11 ms·

I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing... However, something about it really bothers me. There was an episode of 99% Invisible

by uses 9y ago

I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing... 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.

angersock 9y ago
So, first, a lot of the architectural choices (especially if they were picked out by the homeowners and not by the architects) are done to ape (poorly) aristocratic and "Old Money" sorts of dwellings...so, making fun of them on a classist line is semi-acceptable. 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.
- mschaef 9y ago
  > there is no defending that. There is a lot of space between defending bad ideas and putting up a website to mock them.
chadgeidel 9y ago
The guest on that article and the blog author are the same person. 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?
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  to add, the blog doesn't just go: "its horrid" 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
- falsedan 9y ago
  > The blog is sarcastic in nature. What's wrong with that? 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"
  - chadgeidel 9y ago
    Builders and purchasers don't care about architecturally sophisticated dwellings because they are too busy "keeping up with the Joneses". I disagree with your assessment of elitism. If every "critique" is "elitism" then I really don't know how to respond.
    - falsedan 9y ago
      There's critiquing, and there's constructive feedback.
  - careersuicide 9y ago
scribu 9y ago
I propose an experiement to test the elitism hypothesis: Ask a random selection of people to rate various types of houses. If McMansions are rated poorly only by "elites", then the hypothesis is true. If they're rated poorly by everyone, it's false.
- laretluval 9y ago
  The hypothesis has already been tested: these houses sell very briskly. Edit: the points below are all fair.
  - spamizbad 9y ago
    Depends on the market. They're not so hot in the Chicago suburbs, where buyers have the option of newer construction "modern" homes in addition to pre-WWII vintage homes: https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/13/12902744/chicago-mcmansions-sales-report https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/13/12902744/chicago-mcmans... 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.
  - theptip 9y ago
    Data please. Briskly relative to other houses in the same size / price range?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Or proves that people prefer a lower price point over style. 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)
lliamander 9y ago
I understand the concern over elitism, and many of the good examples shown on the blog are very nice houses, but in my experience there are many humbler homes that are better than mcMansions. 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.
Medaber 9y ago
I agree. People should have the right to build ugly (in the eye of the beholder) houses. This is just petty jealousy.
rayiner 9y ago
I grew up in Northern Virginia among these McMansions, and frankly I don't buy the elitism angle. These folks have a lot of money (top 5% at least, if not even top 1%) and are among the best educated in the country. And these aren't dwellings driven by the need for functionality. It's not like people here have big families they need to house (empty nesters can afford them more readily than people with families!). They're designed, instead, to be conspicuous consumption. If you can't ridicule them for lacking taste you're basically saying that taste doesn't exist and everything is always subjective.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  Most of the McMansions around where I grew up in Northern Va. were fairly cookie cutter. Their lack of architectural unity seemed to be more of "We have X types of garages, Y types of base floorplans and Z types of entryways and so we'll just iterate on them for the whole neighborhood" 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. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeister_kink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeister_kink
  - mysterypie 9y ago
    > the architectural versions of Hofmeister kinks 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglet [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_uvula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_uvula
    - mywittyname 9y ago
      Maybe you'll appreciate Bangle Butt: the (usually chrome) strip across the trunk that modern cars have. It's named after the designer of the 2001 BMW 7 Series, Chris Bangle. 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.
spamizbad 9y ago
The person you're describing is a 23-year old woman who comes from a working-class background. Hardly elitist. McMansions are/were a status-symbol of the upper-middle class, and now they're being attacked from the bottom.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  She appears to be quite well-educated in the realm of architecture and its history. I personally enjoy her blog, but you don't have to be old and rich to be a snob.
- obstinate 9y ago
  She's also a socialist, for what it's worth, and involved in lobbying for quality affordable housing. That doesn't make her immune from attacks of classism, but it might affect how one judges what she says. (Also worth noting that McMansions are typically homes to the upper middle class and the rich, not the poor.)
arkades 9y ago
http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/162204726406/looking-around-introduction-where-most-of-us http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/162204726406/looking-ar... 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.
- uses 9y ago
  Thanks, that's actually pretty helpful. I think the term McMansions has a bit of a marketing problem now that I understand the purpose of the movement a bit better.
pwthornton 9y ago
As engineers and designers, we should side with her on this one. The core conceit of McMansion Hell is that these are this homes built without experts, particularly architects (but any kind of designer is absent from them). These are often big, expensive homes, where the builder and the buyer thought they didn't need the help of an actual professional. 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.
- sseveran 9y ago
  Post college I had a mentor that was in the real estate development business, not for McMansions, first time homebuyer and some developments in the next price point up (<$500K) in a major metro so I got to learn quite a lot about how this works. I am no fan of McMansions although my primary complaint is that many of them are just built so close together, not that their aesthetics are particularly bad. The style of home that I would build is not typically built by major developers like KHov or whoever. 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.
placeybordeaux 9y ago
There's definitely a good bit of gatekeeping here
allworknoplay 9y ago
I thought I was the only bothered by that blog (the 99pi episode was based on it). 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: ... that's it. No explanation, just "I'm right, they're wrong." It's just lousy, valueless criticism. Nobody would take this lazy opinion drivel from any other kind of critic. (Separate: Do I think zillow was right here? Of course not).
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >>A transom should never overwhelm the door or window [...] >... 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 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?
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    The blog works on two levels. The first is pointing out established architectural principles and traditions. 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.
- omikun 9y ago
  I think there is a fair dose of irony in your value judgement of her value judgement of the buyers' value judgement of McMansions. 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.
tormeh 9y ago
I kind of like the McMansion property of looking like the house was built piecewise. It's a little endearing, I find. Actually, Castle Neuschwanstein was built that way - it was all built in one go with modern techniques but has a lot of different submasses. But I have to say the execution is often lacking. Proportions have never been the strong suit of evolved buildings, but there's an obsession with traditional markers of wealth (roman columns, etc) that don't really work when you don't have the money to build the other things equally large.
nothis 9y ago
>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! 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.
- nickrivadeneira 9y ago
  Poorer people can still be elitist. Expressing cultural or artistic superiority is a form of elitism that doesn't require wealth.
  - bchalala 9y ago
    Yeah, poorer people can be elitist, but that doesn't necessarily make what McMansionHell is doing some elitist sort of enterprise. It's a guy/girl pointing out architectural flaws in buildings and discussing why they are flaws. It's as elitist as movie critic talking about a new film, and in that sense it's ridiculous that the site is being pulled down over this. You aren't entitled to have somebody agree with your taste. 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.
    - platinumrad 9y ago
      I don't think very many (or any) people are defending Zillow's attempt to take down the site. Most of the critiques expressed in this thread specifically address the content of the site itself not whether it should stay up. 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/."
siidooloo 9y ago
I think a lot of people here are confusing her criticisms of McMansions with criticisms of mansions in general.
smudgymcscmudge 9y ago
I felt the same way you did when I first read McMansion Hell, but despite my initial reaction I was compelled to keep reading. I came around to really like Kate. What is interesting to me is how polarizing she can be. Reading these comments confirms it.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Exactly, there's nothing wrong with Geocities style websites either, just snobbishness. /s
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  I mean, to be fair, there isn't anything wrong with Geocities-style websites. Some of us have fond memories of the mid-90s web, and dislike the trend of shoving 20MB of JavaScript down the reader's throat before they can get to the 20KB of text they're actually looking for.
ryguytilidie 9y ago
Doesn't the whole blog specifically point out examples on each house of why they think it is bad architecture? It's not like she just makes a blanket statement that they're bad with no supporting evidence. Every single post has a ton of valid critiques. I don't really know what there is to get.
blhack 9y ago
The only relevant question is: do the people living in these houses enjoy them? Because if they do, then who cares? 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-people-so-much.png http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/10/12-hate-pe... Looks really pretty to me. What seriously is the problem here?
- dgacmu 9y ago
  Trying to answer with the author of the mcmansion hell's viewpoint, the digrams on this post are helpful: http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions-101-what-makes-a-mcmansion-bad http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions... 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, ...
  - blhack 9y ago
    > It has a feeling of "someone stuck on this extra part here, this stairwell here, ..." Isn't that practically one of the defining characteristics of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses?
    - dagw 9y ago
      I wouldn't really say so: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb3bf806f15846c9a0122c078.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb... http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb326e99b77e/master/pass/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Ingalls%20House%201.jpg http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb32... http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/Elam-House-Peter-Plunkett-1024x683.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/El... https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Peterson-House-Kit-Hogan-1-1024x683.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Pe... http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Reisley-House.jpg http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-L...
partiallypro 9y ago
It's not just bad architecture, it's actually a bad investment.
abandonliberty 9y ago
Let's be real. I'm not an architect. I'm a layperson with a decent sense of aesthetics. 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?
- randcraw 9y ago
  Not at all. A well-chosen semi-formal jacket can be serve as a great contrast to worn denim lowers. But without attention to detail, you get a pale blue polyester leisure suit jacket over black stretch "jeans". And that doesn't express playfulness, so much as a doubling down on bad taste of biblical proportions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
soheil 9y ago
> The whole thing stank of classist elitism 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.
throwaway055 9y ago
There's definitely rampant classism going on here, but not in the direction you seem to think. 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.
- bchalala 9y ago
  The very nature of the houses in question are built for the sole purpose of showing some sort of opulence to the viewer. The people who buy these kind of houses look at that sort of opulence and say "yep it's got all that opulence I want" and they buy it. Now that same exact person could potentially buy something with taste, or potentially even design a house. It's not like these people are forced into having a stupid looking house. 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.
  - throwaway055 9y ago
    > 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. 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.
canoebuilder 9y ago
Robert Schumann started a magazine in which he railed against the musical Philistines of his day. We're still listening to the music of Schumann and those who he admired. The Philistines? Not so much. Was that "classist elitism," or did Schumann just know what he was talking about?

by uses 9y ago

angersock 9y ago

So, first, a lot of the architectural choices (especially if they were picked out by the homeowners and not by the architects) are done to ape (poorly) aristocratic and "Old Money" sorts of dwellings...so, making fun of them on a classist line is semi-acceptable. 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.

mschaef 9y ago
> there is no defending that. There is a lot of space between defending bad ideas and putting up a website to mock them.

chadgeidel 9y ago

The guest on that article and the blog author are the same person. 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?

KaiserPro 9y ago
to add, the blog doesn't just go: "its horrid" 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
falsedan 9y ago
> The blog is sarcastic in nature. What's wrong with that? 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"
- chadgeidel 9y ago
  Builders and purchasers don't care about architecturally sophisticated dwellings because they are too busy "keeping up with the Joneses". I disagree with your assessment of elitism. If every "critique" is "elitism" then I really don't know how to respond.
  - falsedan 9y ago
    There's critiquing, and there's constructive feedback.
- careersuicide 9y ago

scribu 9y ago

I propose an experiement to test the elitism hypothesis: Ask a random selection of people to rate various types of houses. If McMansions are rated poorly only by "elites", then the hypothesis is true. If they're rated poorly by everyone, it's false.

laretluval 9y ago
The hypothesis has already been tested: these houses sell very briskly. Edit: the points below are all fair.
- spamizbad 9y ago
  Depends on the market. They're not so hot in the Chicago suburbs, where buyers have the option of newer construction "modern" homes in addition to pre-WWII vintage homes: https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/13/12902744/chicago-mcmansions-sales-report https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/13/12902744/chicago-mcmans... 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.
- theptip 9y ago
  Data please. Briskly relative to other houses in the same size / price range?
- ethbro 9y ago
  Or proves that people prefer a lower price point over style. 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)

lliamander 9y ago

I understand the concern over elitism, and many of the good examples shown on the blog are very nice houses, but in my experience there are many humbler homes that are better than mcMansions. 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.

Medaber 9y ago

I agree. People should have the right to build ugly (in the eye of the beholder) houses. This is just petty jealousy.

rayiner 9y ago

I grew up in Northern Virginia among these McMansions, and frankly I don't buy the elitism angle. These folks have a lot of money (top 5% at least, if not even top 1%) and are among the best educated in the country. And these aren't dwellings driven by the need for functionality. It's not like people here have big families they need to house (empty nesters can afford them more readily than people with families!). They're designed, instead, to be conspicuous consumption. If you can't ridicule them for lacking taste you're basically saying that taste doesn't exist and everything is always subjective.

aidenn0 9y ago
Most of the McMansions around where I grew up in Northern Va. were fairly cookie cutter. Their lack of architectural unity seemed to be more of "We have X types of garages, Y types of base floorplans and Z types of entryways and so we'll just iterate on them for the whole neighborhood" 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. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeister_kink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeister_kink
- mysterypie 9y ago
  > the architectural versions of Hofmeister kinks 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aglet [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_uvula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatine_uvula
  - mywittyname 9y ago
    Maybe you'll appreciate Bangle Butt: the (usually chrome) strip across the trunk that modern cars have. It's named after the designer of the 2001 BMW 7 Series, Chris Bangle. 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.

spamizbad 9y ago

The person you're describing is a 23-year old woman who comes from a working-class background. Hardly elitist. McMansions are/were a status-symbol of the upper-middle class, and now they're being attacked from the bottom.

mi100hael 9y ago
She appears to be quite well-educated in the realm of architecture and its history. I personally enjoy her blog, but you don't have to be old and rich to be a snob.
obstinate 9y ago
She's also a socialist, for what it's worth, and involved in lobbying for quality affordable housing. That doesn't make her immune from attacks of classism, but it might affect how one judges what she says. (Also worth noting that McMansions are typically homes to the upper middle class and the rich, not the poor.)

arkades 9y ago

http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/162204726406/looking-around-introduction-where-most-of-us http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/162204726406/looking-ar... 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.

uses 9y ago
Thanks, that's actually pretty helpful. I think the term McMansions has a bit of a marketing problem now that I understand the purpose of the movement a bit better.

pwthornton 9y ago

As engineers and designers, we should side with her on this one. The core conceit of McMansion Hell is that these are this homes built without experts, particularly architects (but any kind of designer is absent from them). These are often big, expensive homes, where the builder and the buyer thought they didn't need the help of an actual professional. 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.

sseveran 9y ago
Post college I had a mentor that was in the real estate development business, not for McMansions, first time homebuyer and some developments in the next price point up (<$500K) in a major metro so I got to learn quite a lot about how this works. I am no fan of McMansions although my primary complaint is that many of them are just built so close together, not that their aesthetics are particularly bad. The style of home that I would build is not typically built by major developers like KHov or whoever. 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.

placeybordeaux 9y ago

There's definitely a good bit of gatekeeping here

allworknoplay 9y ago

I thought I was the only bothered by that blog (the 99pi episode was based on it). 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: ... that's it. No explanation, just "I'm right, they're wrong." It's just lousy, valueless criticism. Nobody would take this lazy opinion drivel from any other kind of critic. (Separate: Do I think zillow was right here? Of course not).

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>>A transom should never overwhelm the door or window [...] >... 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 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?
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  The blog works on two levels. The first is pointing out established architectural principles and traditions. 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.
omikun 9y ago
I think there is a fair dose of irony in your value judgement of her value judgement of the buyers' value judgement of McMansions. 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.

tormeh 9y ago

I kind of like the McMansion property of looking like the house was built piecewise. It's a little endearing, I find. Actually, Castle Neuschwanstein was built that way - it was all built in one go with modern techniques but has a lot of different submasses. But I have to say the execution is often lacking. Proportions have never been the strong suit of evolved buildings, but there's an obsession with traditional markers of wealth (roman columns, etc) that don't really work when you don't have the money to build the other things equally large.

nothis 9y ago

>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! 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.

nickrivadeneira 9y ago
Poorer people can still be elitist. Expressing cultural or artistic superiority is a form of elitism that doesn't require wealth.
- bchalala 9y ago
  Yeah, poorer people can be elitist, but that doesn't necessarily make what McMansionHell is doing some elitist sort of enterprise. It's a guy/girl pointing out architectural flaws in buildings and discussing why they are flaws. It's as elitist as movie critic talking about a new film, and in that sense it's ridiculous that the site is being pulled down over this. You aren't entitled to have somebody agree with your taste. 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.
  - platinumrad 9y ago
    I don't think very many (or any) people are defending Zillow's attempt to take down the site. Most of the critiques expressed in this thread specifically address the content of the site itself not whether it should stay up. 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/."

siidooloo 9y ago

I think a lot of people here are confusing her criticisms of McMansions with criticisms of mansions in general.

smudgymcscmudge 9y ago

I felt the same way you did when I first read McMansion Hell, but despite my initial reaction I was compelled to keep reading. I came around to really like Kate. What is interesting to me is how polarizing she can be. Reading these comments confirms it.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Exactly, there's nothing wrong with Geocities style websites either, just snobbishness. /s

cookiecaper 9y ago
I mean, to be fair, there isn't anything wrong with Geocities-style websites. Some of us have fond memories of the mid-90s web, and dislike the trend of shoving 20MB of JavaScript down the reader's throat before they can get to the 20KB of text they're actually looking for.

ryguytilidie 9y ago

Doesn't the whole blog specifically point out examples on each house of why they think it is bad architecture? It's not like she just makes a blanket statement that they're bad with no supporting evidence. Every single post has a ton of valid critiques. I don't really know what there is to get.

blhack 9y ago

The only relevant question is: do the people living in these houses enjoy them? Because if they do, then who cares? 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-people-so-much.png http://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/10/12-hate-pe... Looks really pretty to me. What seriously is the problem here?

dgacmu 9y ago
Trying to answer with the author of the mcmansion hell's viewpoint, the digrams on this post are helpful: http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions-101-what-makes-a-mcmansion-bad http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions... 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, ...
- blhack 9y ago
  > It has a feeling of "someone stuck on this extra part here, this stairwell here, ..." Isn't that practically one of the defining characteristics of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses?
  - dagw 9y ago
    I wouldn't really say so: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb3bf806f15846c9a0122c078.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb... http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb326e99b77e/master/pass/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Ingalls%20House%201.jpg http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb32... http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/Elam-House-Peter-Plunkett-1024x683.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/El... https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Peterson-House-Kit-Hogan-1-1024x683.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Pe... http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Reisley-House.jpg http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-L...

partiallypro 9y ago

It's not just bad architecture, it's actually a bad investment.

abandonliberty 9y ago

Let's be real. I'm not an architect. I'm a layperson with a decent sense of aesthetics. 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?

randcraw 9y ago
Not at all. A well-chosen semi-formal jacket can be serve as a great contrast to worn denim lowers. But without attention to detail, you get a pale blue polyester leisure suit jacket over black stretch "jeans". And that doesn't express playfulness, so much as a doubling down on bad taste of biblical proportions.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

soheil 9y ago

> The whole thing stank of classist elitism 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.

throwaway055 9y ago

There's definitely rampant classism going on here, but not in the direction you seem to think. 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.

bchalala 9y ago
The very nature of the houses in question are built for the sole purpose of showing some sort of opulence to the viewer. The people who buy these kind of houses look at that sort of opulence and say "yep it's got all that opulence I want" and they buy it. Now that same exact person could potentially buy something with taste, or potentially even design a house. It's not like these people are forced into having a stupid looking house. 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.
- throwaway055 9y ago
  > 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. 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.

canoebuilder 9y ago

Robert Schumann started a magazine in which he railed against the musical Philistines of his day. We're still listening to the music of Schumann and those who he admired. The Philistines? Not so much. Was that "classist elitism," or did Schumann just know what he was talking about?