Thank you, that's what I kept expecting the article to say. I was waiting for them to say "this looks bad because they cheaped out", "this looks bad because it

Thank you, that's what I kept expecting the article to say. I was waiting for them to say "this looks bad because they cheaped out", "this looks bad because it was designed around spare parts", "this feature is a sign that they were cutting costs", etc. But they didn't. They just said "this is bad, moving on, this one's bad too, next one..." As it stands, it's a McMansion of an article. A lot of things thrown together without any rhyme or reason, sold to people who don't know any better, and marketed as the epitome of high culture. It did nothing to further my understanding of what is a good house and what is a bad house except "if you cut it in half, you have two identical halves... most of the time... but not always". I understand why McMansions suck, and I can use the same reasons to say the same thing about the McMansion Hell articles. They're full of "this is bad" without any "this is why" attached. And a lot of the "this is bad" stuff appears on houses that are definitively not McMansions (like villas and 13th century manors).