>, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For th

>, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For those with an eye for architecture who have spent time puzzling over McMansions, that is sufficient to demonstrate the principles. No, it was insufficient evidence. The author didn't show photos (or is unaware) of non-McMansion-non-modern counterexamples to his "mass/voids/asymmetry" principles and explain why his guidelines are inconsistent. Therefore, his theory is incoherent. The magazines including Architectural Digest and Veranda are the most anti-McMansion publications you can get and they feature homes that violate his principles. Secondary mass all over the place. Abundant voids and asymmetry too. Yes, the distaste for McMansions is a real phenomenon but the author's explanations about what it _is_ by measuring geometries is incorrect.