lol, looks like the author was looking for reasons to dislike McMansions. I agree with him on a few points, especially the house that looks more like a fort than a house. There is a housing development not far from me that has houses I really dislike, and it is because there is no symmetry. More so than any of his photos. btw, I really like the house in the last photo.

Ok, I am going to admit it.............I like the look of most mcmansions!

Yep, I agree with the author...massing, balance, primary and secondary structures, voids and places for the eye to go. That's just one reason I don't like mc mansions. I also don't like them when they are built on lots designed for much smaller homes that have been torn down, so there's no balance between the lot size and the house size. I also don't like them because they are so into grand spaces that wow on a real estate walk thru but then become a nightmare to decorate or live with. But, hey, that's me.

The article was very interesting! I myself don't know how I feel about the subject. I kinda of think of houses like I think of people, there is something great and beautifull about everyone and every house. I like them all and have lived in all different types. My favorite homes have land, it doesn't have to be a lot, just enough so that the neighbors all have room.

"Photos taken from screenshots from Zillow.com. The use of this content for the purpose of non-commercial (which this is) criticism, education, or parody (which this is) is protected by the fair use clause of the DMCA. https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Fair-Use

Tags: architecture mcmansions mcmansion luxury education"

So I copied the last paragraph of the article. Is this article supposed to be non-commercial parody?

This is more about what makes a house ugly or pleasing, rather than McMansions themselves. Although a lot of the McMansions around here fall into the "not pleasing to the eye" category.

Living in an older New England town, with actual Colonial and Victorian and Cape Cod houses all around, the McMansions do stand out like a sore thumb. The proportions just aren't right, somehow. Many have no windows at all on the sides of the houses, causing very odd looking blank walls.

I guess some of you might consider my new home a "McMansion", and even I have been guilty of dissing them in the past when I thought living in a little old cottage was the greatest thing ever.

I think the term "McMansion" has different connotations to different people, depending on where they live and what they've seen. I can say with confidence that buying this new, larger home that's basically a big box with some architectural details thrown in and on, was the best decision we could have possibly made. It's not always cost-effective to renovate an old house, and we certainly didn't have the desire. I love living in a new place with open space, and am particularly impressed with energy efficiency features - something my previous home woefully lacked and would never have supported short of tearing it down to the studs and rebuilding. I much prefer paying $200 to comfortably cool a 3,000 sf house in July than $450 to cool one that's just under 2,000 sf (and still being miserably hot in some of the rooms). My old house had lovely proportions and charm out the wazoo. But from a practicality standpoint it actually came up quite short, and the older I get the more I can forego aesthetics in favor of function - at least when it comes to what I live in.

But I digress. I realize that the article speaks to symmetry and style more than anything. Having now lived in vastly different homes, I have learned to never say never - and also not to cast aspersions on someone's character/ego based upon the style or size of home they occupy. I've done so in the past, but when your own circumstances change and you find yourself in a style of home you would've turned your nose up at just a short time ago ... well, you tend to change your mind about things. ;-)

This is what is happening in my neighborhood. The original house is pulled down. The lot is scraped. All large trees are removed. The new house will have a post tension foundation, three roof peaks, some roof detail on the lower story, one decorative double garage door, one narrow looking front door, two windows to the side of the front door, the house will be painted gray and white, usually there will be some cedar shake detail (painted or not) somewhere on the facade, usually there are shutters on the larger upstairs windows, the houses seem to have the smallest side yard setback the city will allow. The first one that I saw I really liked. Now that we're up to 20 or 30 of them...

It is a nice looking house, but as you say, I wouldnt want the whole street full of the same. Luckily on our street, the homes are custom so they differ a lot in style, although they are still "mcmansions"

practigal, those houses remind me of the old indian villages built on the side of a clif, one house on top of another. Or like this one.

The two houses that practigal shows give me a particularly bad feeling. To me nothing about them says "home", while some of the McMansions shown in the article are not quite as bad. Quite a good article since the pictures with the analysis make all the concepts very easy to understand. missouribound's example looks really bizarre and unsettling.

I really appreciate the article for giving me the vocabulary to discuss what I like and don't like in a house's facade. My frustration with this style of architecture ( I won't call it McMansion because that is a non-descriptive term of derision to me- plus it is a non-style- not a style ) is that we are forced into buying it. Where I live, this is the style of new most new houses- a mish-mash of shapes- lots of windows and wasted spaces. I am not offered a choice unless I can afford to remodel an old house or hire an architect and start from scratch. For all of those who spend countless hours obsessing over on the kitchen forum (like me) and then realize they know more that the KD, GC, et al, what do you think is going on with the rest of the house? If you drilled down to that level with every other aspect of the design and build on one of these new houses, you would be effectively rebuilding the entire house. Not exactly cost effective or practical.

Aktillery, I forgot to thank you. Abby and the others above are correct. That was a great article it was super helpful in developing the vocabulary to explain the issues with some of the stuff that we are seeing. Thanks again!

Ignoring the McMansion moniker, the article was helpful in describing in architectural terms why so many new construction projects are not pleasing to the eye. Thank you for posting it. Sadly, many areas that were developed in the 1980's and later are completely full of this type of construction. There's nothing else to buy if you want to live in those school districts.

I don't particularly like McMansions, at least not the ones where I live because I've always felt that they lack rhythm - turns out it's real thing. I liked the article simply for the definitions with examples.

That is an interesting article. I like the explanation of why McMansions are ugly, because I always thought they looked a bit ostentatious, but otherwise nice. I wouldn't want to live in one, because they often have huge great rooms with ceilings too high and all I think about is trying to get spiderwebs out of those corners.

I live in a newer house, and it is architecturally bland. I always disliked garages jutting out the front of the house, but that is exactly what I have. I do like the function of this house very much. I've lived in houses with better curb appeal, but never in one that had such great, livable space inside and outside.

I am glad the language was helpful. I agree none of the homes showed were McMansions... in terms of what I think a McMansion is. I did not agree with some of what it said. However, it was interesting.

When I saw this yesterday I could understand the authors points but all I could think of was gosh I thought these newer designs were born out of a discontent with cookie cutter homes. Why do all the windows have to match? That may be nice on the OUTSIDE but on the inside..rooms have different needs. There are soooo many possibilities now. Variety is the spice of life!! So a house isn't symmetrical? I live INSIDE it and the rooms all the bump outs create are interesting and fun!! This article begs the question which is more important how the outside LOOKS or how the inside FUNCTIONS? I get claustrophobic when I see homes so close one could sit in their dining room and hold hands with the neighbors in theirs..but that has gone on for decades. It is not a new thing for a home to take up an entire lot. Back in the day tiny starter homes had no yard..now two income professionals want SPACE inside to LIVE but have no time for yard work. I sympathize with design purists but this is a new world where ALL THE RULES have been tossed out.

Aktillery,

Great articles, thank you for posting them. I think many of us get our design sense from seeing good example, but we don't know the vocabulary.

Ida, I would say that renovating an older home is *never* cost effective, unless you are DIY or sleep with one.

Practigal,

I can see why you would get tired of seeing nothing but iterations of that home, but it is quite nice. Kudos for the lovely garage doors, and I really like the walkways and driveways. They do a good job of prettying up the most egregious aspect of most new builds (the overpowering mass of garage and driveway). I also don't think they look large enough to be McM. They are close to the lot lines, but so were all the homes in my 1900s neighborhood I used to live in.

As for taking down huge trees, we designed additions to our house around trees and tree roots. I hate to see a tree taken down. When shopping for our first house, DH would not even consider my favorite house, because they had just chopped down a row of more than a dozen very very large old trees so that you could see a view of Manhattan. It was so sad.

That's the problem "all the rules have been tossed out". They were rules for a reason. Yes, how the rooms work inside is very important, but some symmetry outside is also important otherwise it's just a mishmash or architecture. One part of the house should not be colonial, another gothic, and another Craftsman. It just doesn't work. It's really no different than choosing clothes - LL Bean boots don't work very well with an evening gown (even though one might need them to get from the car to the house in some climates, and then change!).

My biggest objection is the multitude of roof lines. Do people have any idea how expensive it is to re-roof such a house? I have a one and a half story house with a full dormer on the back. Re-roofing the "cat walks" around the dormer was a HUGE expense - it's very labor intensive. No, I do NOT regret the full dormer - couldn't have lived in this house without it but these houses such as some shown in the article, are going to cost $50,000 to 60,000 to reroof someday and very few people can afford this. It's one of the biggest reasons that homeowner insurance policies have become VERY restrictive on paying for wind/hail damage on roofs - VERY costly.

There are designs that have stood the test of time and these are rarely seen in subdivision houses at any price range these days. My own neighborhood was once a subdivision - started right before WWII, then put on hold until about 1948 when they continued building. A tornado came through in 1973 and it's easy to spot the "tornado houses" even thought that was over 40 years ago - they look "cheap" and out of place. The pre-WWII houses were all red brick two story colonials; after the war, there were more capes and story and 1/2's such as mine. But all were traditional and used symmetry and classic design. As a result, the neighborhood is HIGHLY desirable today as the designs never look "dated".

Very interesting article, and the comments were even more interesting to me. I didn't finish reading them all (I think there are hundreds there) but it was sure educational for me, in all sorts of aspects, not only the architectural one. Aktillery, thank you for sharing the link!

I seriously don't see what's so horribly wrong with the houses practigal posted. If I had my druthers I'd choose a different design, but I've seen so much worse and I definitely don't get a bad vibe. Is the street lined with the same design? Welcome to my neighborhood with about 4 different styles that still manage to all look the same.

"Home" is what's inside. I'd sure hate to be judged by the style (or lack thereof, quite possible) of my house. No, wait, go ahead. :p

Aktillery9,

Thanks for sharing the article. It definitely helps understand what makes a house look balanced and well-proportioned. I saved the article!

In my opinion, poor architectural design is a typical problem not only for McMansions, but also for many mass-built suburban developments.

I guess it started post-WWII when large suburban tracts proliferated. Efficiency, speedy construction, cost savings and profit maximization prevailed over the considerations of harmonious design, esthetics and proper fit with the natural setting. That led to proliferation of "pig snout" houses, poorly lit living areas in the basements in split-level houses), etc.

My 1970's split-entry is pretty much a big rectangular hunk of a house plopped on a lot without any regard to the cardinal directions. The lot is undersized for the bulk of the building. The house is utterly out of balance with its setting.

Half of the rooms face North and never get any sun. At the same time there's no windows on the eastern wall, although we have two bedrooms situated there. In a house built by someone with basic common sense the bedrooms would have eastern-facing windows to welcome the morning sun.

The driveway slopes down to the garage since there's no basement. The house is built on a concrete slab without any proper raised foundation. As a result, we often get water leaking under the garage doors during rainy PNW winters. Remarkably, all the pre-WWII houses in our neighborhood have basements, but all the post-WWII houses are built on concrete slabs.

Our attic is minuscule, but at least we have some sort of a buffer against the scorching summer sun. It's still better than vaulted ceilings without any attic space in other neighbors' houses. Again, the roof pitch is way too low and flattish-looking compared to the volume of the house.

Weird small windows in the bedrooms, a large 2nd story deck completely blocking sunlight to the room under it on the 1st floor, undersized porch and entry area - I could go on and on about the poor design. It isn't our house only, but also scores of other 1970's houses in our suburb.

Thanks for posting this! It really helped me understand why I don't like some homes and why I like others. Now, I am going to learn the terms so I can use them. Thanks!

I agree with lana_roma...many newer homes are just designed thoughtlessly, McMansions or not..One house for example had a nicer view, that you could see only from the secondary bathroom, after standing on your toes..)) All the other windows overlooked the windows of the neighbors.

Another house didn't have any window on the second story facade. The whole street -in a nice location!-was build like that..the houses looked like they were blind. So depressing. What did that builder think to himself? a mystery to me.

We were very restricted by location when house hunting last time..so I was very happy when a house appeared on the market that could be great for us, location wise.

We ran there like crazy, all hopeful. But it gave such a chopped feeling..you couldn't see it from the listing, but when there-things just stopped making much sense. The loft was awkward, the windows upstairs were put in randomly..I spend there 40 min desperately trying to love it. I just couldn't.

Some houses were not looking anything like McMansions, but they looked like shacks instead. Peeking out of the ground. Even great backyards couldn't make up for that. And the prices are high here. I daresay these shacks were priced each like two McMansions somewhere else.

It's not only McMansion thing..I don't know exactly what it is. Maybe people are in a hurry, or something, and just can't wait to slap more houses together. I just can't figure out-in a hurry to do what?

As I said, the first one I quite liked, 20 or 30 later it's a bit too much the same- they can keep contemporary Cape Cod but do they need to keep doing exactly the three on top two on the bottom thing. I think the maintenance problem of those roof lines is potentially a huge cost (we haven't had any rain so it will be a while before the new homeowner finds out if the roof were done right in the first place).

I think that the maintenance costs of a home, especially a large home, is largely underestimated and misunderstood by the homeowner. I have only ever seen one budget book that went into detail as to how to calculate a budget and reserve for maintenance like new roofing, paint jobs, furnaces, etc. I don't think people try to avoid saving the reserve, I just think they have no idea.

Slightly OT - I think part of the problem is that every material is available either real, or fake, and people think that means they can use them all. Like cedar shakes? We have plastic ones any color. Like bluestone? We can make your concrete look like that. Like stacked stone? We can glue it to your exterior. Like bricks? We got veneer of any brick available any place on earth.

So people want a little cottage, a little craftsman, a little country french, and make it BIG because we can.

There are neighborhood upon neighborhood of these ginormous houses on postage stamp size lots, many in Ca because property is at a high premium, and not much of it. Yet these over sized monstrosities continue to be built, though not to the degree as in the 90's. Here inTx many are found on acreage, on a lake, and with a view, not simply looking out over a sea of other monstrosities, thanks to the abundance of land. They don't seem to be as ostentatious if they are on a larger piece of property, but when crammed onto a bacic 'lot' it becomes a joke.

This is my DD's home here in Tx, on 1 1/2 acrea, not a mcmansion, but not a small home by any means. The 4500 sq ft home almost looks minisclue on the property, but with a larger home, I feel that it's needed.

http://tours.tourfactory.com/tours/tour.asp?t=1606466&idx=1

Some people want a larger home but don't care at all about having a yard. Personally the last thing I would want at this stage of my life is acreage, or even a large lot. My house is on one of those postage stamp sized lots and we are really enjoying our tiny garden. It's just another option, right?

BIG houses on TINY lots seem to be the thing here lately. When we go to home shows, they are absolutely everywhere. 4,000 and 5,000 square foot houses on lots where you could touch hands with your neighbor if you both opened the window. A lot of the neighborhoods don't look very well laid out, they look like they just jammed them in there to fit as many possible houses as they could to sell more lots.

Obviously, people want this, because they wouldn't be building them in such abundance if they didn't.

I personally could not live like that. I told my DH, if I had to pick, I'd rather have acreage and a trailer if we couldn't afford both a big house and a big lot. But I know many others would make a different choice and that's their prerogative :)

I do think the house should be in scale with its surroundings. A townhouse with a small yard can be a perfect fit in a dense urban neighborhood, whether historical or contemporary.

Some house types just call for more room around them in order to look balanced. Another extreme I've observed in my area: suburban ranch houses completely dwarfed by huge trees next to them. Usually those are big ponderosa pines or sequoias. Again, everything depends on the general setting. In a forested area it could look all right, but in a suburban neighborhood with only a few big trees in the entire street it often looks awkward.

It takes certain skills and artistic flair to design a house or a block of houses that is in harmony with the environment. Sadly, this kind of expertise is often absent in suburban developments. For me the latter can be akin to mass-produced merchandise churned out in Chinese factories.

I don't think the strongest points of the article are about size. They are about poor proportion. I think McMansion is a misnomer because many small houses are built with this aesthetic, and many normal sized houses are built on gigantic plots in the middle of nowhere are built with this aesthetic--not just big houses on small lots.

But Neo-eclectic is not as catchy as McMansion.

The other aspect of this is--according to some books written on the subject--that the average untrained person who knew nothing about architecture used to be able to build something with pleasing proportions and understand innately what good proportions were and what bad proportions were, and this understanding has been lost to our culture. I think this is why so many people have trouble decorating their houses, they don't have any idea what looks good or what looks bad anymore even taking different cultural norms into account. They may not be happy with something, but they don't have any idea what's bad about it or why they are not happy with it. And , on the other hand, sometimes they are thrilled with something that looks bad, because it has all the symbols or checks all the boxes of something good.

I have read a number of times "What a beautiful room!" and then there is a lengthy discussion about how to overcome the difficulties in actually furnishing it and how to disguise the strange proportions and compensate for other flaws--even if this is no longer recognized as such.

In my opinion it can't be much of a beautiful room or house if it has all these flaws to overcome.