or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › McMansion or not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

McMansion or not? - Page 8

post #106 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Stephen, you are one judgmental mo-fo. While I too dislike the McMansion farms, where 3.5k sq ft houses are placed on 10k sq foot lots, all with exceedingly similar elevations, etc., I would not talk of what people "should" be doing. It's their money, their choices. For some families, size > quality, particularly in today's mobile and peripatetic society. What's your take on this completely natural material dwelling?
Why? Do people have no burden of social responsibility? You're under the impression that a person's choice to create a house is infallible and exists independent of others' well being. That's completely false. The different between a tepee and a McMansion is that one doesn't raze a plot of land, waste valuable resources, and force people to deal with the consequences of its existence for 100 years.
post #107 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Ultimately, houses are multi-generational assets and future generations have to deal with our mistakes. Someone will have to own our errors in judgment, so we shouldn't be building something that people will eventually look at and ask "Why the fuck did you think this was a good idea?"
Too much of our society is still in "throw away" mode. I give you McPrada:



That said ... I'm generally with you ... although I'd put it a bit differently.
post #108 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
stuff

what he's trying to get at is from an architect's point of view is that no buildings exist in a vacuum. There is a responsibility for a society/town/whatever to have good buildings as each one impacts everybody's life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post
That said ... I'm generally with you ... although I'd put it a bit differently.

This.
post #109 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
It's age resistant. It's meant to look like it's brand new for its entire lifecycle despite that fact that agelessness is a futile goal. It's contradictory. Materials age and when that siding starts to show wear, it will begin to reveal its artificiality and cheapness. As soon as that happens, the little aesthetic appeal it might have had will be gone, as opposed to an old barn that can wear indefinitely and still retain its charm. Aged wood is not flawed. It's delightful.

It's also not technically superior because the performance value of a house's siding is in the insulation, and the benefits of "fire retardant" siding are not inclusive to itself. There are any number of materials more suitable for the side of a house if fire or termite prevention are your concerns.

The only reason people use it is because it's cheap. And if a person can't afford the real thing, that person's house is too fucking big and they need to downsize to a size that they can actually create with integrity. Eventually, the siding will rot and have to be replaced. At that time, we then have to deal with the environmental impact of all these shitty building materials that aren't biodegradable.

Ultimately, houses are multi-generational assets and future generations have to deal with our mistakes. Someone will have to own our errors in judgment, so we shouldn't be building something that people will eventually look at and ask "Why the fuck did you think this was a good idea?"



Your argument here makes no sense. Hardie plank is not cheap and people use it because it is termite resistant, fire resistant, looks good when painted and wears well. In Atlanta, people value Hardie plank over vinyl and wood siding. People value brick more but it is more expensive.

As for other generations, it's not really their call. I am buying what I like and what looks good to me and my family.
post #110 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
This is a serious question: what if the McMansion is an honest representation of the owner's tastes?

--Andre

They would be anomalies, at least biologically. It would likely be in their taste for the purpose of making some type of statement.

We know for certain that processed materials within a built environment like carpet and plastic have a strong effect on levels of depression. We know that people get agitated by fluorescent light compared to incandescent light. We know that a lack of natural airflow in and out of buildings affects the immune system and circadian rhythm of people.

When people are surrounded by natural materials, we know their blood pressure drops, they become happier, and their brain activity is increased. It's because those materials increase the amount of energy they spend acclimating themselves to the nuances of natural environments. They are much more aware. There is a huge therapeutic value to natural surroundings the same way there are to natural foods.

I guess it could be in someone's taste to eat a gummi bear diet, but it's not in their best interest. Unlike diets though, your choice of house to build is eventually passed on to someone else.
post #111 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post
what he's trying to get at is from an architect's point of view is that no buildings exist in a vacuum. There is a responsibility for a society/town/whatever to have good buildings as each one impacts everybody's life.

Well, there goes every public housing project for the last 60 years.
post #112 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
In Atlanta, people value Hardie plank over vinyl and wood siding. People value brick more but it is more expensive.
While Atlanta has some very beautiful houses of brick ... the South in general has misused brick in ways I couldn’t have imagined had I not seen the examples with my own eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
I am buying what I like and what looks good to me and my family.
Of course, unless your house is completely hidden from view ... your neighbors are impacted by what you do to the exterior of your house.
post #113 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
It has nothing to do with jealousy. I'm not jealous because I don't own a McMansion. I'd much rather live in a 500sq. ft. stone barn than a 4000 sq. foot Lowe's advertisement. The thing that people don't acknowledge is that the size of their home and the formal elements it possesses have absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the home to meet it's intended purpose, which is to live in. Those two aspects are used irrationally to express a connotation of wealth or lifestyle which we associate with pre-20th century mansion styling.

Does vinyl siding made with a fake wood texture improve your life? No. All it does it mimic the materials of colonial houses in order to give the impression that the owner has a slice of authentic America.

Does an ornate plastic porch light that was copied from an old Boston street lantern design improve your life or provide an honest expression of its purpose? No, unless you actually use whale blubber to burn it. All it's doing is mimicking the lifestyle it cannot authentically recreate. There is such an absurdly contrived falseness in the motivation for McMansion ownership, that it's amazing that people don't even fathom how purposeless it is.

Homes and architecture are not supposed to be limited to a utilitarian existence, so they can have ornamental elements, but if those elements aren't intended to actually provide a function of pleasure (as opposed to to a function of deception or representation), there is no purpose.

Take a flower arrangement at a dinner table. If it's a real flower arrangement made of real flowers, that can provide a function of delight that we take from natural things and validate its ornamental existence. Obviously that would be expensive if it was done every day, so it therefore takes on some level of desirability within the the world of McMansions. But if it's made of fake flowers that you bought at Michaels, does it still provide delight? No. Of course not. It just sits there and tries to convince the people eating dinner that their servants may actually have picked them from the garden. But there's nothing delightful about plastic tulips that were shipped in a crate from a Chinese village. The plastic flowers don't fool people into believing someone's life is either in touch with nature's splendors or authentically exceptional. It's just tacky.

The McMansion can't say it's an honest representation of its occupiers' existence because the entire purpose of a McMansion is to deceive them into believing their home represents a lifestyle that they don't actually have. Anything meant to mimic something else that predates it in purpose or style is only valuable if it's a completely authentic version. If you want a Georgian colonial, it should be made of 100% Georgian colonial materials, not artificial materials that were invented in 1996.

Mostly agree, but that's me, not the McM owners and that's fine with me.
post #114 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Your argument here makes no sense. Hardie plank is not cheap and people use it because it is termite resistant, fire resistant, looks good when painted and wears well.
Then the people of Atlanta can bask in its greatness.
post #115 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Then the people of Atlanta can bask in its greatness.
photoshop please. u kno u want to. here's some material:
post #116 of 539
How about a screenplay in one act where God interrogates AF about why all the natural materials God gave him were not sufficient for his music room?
post #117 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
How about a screenplay in one act where God interrogates AF about why all the natural materials God gave him were not sufficient for his music room?
You are on to something here...I'm serious. This could be one hellova comedy.
post #118 of 539
^^^ I must say that Hardie-sided McNot-Quite-a-Manson with cultured stone base has just ruined that beautiful site.
post #119 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Well, there goes every public housing project for the last 60 years.

Yes, they are atrocities and a ton of residents' problems were due to their architecture.

Seriously though, I get what you're saying but facts are, architecture matters much more than people want to admit, McMansions suck (that may not be a fact), and people bought what they couldn't afford.
post #120 of 539
Must have SH's opinion on these:





New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › McMansion or not?