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

McMansion or not? - Page 33

post #481 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouttsClient View Post
Thank you

I'll consider starting that new thread. Not sure what the angle would be just yet.

I'm casting my vote with option #2. Parts of the interior do seem replaceable (I'm not sold on the cabinetry or most of the furnishings), but to an architectural innocent like myself it looks pretty nice. The landscaping costs must be a bitch, though.

None of these houses are really McMansiony, although they're eclectic and a little pandering to modern tastes. The third place's columns don't really bother me - they seem sort of faux-Hudson Valley, which is in line with the rest of the architecture.
post #482 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouttsClient View Post
Gravel driveways are a plus for me.

Going to see the first house in a couple of hours

Must not be a car guy then.
post #483 of 539
Currently out taking a walk through the neighborhood and snapped a photo of this place. Can this house technically be considered a McMansion? It's in a cul de sac with other houses that certainly look more in line with your typical McMansion, but this one doesn't seem as common.
post #484 of 539
^ It's better than most ... but it has issues.
The scale of the front door isn't sufficient.
The window over the entry door is a very wrong.
The dormers are too large.
etc., etc., etc.
post #485 of 539
just a question about that last one, is that build with proper brick? And with that I mean the brick/insulator/brick version. The pic with faux brick a few pages back amazed me.
post #486 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nootje View Post
just a question about that last one, is that build with proper brick? And with that I mean the brick/insulator/brick version. The pic with faux brick a few pages back amazed me.

i assumed the faux-brick was used inside...
post #487 of 539
This might be my favorite thread on SF. The obvious sincerity in StephenHero's architectural snobbery (in this thread and others) is completely unrivaled as far as snobbery goes, but I can't fault him for it in the least.
post #488 of 539
^ Mother always suggested toning it down. She claimed it was possible to make the same point without being obvious about it.

As an architect, when I'm asked to comment on a building (or home) which I can't respect, I respond, "Oh, I can see you tried to do something here."
post #489 of 539
Perhaps I missed it but did we discuss what a proper mansion should be?
post #490 of 539
Expensive
post #491 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Expensive
The least expensive townhouse in my row is close to $10MM (maybe a little overpriced) but I wouldn't call it a mansion for that reason alone. Should it be a certain size with a certain amount of land before it qualifies? Most of the "mansions" I've been to/in/around have been rather ugly things on semi-large plots.
post #492 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouttsClient View Post
I've been considering buying a place in my hometown for the last 6 months or so. It would mainly serve to give me more incentive to visit my family...so a "vacation" home of sorts...

These homes would both need a skillful architect and builder to accomplish what I want. Are they McMansions?

http://www.trulia.com/property/photo...rhope-AL-36532
http://www.pointclearlakefront.com/

Leaning towards the 2nd bc I can do a lot with the acreage and really want to put in a clay tennis court and guest cottage if I have room.

The second one has nice land, and does at least look like a real house. Replace the kitchen, though.

The first one can't decide if it's a beachfront condo, a ranch house, or Tara. Perhaps that's just a simple decor issue, and can be solved by scraping the walls and doorways clear.
post #493 of 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouttsClient View Post
The least expensive townhouse in my row is close to $10MM (maybe a little overpriced) but I wouldn't call it a mansion for that reason alone.

Should it be a certain size with a certain amount of land before it qualifies?

Most of the "mansions" I've been to/in/around have been rather ugly things on semi-large plots.

I always figured to be a "mansion" as opposed to just a "big house" or even a "big house on a lot of land" it has to have some level of imposing grandeur or fanciness to it, especially on the approach or from the road (if you can see it from the road). You shouldn't be able to mistake it for a large farmhouse, for eg.
post #494 of 539
I suppose the definition of what constitutes a "mansion" has changed over the years and from country to country, but I think that the following characteristics still hold true, in general: * Over 5,000-7,500 sf. * Special rooms designed expressly for entertaining and/or to accommodate various activities, such as large formal dining; conservatories/greenhouses/indoor pools; library/gallery/offices; luxe home theatres; etc. * More bedrooms than required by occupants (i.e. several guest rooms with ancillary baths). * Private domestics' quarters. * Extensive, designed grounds if in the country. * Various out-buildings (i.e. guest house/s; luxe garage/s; maintenance buildings; possibly domestics' quarters) if in the country. * These days, probably very high-tech security; a-v systems; and domotics. I have no idea if a strict definition exists.
post #495 of 539
Growing up I was told never to use the word mansion ... but rather house. I'm told the term great house is acceptable.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › McMansion or not?