McMansion or not? - Page 7

This is starting to sound very Howard Roarke'ish.

Personally, I love linoleum!

I'm just trying to condition your thought process before you buy this car.

Those of us who have been to architecture school have had lots of practice in how to talk without saying anything.

Ultimately, prewar homes are more expensive than new homes of identical size precisely because they aren't defined by that degree of bullshit that motivates McMansions' construction. There is a longevity in their value and once you've lived in one you understand its merit. The McMansion is destined to lose and a hundred years from people will wonder why we thought deceitful expressions of wealth added value to our domesticity.

Wow, you can't go dropping this line and not say anything.

I don't think people will wonder ... I think they'll know exactly what was going on. It's all so very obvious.

I know it's unseemly to quote myself ... but what the hell.

I was just thinking of Oren Safdie's play Private Jokes, Public Places. Safdie is the son of archtiect, Moshe Safdie and his play nails the psychology of several stereotypical -- and all too often deadly accurate -- architectural personalities. I highly recommend it.

I saw a production at Aurora Theatre in Berkeley. Their space is small and offers seating in the round (actually a U). I was seated across from the mother of a fellow professional. On the way out of the theatre I stopped to talk to her. She said to me, "I didn't watch the play, I watched you and your reactions. You were much more entertaining."

Below is a brief review of the Aurora production of the play:

Oren Safdie, the son of famed architect Moshe Safdie, has written a biting satire on academia, relationships, and the importance of challenging tradition. Set during the presentation of an architectural thesis, Korean-American Margaret stands before an all-white male jury of famous architects and presents her plans for a public swimming pool. Touted as "an hour and a quarter of laughter...inspired and astonishing" (New York Times), Private Jokes, Public Places is a thought-provoking, whirling dervish of controversy and conflict. As the questions, retorts and wildly disparate points of view propagate, this take-no-prisoners comedy swells to a surprising conclusion.

Please note that I later used the word "envy" ... I did it just for you ... and clarity.

You forgot to mention the woman with the enhanced bust line.

How is it inferior?

This is a serious question: what if the McMansion is an honest representation of the owner's tastes? For example, they actually like how vinyl siding looks. It's not totally unheard of as there are other things in life where common practices have altered people's tastes, so something that was once considered abhorrent is now considered normal.

Also, what about the possibility of someone using previously bad material in a novel, beautiful way, like Gehry's Santa Monica house? (No, I don't think that's what McMansions are doing.)

--Andre

How is it not?

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?" See how quaint this is?

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 peripetetic society.

What's your take on this completely natural material dwelling?