3 ms·

We all know what "makes it bad". It's a symbol of wealth that isn't nearly as expensive as it looks. That's what offends people here. Everything else is the be

We all know what "makes it bad". It's a symbol of wealth that isn't nearly as expensive as it looks. That's what offends people here. Everything else is the best excuse they can come up with. The issue is that with things that are truly expensive are equally bullshit. Art, for instance, is first of all, mostly not even made by the artist that signed it, secondly, it doesn't have a deeper meaning, thirdly, the difference between absurdly celebrated art (say Gogh, or Michelangelo) and the (many) works of unknown masters is ... tenuous at best. Same with diamonds and gold, as pointed out many times in the economic discussions. Symbols of wealth that don't prove wealth ... people feel this is how they "prove" their own value, how they get respect, and so on. And if a symbol of wealth gets reliably faked ... people are very upset. In reality we should celebrate that this is possible, of course, but in practice people who have paid a lot fear it will destroy their self-worth.

dsr_ 8y ago
I think McMansions are bad because for the same money, a much better* house could have been made in the same location. *better: more affordances for the way people actually live; easier to move around in; easier to clean; stronger construction; more suited to the local climate; more efficient to heat and/or cool; and on and on in that vein.
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  Most of the criticism in the article seems to be external, though. No mention of such practicalities as mobility within the house or ease of maintenance, just the aesthetics of the exterior.
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    This particular article is meant for people who have read some large fraction of the entire series, not as an introduction. A typical McMansion Hell post covers either a single architectural topic (four-square houses, or columns, or windows) or a single house in more depth, with most of the attention being paid to the interior. Yes, I'm a fan.
- candiodari 8y ago
  But people don't want that. People want the symbolism, even if fake, that the looks project. Doesn't that matter ?

dsr_ 8y ago

I think McMansions are bad because for the same money, a much better* house could have been made in the same location. *better: more affordances for the way people actually live; easier to move around in; easier to clean; stronger construction; more suited to the local climate; more efficient to heat and/or cool; and on and on in that vein.

throwaway080383 8y ago
Most of the criticism in the article seems to be external, though. No mention of such practicalities as mobility within the house or ease of maintenance, just the aesthetics of the exterior.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  This particular article is meant for people who have read some large fraction of the entire series, not as an introduction. A typical McMansion Hell post covers either a single architectural topic (four-square houses, or columns, or windows) or a single house in more depth, with most of the attention being paid to the interior. Yes, I'm a fan.
candiodari 8y ago
But people don't want that. People want the symbolism, even if fake, that the looks project. Doesn't that matter ?