McMansions 101: What Makes a McMansion Bad Architecture? (2016)

bondarchuk

> Disclaimer: These same principles do not always apply to Modernist or even canonically Postmodern architecture. These principles are for the classical or traditional architecture most residential homes are modeled after. Seems like an obvious way out of this conundrum is reclassifying these so-called mcmansions as postmodern. Description instead of prescription.

mikgp

This is interesting but I was recently in England at a country house, which should be a pinnacle of architecture and it like I assume many of them were just added onto over and over again over the years leading to all the problems described. Still gorgeous, but certainly not “good architecture”. Much more McMansiony.

steveBK123

A lot of my friends enjoy sending links to this around from time to time, and for me I just don't care. It just all comes across as very elitist navel gazing. I don't actually care what other peoples properties look like. It's also kind of faux populist because while the homes they are criticizing are certainly higher income for their area, a lot of these are like $500K homes in exurbs. The people that enjoy laughing at the McMansions are like SF/NYC $5M condo owners. So it's kicking down in a way they can rationalize to themselves.

froggertoaster

Generally speaking, classifying a house as "McMansion" feels like a form of gatekeeping. If the person who lives there enjoys it, who are we to judge?

gorgoiler

Salem Mass represent whoop whoop! Been dropping mad gables — sorry, secondary mass — since 1668 for real yo. Check this witchin’ crib’s void rhythm: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:House_of_the_Seven_G... It’s a very cool place to visit and there are a bunch of other similar houses to visit in the city, albeit less McMansiony than OG 7G , as literally no one calls it hah.

asdfasgasdgasdg

Seems to me there are two possible definitions of good architecture which might be in conflict. The American mansion-style suburban home is good architecture in the sense that the people who want to buy homes in these places and of these sizes are happy to buy these homes. It is bad architecture in the sense that architecture nerds, who do not even live near these mansions and are not affected by them, don't like them.

kodablah

> Design Principle #1 [...] The secondary masses should never compete with the primary mass. > Design Principle #2 [...] shows multiple violating their own mass rule as good examples While there are some ugly/gaudy houses out there, the gatekeeping behind what is a "McMansion" is subjective and silly.

Lammy

“McMansion” is just a way for The System to shame the middle class for daring to want some space to live in, and I'm disappointed when I see anyone propagate it.

crystaln

Interesting position, and also very opinionated. For instance, personally I think having secondary masses dominate can make the structure look smaller and more intimate. Like in this one, it looks like a bunch of cottages instead of a behemoth. https://64.media.tumblr.com/3e5a80e11854cd751a1bb314a4591c87... I live in a house with MANY "voids" aka windows. The house looks pretty stunning, and the views are spectacular.

ryandrake

Weird that there are so many comments defending McMansions here, I would have expected the opposite. We have no problem pointing out poorly, haphazardly, or tastelessly designed tech devices and applications with terrible UIs, and tech companies with more money than design sense, but when it comes to a tasteless house, criticism is elitist gatekeeping?

BoggleOhYeah

These ugly ass houses are monuments to the avarice of suburban America.

annzabelle

They're really not that bad. I used to thumb my nose at McMansions, vs the tasteful rowhouses and small condo buildings in the neighborhood I chose to live in (Richmond, VA's Museum District), but then I moved to New Zealand and discovered new depths of hideous, bland, tasteless architecture, and I miss the brick-fronted houses of my childhood. Say what you will about McMansions, they at least all have central heat and plenty of living space. Here you can spend the same amount of money as a McMansion in the Indianapolis exurbs, and be heating your tiny, bland, ugly house with firewood.

decimalenough

I always thought a McMansion was primarily defined by cramming too much house into a small plot. An actual mansion is a mansion in large part because the grand building is set off by a vast expanse of lawns and gardens around it. A suburban McMansion dispenses with that and just crams the maximum amount of Roman columns, crenellated turrets and whatever else the designer thinks looks impressive into a cancerous-lookimg building that extends right out to the property line.

comrade1234

I haven't read the article. It's build quality. I was in a colleague's house in Southern California over a canyon. Beautiful location worthy of an Italian villa. There is a pillar in the entry/living room area that I leaned against - it was obviously hollow and made of maybe cardboard and just decorative. Also the moldings/trim were made from styrofoam and painted over. Just crap for a multi-millions dollar home. My apartment in Zurich will last 100+ years but their home won't last 10.

royal__

A lot of folks are defending McMansions here, but let me provide one reason why they might be objectively bad architecture: they seek to cram all of the bullet points that home buyers want into one thing, without regard for good quality design. For example, high vaulted ceilings that throw off the proportions of everything else. And then what happens is they're built quickly and poorly with poor materials. McMansions are kind of a form of enshittification. Also, when you build them all over the place, like in Utah, you hurt a whole class of people who want live in a place but don't want to have to deal with living in houses like that.

cadamsdotcom

That’s some list of arbitrary rules.. Some of the houses trumpeted as “good” look like econoboxes with a front door and a roof. Some houses claimed to have “beautiful 1/3 proportions” look tiny even though my eyes can see the second and third floor windows! A hedge line either side of your path to your front door turns your garden into useless wasted space. By contrast the “multi mass” look actually makes the house look bigger and suggests it has multiple disconnected living spaces - which sounds lovely, no need to always be forced on top of each other. What if the “single roof line” aesthetic is an accident? What if it’s from a simpler time when resources to build your farm house were limited so you had to be efficient? Adopting it as some kind of ideal ignores that it might’ve just been practical. It seems taste is personal but criticism is universal. Sanctimonious bastards, get off my over-manicured lawn ;)