
The point is, with the effort and money spent, the houses are not even necessarily nice to live in when the designer just adds a hodge podge of features. The critique may sound elitist but the actual defects are concrete once you notice them and not just 'accept and adapt' to them.
Do they, though? Maybe they're completely happy with their houses and we're just assuming the grapes are sour.
A lot of time on HN is spent mocking "gamer aesthetic" on hardware the commenter would have otherwise actually liked to use. Garish LED-lighting, bulky-looks and oblique angles aren't my thing either, but HN loves to complain about McKeyboards, McHeadphones, McLaptops and McCases.
"Gamer aesthetic" and "McMansion aethetic" are valid phenomena and people have the right to critique those tastes without invoking classism, despite the sense of superiorioty occasionally found in the consumers of both.
Benchmarks are at least attempting to be objective.
Also, there's a difference between mocking a company's product and mocking a house that is 1) an individual's home 2) their largest investment and 3) is likely, these days, to represent a significant financial liability.
I don't like McMansions much myself, but I can absolutely sympathize with people that want an affordable way to get more space for their family, etc. (Or people that have been sucked by the hedonic treadmill into a vortex of debt, high utility payments, etc.) They're probably suffering enough already.
Did you see the asking prices before the content was taken down? I don't remember any of the houses being affordable in any regard
> vortex of debt
It takes a special person to sympathize with someone living so far beyond their means that they take a $1 million (my average price estimate from the website) mortgage that they can't actually afford
They'll suffer enough without help. The world is difficult enough without pushing people down because it's funny or a way to 'improve the quality of architecture' or whatever.
But a McMansion will almost always cost you more than a more 'modest' house offering the same amount of space. Also that house will almost certainly be better constructed.
Lots of variables there. Construction is usually estimated in terms of price per square feet, and property values can represent a substantial fraction of the total price of the house. A 'modest', 'old' house in a good location can be vastly more expensive than a 'McMansion' built out in the suburbs or something. Also McMansions are usually built where land is cheaper, so more space.
For families with children, there is also the cost of education to consider. There are scenarios where avoiding the need to use a private school to educate your children can completely pay the cost of a home in the suburbs. (Even considering property taxes). The house can effectively burn to the ground when you're done educating your kids and you'd wind up net money ahead compared to where you might have been with a more modest house and private schooling.
http://www.sunengineering.net/PROJECTS/Residential/TheBackSh...
I live in a normal size house and opening the dishwasher blocks access to the sink, the two cupboards under the sink and two cupboards above.
The lounge is long and due to the door placement there is no sensible layout for the sofa that wouldn't have people sitting a long way from each other (in the end we used the furniture to effectively split the room into two smaller areas which were more sensibly shaped)
My previous house had a cupboard too close to a central breakfast bar that meant you couldn't access the cupboard if someone was sitting at the breakfast bar.
Bad room layout is everywhere.
As much as I hate looking at these McMansions, they do give me one consolation: money can't buy taste. Maybe I'll never afford that monstrosity you call a house, but at least I've got the sense to not want it in the first place.
My theory is that people who can afford such houses are usually very busy with their jobs or companies and don't have the time or mindspace to think about what kind of place they'd really like to live in, not to mention "details" like aesthetics. They're in perpetual hurry and thus they buy a house like the handle a project at their company.
This combined with the rapidly rising real-estate costs meant the builders threw in some of the architectural versions of Hofmeister kinks[1] to make them look more luxurious which (IMO) only made them look worse.
I'm going to add this to my list of words for names of things that you never expected to have names. From aglet[1] to uvula[2], and now Hofmeister kink.
The design element was criticized so incessantly that Bangle eventually stepped down. But it turns out Bangle was just ahead of his time as most modern large sedans employ the eponymous chrome strip on their rear. The Accord, Camry, Mazda6, and Fusion all have the feature on their latest models.
I don't know about the rest, but taste is definitely subjective.
Now preference is arbitrary and subjective. If you just like something even if its not tasteful that is fine, even for experts and I don't know that it is problematic in buying a house that isn't tasteful other than it is a signal that experts were skipped in certain design phases of the project.
Or perhaps you're against ridicule in general. Why is it your problem what sort of houses other people live in?
Example happening in my town: builder buys a normal-sized house on a large lot for $800K. Knocks the house down, subdivides the lot, and builds two bigger houses on each lot, and sells each for $950K. If anyone complains, they get written off as a NIMBY who is opposed to density.
Due to local regulations, you need more driveway curb cuts, so the tree-lined street starts to become less tree-lined. You now have two 3-story townhouse style homes right up next to mid-century ranches or bungalows or Cape Cods and it looks garish.
What else did you think anyone meant by NIMBY?
Usually it seems that people who are moderately opposed to two houses on a lot would be rioting in the streets over a 150-unit building. But I agree, it's a better way to achieve the same outcome.
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 to any development on aesthetic grounds?
We're pretty far afield, now.
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.
Is this not the textbook definition of NIMBYism?
=
> Why is it your problem what sort of houses other people live in?
This is the key point in the thread. The legitimate criticism of McMansions isn't about their architecture per se, it's about the owners. I'd go so far as to say that the bad architecture is deliberate -- its senseless variation and useless ornaments call attention to the house. This is crass ostentation and nothing more. It says, "look at me, I can afford a big ugly house (and you can't)."
in Los Angeles, city government keeps on approving these extremely large homes without even requiring rooftop solar panels -- houses with not just one but TWO air conditioning condensers -- because ... uh ... wait, why?
because they save energy per capita? no.
because they will house more people than the single family homes they replaced? no.
because large homes are basically high capacity production assets which empower the city to be even more globally competitive (like a state-of-the-art rechargeable-battery factory, a digital movie production facility, a high-tech startup office, etc)? no.
AFAIK, we just have a distorted capital market. Federal government policies support home loans and the ownership society. there's also a local shortage of other viable ways for investors to make a quick $500,000 profit.
also, it's a nice boost to the property tax base.
Surely you would agree that taste is subjective...
This isn't just an American thing, but it seems particularly bad here. People spend a lot of money on homes, but try to cheap out as much as possible in expertise. No architects, no designers for the interior, no landscape architects for the yard (many greenfield McMansions are delivered with zero landscaping!) and even sometimes skipping electricians and other skilled tradesmen for upgrades and additions.
Houses are a bit like software. Builders will typically have base plans and then depending on the price point a varying number of customizations that can be applied. The more expensive the home the more customizations offered. A really great thing about people buying McMansions is that they are all experts and know far more about building a house than someone who literally owns a company that does this. So people who sell to this demographic let the customer do a lot of driving especially on the interior. Builders can also mark up these customizations to increase margins. So really I guess bottom line here is that people want these houses. The architecture (or lack there of depending on your view) is carefully researched to appeal to people with the right amount of money to spend. Having watched this process from the builder side there seems to be little to be gained from trying to for design on to the customers as they don't want it.
I think it's a bit forward for criticizing the purchasers of these homes for the aesthetics alone. They wanted these homes and there is going to be someone who will provide it. I am yet to find modern art that I can appreciate but I am happy that others can. I love classical sculpture which I am sure someone would have a bit to say about if I stuck one in my house. If someone wants a non-functioning balcony (this I just cannot understand) to each his own. One nice feature these homes have is that they are all built together in large developments where I will rarely ever venture.
I guess I'd argue that the aesthetics are bad for the reasons the blog in question points out--lack of unifying design principles, etc. At least to my eye.
However, I also agree with your point about space. This may not be popular with the density crowd, but a few acres with lots of trees and other landscaping hide a lot of architectural faults. Cram big houses assembled from random architectural styles on a half acre with just a garden or two and it's not attractive.
For some, it appears that the control is an important purchase consideration. The bank is the only one taking the risk.
Leave out the "wrong type of people" part and you got pretty much every criticism ever. Bad movies, bad books, bad food...
The thing is, I don't believe McMansion owners need our pity. They're clearly well off and not afraid to show it. Speaking of "elitism", I'm pretty sure the author of the McMansion blog is poorer than any of the reviewed houses' owners. It's not like we're making fun of homeless people for having dirty clothes. Plus those damn houses are visible, they're part of our environment and not something you do for fun in your hobby room.
I can't get myself to feel sorry, even though I can understand a general opposition against "calling out" private individuals so publicly on the internet.
Edit: You're right, nobody is arguing that it was pulled down for that and I didn't realize until I read a bit more. My point about entitlement still stands though.
One big difference between McMansion Hell and media criticism in general is that the former relies much more on appeals to canon, e.g. "You should never put one of /these/ next to one of /these/."
Ok.
> Plus those damn houses are visible
Like the dirty homeless people? At least with homes they are on private property.
How can you "understand that mcmansions are bad architecture" and also say "the whole thing stank of classist elitism"? The blog points fun at clearly bad buildings. Fake columns, unnecessary rooms, poor placement of re-used furniture, etc. Sarcasm is funny. The blog is sarcastic in nature. What's wrong with that?
it goes: "its horrid because its trying to copy this style, here is what this style is supposed to be, and this is why it fails to look right here"
Its basically a wonderfully funny incident post mortem.
I wish my post mortems were so funny and illuminating
Is a fake column on a house any different than fins on a 1959 Cadillac?
The fins on a 1959 Cadillac are well-integrated (design-wise) on the car. It's a theme of the era and the car was designed from the ground up to look like a jet or a rocket.
The design elements in a McMansion are not well integrated (see the posts on the site) - they are added on as an afterthought because "nice houses have these things". There is no coherent style or design.
If I had to guess, I would say the "gaudy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Gaud%C3%AD !!) design of a Cadillac will be well-regarded for at least 100 years. I don't think the design of McMansions will ever be well-regarded.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaudy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaudy
I couldn't help looking it up because the idea that a single artist could stand out so much to be singularly associated with that term was tempting. I expect that is why such a false association persists.
;)
50's US cars were also exceedingly well built using high quality materials and mostly/nearly by hand..
which goes against the 'cheap / phony materials' ethos critiqued in mcmansions..
that said, plenty of people I'm sure critiqued the 'chintzy' 50s asthetic and increased use of plastics in the day..
But McMansions lack common flourishes or motifs. They share only size and a brutal ostentation intended only to say, "I have money, and taste be damned."
The best exposition I know on the suburban blight AKA McMansions is "The Geography of Nowhere" by James Howard Kunstler.
It's punching down: the builders/purchasers didn't know/care how to make architecturally sophisticated dwellings, which is no reason to make fun of someone. The commentary applies equally-well to pre-fab apartments, shotgun shacks, suburban housing developments, etc. It's poorly-targeted.
It's also elitist a.f. "Look at these gauche bungalows, drawn up no doubt by someone who never heard of Falling Water, let alone ever showered"
I generally reject the premise of punching up versus down; but McMansion Hell is emphatically not punching down. Anyone who can afford a $1 million 5000+ square foot house deserves very little sympathy for their bad taste.
No, see the first sentence where I say I generally reject the premise of the whole concept of punching up and down (I think there is such a thing as bad tactics). My point was, however, that if you're gonna use that framework, perhaps one percenters buying ugly houses aren't exactly a sympathetic group. Even more importantly, the OP misses the entire reason punching up and down is a thing. Being rich enough to afford a McMansion means you're pretty much guaranteed to be highly privileged. It'd be pretty silly, if you're going to talk about punching up and down, to believe that ridiculing the rich with bad taste is anything but a big ol' shoryuken. I mean, even I, someone who thinks you should treat people kindly regardless of background, roll my eyes at the thought of McMansion owners feelings being hurt because people think their houses are ugly.
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.
I disagree with your assessment of elitism. If every "critique" is "elitism" then I really don't know how to respond.
That's a false equivalence. Shotgun shacks and suburban housing developments aren't trying to be something they're not. And that is why you don't find ironic commentary like this directed at them.
When you put on airs, you get cut down. Is that mean? Probably. Sometimes it's also appropriate.
(Also worth noting that McMansions are typically homes to the upper middle class and the rich, not the poor.)
You can have homes that are 1200-1800 sqft. that are very easy to live in, aesthetically pleasing and (in non-metropolitan areas) quite affordable for a middle-class family.
For me, it's about homes that are easy to sell (because they check off all the boxes on some generic list) vs. homes that are a joy to live in. My impression is that there was some wisdom regarding the latter that has been lost in the last 40 years.
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 most recent post there:
A transom should never overwhelm the door or window it’s sitting above.
Here’s an example of how to transom:
And how to…not:
(Separate: Do I think zillow was right here? Of course not).
Her main points are basically unified theme and form follows function and how McMansions often break those rules (a hodgepodge of different elements, columns too large for the things they support).
Her blog also informs fundamentals of good taste in architecture. It's no different from learning what makes a classical painting good or good pacing in movies.
>... 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?
The second is poking the US tradition of "I have money and therefore I'm right about everything, even when I have no idea what I'm doing" squarely in both eyes.
For the first, there is an embryonic science of aesthetics. Features like self-similarity, scale coherence, integration, and symmetry tend to score more highly than random content blobbery and mash-ups.
For the second - of course it's political. But in a country where freedom of speech is supposed to be a thing, I see that as a feature, not a bug.
Worse is that most of their advice is actually harmful. For instance they don't like windows, especially asymmetrical ones. But lots of scientific studies have found that windows improve mental health significantly in a number of ways. Sunlight is very good. Or they demand houses be symmetrical. But if I've learned anything from games like dwarf fortress and Minecraft, that's not true. While symmetry might look nice, it generally creates designs that are less practical than if you weren't constrained by it. And every rule they have is like that. Just purely aesthetic constraints that trade off against other more practical values.
Perhaps you could read this post as to why the author is picking on McMansions in particular, and their stance on elitism, and give your take.
Personally, I don't get the impression of the blog authors intent that you are receiving.
I look at some of the houses on the blog and think they're really pretty. Sorry I don't have the correct sort of taste in windows or whatever. Maybe it's because I'm one of those dumb idiots that grew up in a flyover state (Iowa).
This house: http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/10/12-hate-pe...
Looks really pretty to me. What seriously is the problem here?
In the one you pointed out, the question arises: "Which part is the actual house?" It has a feeling of "someone stuck on this extra part here, this stairwell here, ..." particularly with the mix of the stone and stucco'd/painted exterior, the multiple incoherent roof angles, and the inconsistent Z-depth of the front of the house.
With some architecture, the more you look at it, the more it grows on you. With the picture you posted, at first glance, I had the same reaction you did -- but after I really looked at it for a while, it started to bug the heck out of me. Kind of the same thing that happens after listening to too much auto-tuned music. The effect is cool the first time you hear it, but after a while, ...
Isn't that practically one of the defining characteristics of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb...
http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb32...
http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/El...
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Pe...
http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-L...
http://kentuckknob.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kentuck_Sp...
Consistent roofline, consistently repeated window motif, re-use of the horizontal stonework for the house, the exterior wall, and the chimneys.
The drawback of his Usonian houses is that the ceiling height is ridiculous by 2017 standards. At 6'3", I have to duck in several of the rooms, much less the doorways. Oof.
https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/07115505/f...
http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/57571c84e8428148...
It's an insult to society when somebody builds an ugly house and everybody else has to look at it.
Settled neighborhoods are more expensive than new ones because you can avoid living next to an ugly house.
I'm not sure I mind the mixed stone and stucco that another comment mentions. It seems like a valid aesthetic style, especially with the chosen colours.
However, there are a few weird things I do notice. The double roof gable on the right seems unnecessary and unbalanced. And there are also many random windows in different styles, and in strange places. The ones below the double roof seem particularly obviously mismatched, and the window on the diagonal portion above the main door really looks out of position.
Edit: the points below are all fair.
There are some metro areas where your only choices are basically McMansions or obsolete post-war housing. Given those limited options, it's no surprise why people prefer them.
Or that, since 3/4 of US homes are spec rather than custom, developers prefer to built cheaper, larger homes when given the option.
(McMansions are generally cheaply constructed for their price / square footage)
Her blog has an extremely mean-spirited tone, she's downright attacking people.
Her audience is accepting of that because it's directed at people who own large houses, and people who own large houses have money and are successful. In her world, it's acceptable to treat people poorly, as long as they're successful and have money.
If she were applying the same architectural critique to poorly-designed small crappy houses (which exist by the millions), she'd be getting a very, very different reaction.
Her Patreon might not be as successful, let's just put it that way.
I actually think that's a big part of the appeal of the content. Large houses are typically a source of envy, but if you can turn that large house into something to be embarrassed about, the envy dissipates and the viewership gets to feel built-up by the tearing down of the wealthy person.
My standard for how people should be treated doesn't change based on their income level, so to me this just seems mean, I think much less of her, and I don't want to read more of it.
On the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to find a lower class person with the financial freedom to buy whichever house they please, and because of that they kind of have to live in houses that are made in a more functional sense of "a place where humans can live."
The blog isn't about tearing down wealthy people, it's about tearing down shitty architecture. She showcases really great architecture as well that obviously isn't affordable.
I don't think your argument has any basis.
It's about tearing down shitty architecture, in a way that directly criticizes the owner's purchase and taste while making endless derogatory assumptions and claims about them, and that's only ok because that owner has money.
She, for example, thinks it's sexist for a bathroom to have two sinks, and a bathroom having two sinks is an appeal to the owner's sexism. You can take this person seriously if you want to, but to act like there's no malice here is a little absurd, and it's clear (at least to me) that that malice is only accepted because it's directed at the wealthy.
And it's totally unwarranted, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't know their political affiliations or their positions on social issues. They're just people who like a house you don't like. I don't see how that's a justification to draw insults on pictures of their house and post it on the internet.
60%+ of what McMansion complained about I was oblivious to.
Sure, there are some obvious things but the majority would not be accessible to someone unless they were educated in the field and taught what 'proper' aesthetics are.
Is it still a crime in some circles to wear a blazer with denim?
Was that "classist elitism," or did Schumann just know what he was talking about?
The real problem is that the architecture is just plain bad. Space is wasted, exterior are marred by design details meant only to suggest a style of building without any of the things that make them useful, interiors waste space and destroy any efficient attempts at heating and cooling--there is no defending that.
There is a lot of space between defending bad ideas and putting up a website to mock them.
Agreed. Driving a Mercedes is a status symbol, I don't see her complaining about the unnecessary Swarovski crystals in the headlights of an S class, but oh no those columns that "serve no function and remind of me of a bank where I keep my money" they are fundamentally different and must go.
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 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!
Edit: It sounds like a lot of the way I interpreted this could come from my background as someone who's transitioned from lower working class to solidly middle class, and so I'm applying that defensively even though (thank God!) I don't live in an Embarassing McMansion. In fact I'm now considering the blog as more of an educational campaign where an expert in the field is railing against problematic and widespread trends in that field. It has less to do with transitions between class and more to do with the decline of an important field of engineering and design as something that people value. I think the word McMansions itself is a bit of a disservice to the purpose of the blog, with its "slobs vs snobs" / Beverly Hillbillies connotations.