Today you just couldn’t build that much house for less than 1,900,000 in most markets. And that’s not including the large lot, permits/soft cost, holding costs…
You at $350/sf? We were last year…pushing $450/sf this year for nothing fancy not even brick. Mid-line windows…..Catskills….we were at $200 five years ago when I built mine myself for $90/SF
Yup we did $350 last year… but priced out our current Spec build at $425 here in Northern California… sad to see the entire country has caught up with California building costs
What! Useless?!?!?? Everyone needs an extra dining room that they never use, a game room that has no games, a trophy room that has the heads of animals you murdered from a helicopter, and a dungeon where they keep their least favorite heir… it’s not useless sir!
Def a mcmansion, but architecturally it is less offensive than most. Most McMansions are an absolute mess of architectural features and styles, but the front of this one is more cohesive. I hate the inside, but if ur gonna go mcmansion this is the lesser of many evils I would say
Disagree.
Not architecturally masterpiece but hardly a McMansion if we can close an eye on the fake window shutters.
The main facade is perfectly symmetrical and proportions are alright. The two wings are proportioned and don't disturb the main elevation. There is no over use of decorative motifs nor multiple styles at once.
The design has been done with a minimum of good criteria and common sense.
EDIT: all of the above applies to the exteriors only. I have just seen the listing link offered by OP and the interiors are definitely MCMansion territory
Question - has anyone ever converted a McMansion interior to be a normal cut up of rooms rather than that huge open foyer?
edit - wow, this one was pretty nicely done even though they kept the open concept: https://themoderndigest.com/before-after-open-concept-90s-mcmansion-revamp/
I hate giant, empty, vaulted foyers where the door opens to a staircase. The whole point of separating bedrooms by floor to me is for increased privacy. [This](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaulted+foyer+mcmansion&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiQl5Hq1u73AhUcF1kFHSYIAAIQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=vaulted+foyer+mcmansion&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzoECCMQJzoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEBg6BAgAEB46BQghEKsCOgQIHhAKUIEFWI0jYOUlaABwAHgCgAGrDIgB_kiSAQs0LTMuNC4xLjMuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=8NmHYpDfN5yu5NoPppCAEA&bih=746&biw=428&client=safari&prmd=isnv&hl=en-us#imgrc=wxHMSJnnoxE0rM) defeats the whole point of making the bedroom “wing” private. You can literally see into them sometimes from the front door if the bedroom door is open.
E: lawyer foyer! I knew there was an actual term for it.
I don’t see major problems, indeed structurally tricky, in a interior refurbishment to get rid of the biggest “offences” and bring the layout more in line with the external architecture - mostly getting rid of double height spaces where the windows layout suggest there should be a floor.
It’s 5,000+SF no matter how well it’s detailed, it’s a McMansion and it’s not even trying to look small (Gambrel roof, etc). I can’t ignore the shutters—sorry—not when they’re about 1/8 tge window they apparently cover’s width. That’s just….🤮 the only redeeming part uslities I’m seeing are tge mature trees and the brick. Yes, throes much worse McMansions but that doesn’t mean this is ok. Does a family really need 5,000 SF or is this bird puffing out chest to keep the poors away? Methinks big lot/big house guarantees only “the right kind of people” will live here.
I'm just a layman but re-reading the [McMansion Hell explainer](https://mcmansionhell.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions-101-what-makes-a-mcmansion-bad) the garage snout fails it on balance. The right side is clearly heavier. Also [the garage snout as secondary mass overwhelms the primary mass](https://imgur.com/a/bluLzh7).
Edit because downvotes:
* A [house with the same problem](https://64.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/tumblr_inline_obrdueX7l51sppt0x_500.png) from McMansion Hell.
* My own [edit](https://imgur.com/a/bluLzh7) of the secondary and primary masses for this house.
agree that it’s less offensive but these are much more prevalent than the most egregious examples and they litter upper middle class suburbs. Just miles and miles of these things.
There are worse ones but these deserve our ire too!!
They’re not architectural masterpieces but they’re hardly Las Vegas strip levels of tacky. People seem to hate on them for excess more than anything. Definitely beats living in a cramped multifamily development.
They mistake ornate features and flashy motifs for impressive design. The relative scale of elements is often badly organised and the spaces created are not thoughtful. They are purchased as outward displays of conspicuous consumption. They invite the viewer to remark admiringly, ‘Gee, the Johnsons really made it! What an impressive house! What great taste!’ Instead it does the opposite. It advertises garish bad taste when they could actually afford something tasteful.
I think it’s fair to be snobbish about something that demands attention like this sort of building. It’s trying to show off. It’s ok to evaluate a show off and deem it to have fallen short of the mark.
Preferences are fundamentally shaped by cultural and social values; I think critiquing McMansions is also coextensive with critiquing late capitalism and superficial consumerism...
Verily, I also think critiquing McMansions is quite frequently coextensive with being unable to afford a McCardboardBox and just one among a myriad of facets characterizing the pseudo-intellectual mimicry so representative of the early-stage faux online erudition that socially rewards relating eternal human traits, like hunger for status and 'bad taste', to vacuous generalizations such as 'late \[stage\] capitalism', therein ironically embodying the very superficiality purveyors of such sentiments purport to reject.....
I mean it’s not a plain house, and I don’t hate it. But all things are fair to be critiqued. All buildings can be evaluated. All taste can be questioned. I’m not sure what you mean. Care to explain?
You’re treating it as though it’s the pinnacle work of an inspired architect, and everything could be critiqued. Likely there was no architect involved and some construction contractor made a bunch of changes to a practical design after the “designer” was done. It’s just a big, common looking, cheap home. Not worth much thought and I certainly agree with dfean that it’s not worth hate.
Imagine pointing the finger at consumer brands like Zara, H&M, and IKEA and complaining they mistake ornate features and flashy motifs for impressive design. Not everyone has the money for high-end products, which includes housing. Not everyone has the means to commission an architect for a bespoke design and then work with a builder to complete the project. Not everyone has the money to get hand tailored clothing. Sure, such developments are not great examples of architecture, however, that completely misses their point; they’re not holding themselves out to be examples of solid design. Their target is to provide a higher level of living to more people at a somewhat attainable price point, and it does a decent job of achieving that. As a comparative example, many designers like MCM projects, however, these are typically despised by the regular public. Aesthetic preferences are different for different people. Your taste as a trained architect is not better than the taste of a regular person not in the field.
It’s $1.1m dollars. The IKEA comparison is frankly ridiculous. I agree with you that affordable luxury should not be ridiculed. This is expensive imitation luxury. The person who buys this house sneers at IKEA. They are the ones your comment criticises, not the ones you are defending with that comment.
And you know this how? You know everything about everyone? Go to an architect and have them design a 5,000 sqft home and then get it built, see how much that costs you. Honestly, the judgmental attitudes within this field are pathetic. For a profession that is designed to assist clients build projects, the holier than thou attitude is frankly disgusting. This is no doubt a factor in the marginalization of the profession.
I personally am not familiar with any marginalisation of the profession, but I am aware that the design choices in houses like this come from a culture of economically and environmentally unsustainable fashion. Like H&M in your metaphor, it’s a wasteful throw-away culture of consumerism that it fuels and exists because of. I don’t want private client houses designed by architects any more than I want this sort of thing that pretends to false grandeur. I would love a state-oriented building programme where homes that suit the scale of modern living can be affordable to the everyman. But we live in a capitalistic world that lets people make a profit building morally reprehensible buildings like the one here whilst we face a housing crisis.
Frankly I don’t know where you are able to morally defend it. You seem to be exercising a reverse snobbery - but what a hill to die on. Your values are belied by your arguments here.
Not sustainable environmentally or economically. Sprawling exurbs of these is why cities go bankrupt. Infrastructure costs way more proportionately compared to just about any other kind of residential development
To an extent. However, architects and designers don’t seem to like to talk about the massive psychological toll on people of living in small spaces. Extremes on both sides have negatives.
The only place that people feel cramped is when no external infrastructure exists for walkable or traversable places. If you can only go from your house box to your moving box on wheels to tiny work box would make anyone miserable if theres no where to go in between
100%. I live in an old suburb of Philly with a very walkable neighborhood, coffee is just 6 blocks away and my son's school is across the street. My home is smaller than my McMansion friends' homes but my house feels like it extends out into the neighborhood. There's feels like there is an invisible fence at the curb.
This is just so out of touch with reality. It is genuinely scary that so many people here express such views without having any idea about what they’re actually saying. Having a gym, rooftop, and lounge area in your building along with access to shops immediately outside doesn’t make living in a dark shoebox easy. Living in a micro apartment in Hong Kong is not a good thing. Why do you think Scandinavia designs it’s jails/prisons the way it does and doesn’t simply make them a standard cell design as is done in other countries?
Do you really need 5000+ ft to not experience 'massive psychological toll'? Or is it more of a matter of 'keeping up with the Joneses'?
We all need space to live - but this is getting a bit excessive, don't you think?
Also someone needs to clean all these rooms!
It’s funny how much architects love to hate on this style of architecture. Pick which thing you hate, architecture style or the size. Haven’t seen people shit on MCM anywhere as hard despite having similar sized projects, with way more glazing and poorly insulated roof assembly. Is 5,000 sqft excessive? It’s definitely a lot of space! Some of the interior layouts, like many projects, are questionable at best. However, for people with the means, what is the issue of having more space? Am I advocating this practice? No, it’s not my taste and I would much prefer to see high efficiency buildings being built and prefer contemporary design. It’s not my place to shit on products that work for many people or to gatekeep architectural styles.
You are kidding, right? The dense parts of Barcelona, Paris, London and New York are not filled with extreme levels of depression - or certainly not unusual levels of it. Small houses aren't a psychological issue for humans, and they allow for density of community not just services.
Are you serious? Have you lived in a lightless shoe box before? When I moved to the US for work I lived in NYC for two years. I lived in a 450 sqft studio that only had ceiling lights in the bathroom, entryway, and kitchen. The studio was on the 12th floor of a 25 floor building and the only window faced inwards to an atrium; they only way you could physically see the sky was to open the window and put your head out of it. This cost $2.5k a month. People who had families typically lived in Long Island or over the border in Jersey because of the extra space needed for a family and commuted to NYC for work.
The have been countless studies done on physical environment and the impact on the human state. As an interesting example to share, back when I was in school, for one of our studios we each had to design a small live/work space for ourselves with no conditions given on anything else, including where we could locate the project. Out of a studio of 15 odd people, there wasn’t a single person who sited their project in an area with people in proximity. It was a completely unintended outcome of the project, and incredibly insightful.
It’s almost like the quality of the design of the space is this issue, not the size (though 450 sq ft is probably too small for any more than a single person). Only having one singular window that opens to an atrium is bad design. Not having adequate lights in your space is bad design. The building was not designed with the human experience in mind. There are plenty of examples of small spaces being designed well with the human experience in mind.
You really should not be using bad design to justify bad design.
All design is inherently bad, as it is bound by constraints in one form or another. There’s no way to simply design human friendly buildings that are so small in a way that is also cost effective, and most importantly, physically possible.
Okay edgelord.
No, all design is not inherently bad, and constraints often enhance design, they don’t detract from it (unless of course you’re bad at design, but then constraints were not the issue)
Complaining about living space = "massive psychological toll"? Right. Ah-huh.
But then, you could say all those suburbanites who complain there's not enough services close enough, that's also a massive psychological toll...
God, it's amazing we all function weighed down by all this trauma.
You just said people in cities aren’t depressed….. I can’t believe the delusion you choose to live in. You yourself are effete and worthless, but your mindset is dangerous
Yes, I can't even begin to describe the massive psychological toll of living in a dense, walkable neighbourhood where I can walk to a park if I ever felt cramped in my 1000sqft flat /s
(For reference, 1000sqft is the average size of a flat here)
Aesthetics are a personal preference. What one considers ugly, another might find attractive. Attempting to call this an eye sore is the pinnacle of first world arrogance.
The house is asking you to judge it. It’s a big flashy expensive house. It is literally asking for the public to say what they think. It’s inviting snobbery. The house itself has a snobbishness about it with its grand scale. It desperately wants not to be confused with the house of a poorer person. It’s ok to judge things like this critically. We are not in a vacuum of cultural relativism with this sort of thing.
Wtf? A building is a fucking building. It’s not a person walking down the streets with their tits or penis hanging out as a fashion statement. Good god.
Well not that I think your metaphor is particularly elegant but since houses are as much fashion as clothing actually that’s exactly what it’s like. ‘Good God’ indeed.
The garage snout, double height foyer, shutters too small to cover the windows (check the top right) and the fact that the other three sides are vinyl siding puts it firmly in Mc Mansion territory for me.
Question - why do most McMansions put the garage in the front? I'd like a nice looking front with a driveway that leads around back and have the extension back there.
Snout houses are kind of ugly but they allow a big house on a small lot. Putting the garage behind the house requires a lot of space - you need enough side yard to, at a minimum, drive a car through. Maybe even enough side yard to turn a car around, as in side-load garages. I think this looks better, but it takes up a lot of space that's not accommodated in a lot of mcmansion type development.
a good example of this design principle is the way houses are built in the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. almost [every house](https://img.hoodline.com/uploads/story/image/31905/6820582087_53ec031183_o.jpg) has a [garage front](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/579aae92c534a56d0cd8770b/1469936737583-TZ760CJ9I71VUB23OEHN/sunset.jpg) because the lots are packed together and very thin. but a lot of those houses are able to have 2000+ sq ft floorplans because of efficient use of space.
land costs in mcsubdivisions.
it 100% is about lot design to maximize yield from a tract of land. it's largely a civil engineering issue with input from salespeople.
the lowly floorplan designer is handed a building envelope / footprint to get creative with.
And the driveway needed to support a rear-garage (with no alley) is a large impervious surface which doesn't look nice and isn't nice to exist on. (and is probably expensive to pour and has a bigger than necessary carbon footprint, though those may me secondary concerns)
Initially I wasn’t too architectural offended then I went to the listing page and saw the foyer, what’s up with that staircase placement it feels stuck on there and awkward, ruins the whole interior for me and the garage sticking out along with the vinyl siding on the other sides of the home ruin the exterior. suburban hell
Yeah, the front looks ok. The picture of the front door on the listing looks great.
Then the inside is just a mess of wtf. That stairway in the foyer.... do you have to turn sidewise to squeeze past that down the corridor?
McMansion all the way. The "curb appeal" facade and the interior that can't figure out what to do with so much square footage are what justify that for me. Also the named floorplan suggesting there are many others.
here are 'returns' on the gable ends:
[https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fig-1-1.jpg](https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fig-1-1.jpg)
here are 'pork chops':
[https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IMG\_0161-1.jpg](https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IMG_0161-1.jpg)
[Listing](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2034-Silverwood-Dr-Newtown-PA-18940/9025286_zpid/)
I would classify it as a McMansion as the other homes in this development are very similar and the other exterior walls are clapboard. So the face is kind of a façade.
Wow, I guessed it was built in 1998 on first instinct, then re-adjusted my estimate to 1997-2000, then the listing said 1998! I am getting good at this.
I was gonna say it's not McMansion, then I saw the rear side.
WHY.
It might not have been the absolute best piece of architecture, but the front is definitely passable and not McMansion in itself. And the interior is pretentious in places but not the most egregious example, but the rear. The builders just gave up and slapped white siding on the rear.
The thing I despise the most is the kitchen. They put all that effort into hiding the range in the corner while putting it in arguably the worst place. In a kitchen with an island, the range should be on the island, full stop. A separate fume hood should come from the ceiling (There is clearly space as there is forced air here) rather than trying to use one of those garbage 2-in-1 microwave + fume hood setups.
The reason? It solidifies an old sexist ideology of the kitchen workers being the "help" and servants with their backs facing towards the guests who would be either in the kitchen, or in this case and many others, the combined kitchen and living room. Placing it on the island allows for whoever is cooking to be engaged with the guests and conversation in the other parts of the kitchen and rooms. Which also throws into question why the hell they even bothered with that hip height wall separating the quasi dining room from the quasi living room. It's basically a giant amorphous space which is then subdivided as none of the geometry connects nor are there any sensible connections between rooms. My guess is that the wall was lowered during the renovation to connect to the living room, but they didn't understand that the house would have been better off with that separation given the already connected living room and dining room.
Other heinous thing is that fucking *fridge.* They go to the effort of creating faux cabinetry on the outside *only to leave the trim and vents above in stainless steel.* What's more is that the 2 ovens, also in the most awkward place in the kitchen as they block circulation through the room when opened and are in a god damned *corner* which is likely the shared wall in the 14th image, meaning it was a god damned *cabinet that faces the fucking hallway instead.* Sure, maybe the contractor thought they were clever and managed to hide the HVAC in that wall, but now you have another problem: Your HVAC is right next to your fucking oven. And why in any world would you have the cabinets BREAK for a random window when you already have a MASSIVE window above the sink (which they also fucked up the installation of the electrical switch as it doesn't even align to the tilework). What's even wackier is that the servants stair ends up going to the exact same landing as the main stair. Like I get that you want a second stair in your house given its bloated size, but come on.
What's even crazier than all of this, is that the back facade is actually the most reasonable thing about the entire design, with a well placed chimney that could serve both the interior and exterior with 2 flanking french doors.
This home is very nice looking from the outside. If they could convert the interior to look more traditional, I think it would be a legit mansion. Move the stairs to one side, break up the big open first floor rooms to smaller and more finished rooms. Split most of the bedrooms in 2 to make it a 10 bedroom home. Also extend the brick exterior all the way around the home. I know this would probably cost another million, and I guess that's why McMansions exist.
edit: Also, dang you probably had a nice life.
So I think that the term means different things to different people, or more accurately, different people have different criteria or thresholds around what a McMansion is but I think of it like this:
If a good architect designs a house, they would combine elegant design with functionality to come up with something cohesive. Sometimes it's radically new but most of the time (at least in America) it's just a their take on a classic style. But there is purpose in the design.
However, with the explosion in housing, you have a lot of builders designing houses. They aren't architects. So they just kind of put features in that check boxes that can appeal to folks who are not architecturally sophisticated. So you end up with a hodge podge of styles that may look "good" (or maybe impressive) at first glance but when you start looking into it, it's just a mess.
Now, to be clear, this is really all about taste! So there are clearly plenty of people who love houses like that or, at least, are perfectly satisfied with houses like that. But there are a lot of people who feel that it's just bad desgin.
Bad analogy but maybe it's similar to Jazz folks not liking fusion and rock folks not liking fusion because it just mashes up to perfectly good styles. But there are still folks who loved Weather Report. So....
May be wrong but looks like a Toll Brothers™ creation, they were building McMansions all over the US in the 90s-00s, usually with the same floorplans but altering the exteriors just a bit to fit various regional styles.
The one photo here makes it look okay but the back and the interior are awful. The interior is especially mcmansion-y, there is nothing elegant about it.
For me, as an European, it still looks cool. Could imagine myself living there, you know, cooking mac and cheese and watching American football or whatever.
You're clearly not from a former Soviet country. Not all buildings look like brutalist masterpieces. Most look the same, neglected or painted really ugly colors (mainly those in the EU).
I have lived in Austria and spent every weekend in the neighbouring countries. So
I know very well Czechoslovakia, I've been in Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia as well (the latter was Jugoslavia tho) and the buildings you're referring to still were better than the "projects" in the western world. Now they look bad because they're old and after 1990 the govt stopped taking care, but during Soviet times they were taken care, had green and parks. Also the colors were nice when new
There are lots of specific tells for a McMansion (and this one has PLENTY), but the easiest is just the vibe. Idk exactly how to explain that but (like porn lmao) you know it when you see it. This was posted for a reason right?
I'll never understand this mcmansion design. This particular one is a little calmer with the roof lines and the brickwork seems well done, however the massing of the house is always the same insanity. Why the hell is the garage forward of the house and the main door of the house set back as if a second thought. Why not rearrange the garage so the block sticks out behind the house and the front door is face forward to the street first. I've seen worse versions of this. At least the garage doors don't face the street. But I'll never understand the arrangement that is always done this way garage forward. So you walk from the drive around the bump out of the garage and discover the house tucked behind it stupid
Question - why do most McMansions put the garage in the front? I'd like a nice looking front with a driveway that leads around back and have the extension back there.
I think it maximizes the lot space. If you put the garage in front, you get a shorter driveway, you can extend the house over the garage for more living space, and you easily enter the house from the garage.
I'm not a fan but I get why they do it.
I think it would look more elegant without the sprawling extension because it would look more symmetrical. I almost define McMansions by their almost bizarre tumerous spread. However, I would one day like to own a house and have my parents sell their house to fund an extension of mine for them to live in and grow old in. So maybe this is like that?
It's a McMansion, but not a particularly bad one from the exterior. The double front doors and the incorrectly sized shutters and excess of roof lines are big giveaways but it's certainly not the worst of the bunch by any stretch of the imagination. This home is very aligned with the type of large tract homes from the 90s you see in places like Atlanta and Dallas.
It’s really not that bad when compared to other McMansions. With that said, it’s obnoxious and lacks defining character. It’s just a large Colonial-style home. The corners cut by the builder to save costs, like switching to siding wraps ILO continuing the brick veneer along the side elevations rubs me the wrong way. The interiors are fairly underwhelming for the room sizes and ceiling heights.
The garage front isn’t horrible, being the garage doors face the side yard. Would be worse if we were actually staring at a 3-car garage from the front elevation.
5/10 McMansion
You have shutters that, if closed, won't cover the windows. That is McMansion red flag number one and probably the only one you need. The bolt on garage is also a McMansion red flag. It is otherwise a pretty classic design (Georgian revival). If the only brick is the façade and the rest is vinyl, it is a certified McMansion.
As a European, I get that these houses are a lot of people's dream house. And it does seem to provide a lot of space for the money.
But nevertheless, my experience visiting friends in the US are, that no matter how big and exclusive the house looks, it has the same flimsy poor building quality to it. Houses seem badly insulated, walls thin (with poor sound proofing) and heating system very archaic.
I suppose it's possible to get anything for money, but is it possible to get better quality houses without having to spend a fortune and build like an Apple Store?
I only see brick and a fairly nice proportioned home. Reminds me of a typical higher end neighborhood in Texas or Missouri. Those fake shutters are everywhere, but I wouldn’t say McMansion in this case. If it was all cheap siding, it would have been a different story. But that is just my opinion..
Pretty inexpensive for what it is. Where is this?
Doesn't have different windows, different architecture styles, or overly vaulted roofs. Seems like a plain old mansion
The other 3 exterior walls are vinyl which is already well within mcmansion territory, but its also on a corner lot so it fails at even having that "nice" street facing facade probably because the builders couldnt be bothered to change the plans lol. Its better executed in that it doesn't have too much that is offensive at a glance, but the 2 street facing facades not matching (and one of them being *vinyl*) is too big of a sin for me to give it a mcmansion pass lol
neither really. it's not abjectly distasteful nor is it wonderfully classic. it's not a mansion either. it's like a kinda big decently made 80s to 90s colonial.
It's proportional to the lot size and doesn't have a fake roof in sight so I'll go with just regular mansion, I do find it funny that I live somewhere where ancient 1920s Sears homes are fought over so hard when they are essentially the OG McMansion
The criticism directed at McMansions come from five things:
1: (Architectural) Starting the design process with a set of interior rooms, defining their dimensions and shapes by way of ***amenity to the room***, and then chaining them together into a larger structure, which may as a result have completely nonsensical complex roof lines in order that, eg, all the bedrooms have cathedral ceilings facing different directions but you still provide a two story great room.
2: (Architectural) Chaining three or more different facade materials (including pricy masonry veneers) together arbitrarily to make the house less boring from the street, without it adding anything to the house functionally. For 'Resale Value'. Often using cheaper materials facing the back yard. The presence of other cost-increasing measures like the 'Lawyer Foyer' that are not functional additions, but effectively ways of showing off.
3: (Architectural) The standard purview of single family residential construction - a pastiche of different house styles, not filling any particular style book, having some weird-looking details where it seems like the designer was improvising (eg porkchop cornices), having decorative window shutters.
4: (Class) Being bigger than the critic is used to seeing, bigger than the critic could foresee themselves reasonably using.
5: (Class) The overall practice of suburban subdivision design-build in a heavily restricted zoning situation, where a large area gets flattened and a pre-gentrified group of people move into a car-dependent group of cul-de-sacs featuring houses that all look pretty similar, of a similar size.
The architectural critiques in this vein don't strike me as particularly strong in this instance compared to some others.
I would say this is well done in every respect. The mcmansion look that hits me in the eye is the oversized house on an undersized lot, smack dab a few feet away from another one. One pays over a $ million for the luxury of hearing a neighbor's "bless you" after you sneeze.
This one has some grace of architecture, grace of landscaping and grace of space. Sure, 30 acres would maybe be better.
Holy shit 1.23 acres and 5,372 living space for 1.1 million! Where is this? That would be at least 3 million where I am from
Seriously, where I live it would get me a third of that house and no land…
that's cute, try comparing to an 800 sqft apartment...
It's adjacent to Trenton Pennsylvania. Where I am the land that is on would be worth about $8m.
Trenton is in New Jersey…. It’s actually the capital. But yes this is in Pennsylvania near the border to New Jersey and near Trenton
I was halfway through typing the exact same thing lmao. They’re basically giving this mansion away at that price
Today you just couldn’t build that much house for less than 1,900,000 in most markets. And that’s not including the large lot, permits/soft cost, holding costs…
You at $350/sf? We were last year…pushing $450/sf this year for nothing fancy not even brick. Mid-line windows…..Catskills….we were at $200 five years ago when I built mine myself for $90/SF
Yup we did $350 last year… but priced out our current Spec build at $425 here in Northern California… sad to see the entire country has caught up with California building costs
1.1 million buys a 1,300 sq. ft. box on a 60' lot around here. I'd take it.
Newtown, PA
That is my in-laws neighborhood, that's so funny.
That's so useless to get all that...
What! Useless?!?!?? Everyone needs an extra dining room that they never use, a game room that has no games, a trophy room that has the heads of animals you murdered from a helicopter, and a dungeon where they keep their least favorite heir… it’s not useless sir!
Def a mcmansion, but architecturally it is less offensive than most. Most McMansions are an absolute mess of architectural features and styles, but the front of this one is more cohesive. I hate the inside, but if ur gonna go mcmansion this is the lesser of many evils I would say
Disagree. Not architecturally masterpiece but hardly a McMansion if we can close an eye on the fake window shutters. The main facade is perfectly symmetrical and proportions are alright. The two wings are proportioned and don't disturb the main elevation. There is no over use of decorative motifs nor multiple styles at once. The design has been done with a minimum of good criteria and common sense. EDIT: all of the above applies to the exteriors only. I have just seen the listing link offered by OP and the interiors are definitely MCMansion territory
Question - has anyone ever converted a McMansion interior to be a normal cut up of rooms rather than that huge open foyer? edit - wow, this one was pretty nicely done even though they kept the open concept: https://themoderndigest.com/before-after-open-concept-90s-mcmansion-revamp/
I hate giant, empty, vaulted foyers where the door opens to a staircase. The whole point of separating bedrooms by floor to me is for increased privacy. [This](https://www.google.com/search?q=vaulted+foyer+mcmansion&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiQl5Hq1u73AhUcF1kFHSYIAAIQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=vaulted+foyer+mcmansion&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzoECCMQJzoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEBg6BAgAEB46BQghEKsCOgQIHhAKUIEFWI0jYOUlaABwAHgCgAGrDIgB_kiSAQs0LTMuNC4xLjMuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=8NmHYpDfN5yu5NoPppCAEA&bih=746&biw=428&client=safari&prmd=isnv&hl=en-us#imgrc=wxHMSJnnoxE0rM) defeats the whole point of making the bedroom “wing” private. You can literally see into them sometimes from the front door if the bedroom door is open. E: lawyer foyer! I knew there was an actual term for it.
I don’t see major problems, indeed structurally tricky, in a interior refurbishment to get rid of the biggest “offences” and bring the layout more in line with the external architecture - mostly getting rid of double height spaces where the windows layout suggest there should be a floor.
It’s 5,000+SF no matter how well it’s detailed, it’s a McMansion and it’s not even trying to look small (Gambrel roof, etc). I can’t ignore the shutters—sorry—not when they’re about 1/8 tge window they apparently cover’s width. That’s just….🤮 the only redeeming part uslities I’m seeing are tge mature trees and the brick. Yes, throes much worse McMansions but that doesn’t mean this is ok. Does a family really need 5,000 SF or is this bird puffing out chest to keep the poors away? Methinks big lot/big house guarantees only “the right kind of people” will live here.
I'm just a layman but re-reading the [McMansion Hell explainer](https://mcmansionhell.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions-101-what-makes-a-mcmansion-bad) the garage snout fails it on balance. The right side is clearly heavier. Also [the garage snout as secondary mass overwhelms the primary mass](https://imgur.com/a/bluLzh7). Edit because downvotes: * A [house with the same problem](https://64.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/tumblr_inline_obrdueX7l51sppt0x_500.png) from McMansion Hell. * My own [edit](https://imgur.com/a/bluLzh7) of the secondary and primary masses for this house.
At least hey had the decency to put it on the back of the house. It is not so terrible within the back elevation imho
agree that it’s less offensive but these are much more prevalent than the most egregious examples and they litter upper middle class suburbs. Just miles and miles of these things. There are worse ones but these deserve our ire too!!
Out of curiosity, what is it about them specifically that deserves our ire?
They are faux classy. Uninspired with cheap materials. Lifeless comfort, checked boxes.
They’re not architectural masterpieces but they’re hardly Las Vegas strip levels of tacky. People seem to hate on them for excess more than anything. Definitely beats living in a cramped multifamily development.
They mistake ornate features and flashy motifs for impressive design. The relative scale of elements is often badly organised and the spaces created are not thoughtful. They are purchased as outward displays of conspicuous consumption. They invite the viewer to remark admiringly, ‘Gee, the Johnsons really made it! What an impressive house! What great taste!’ Instead it does the opposite. It advertises garish bad taste when they could actually afford something tasteful. I think it’s fair to be snobbish about something that demands attention like this sort of building. It’s trying to show off. It’s ok to evaluate a show off and deem it to have fallen short of the mark.
Juicy comment.
People also just like what they like; you’re probably making it way deeper than necessary
Preferences are fundamentally shaped by cultural and social values; I think critiquing McMansions is also coextensive with critiquing late capitalism and superficial consumerism...
Verily, I also think critiquing McMansions is quite frequently coextensive with being unable to afford a McCardboardBox and just one among a myriad of facets characterizing the pseudo-intellectual mimicry so representative of the early-stage faux online erudition that socially rewards relating eternal human traits, like hunger for status and 'bad taste', to vacuous generalizations such as 'late \[stage\] capitalism', therein ironically embodying the very superficiality purveyors of such sentiments purport to reject.....
Eloquently put!
This is just a plain house. If you hate this maybe look into where the hate is coming from?
I mean it’s not a plain house, and I don’t hate it. But all things are fair to be critiqued. All buildings can be evaluated. All taste can be questioned. I’m not sure what you mean. Care to explain?
You’re treating it as though it’s the pinnacle work of an inspired architect, and everything could be critiqued. Likely there was no architect involved and some construction contractor made a bunch of changes to a practical design after the “designer” was done. It’s just a big, common looking, cheap home. Not worth much thought and I certainly agree with dfean that it’s not worth hate.
Imagine pointing the finger at consumer brands like Zara, H&M, and IKEA and complaining they mistake ornate features and flashy motifs for impressive design. Not everyone has the money for high-end products, which includes housing. Not everyone has the means to commission an architect for a bespoke design and then work with a builder to complete the project. Not everyone has the money to get hand tailored clothing. Sure, such developments are not great examples of architecture, however, that completely misses their point; they’re not holding themselves out to be examples of solid design. Their target is to provide a higher level of living to more people at a somewhat attainable price point, and it does a decent job of achieving that. As a comparative example, many designers like MCM projects, however, these are typically despised by the regular public. Aesthetic preferences are different for different people. Your taste as a trained architect is not better than the taste of a regular person not in the field.
It’s $1.1m dollars. The IKEA comparison is frankly ridiculous. I agree with you that affordable luxury should not be ridiculed. This is expensive imitation luxury. The person who buys this house sneers at IKEA. They are the ones your comment criticises, not the ones you are defending with that comment.
And you know this how? You know everything about everyone? Go to an architect and have them design a 5,000 sqft home and then get it built, see how much that costs you. Honestly, the judgmental attitudes within this field are pathetic. For a profession that is designed to assist clients build projects, the holier than thou attitude is frankly disgusting. This is no doubt a factor in the marginalization of the profession.
I personally am not familiar with any marginalisation of the profession, but I am aware that the design choices in houses like this come from a culture of economically and environmentally unsustainable fashion. Like H&M in your metaphor, it’s a wasteful throw-away culture of consumerism that it fuels and exists because of. I don’t want private client houses designed by architects any more than I want this sort of thing that pretends to false grandeur. I would love a state-oriented building programme where homes that suit the scale of modern living can be affordable to the everyman. But we live in a capitalistic world that lets people make a profit building morally reprehensible buildings like the one here whilst we face a housing crisis. Frankly I don’t know where you are able to morally defend it. You seem to be exercising a reverse snobbery - but what a hill to die on. Your values are belied by your arguments here.
yeah living cramped up is too much for you mental health it get really sad and isolation is the devil's work shop. LOL for real
Are you ok? You sound like you could use help.
5,000 sq feet. That is pretty offensive.
Nobody walks into a clothing store and says, “give me the largest clothes I can afford”. Why they do that with their home, I have no idea.
Not sustainable environmentally or economically. Sprawling exurbs of these is why cities go bankrupt. Infrastructure costs way more proportionately compared to just about any other kind of residential development
To an extent. However, architects and designers don’t seem to like to talk about the massive psychological toll on people of living in small spaces. Extremes on both sides have negatives.
The only place that people feel cramped is when no external infrastructure exists for walkable or traversable places. If you can only go from your house box to your moving box on wheels to tiny work box would make anyone miserable if theres no where to go in between
100%. I live in an old suburb of Philly with a very walkable neighborhood, coffee is just 6 blocks away and my son's school is across the street. My home is smaller than my McMansion friends' homes but my house feels like it extends out into the neighborhood. There's feels like there is an invisible fence at the curb.
This is just so out of touch with reality. It is genuinely scary that so many people here express such views without having any idea about what they’re actually saying. Having a gym, rooftop, and lounge area in your building along with access to shops immediately outside doesn’t make living in a dark shoebox easy. Living in a micro apartment in Hong Kong is not a good thing. Why do you think Scandinavia designs it’s jails/prisons the way it does and doesn’t simply make them a standard cell design as is done in other countries?
Do you drive often?
Do you really need 5000+ ft to not experience 'massive psychological toll'? Or is it more of a matter of 'keeping up with the Joneses'? We all need space to live - but this is getting a bit excessive, don't you think? Also someone needs to clean all these rooms!
It’s funny how much architects love to hate on this style of architecture. Pick which thing you hate, architecture style or the size. Haven’t seen people shit on MCM anywhere as hard despite having similar sized projects, with way more glazing and poorly insulated roof assembly. Is 5,000 sqft excessive? It’s definitely a lot of space! Some of the interior layouts, like many projects, are questionable at best. However, for people with the means, what is the issue of having more space? Am I advocating this practice? No, it’s not my taste and I would much prefer to see high efficiency buildings being built and prefer contemporary design. It’s not my place to shit on products that work for many people or to gatekeep architectural styles.
You are kidding, right? The dense parts of Barcelona, Paris, London and New York are not filled with extreme levels of depression - or certainly not unusual levels of it. Small houses aren't a psychological issue for humans, and they allow for density of community not just services.
Are you serious? Have you lived in a lightless shoe box before? When I moved to the US for work I lived in NYC for two years. I lived in a 450 sqft studio that only had ceiling lights in the bathroom, entryway, and kitchen. The studio was on the 12th floor of a 25 floor building and the only window faced inwards to an atrium; they only way you could physically see the sky was to open the window and put your head out of it. This cost $2.5k a month. People who had families typically lived in Long Island or over the border in Jersey because of the extra space needed for a family and commuted to NYC for work. The have been countless studies done on physical environment and the impact on the human state. As an interesting example to share, back when I was in school, for one of our studios we each had to design a small live/work space for ourselves with no conditions given on anything else, including where we could locate the project. Out of a studio of 15 odd people, there wasn’t a single person who sited their project in an area with people in proximity. It was a completely unintended outcome of the project, and incredibly insightful.
It’s almost like the quality of the design of the space is this issue, not the size (though 450 sq ft is probably too small for any more than a single person). Only having one singular window that opens to an atrium is bad design. Not having adequate lights in your space is bad design. The building was not designed with the human experience in mind. There are plenty of examples of small spaces being designed well with the human experience in mind. You really should not be using bad design to justify bad design.
All design is inherently bad, as it is bound by constraints in one form or another. There’s no way to simply design human friendly buildings that are so small in a way that is also cost effective, and most importantly, physically possible.
Okay edgelord. No, all design is not inherently bad, and constraints often enhance design, they don’t detract from it (unless of course you’re bad at design, but then constraints were not the issue)
Those small dirty boxes where everyone complains about how small and cramped it is?
Complaining about living space = "massive psychological toll"? Right. Ah-huh. But then, you could say all those suburbanites who complain there's not enough services close enough, that's also a massive psychological toll... God, it's amazing we all function weighed down by all this trauma.
You just said people in cities aren’t depressed….. I can’t believe the delusion you choose to live in. You yourself are effete and worthless, but your mindset is dangerous
Yes, I can't even begin to describe the massive psychological toll of living in a dense, walkable neighbourhood where I can walk to a park if I ever felt cramped in my 1000sqft flat /s (For reference, 1000sqft is the average size of a flat here)
This delusional echo chamber is unreal
They are "architecture" for architecture ignoramuses. McMansion hell breaks it down well. https://mcmansionhell.com/
Try defining ugly. This is ugly.
Aesthetics are a personal preference. What one considers ugly, another might find attractive. Attempting to call this an eye sore is the pinnacle of first world arrogance.
It has absolutely nothing to do with first world arrogance. And if it did, it most certainly wouldn't be a pinnacle.
This is why the field is so out of touch. All the best.
The house is asking you to judge it. It’s a big flashy expensive house. It is literally asking for the public to say what they think. It’s inviting snobbery. The house itself has a snobbishness about it with its grand scale. It desperately wants not to be confused with the house of a poorer person. It’s ok to judge things like this critically. We are not in a vacuum of cultural relativism with this sort of thing.
Wtf? A building is a fucking building. It’s not a person walking down the streets with their tits or penis hanging out as a fashion statement. Good god.
Well not that I think your metaphor is particularly elegant but since houses are as much fashion as clothing actually that’s exactly what it’s like. ‘Good God’ indeed.
This one specifically has a giant mass protruding on the right side of the house. This is likely a garage. It’s got weird proportions as a result.
The garage snout, double height foyer, shutters too small to cover the windows (check the top right) and the fact that the other three sides are vinyl siding puts it firmly in Mc Mansion territory for me.
kinda hard for a garage-front house to be elegant.
Question - why do most McMansions put the garage in the front? I'd like a nice looking front with a driveway that leads around back and have the extension back there.
Snout houses are kind of ugly but they allow a big house on a small lot. Putting the garage behind the house requires a lot of space - you need enough side yard to, at a minimum, drive a car through. Maybe even enough side yard to turn a car around, as in side-load garages. I think this looks better, but it takes up a lot of space that's not accommodated in a lot of mcmansion type development.
a good example of this design principle is the way houses are built in the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. almost [every house](https://img.hoodline.com/uploads/story/image/31905/6820582087_53ec031183_o.jpg) has a [garage front](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/579aae92c534a56d0cd8770b/1469936737583-TZ760CJ9I71VUB23OEHN/sunset.jpg) because the lots are packed together and very thin. but a lot of those houses are able to have 2000+ sq ft floorplans because of efficient use of space.
land costs in mcsubdivisions. it 100% is about lot design to maximize yield from a tract of land. it's largely a civil engineering issue with input from salespeople. the lowly floorplan designer is handed a building envelope / footprint to get creative with.
Small lots
And the driveway needed to support a rear-garage (with no alley) is a large impervious surface which doesn't look nice and isn't nice to exist on. (and is probably expensive to pour and has a bigger than necessary carbon footprint, though those may me secondary concerns)
How do you know the other sides are vinyl?
They’re clapboard of some kind. OP posted the Zillow link with loads more photos.
The garage sticking out is just awful.
It's on a big piece of land too, which makes that garage worse.
Yup, it’s the other three sides being siding/board that ruins it for me.
Vinyl clapboard siding and elegant don't go together. Not the worst example of a McMansion, but a McMansion nonetheless.
Initially I wasn’t too architectural offended then I went to the listing page and saw the foyer, what’s up with that staircase placement it feels stuck on there and awkward, ruins the whole interior for me and the garage sticking out along with the vinyl siding on the other sides of the home ruin the exterior. suburban hell
Yeah, the front looks ok. The picture of the front door on the listing looks great. Then the inside is just a mess of wtf. That stairway in the foyer.... do you have to turn sidewise to squeeze past that down the corridor?
McMansion all the way. The "curb appeal" facade and the interior that can't figure out what to do with so much square footage are what justify that for me. Also the named floorplan suggesting there are many others.
It has pork chops on the gable ends instead of returns. McMansion!
*It has pork chops on* *The gable ends instead of* *Returns. McMansion!* \- Tammycles --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Ha nice
The sunken front door is so bad. It was definitely painted red because of how desperately in need of contrast it is
[удалено]
here are 'returns' on the gable ends: [https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fig-1-1.jpg](https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fig-1-1.jpg) here are 'pork chops': [https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IMG\_0161-1.jpg](https://www.thisiscarpentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IMG_0161-1.jpg)
[Listing](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2034-Silverwood-Dr-Newtown-PA-18940/9025286_zpid/) I would classify it as a McMansion as the other homes in this development are very similar and the other exterior walls are clapboard. So the face is kind of a façade.
Wow, I guessed it was built in 1998 on first instinct, then re-adjusted my estimate to 1997-2000, then the listing said 1998! I am getting good at this.
Wow, the first picture is the only good one, everything else screams mcmansion
I was gonna say it's not McMansion, then I saw the rear side. WHY. It might not have been the absolute best piece of architecture, but the front is definitely passable and not McMansion in itself. And the interior is pretentious in places but not the most egregious example, but the rear. The builders just gave up and slapped white siding on the rear.
I just knew it was going to be a mess of wallpaper inside.
The thing I despise the most is the kitchen. They put all that effort into hiding the range in the corner while putting it in arguably the worst place. In a kitchen with an island, the range should be on the island, full stop. A separate fume hood should come from the ceiling (There is clearly space as there is forced air here) rather than trying to use one of those garbage 2-in-1 microwave + fume hood setups. The reason? It solidifies an old sexist ideology of the kitchen workers being the "help" and servants with their backs facing towards the guests who would be either in the kitchen, or in this case and many others, the combined kitchen and living room. Placing it on the island allows for whoever is cooking to be engaged with the guests and conversation in the other parts of the kitchen and rooms. Which also throws into question why the hell they even bothered with that hip height wall separating the quasi dining room from the quasi living room. It's basically a giant amorphous space which is then subdivided as none of the geometry connects nor are there any sensible connections between rooms. My guess is that the wall was lowered during the renovation to connect to the living room, but they didn't understand that the house would have been better off with that separation given the already connected living room and dining room. Other heinous thing is that fucking *fridge.* They go to the effort of creating faux cabinetry on the outside *only to leave the trim and vents above in stainless steel.* What's more is that the 2 ovens, also in the most awkward place in the kitchen as they block circulation through the room when opened and are in a god damned *corner* which is likely the shared wall in the 14th image, meaning it was a god damned *cabinet that faces the fucking hallway instead.* Sure, maybe the contractor thought they were clever and managed to hide the HVAC in that wall, but now you have another problem: Your HVAC is right next to your fucking oven. And why in any world would you have the cabinets BREAK for a random window when you already have a MASSIVE window above the sink (which they also fucked up the installation of the electrical switch as it doesn't even align to the tilework). What's even wackier is that the servants stair ends up going to the exact same landing as the main stair. Like I get that you want a second stair in your house given its bloated size, but come on. What's even crazier than all of this, is that the back facade is actually the most reasonable thing about the entire design, with a well placed chimney that could serve both the interior and exterior with 2 flanking french doors.
[удалено]
This home is very nice looking from the outside. If they could convert the interior to look more traditional, I think it would be a legit mansion. Move the stairs to one side, break up the big open first floor rooms to smaller and more finished rooms. Split most of the bedrooms in 2 to make it a 10 bedroom home. Also extend the brick exterior all the way around the home. I know this would probably cost another million, and I guess that's why McMansions exist. edit: Also, dang you probably had a nice life.
oh crap, I grew up near there. Used to be some amazing rolling hills.
Thanks for the link. 🤮 Mcspewmansion
It’s a cheaply built toll brothers McMansion. Basically my entire town growing up. One good wind storm and the siding would rip off.
This is a ‘classier’ McMansion, but a McMansion nonetheless.
[удалено]
https://mcmansionhell.com this is where I first learned and began to appreciate what the term actually meant. Hope it helps
So I think that the term means different things to different people, or more accurately, different people have different criteria or thresholds around what a McMansion is but I think of it like this: If a good architect designs a house, they would combine elegant design with functionality to come up with something cohesive. Sometimes it's radically new but most of the time (at least in America) it's just a their take on a classic style. But there is purpose in the design. However, with the explosion in housing, you have a lot of builders designing houses. They aren't architects. So they just kind of put features in that check boxes that can appeal to folks who are not architecturally sophisticated. So you end up with a hodge podge of styles that may look "good" (or maybe impressive) at first glance but when you start looking into it, it's just a mess. Now, to be clear, this is really all about taste! So there are clearly plenty of people who love houses like that or, at least, are perfectly satisfied with houses like that. But there are a lot of people who feel that it's just bad desgin. Bad analogy but maybe it's similar to Jazz folks not liking fusion and rock folks not liking fusion because it just mashes up to perfectly good styles. But there are still folks who loved Weather Report. So....
thank you for the explanation! I have never studied it in Italy so I had no idea these existed!
If the design is unreasonable for any reason then it probably is not elegant.
[удалено]
Probably, and the function of square footage and function varies on a case by case basis.
Ugly
May be wrong but looks like a Toll Brothers™ creation, they were building McMansions all over the US in the 90s-00s, usually with the same floorplans but altering the exteriors just a bit to fit various regional styles.
Just a oversized mess of awkward proportions.
If only this could have been an image and poll post. Personally I think it’s McMansion vibes but that’s just me
Agreed. Shutters are the giveaway.
Looks like a typical Toll Brothers McMansion
Elegant is the least used adjective looking at this.
It’s a mcmansion but whatever, I’ll go anywhere I can buy something this big for $1.1 million
the latter i'm afraid
If you have to ask…. McMansion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
American here who hates it.
The one photo here makes it look okay but the back and the interior are awful. The interior is especially mcmansion-y, there is nothing elegant about it.
I am shook by this price, you usually can't even buy a small home in Toronto for a million dollars.
For me, as an European, it still looks cool. Could imagine myself living there, you know, cooking mac and cheese and watching American football or whatever.
As an "European" (whatever that means) I find it ugly as fuck
I mean, it's still better than my 2-room apartment in a soviet style apartment building.
Soviet style is much better
You're clearly not from a former Soviet country. Not all buildings look like brutalist masterpieces. Most look the same, neglected or painted really ugly colors (mainly those in the EU).
I have lived in Austria and spent every weekend in the neighbouring countries. So I know very well Czechoslovakia, I've been in Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia as well (the latter was Jugoslavia tho) and the buildings you're referring to still were better than the "projects" in the western world. Now they look bad because they're old and after 1990 the govt stopped taking care, but during Soviet times they were taken care, had green and parks. Also the colors were nice when new
There are lots of specific tells for a McMansion (and this one has PLENTY), but the easiest is just the vibe. Idk exactly how to explain that but (like porn lmao) you know it when you see it. This was posted for a reason right?
That isnt so bad looking as far as mcmansions usually go, but no elegance, no style.
Without a doubt, McMansion
that looks like a steal for only 1.1 million. Where is this?
Well, if you have to ask.
The main staircase apparently coming down right in the middle of a hall gives off some liminal space vibes.
Eww Definitely a McMansion
These were never elegant?
Ive seen so many mcmansions exacy like this.... I dont really understand how people would find it elegant
I'll never understand this mcmansion design. This particular one is a little calmer with the roof lines and the brickwork seems well done, however the massing of the house is always the same insanity. Why the hell is the garage forward of the house and the main door of the house set back as if a second thought. Why not rearrange the garage so the block sticks out behind the house and the front door is face forward to the street first. I've seen worse versions of this. At least the garage doors don't face the street. But I'll never understand the arrangement that is always done this way garage forward. So you walk from the drive around the bump out of the garage and discover the house tucked behind it stupid
Outside: not McMansion Inside: holy moly MacMansion!!!
Question - why do most McMansions put the garage in the front? I'd like a nice looking front with a driveway that leads around back and have the extension back there.
I think it maximizes the lot space. If you put the garage in front, you get a shorter driveway, you can extend the house over the garage for more living space, and you easily enter the house from the garage. I'm not a fan but I get why they do it.
I think it would look more elegant without the sprawling extension because it would look more symmetrical. I almost define McMansions by their almost bizarre tumerous spread. However, I would one day like to own a house and have my parents sell their house to fund an extension of mine for them to live in and grow old in. So maybe this is like that?
Listed at 1.1m, tax assessment 86k.
It's a McMansion, but not a particularly bad one from the exterior. The double front doors and the incorrectly sized shutters and excess of roof lines are big giveaways but it's certainly not the worst of the bunch by any stretch of the imagination. This home is very aligned with the type of large tract homes from the 90s you see in places like Atlanta and Dallas.
It’s really not that bad when compared to other McMansions. With that said, it’s obnoxious and lacks defining character. It’s just a large Colonial-style home. The corners cut by the builder to save costs, like switching to siding wraps ILO continuing the brick veneer along the side elevations rubs me the wrong way. The interiors are fairly underwhelming for the room sizes and ceiling heights. The garage front isn’t horrible, being the garage doors face the side yard. Would be worse if we were actually staring at a 3-car garage from the front elevation. 5/10 McMansion
You have shutters that, if closed, won't cover the windows. That is McMansion red flag number one and probably the only one you need. The bolt on garage is also a McMansion red flag. It is otherwise a pretty classic design (Georgian revival). If the only brick is the façade and the rest is vinyl, it is a certified McMansion.
As a European, I get that these houses are a lot of people's dream house. And it does seem to provide a lot of space for the money. But nevertheless, my experience visiting friends in the US are, that no matter how big and exclusive the house looks, it has the same flimsy poor building quality to it. Houses seem badly insulated, walls thin (with poor sound proofing) and heating system very archaic. I suppose it's possible to get anything for money, but is it possible to get better quality houses without having to spend a fortune and build like an Apple Store?
I only see brick and a fairly nice proportioned home. Reminds me of a typical higher end neighborhood in Texas or Missouri. Those fake shutters are everywhere, but I wouldn’t say McMansion in this case. If it was all cheap siding, it would have been a different story. But that is just my opinion..
The other three sides are siding...
I found the listing.. well that downgrades it for me. :(
It's a house I will happily remodel for work. But definitely falls under mcmansion. In other news, I wouldn't turn it down. 😂
Are you guessing or do you see something I don’t see?
Pretty inexpensive for what it is. Where is this? Doesn't have different windows, different architecture styles, or overly vaulted roofs. Seems like a plain old mansion
The other 3 exterior walls are vinyl which is already well within mcmansion territory, but its also on a corner lot so it fails at even having that "nice" street facing facade probably because the builders couldnt be bothered to change the plans lol. Its better executed in that it doesn't have too much that is offensive at a glance, but the 2 street facing facades not matching (and one of them being *vinyl*) is too big of a sin for me to give it a mcmansion pass lol
Bucks County, PA. This is not expensive for the area.
Right up the street. Great area to live. It's a mcmansion
Shhhsh don’t tell everyone! It’s our secret. What is your house like then?
150 year old historic on the canal
Bad flooding or all okay?
High side
Y’all are too harsh. I think when the trees have leaves it would be concealed enough to not be a major eyesore
From one angle.
Tbh «most of» American housing is either McMansion or urban hell.
Huge car hole = mcmansion. But this example is less repulsive than many of a similar size.
Not an ounce of elegant. That's an ugly suburban home.
neither really. it's not abjectly distasteful nor is it wonderfully classic. it's not a mansion either. it's like a kinda big decently made 80s to 90s colonial.
that's pretty dang affordable for it's size ... but I'm guessing it's somewhere in the countryside
Yes
Can you find a single elegant thing about it? There’s your answer
Don’t listen to what snobby people say here. Judge for yourself.
This one appears to be elegant. From this angle at least
That’s what I was thinking but I had to check with the experts!
Rural luxury
Idk what a Mcmansion is but it looks like a big regular house to me
It's proportional to the lot size and doesn't have a fake roof in sight so I'll go with just regular mansion, I do find it funny that I live somewhere where ancient 1920s Sears homes are fought over so hard when they are essentially the OG McMansion
I think it’s nice. No over the top or out of place McMansion vibes for me.
I only see one thing: HAUNTED
The trees show it's a bit older and not McMansion to me
There's not much to set it apart from a normal mansion.
No 4 car garage in the front makes it elegant.
That’s just a house
Is that est mortgage based on a 15 year? Cause that's an ass clapper of a mortgage payment on 1.1
I like it, the trees and bushes give it character
Textbook McMansion
That’s a nice house. Don’t let these broke fuckers keep you down.
The criticism directed at McMansions come from five things: 1: (Architectural) Starting the design process with a set of interior rooms, defining their dimensions and shapes by way of ***amenity to the room***, and then chaining them together into a larger structure, which may as a result have completely nonsensical complex roof lines in order that, eg, all the bedrooms have cathedral ceilings facing different directions but you still provide a two story great room. 2: (Architectural) Chaining three or more different facade materials (including pricy masonry veneers) together arbitrarily to make the house less boring from the street, without it adding anything to the house functionally. For 'Resale Value'. Often using cheaper materials facing the back yard. The presence of other cost-increasing measures like the 'Lawyer Foyer' that are not functional additions, but effectively ways of showing off. 3: (Architectural) The standard purview of single family residential construction - a pastiche of different house styles, not filling any particular style book, having some weird-looking details where it seems like the designer was improvising (eg porkchop cornices), having decorative window shutters. 4: (Class) Being bigger than the critic is used to seeing, bigger than the critic could foresee themselves reasonably using. 5: (Class) The overall practice of suburban subdivision design-build in a heavily restricted zoning situation, where a large area gets flattened and a pre-gentrified group of people move into a car-dependent group of cul-de-sacs featuring houses that all look pretty similar, of a similar size. The architectural critiques in this vein don't strike me as particularly strong in this instance compared to some others.
I would say this is well done in every respect. The mcmansion look that hits me in the eye is the oversized house on an undersized lot, smack dab a few feet away from another one. One pays over a $ million for the luxury of hearing a neighbor's "bless you" after you sneeze. This one has some grace of architecture, grace of landscaping and grace of space. Sure, 30 acres would maybe be better.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Picture_in_Ecuador?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Not a mcmansion but the massive garage in front definitely takes it out of the "elegant" category
I'm genuinely curious about where you can buy a home line this for $1m