4 ms·
I agree: a lot of people care what their houses look like here. But 99% of the population doesn't care about this level of architectural nuance. And certainly n
by basseq 10y ago
I agree: a lot of people care what their houses look like here. But 99% of the population doesn't care about this level of architectural nuance. And certainly not the population of people who are in the market for these sorts of homes in the first place (upper middle-class, suburban, etc.).
It's hard to prove a negative, but "despite all of this, the popularity of McMansions is picking up again". If McMansions are as "bad" as the author makes them out to be, and homebuyers "care" as much as you say they do, how do you account for the market?
- dimino 10y agoIf people actually didn't care, it would be of no consequence to hear their home called a "McMansion", and yet I suspect we both would agree that folks probably don't appreciate their home being critiqued such as how the blog writes about homes. The reality is, most people would care if they knew, but don't know and therefore can't possibly care. It's not apathy, it's ignorance that drives the sale of McMansions, even though McMansions are "bad", in the sense that they break architectural principles and are considered poor reflections of art because of it. Obviously art isn't required to prevent rain from falling on your head, but the folks who are buying these houses are spending this extra money for something other than the literal safety, aren't they? If someone buys a McMansion for any aesthetic reason, then they are making a sub-optimal choice. I think the assumption the blog makes is that a McMansion is a failed attempt at creating art, not a rejection of the concept of home beauty.