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.
I dunno, my Mom in the midwest thinks it's the funniest thing ever, having grown up in an area where all the houses looked like this. There's some element of satisfaction knowing that you can't buy good taste
Yea, I distinctly remember one of the major aspects of making fun of McMansions was that we are punching up, not down. We'd look at houses 2-4X more expensive than we could ever afford and conclude the exact sentence you posted: "You can't buy good taste!"
Oh they're lacking more than aesthetic sensibility. Frugality and appreciation of build quality are also lacking in these designs. The sheer volume of roof angle transitions alone are a huge force multiplier on the cost per square footage of construction like this and are prone to cause expensive maintenance headaches.
>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.
Postmodernism is a bit more "anything goes as long as it's good". Once you move beyond really basic rule-based criticisms like "it's not symmetric" or "there are competing masses" then you can ask "but is it good?" i.e. does it work as a house for the persons it was built for in the context that it was built in? (To be fair from what I recall many entries in the blog actually do that to an extent, only using an air of neoclassical snobbery as a framework (for example that really funny bit about the pre-bathroom space where you can snort coke in the 80s is like this IMO))
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.
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?
There's plenty of "elitist gatekeeping" and excessive nitpicking of software in this community. But architecture isn't my area so I don't judge the line of where the criticism gets silly.
The average HN enjoyer likely lives in a McMansion of some sort, especially since basically anything built in the last 30 years is reminiscent of one, at least.
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 ;)
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.
Adding onto a house over and over would probably create the same issues with inconsistency and mismatched styles. With later additions, there's at least a decent reason for that inconsistency though. McMansions lack that consistency from the start.
Context matters, and a big country house in England is not the same thing as a McMansion, unless it is an American inspired newbuild, and plenty exist.
In former times the servants lived in the top floors and worked in the basement floors of a city town house, with 'mews' nearby for the horses. A land owning family with servants was more like a 'small village' than a big house.
The big country house and the estate generally was built from the profits of slavery, so it was 'slavery all the way down', with the English 'slaves' called servants.
Every chunk of stone had to get there by train, canal or by horse power. Irish 'navvies' did the work, so another category of slaves.
Upkeep on these properties was a never ending task, so there was also a requirement for untold amount of handymen, gardeners and the rest of it. Just think of the lawn, which was beyond what the common man could dream of, most peasants did not have gardens as every inch of whatever land they had would be growing crops. The lawn, was a display that the landowner had that much land that he didn't need to have crops on it. With no lawnmowers or RoundUp, a lawn was quite a challenge, whereas today it is just an easy cop out, since RoundUp kills everything that is not a grass.
The whole point of America was 'no kings'. So why the McMansions is probably due to the lack of a class structure, since, if everyone (white male, northern European) is supposed to be equal, the only way to flex status is with a big truck and a McMansion with extra toys. Nobody is getting a medal from the king with a peerage in the House of Lords, are they?
Also, before WW1, in England there was a tradition of craftsmanship. All the guys that could do beautiful work in stone, wood and topiary died in WW1, taking their craft with them. This was not a problem as mechanisation meant that machines could make a lot of this stuff.
In today's world a very large townhouse or a OG English mansion is not going to work as a home. There is too much to clean, heat and maintain, plus, it actually is like a prison being that isolated. The scores of servants made sure these places were hives of activity, and viable as a community of sorts.
The McMansion is a very different beast. They are not good.
As for the article, it is useful in the context of the dreaded ballroom. Clearly there is a proportions issue. But look at the White House and how that works, with lots of people calling the place home and work. The original English Mansion was more like that, not just this stupidly vast space for two people to 'live' in.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Uhh, these are not humble middle class homes. These are the definition of American excess and the perpetual "me, me, me" attitude that sees an f250 with 5 feet of ass hanging outside the standard parking space giving everyone else a hard time. And of course they are basically also built by George Bluth, so all this material expenditure is going towards a terrible product that is already falling apart the day after the contractors are done with it.
You misunderstand; the target audience for ”McMansion Hell” is not the people living in a ”McMansion” but those who have less than that and would aspire to more.
Thank you. My aunt bought one of these things some years ago and was desperately offended when I pointed out here kitchen (in both dimensions and decor) strongly resembled the interior of a Panera Bread Co. If that isn't pointless excess I don't know what is.
This. There's a reason why they almost always put the triple-car garage out in front as the most prominent architectural aspect: "Hey, look how many cars I can have."
Better than "McMansion" even is "Faux Chateaux"
(Having a big spacious home is not something I'd safely criticize as I have 6 acres and a house a bit too big for the family. The simultaneously ostentatious and ... ugly... yeah)
It's often other reasons, usually because the house is designed with a single garage and there's an "upgrade" button available.
It also makes the house fit on a smaller lot if the driveway is straight to the road.
Most if not all McMansions are builder's specials designed to be sold and upsold; often if you go to the builder's site you discover that the lowest end version of it actually looks pretty sane, all things considered.
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.
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.
See, the "your" in there is what we call a possessive pronoun. It indicates that something (in this case, my porch) is owned by someone (in this case, me). That makes what you are proposing doing a property rights issue, not cultural criticism.
There's actually a housing shortage in the US so it's not like this is an architecture that is responsive to consumer or cultural preference and demand - local zoning laws do not even permit such freedom.
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.
I dunno, my Mom in the midwest thinks it's the funniest thing ever, having grown up in an area where all the houses looked like this. There's some element of satisfaction knowing that you can't buy good taste
Yea, I distinctly remember one of the major aspects of making fun of McMansions was that we are punching up, not down. We'd look at houses 2-4X more expensive than we could ever afford and conclude the exact sentence you posted: "You can't buy good taste!"
> There's some element of satisfaction knowing that you can't buy good taste
When I see the equivalent hate blog for the $5M greige coastal condo class aesthetic I’ll believe you
Don't worry, the people in the McMansions do not care that coastals correctly point out their lack of aesthetic sensibility.
Oh they're lacking more than aesthetic sensibility. Frugality and appreciation of build quality are also lacking in these designs. The sheer volume of roof angle transitions alone are a huge force multiplier on the cost per square footage of construction like this and are prone to cause expensive maintenance headaches.
>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.
You would have the same critiques but applied from a different perspective.
It’s like reclassifying a really bad plane as a helicopter. The same critiques wouldn’t apply but it would probably be an even worse helicopter.
Postmodernism is a bit more "anything goes as long as it's good". Once you move beyond really basic rule-based criticisms like "it's not symmetric" or "there are competing masses" then you can ask "but is it good?" i.e. does it work as a house for the persons it was built for in the context that it was built in? (To be fair from what I recall many entries in the blog actually do that to an extent, only using an air of neoclassical snobbery as a framework (for example that really funny bit about the pre-bathroom space where you can snort coke in the 80s is like this IMO))
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.
> Sales Mass ... witchin' crib
i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg
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?
It’s pretty obvious that a lot of the user base is obsessed with wealth and status and critiquing their main status symbol hits them where it hurts.
Criticising poor usability is fine, worthwhile even. Criticising unfashionable taste is just classism.
> but when it comes to a tasteless house, criticism is elitist gatekeeping?
In the middle of a housing crisis, yes, it absolutely is.
There's plenty of "elitist gatekeeping" and excessive nitpicking of software in this community. But architecture isn't my area so I don't judge the line of where the criticism gets silly.
The average HN enjoyer likely lives in a McMansion of some sort, especially since basically anything built in the last 30 years is reminiscent of one, at least.
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 ;)
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.
Adding onto a house over and over would probably create the same issues with inconsistency and mismatched styles. With later additions, there's at least a decent reason for that inconsistency though. McMansions lack that consistency from the start.
Perhaps this lack of consistency is deliberate: “this house is trying to look like a miniature version of an estate that grew over many generations”.
Curse not the McMansion. Rejoice in The People’s Gormenghast.
[flagged]
Exactly the thought I had. The typical (i.e. not-very-grand) English country house looks a bit like a McMansion with added ivy.
Until quite recently it was often impossible to see the whole house at the same time, which can hide quite a few sins.
Context matters, and a big country house in England is not the same thing as a McMansion, unless it is an American inspired newbuild, and plenty exist.
In former times the servants lived in the top floors and worked in the basement floors of a city town house, with 'mews' nearby for the horses. A land owning family with servants was more like a 'small village' than a big house.
The big country house and the estate generally was built from the profits of slavery, so it was 'slavery all the way down', with the English 'slaves' called servants.
Every chunk of stone had to get there by train, canal or by horse power. Irish 'navvies' did the work, so another category of slaves.
Upkeep on these properties was a never ending task, so there was also a requirement for untold amount of handymen, gardeners and the rest of it. Just think of the lawn, which was beyond what the common man could dream of, most peasants did not have gardens as every inch of whatever land they had would be growing crops. The lawn, was a display that the landowner had that much land that he didn't need to have crops on it. With no lawnmowers or RoundUp, a lawn was quite a challenge, whereas today it is just an easy cop out, since RoundUp kills everything that is not a grass.
The whole point of America was 'no kings'. So why the McMansions is probably due to the lack of a class structure, since, if everyone (white male, northern European) is supposed to be equal, the only way to flex status is with a big truck and a McMansion with extra toys. Nobody is getting a medal from the king with a peerage in the House of Lords, are they?
Also, before WW1, in England there was a tradition of craftsmanship. All the guys that could do beautiful work in stone, wood and topiary died in WW1, taking their craft with them. This was not a problem as mechanisation meant that machines could make a lot of this stuff.
In today's world a very large townhouse or a OG English mansion is not going to work as a home. There is too much to clean, heat and maintain, plus, it actually is like a prison being that isolated. The scores of servants made sure these places were hives of activity, and viable as a community of sorts.
The McMansion is a very different beast. They are not good.
As for the article, it is useful in the context of the dreaded ballroom. Clearly there is a proportions issue. But look at the White House and how that works, with lots of people calling the place home and work. The original English Mansion was more like that, not just this stupidly vast space for two people to 'live' in.
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.
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.
These ugly ass houses are monuments to the avarice of suburban America.
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.
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.
“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.
Love this wellspring of concern for people buying shitty houses. Feels completely organic.
Uhh, these are not humble middle class homes. These are the definition of American excess and the perpetual "me, me, me" attitude that sees an f250 with 5 feet of ass hanging outside the standard parking space giving everyone else a hard time. And of course they are basically also built by George Bluth, so all this material expenditure is going towards a terrible product that is already falling apart the day after the contractors are done with it.
> Uhh, these are not humble middle class homes.
You misunderstand; the target audience for ”McMansion Hell” is not the people living in a ”McMansion” but those who have less than that and would aspire to more.
Thank you. My aunt bought one of these things some years ago and was desperately offended when I pointed out here kitchen (in both dimensions and decor) strongly resembled the interior of a Panera Bread Co. If that isn't pointless excess I don't know what is.
Not at all. It's a way to shame the (upper) middle class for wanting some space that looks pretentious, and doing it badly.
This. There's a reason why they almost always put the triple-car garage out in front as the most prominent architectural aspect: "Hey, look how many cars I can have."
Better than "McMansion" even is "Faux Chateaux"
(Having a big spacious home is not something I'd safely criticize as I have 6 acres and a house a bit too big for the family. The simultaneously ostentatious and ... ugly... yeah)
It's often other reasons, usually because the house is designed with a single garage and there's an "upgrade" button available.
It also makes the house fit on a smaller lot if the driveway is straight to the road.
Most if not all McMansions are builder's specials designed to be sold and upsold; often if you go to the builder's site you discover that the lowest end version of it actually looks pretty sane, all things considered.
Nah, they’re shitty, wasteful, and grandiose. They _are_ the system.
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.
Might as well say fentanyl is a good drug because its users are really fond of it.
By that standard, a Picasso painting is only good art because it's expensive.
That's how capitalism values things, yes.
And that's why capitalism must be strongly regulated; it's a powerful tool and a terrible master.
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.
[2016]
> 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.
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?
That logic would make all cultural criticism verboten.
You don't have to sell me on it, I was already convinced.
I will shit on your porch and you will have to respect my cultural decisions as you step over it.
See, the "your" in there is what we call a possessive pronoun. It indicates that something (in this case, my porch) is owned by someone (in this case, me). That makes what you are proposing doing a property rights issue, not cultural criticism.
Shit on your own porch all you want.
Fine, I will shit on the public sidewalk easement.
Again, that's public (shared), not yours.
Not sure how (or why) you've gone from "we shouldn't be judging other people's taste" to "I get to defecate wherever I want."
Huh
If you want to shit on your own porch, and while you're at it, redesign your porch to look like shit, more power to you.
There's actually a housing shortage in the US so it's not like this is an architecture that is responsive to consumer or cultural preference and demand - local zoning laws do not even permit such freedom.