I rather like some of the "mid-century modern" houses. That's a particularly bad example of a cracker-box, though.
Please define "McMansion". I see people deriding them all over but no one can define the term, other than "it's some house *I* don't like (usually for unstated, possibly green-to-the-gills reasons)".
Wiki does a decent job of describing it.....
"In American suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture.[1]"
and...
"The term "McMansion" is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] with a notably larger footprint than the existing houses in its neighborhood. It may seem too large for its lot, closely abutting upon the property boundaries and appearing to crowd adjacent homes. A McMansion is either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replaces an existing, smaller structure in an older neighborhood."
I found this image while goggling it. Comes from another critic. Pretty funny....
"Variance with local architecture?" Well, I guess any new house in town is a "McMansion".
Hmm, you believe large houses in a subdivision of large houses are evil?
That definition reeks of silly envy.
That definition is at odds with the first definition.
What is *your* definition?
What part of "as well as" do you not get?
Wow, really? When did I say anything about evil?
I think you're inferring a lot.
I don't see it being at odds, at all.
What's your agenda, here? You clearly have one and are trying to steer me into it. So just get to it.
I think I made the reasoning behind my objection to these houses pretty clear. There's no hidden malice or envy involved. I think they are f'n ugly and completely lacking in style.
those using the term "McMansion" are just a little green. ...particularly those who use derisive over-generalizations like;
"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
Really, why do you care what others have?
Jeeze, look at the build price. I'll bet Swingy couldn't do one for that today.
-- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt
Over generalization? Not entirely. I live next to one of the richest counties in the country. It also happens to be (was, perhaps) in the top 10 counties for bankruptcies.
I don't. But I do care that so many people in this country are so far in debt. It affects all of us. It affect our economy, or have you forgotten 2008 already?
SO if it only meets two of three of the above criteria, it's not a McMansion?
Read on...
Raead on...
I certainly do. Or is a "McMansion" just any house you don't like?
It's hard to understand you when there are no common words.
Your other posts in the thread belie this.
Yes, over-generalization. You assume that if it's a big house the owner can't afford it and only owns it to try to impress you. That's absurd.
Obviously you do. You certainly show animus towards those who have more than you.
...and your derision for what people own changes that how?
If you can't see the over-generalization, you're blind.
;-)
More than me? That's a big assumption on your part.
Hey man, if you live in one of these monstrosities, I'm sorry I offended you. I suggest you get over it. Get your panties out of the wad and ignore me.
I'll bet he wouldn't get out of bed for that paltry sum :)
Just think of that price on a thirty year fixed note, especially after the inflationary '70's. (providing you managed to still have a job)
basilisk
Is it? You clearly believe people who like toys are to be looked down upon.
I have two fairly large houses but that's certainly not the point (neither a monstrosity like the one pictured). Your derision of those who like certain toys is unhelpful, in general. You sound just like an Obama class-warrior.
On the defensive now? Why? Did I nail it?
The '70s is when you wanted a thirty-year fixed note! ;-) ...sorta like today. ;-)
Somewhere between 1945-1955 - that's as close as I can remember.
You need a general reading comprehension course. I don't give a rats ass what people buy with their own money. That's irrelevant to me. I enjoy the freedom of this country and it's free market. I do think it is very unwise to get so far indebted at such high interest rates (credit cards) or to mortgage your house to pay for your entertainment ("toys" your word) and use your home as a personal ATM. Doing that kind of stuff is pretty stupid and maybe people who do that should be looked down upon. The amount of personal debt for the average household in this country is staggering and most people with this kind of debt are truly just a few paychecks away from bankruptcy. It is foolish at best.
While I feel no obligation to explain myself to you, I am about as opposite of that as one could get. I explained above.
Not at all. I just wish you would've gotten to your agenda sooner without the subterfuge. You clearly wanted to paint me a certain color. Didn't work.
Hardly. You *clearly* implied it with the following generalization;
"up to their eyeballs in debt, two paychecks away from bankruptcy, because they are financing a bunch of stuff they don't want or need to impress a bunch of people they don't like."
Belied by the drooling derision, above.
Then why the animus?
If that were true, you'd not have posted the above.
Strawman. The point is that a "McMansion" implies this, to you. That's a sickness.
Your words say otherwise. If you really felt that, your objections would be about the absurd architecture not the (obviously unknown) financial health of the owners.
Agenda? I don't like the politics of envy. Envy an ugly emotion and one that is at least as destructive as financial incompetence. That's why Obama is using the tactic.
I always think of mortgages as doubling the cost of the house, so that's about $40k, or $111.11 a month. That's easily doable today by most people, eh?
-- It takes as much energy to wish as to plan. --Eleanor Roosevelt
My objections WERE with the architecture. I made the other statement as a side note, which is all you seem to be obsessed with.
I've already explained to you it's the over-indebtedness I take issue with. Your lack of understanding isn't my problem. Maybe you're the one who's defensive? Maybe I touched a nerve. Either way, I don't really care. You clearly want to feel superior in some way and are projecting your own issues on me, branding me as envious. I'll say it again, get over it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.