Disagree: Certain things are just wrong. Building a house in such a way that it misses ocean views is a mistake!

Unfortunately, people are often allowed to build wherever they want. I say unfortunately because other taxpayers are paying to fight fires and floods where people have built in unsafe locations.

A person may like the ocean, but not want an ocean view. Some people love the outdoors, others hate it (but otherwise like the area they live in.)

Let 'em do what they want, while I do what I want!

None of that's particularly likely, LookIntoMyEyes, is it?

Of course everyone can do as they want, but some building choices are clearly mistakes.

And it's not always a matter of views: I'm thinking about a family I used to know. They were a working class family and lived in a very modest house. Dad struck it big (not quite sure how he made that huge jump, but that's not the question -- I was friends with the daughter), and one of the first things they did was build a BIG McMansion -- but they built it right there in their very modest working class neighborhood, the place they knew, the place where all their friends were. It was something like a 6-bedroom house with valued ceilings and formal areas ... and it was surrounded by duplexes and 1200-sf bungalows from the '40s. Why was this a mistake? Because after a couple years, his job transferred him out of state, and he lost money on the sale. His mistake was location, location, location.

Isn't it the lot that lacks a view, not the house's fault?

mrspete - as an example - I moved to the 'country' because I like privacy and wanted space to garden. But I also hate it because i didn't particularly want a septic field, redneck neighbors who are idiots and destroy my trees my snowmobiling over them (despite being clearly burlapped and flagged), and hate the long driveway I'm being forced to put in.

So yes, I think it's possible to live ocean-side and not give a rat's behind about the view! :)

In the mid-80s, in my hometown, a community of 5-acre+ zoning, a famous fellow (yes, you've heard of him) built a gorgeous home on a gorgeous lot...backing up to the freight/commuter/Amtrak railroad, with a major thoroughfare beside it, and another major thoroughfare beyond the tracks. Never could figure that one out, he could have his choice of wonderful lots, heck, he could buy one or two with a house on it and replace the house. So why there? One of his colleagues did something similar about a mile along the road from him. And, so did another figure, enormously successful in similar field and all the money in the world. Built along a freight track, power lines just beyond, the same major thoroughfare one house away. When you have a choice, why make THOSE choices? Unless it's to let the tracks and power lines serve as a barrier to nosy-pokes?

We are building what many of you would call a mcmansion, 3100sqft, 9000sqft lot, close but no cigar on a Mt St Helen's view.

Why here? 1 mile freeway access in a congested area, great schools, a flat yard that isn't acreage.

Those 3 things out ranked my desire for a view. The faintly distant freeway noise is not even a thought. You can only hear bikers and EMS when outside and nothing inside.

I think the OP was mostly talking about people building on unsuitable soil -- it floods, it is a salt marsh. Huge EXPENSIVE McMansions, and trouble for them can brew having nothing whatsoever to do with a potential view.

I also understand, though, the wonder of someone buying what must be pretty pricey shoreside land for a house with no view. Which seems to fit at least one of these buyers.

bpathome -- Ah...SPORTS millionaires, right? They are often young, come from nuthin', just don't 'get' the concept of location. I've never understood people who build on the curb of an expressway, but I don't know what they are moving *from* that makes this look good -- price is probably 'right'.

Re: McMansions. My impression is of vinyl siding with a stageset front, no trees, no good schools, in the hinterland on land that was plowed last you knew. McMansions aren't usually 'expensive', they are just big and boring and nowhere.

Or, they're urban 3 story 5000SF of house in amongst 1700SF 1 1/2 story bungalows like these in Arlington, Va.

But they have shutters on them so they RELATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD!! So all is well....

Oh MY look at those pictures! Wow. I would never want to be the nicest house on the street for various reasons.

autumn4 - I think the question is, are those the nicest houses on the street??!!

chisue, there's a generally accepted use of the term "McMansion" on this board that doesn't fit the ACTUAL term.

Back to the OP's question, the premium lots come at a premium price. The houses across the street from me have some of the best views in the city from every floor (including their walkout basements). But they also cost about $200-300k more than the lots on my side. If we'd bought one of those, we wouldn't have had enough left to build a house. Even if we'd had that kind of money, there are other things I'd rather spend it on than a view.

Just my2 cents, but I don't think a house is considered a mc mansion unless it's 5,000 sq ft or larger. They're usually over-the-top ostentatious, and if you've watched the Housewives from NJ, I would consider them the real deal. While they don't look to have cheap building materials, it's all the frou-frou stuff found on the interior as well as the exterior.

There are mc mansions that are very tastefully 'appointed', but not over the top, and these owners can be multi millionaires or billionaires.

So correct me if I am wrong. There are two types of McMansions (1) Large single family homes (typically recent builds) that are incongruous with the neighborhood, often these are gaudy and austentatious homes. (2) Large single family homes in neighborhoods that are too congruous, all the homes appear to be built by the same builder who varies the same few plans a bit.

An example of the second:

In our area if you replace a tear down with a larger house people call the new house a "McMansion".

Ah, chisue, you know who I'm talking about :)

bry, your picture reminds me of Toronto over the last 20-30 years. Only less green space between, more roof mass. At least in your picture there are different roof colors, red, blue, and...is that purple?!?

After living in our area for many years, I can still say I'm shocked at where people build. Horrible locations.

Well, I shouldn't say where people build. The builder builds and people actually buy.

Recently, townhomes are being built right on the sidewalk, on a busy road. You could practically reach out and touch these homes. I can't imagine hearing traffic around the clock and having to cover so many windows to that the thousands of people who drive by can't see in!

bpathome: That was kind of what I was thinking of. The houses I mentioned in this question were people who clearly spared no expense, but put their houses on unlikely lots. Most lots on this street have ocean views. Yet one of the few that doesn't has been renovated within an inch of it's life by a series of owners. There are currently mermaids involved. None of the ocean view lots have been renovated this aggressively, which to me would have made more sense.

Yes, amberm145, if you don't have an unlimited budget, I totally understand why you would go for a cheaper lot. However, when I see that much money being thrown around (outside of a "trendy" urban area) I know that they could have purchased a waterfront lot in town for less then the cost of the last round of expansions. I tend to think there is a "law of diminishing returns" where renovations are concerned. At some point you would be better off buying a better lot. The last couple owners clearly bought the place with the idea they would add additions. Ultimately this is an aesthetic choice...but really, most of the stuff on these forums isreally discussing aesthetic choices. Except for the egineering, which there tends not to be a lot of.

The other house was a wildly over-the-top mansion that *HAS* a very nice ocean view...but is precariously perched on the edge of a march, and the "dry land" portion of the yard literally only extends a few yards beyond the house.
I should point out there are several vacant lots on the street, though I suppose I don't know if they are for sale.

mrspete: Unrelated to this question, but there was a house I know that was built on a wooded lot one edge of which would have had a sea breeze and just might have had an ocean view if they built tall enough. They clear cut the lot and put the house in the exact middle of it where sea breeze and view were blocked. The house got very hot. Then they spent a lot on interior decorating. I can't help but think they would have been better off if they had some trees and an ocean view. Not a McMansion, though

Oaktown, does your area not have McDonalds for people to understand the origin of the term?

Bry, your second example is what "McMansion" means. Your first definition is GWs adopted version, which is wrong and OFFENSIVE to a lot of people building here.

When someone "spares no expense", they are automatically NOT building a McMansion. Because McDonalds is not a "spare no expense" kinda place.

If someone wants to build in (what I would consider) an odd location, I don't care unless 1) they default on their loan and we all end up paying for their house, or 2) they build in such a way that it impacts others: like a towering house that casts shade over the neighbors, or too much house for the lot so that there is water runoff into neighboring properties.

If they build it and pay the builders, and pay the taxes, and don't impact neighbors negatively, then I'm glad someone got paid to build it. By contrast, I hate the arrogance of someone who starts building a home they can't afford and then thinks it's OK to default. Like this one - 30,000 square feet of overdone "house" built for $25MM, owner defaulted, leaving the bank with $8MM in debt and an unsightly, empty shell that detracts from the neighborhood. It finally sold for $3MM. Every time I drive past, I think "why?" It's on a busy corner and a lot far smaller than you'd think for this size house. (Part of my "why" is why he was allowed to build so big.)

amberm145, yes we have McDonald's. While the new builds typically are custom expensive houses, and might be beautiful (as in, "did you see the new McMansion going up on X street? It's really pretty."), the label still sticks. In our old neighborhood, a house went up, <3000 sqft and folks were calling it a McMansion. I also recently heard the term "SpecMansion" for high-end estates built by investors chasing new tech money.

In my friend's case, the little low one story on-slab houses on either side of hers were replaced by two-story+, with main floor 4' above the ground, 10-12' ceilings and pitched roofs (and a turret--really a tower, but turret carries more baggage!), right on the setback line. Then zoning rules were changed to prevent such theft of light and air (distance from property line to top of wall, top of roof, etc). But that meant that the only thing that can be built on my friend's lot is...another small house. So her lot is almost unsellable, and certainly not for a price comparable to what her old neighbors got.

Chicagoans, I know a house like that, I don't think he even quite finished. It did eventually sell for a pittance (well, in that size property $3MM is a pittance) and was either finished or replaced. I happened to drive by it yesterday (busy thoroughfare) and noticed that all the ash trees in the yard are dead. There's probably a dozen, $$$, not counting elsewhere on the property. And there will be no shade trees in the garden then, only on the perimeter.

chicagoans the reason they were allowed to build that big is pretty simple - tax revenue. So many suburbs around Chicago talk a good game about lot setbacks, sq ft to lot percentages, tree preservation, permeable driveway and patio material requirements..... but when it comes right down to it, the cost for a variance or the fine and required tree replacement when the builder cries he didn't know not to cut down the 100 yr old oaks is just built into the cost of the house and the city taxing bodies are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of 25k+ in real estate taxes. We got so discouraged fighting about the monstrosity that was being built next to us. Not just trees on their property taken down but on adjoining lots because the foundation overdig so compromised the root structure that the trees were condemned! I had to stand between the excavator and our oaks while calling the city to protect our trees. Our neighbors weren't so lucky. After the build all the promises the city made to us about not allowing the grade to change went right out the window and their yard ended up 3' higher than ours. But I'm not bitter. The hell I'm not!! LOL!! Water under the bridge, we left the state and bought 6+ acres ;-)

Oaktown, I would be less concerned about some random person on the street using the term, since they don't necessarily know (or care) much about architecture. But here, we obviously care. And the outright REFUSAL to acknowledge that people are using a derogatory term in inappropriate context offends me.

If someone doesn't like what I'm building, that's their prerogative. But to deride it with inaccurate vocabulary just shows your own ignorance.

We cut down some old trees. There simply wasn't enough room for a house with 2 overgrown spruce trees. One neighbour actually THANKED us, as it had been blocking the sun from her garden (and our 3 story house casts less shadow). The other neighbour didn't realize it was our tree that had killed their tree, by sapping nutrients from the soil. People a block down have been complaining because the tall trees that didn't affect them in any way looked nice from a distance.

Our lot had a 900sq' house on it. It has been replaced with two 2000sq+ houses. If infills were not done here, we would have had to build 2 houses on farm land outside the city to accommodate people wanting 2000sq'+ houses (this is prairie country, otherwise we'd be destroying forests with our urban sprawl). There are about 20 other infills on this block alone. Multiply that by the entire inner city, and that's a WHOLE lot of farm land or forests being chewed up. Not to mention the fumes being released into the atmosphere while everyone drives from their far flung acreages, in bumper to bumper traffic.

bpathome, that's awful that your friends' city changed the rules on her. I'm sure someone could argue a variance in that case. Putting in a 30' tall house isn't going to affect any of her neighbours. But, you gotta be willing to argue for it.

amberm145, I suspect you might be right that many folks in our area actually aren't that familiar with the origin of the term "McMansion" and might think of it more as "mansion-lite"=smaller version of a mansion; hamburger-sized rather than steak dinner sized? Or they haven't stopped to think about it. For context, there really isn't undeveloped land available in our immediate area for building something like what bry911 posted.

I do find it ironic when some people use the "McMansion" term to argue against new custom homes in hopes of preserving the character of post-war tract housing neighborhoods.

I also wanted to add (in response to the original question) that if the expensive homes were only ever put on the expensive lots, the street wouldn't have quite the same character. I like that we have everything from $$$ houses with spectacular views, to $$ houses with maybe a view, to modest homes on a great lot, to small, old, "cheap" houses, all on the same street. It would be very weird to me if the one side of the street was all very expensive homes, and the other side was all old, small, "cheap" homes.

In my mind, a McMansion fits one or more of these categories -- every box might not be ticked, but it's this type of thing that makes a house into a sub-par finished product:

- It was built to maximize size, but quality and style were ignored; thus, the house lacks elegance and seems "not quite right". You could argue that this is a lack of planning, a lack of knowledge, or a refusal to listen to good advice.

- The owners tried to cram in every design detail they liked, without regard to compatibility. So you end up with, perhaps a Victorian home ... with Craftsman pillars, or a Southern front porch, or MCM windows.

- Or it could be that the home is placed in an incongruous location; for example, I mentioned my high school friend whose parents built a big, expensive house ... in the middle of a subdivision of small houses and duplexes.

- The owners started out to build a large, impressive home, but they ignored budget and were forced to scrimp on important details at the end. For example, the owners might plan to include 5 bathrooms ... but they end up being forced to drop the nice tile and custom built-ins in favor of linoleum and a stock Home Depot vanity at the last minute. So it ends up being a mis-match, a hodge-podge instead of a cohesive design.

- A relative of mine who used to sell real estate used to laugh about people who bought (or built) big expensive houses ... and then couldn't afford to furnish them, or couldn't afford any landscaping. In this sense, it may be "unfinished".

- But mostly, it's a house built with more money than taste ... or a house built with champagne taste and a beer budget.

MrsPete, those things can make for an unfortunate (or awful) build. But being awful does not equal "McMansion".

-Yes, size is more important than quality.

-Yes, random styles may be thrown together for no obvious reason. But it's not what the "owner " likes, it's what the "builder" thought would be popular. Because a McMansion is NOT a custom home. (McDonalds doesn't do custom.)

-Again, if it's a one off, like a giant house in the middle of a subdivision, it's custom and NOT a McMansion.

-Yes, cheap finishes are part of a McMansion. But cheap was always a prime driver of a McMansion, not thrown in at the end because the owner ran out of money. (And keep in mind that a LOT of people here do this, because that kind of stuff can be changed easily. And I would be shocked if anyone on these boards was building an actual McMansion.)

-Builders of McMansions are going for impressive at first glance, so landscaping would probably be done by the builder. And lack of furniture isn't unique to McMansions.

-No, it's the opposite of "more money than taste". It's trying to be grand and impressive, but also being cheap. Trying to LOOK like you've got money when you don't. And "champagne taste on a beer budget" may qualify, technically. But that expression is more friendly than the McMansion term, and can also apply to anyone with good style who implements it frugally. Not related to whether a home is a McMansion or not.

We really need to come up with terms for ugly houses. But then, as most of us are building custom, any one of us could be building something that others don't find attractive. So maybe that's a road we just want to avoid.

I think there is something slightly comforting about "two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun." Perhaps those are akin to American post-war housing tract developments; maybe is it not a McMansion until you get into "supersize me" territory and items like THESE?

To me a "McMansion" is simply an attempt to take the standard practices common in the construction of tract housing in housing developments, and scale it up. Not everything scales well. They tend to be boxy, have designs that show the people involved didn't really think through the options that open up when you have that much money to play with, and have tiny lawns that are all grass.
Despite this post, McMansions aren't really my pet peeve. There are worse things to put your money into then square footage. My pet peeves are people who pour their entire budget into a trendy kitchen and up with a badly built or dangerous house, builders that clear cut large lots when it isn't necessary, and oversised manicured lawns.

Ambern, I agree with the phrase "impressive at first glance". Kind of like the phrase, Big hat, no cattle.

I know that when I was a young adult in the 80s our area was flooded with new neighborhoods of big houses, which I now recognize were McMansions. Yet to my 20 year old eye, they looked NICE! Big kitchens; wow, the master bedrooms; formal rooms! Yet at that time I didn't realize they were not well-thought out and wouldn't have made for a comfortable home. I just saw bay windows and chandeliers.

I do think it's sometimes a matter of "more money than taste" because someone's buying those oversized tract houses ... buying them without realizing that a smaller, better-thought-out house would live more comfortably.

I think the term for ugly houses is "ugly houses". Yet I see some houses that I really don't like -- yet I don't think they're necessarily ugly. They're just not anything I'd ever want myself.

Edlincon, They're not really a pet peeve of mine either -- just something that makes me roll my eyes and think, "Someone built that. What an idiot."

The better built ones do look nice. I think one thing that can lead us astray is the fact that lots of glitzy finishes look amazing if you just look at them. Many people see the house, fewer have to live there. Every real estate agent and garden webber is qualified to evaluate the look, and can do so based on pictures,. Fewer people are qualified to evaluate structural issues, drainage etc...and those that are often need to do more then look at a picture. If you don't watch this trend, everyone will criticize when you skimp on the things that show in pictures, but everyone's budget is finite, and no one will notice for a while if you skimp on more substantive issues. I've seen this happening on some of the design forums. A kind of "death of a thousand cuts" (death of the budget) as every detail gets scaled up and made more trendy by commenters. One guy says your kitchen HAS to be over X square feet, another mocks your faux granite, another says the bathroom is too small...but ultimately you have to cut elsewhere to pay for this stuff...so you skip the attic, skip the basement, cut corners on the waterproofing. Everyone knows the latest trends but fewer know your site or the neighborhood and few know engineering.

Replacing a small house with a larger one doesn't have to be a bad idea. Well, I hope not, since we tore down an under-2000 sq ft ranch and built a 2900 sq ft home.

McMansions are primarily BIG, but not especially NICE. I think of a lot of cheap square footage, but not great baths and kitchens or tasteful finishes. First time buyers tend to mistake Big for Value. It's marketing. It works. (Do you want a gallon container of of cheap ice cream full of sugar and air or a pint of high-butterfat with quality ingredients?)

Some of this is context. A development in to-heck-and-gone has few constraints. A city concerned with its overall image shouldn't allow clear-cutting or plopping a monster McMansion in a neighborhood of predominately small homes. Sometimes these Building Review Boards go overboard in their protections -- the one in our town was operating illegally when we came up against their demands. I guess I'd rather have some oversight than none. (We had to lower our roof *one foot* because the house next door was a small ranch. The ranch is now a 5000 sq ft two-story -- very nice, and not as tall as it might have been because...we are next door! )

My pet peeve is the idea that large infill = McMansion. Although you do make a valid point, edlincoln, that a custom home can be a McMansion if it's basically an inflated version of a tract home.

amberm145, I don't think people will readily move away from the usage of large infill = McMansion because academic articles (and the media in general) have used a similar meaning for years (first linked below uses "oversized infill"; the second uses "large homes built . . . in existing neighborhoods"). Some U.S. cities have "McMansion ordinances" -- though more accurately it should be anti-McMansion zoning restrictions -- designed "to minimize the impact of new construction, remodels, and additions to existing buildings on surrounding properties in residential neighborhoods".

Journal of Urban Design (2007)

Journal of Urban Design (2013)

Austin Texas McMansion Ordinance (yes they call it that!)

When the word McMansion is hurled as an epithet, it comes from those who seem to genuinely hate the idea of people having the freedom to live as they wish. They are often the same ones who decry middle class flight from urban areas, and wring their hands over the alleged harm of urban sprawl. It is an attack on middle class prosperity, and against families in search of better schools and child-friendly spaces.

Those who cry McMansion are every bit as contemptuous toward a subdivision filled with 2,000 sq ft vinyl clad homes with fake shutters and small, newly planted trees on 0.15 acre lots as they are of 4,000 sq ft homes on 0.35 acre lots, and of any size houses built on 2-to-5 acre lots. They don't like when the houses look the same; they don't like when a new house doesn't match the character of the older houses in the neighborhood. They don't like infill lots being developed. They are furious when an outdated 1,200 sq ft home with a leaky basement, decaying plumbing, electrical fire hazards, and cramped rooms is torn down and replaced with a more spacious, energy-efficient home designed to accommodate life in the 21st century.

Why, oh why can't the middle class be herded into high-density urban communities, where they can provide a meaningful buffer between the rich and the poor? Why can't they be forced to endure a cost of living so high that they will forsake car ownership, and feel pressured to limit their family size? Why can't they just cry "uncle" already, and confess that the lives of hipsters, bohemians, affluent empty-nesters, and fashionable singles is superior to the middle-class aspirations of suburbanites?

Not everyone who disagrees with you necessarily has an evil hidden agenda. People who condemn McMansions are just trying to impose their personal taste on others. Which is really what the Internet in general (and design forums in particular) are all about. You hire an interior decorator or doctor, he takes the time to advise you because you pay him. You go on a free website, people take the time to write multi paragraph reviews out of a desire to influence the choices of others. If you don't like getting an occasional bit of vaguely patronizing opinion, you really should stay off the internet. And away from design magazines and HGTV, for that matter.

edlincoln: "If you don't like getting an occasional bit of vaguely patronizing opinions, you really should stay off the internet. And away from design magazines and HGTV, for that matter."

Thanks, Ed. I definitely needed a reminder to let a little wind out of my sails. This is, as you rightly point out, an internet design forum, not a policy meeting on urban planning and zoning laws.