That side of the garage with extra parking doesn't work. That door off the garage also looks confusing.

A friend in this forum asked me to comment. This is long because I'm not awake enough to be brief. I apologize for not reading through all 172 posts thoroughly--I hope I'm not repeating this. When "McMansion" was coined (I was in the area though not a direct witness of the first utterance), nearly 30 years ago, it was prompted by something specific. There were some tiny houses, what we called "apartments on small lots" which had kind of miniature rooms, but with the same design features of full sized houses of their time. Some were built toward the end of the Depression, and really were meant to be apartment-style housing. Land was cheap and people got gardens. Similar to the kind of HOA developments they make now with tiny individual houses, only without the HOA and community use features. A common floorplan would have a parlor, dining room, kitchen, utility room, and either a small hall with two small bedrooms, each with a 3' wide closet, and a full bathroom, often with a separate stall shower, or one bedroom and bathroom off the main area, and a maid's room off the kitchen.

Right after WWII, a bunch more of these tiny houses on small lots were thrown up quickly, but according to those who were there, were not meant to last more than 10 years. They were cheap, and meant for returning GIs, who wanted to stay in California rather than returning to where they were drafted from, to settle their booming families in while they worked their way back into normal life. As with most "temporary" structures, since they didn't fall down, they were mostly kept, added onto when needed, and sold several times.

Then the economy went wonky. First there was the double digit inflation and what it did to the money markets in the 1970's, then the trend toward luxury, designer and imported goods in the 1980's which actually went with housing being harder to pay for. Add this to the neighborhoods these tiny houses were becoming much more desirable, and also being geographically close to very high end houses, so those who wanted into the luxury neighborhoods and their good schools, were plumping down silly money for the tiny houses just to be close to grandeur. Lifestyles were changing however, and the families were older with more diverse ideas of what should happen inside the house (like watch a video tape rather than going out to the movies). Add the quality disparity between the old, cheap structures or better pre-war ones with the itty bitty rooms and the houses of the school fellows of their children to the incentive given by California Prop. 13 property tax structure that rewards people for not moving, and a whole lot of remodelling was going on.

Houses were being scraped to the studs, preserving just enough, usually the garage, to comply with the law not to be considered a "new" structure that would trigger a tax reassessment, and being reshaped to fill the maximum amount of enclosed space allowed. The actual large luxury houses were also being remodelled for the same reasons, often bringing in Italianate details and grand materials and looks, often on the basis of if we're spending this much on redoing the house, it ought to show. There was also a design trend toward the baroque as a back swing from technological modernism. The tiny house owners had equal access to the newly available stone balustrades, fluted columns, molded goop rather than carved crown moldings and medallions, etc. Rather than being hand made, these things were now cheap.

So, with a real need for a house the size and shape that suited new ways of living and larger families, and a design movement that was pushing château and castle looks, and building departments that were approving permits on a case by case basis without paying too much attention to the "fits the character of the neighborhood" parts of the zoning plans, and you have this small monstrosities wedged onto small lots sprouting like mushrooms in quaint old neighborhoods. The term "McMansion" was inevitable.

The tiny house movement is the swing back of the pendulum. Big, bigger, biggest has had its day. Conservation of resources both in building and in maintaining/heating/land use, etc., is in.

The originals were mostly made by single guys in their late-20's to early-40's whose self image, actual size (height) and pocketbooks didn't really fit into RVs, and who wanted to live on their own, rather than in apartments/condos, usually not even having enough money for a plot of land. They built simple structures out of wood that they could work with basic tools, often on the backs of large trucks or on utility trailers. Used, but structurally sound and cheap.

With wheels, these were vehicles and didn't have to pass housing laws, just had to be road worthy. They were often parked in friends' yards. If neighbors complained, they'd move on to the next friend.

Most RV parks don't allow them because they aren't certified housing. Campgrounds don't like them because they aren't certified RVs.

As it's grown from box housing for minimalist, semi-drop-out single men to a reasonable, stylish alternative to an RV or mobile home, people have turned to licensed builders and RV makers. DIY is out, or is blended with supervision from licensed individuals, though if someone has the land and no building department interference, make what you like still goes.

Common features of this kind of tiny house include not wasting space on a separate sleeping area, using a loft, hidden bed (murphy style, pull up to the ceiling, sofa-bed, etc.). One of the ways they save a lot of money from RVs is going for much heavier materials, less optimization of storage space, etc. One of the ways they expand on conventional RV's is with heights that are up to the maximum that will fit on the road, preferring vertical space to the slide out increase of floor space that so many RV's have. Many are meant to be off grid for longer than most RVs as well, using composting toilets, solar/wind/battery power, and bringing in water and propane.

What the newer, more luxurious mobile tiny houses have in common with the originals is the desire for that sense of independence, ownership and stability, while the actual house is not permanent and is at least transportable up to as moveable as any travel trailer (but with poorer gas millage).

Sorry about bringing this thread back up again but for some unknown reason JDS's project has been bugging me.

@JDS as a professional hired to fix that, you may have no other option than to try your best, but the accountant in me keeps thinking they are really just throwing good money after bad. They have a horribly ugly house and when they are done they will be left with a much more expensive ugly house.

I was only half way kidding about the wall. My advice would be to fix the porch, remove a bit of the asphalt and hide the house behind a wall of tall thin evergreens, something like an Italian Cypress. I can't imagine that house ever being visually appealing so I would think the easy solution would be to draw your eyes away from the house.

Anyway best of luck with it.

I might not have made it clear that the goal of the owners is to improve the house and sell it; they don't intend to live in it. Therefore, the owners want to make it look more like the surrounding properties. The windows and siding cannot be salvaged so at least those features will be new. It's an interesting and difficult project. Next time you see a house like this one, imagine how you would change it.

Related: Bloomberg News reports "McMansions Define Ugly in a New Way: They’re a Bad Investment"

McMansions cost more to build than your average starter ranch home does,
and they will sell for more. But the return on investment has dropped
like a stone. The additional cash that buyers should be willing to part
with to get a McMansion fell in 85 of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan
areas.

And my guess is it's because of the last line in the article with the emphasis on ugly:

"Still, there's another possibility: McMansion owners are losing out because the market considers their homes an ugly investment, too."

"Architects and builders have simply been giving everyone what they want"

That may be true but if that was what I did for a living I would have quit long ago. It is giving owners more than what they want that makes such hard work for so little income tolerable.

If you want someone to just give you what you want, go to a draftsman. If you want what you want only better and maybe in a way you didn't realize you wanted it, go to an architect.

I got his and her showers in my last remodel because I hired an architect. It was genius on his part. I think of him every morning with a smile on my face.

I think that a lot of this terrible overwrought stuff is designed by architects, and there are people that want it. But then there are also people who buy it because it's what's available in new construction.

Do you have separate twin beds too ;)

Any and all advice is welcome, we are in the beginning stages so just want to see if we're on the right track! Thanks for your help!

I disagree palimpsest. I think the majority of it is designed by builders who think they can do better than the architect. I see it all the time down here.

Now that's not to say there aren't bad architects too. After all, they didn't all graduate at the top or even in the middle of their class.

But then there are also people who buy it because it's what's available in new construction.

Ohmygosh, this is *so true* in my area. It's the entire reason I'm interested in hiring a talented, perhaps semi-retired, architect, because all the new stuff (even in the medium-sized range of 1600-2500sqft) is Mish Mash McMansion with Meh on the side. It just makes me sad.

Interestingly, "The Field Guide to American Houses" calls these things "Millenial Mansions." Which might help place them in architectural history a little better, even.

I did like her explanations of the flaws, though I could have done without the "social commentary." It was certainly something written by someone with a specific axe to grind.

While the "Not So Big" thing is clearly a response to McMansions, I wonder if the "modern farmhouse" trend is also a reaction against things like pringles can foyers. Just not any better designed, a fair proportion of the time.

Touché.

cpartist: here, at least, there still needs to be an architect who stamps the final plans, so they are at least complicit in these designs. When I was in design school, there was a classmate who got accepted to a prestigious architecture program. She was a good draftsperson and had good grades because she met the criteria of the coursework. But her esthetic sense...blech. I think certain programs will push toward certain esthetic goals, but ultimately if you get a chance to design your own vision, that's what you are going to do. I also know someone who designed a parking garage as their thesis project Someone has to do it, I know, but this individual was pretty lacking in the esthetics department as well.

----

In terms of buying what's available, if people want new construction, and a lot of people do, you have to take what you can get unless you can afford to build custom. In my city now, it will be contemporary eclectic with about half a dozen different finishes (not exaggerating) on the exterior with a couple huge fishbowl windows, built as infills in older neighborhoods. And I think a lot of people like them because of the novelty, but they are not aging well. Particularly in a HCOLA, curb appeal is often going to be practically off the list.

-----

I think one of the big problems in current architecture is that there is not really anything completely new that appeals to the average residential market. Up until modernism, new styles were pretty much new styles. Even Greek Revival, and Renaissance Revival and Colonial Revival were distinct interpretations of older forms, but they are distinctly identifiable both by what they are interpreting, and by their current form. Neo-eclecticism is identifiable mostly by the characteristics of being a mixed bag. Neo-eclectics are rehashes of something that is already a rehash, and they don't have an overriding style other than "anything goes".

It seems majority of this form doesn't realize that different regions have different needs and status quos. There's not an ideal design that fits everyone. The whole "snout garage" term is so pretentious and snobby sounding as it is, but I bet if you presented a detatched or carport to someone in the Midwest you would get laughed at (not trying to pick a battle here)

I've noticed the fad trend around me lately is everyone wants "rustic" without any architectural style in mind. People here are taking every style of home, then going "I want rustic" and trying to implement craftsman features and these stupid HGTV sliding barn doors into everything from traditional to midcentury modern homes. I'm all for combining styles, but this whole rustic movement seems super fad to me and I'm waiting for it to die if you couldn't tell already ;)

Pig snout houses don't bother me, especially if it preserves a back yard. Its a function of how narrow the lots are versus what needs to be built on it. However, I don't like it when houses essentially designed for narrow suburban lots are planted in the middle of acreage, or new houses are designed in this way when it's not necessary for the lot.

Can't argue with that. If you all want to get really mad, I could post 100 pictures of duplexes that have nothing on the front façade other than a 16' garage door and 32" entry door. Not a single window. Don't make me do it lol

I rather like some of the house styles that present a nearly blank or almost forbidding facade to the street--traditionally, South American style, and in North America, popular in some parts of the country in the Mid-Century and Modernist eras. Because more often than not the rest of the house is oriented toward outside private spaces not visible from the street.

Now the tendency is to put all the impressive windows and details up front while the family spends time out back next to the utilitarian face of the house. I think this is backwards, and this is a dead horse I beat all the time.

I also know someone who designed a parking garage as their thesis project Someone has to do it, I know, but this individual was pretty lacking in the esthetics department as well.

Yes, but you DO have to give props for knowing your limits. If you're talented technically, but impoverished creatively, then sticking to utilitarian projects is playing to your strengths. (And, yes, utilitarian objects can be beautiful, too, I realize. But sometimes if budget and usefulness are the main issues, well....)

I think one of the big problems in current architecture is that there is not really anything completely new that appeals to the average residential market

Hmmm, yes and no. I would say that the Modern Farmhouse is it's own distinct Thing(TM), recognizable as such. What sort of legs it has on it as an architectural style remains to be seen.

The whole "snout garage" term is so pretentious and snobby sounding as it is, but I bet if you presented a detatched or carport to someone in the Midwest you would get laughed at (not trying to pick a battle here)

I live in Michigan, where 4-5 months out of the year, the air hurts my face. And, you are correct, a detached garage is a "no go." (I've broken my tailbone once on a Michigan winter, TYVM). I still hate Snout Houses, even in their natural habitat. And, while I will concede that sometimes they are the lesser of the available evils given lot size, etc. - I see WAY too many sitting out on acreage with no good reason to be so.

I've noticed the fad trend around me lately is everyone wants "rustic" without any architectural style in mind. People here are taking every style of home, then going "I want rustic" and trying to implement craftsman features and these stupid HGTV sliding barn doors into everything from traditional to midcentury modern homes. I'm all for combining styles, but this whole rustic movement seems super fad to me and I'm waiting for it to die if you couldn't tell already ;)

Some of this relates to the above mentioned Modern Farmhouse look - kind of the same way everybody was pasting bad gingerbread on all sorts of houses when Victorians had a resurgence of popularity. It WILL fade off, and I think sooner rather than later. Mostly because all that raw woods is a bugger to keep clean and those barn door rollers are going to start to fail. Pinterest will soon fill with DIY ways to replace your worn out sliding barn doors.

There is never ONE single style that exists, and so there are, concurrently, resurgences in Midcentury Modern, as well as actual Modern looks, Beach themes and Craftsman are still heavily used. But I think the rustic thing will slowly give way to something more clean and spare, in response.

Me, I like vintage stuff - but I like being able to clean easily, too. So anything "repurposed" had been be wipeable and sturdy. :-)

"there is not really anything completely new that appeals to the average residential market

Hmmm, yes and no. I would say that the Modern Farmhouse is it's own distinct Thing(TM), recognizable as such".

Well, a McMansion is it's own distinct thing, that's recognizable as such too, even though part of the recognition factor is that they are highly variable mishmashes. I think a McMansion (or that style of house in smaller form, which I think is more common than actual McMansions) is sort of like the Supreme Court and obscenity. While they could not strictly define it, they knew what it was when they saw it.

I agree, "Modern Farmhouse" is its own distinct thing as well, and recognizable. But it's really Not anything completely new. Not like the first glass box, or the first Federal style houses or things like that. A McMansion is reiterative of many styles together, and a Modern Farmhouse reiterates a farmhouse. You could not easily turn a mid-century modernist house into anything else. or vice-versa. But you could easily turn a real farmhouse into a Modern Farmhouse by stripping the detail or turn a Modern Farmhouse into an old style farmhouse by adding details. The essential volumes are similar enough. There really isn't anything completely new, and there hasn't been since modernism, or maybe post-modernism.

When our house was being built our contractor used to refer to it as a "modern farmhouse" and the architect would mutter, it's not modern, it's contemporary. ;-)

I think the first and best at the modern/contemporary farmhouse genre is Hugh Newell Jacobsen, and he's been doing this for 40 years. But these are minimalist houses, which isn't quite the same thing

The McMansionHell.com woman has a new scale for degree of McMansionNess. GardenWeb needs a scale like this.

Saved for future applicable use! :-)

By that scale, every English/Irish/French country estate home of the 17th-19th Century fails. McMansion-phobia has less to do with so-called standards than with the green monster.

If you can't afford a water feature, you're nobody....humpfh!

Just listened to the 99% invisible podcast episode featuring Kate Wagner. I think she speaks well to her vision for residential architecture, including maintaining a sense of place through local architecure. The episode is very short and the accompanying photos are a good capsule of the blog.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/mcmansion-hell-devil-details/

(PS the most recent episode on Paul Revere Williams is also very good: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-architect-of-hollywood/)

I think what raises the hackles particularly about mcmansions, or at least the sloppily designed and built ones, is that the owners do have enough money to do it better. On my budget, I can't command the type of craftsmanship and attention to detail that a grand home deserves. Serviceable is about the best I can do (sometimes I don't even get that far). We don't really need to critique 900sf post-war bungalows -- they are what they are. But on a multi-million budget, these are houses that could do better. They're wasted opportunities for us all to have something nice to look at. Nice or at least interesting. If they're not built well and they don't live well, they are wasteful.

Even on a less than million dollar budget...the suburbs going up around here are such a missed opportunity. They live terribly and they look terrible. I don't know where the builders are getting their designs and I don't know why people go for them. The byzantine street networks are straight out of the 1980s, the apartment buildings sit 100s of feet back from the streets in a barren island of surface parking and scraggly grass, the commercial (if it even exists) is many km from the housing. The covenants aren't strong enough to prevent builders from setting down 10 identical facades in a row (but yet with drastically different facades adjoining and across, no continuity even in the sameness). I wish everyone involved would step back for a minute and .... I don't know. I don't know how to fix it. Even in our Northern climate, basements are starting to go by the wayside (too expensive to dig down, I guess), a lot of the new houses are walkups, and people are willingly buying into suburban postage stamp 10x15 foot decks raised 20 feet off the back yard.

I guess I hope they plant a lot of street trees?

This house in person is...there are no words.

(the stream is nice))

This house in person is...there are no words.

Oh there are words, but I'm too polite to say them.

This house in person is...there are no words.

This is not a McMansion.

It might be offensive to you, but for 90% of the American population, they would be very happy to call this home.

Absolutely, this is not a McMansion, more an example of suburban design according to my second paragraph, that for no additional cost (or probably a lot less cost) could look and work a lot better for the average family. This home is almost twice the average cost of a detached home in my city. I wish consumers were better educated about design so they would demand better for their hard earned money (although to the mcmansion point, this home is >3000 sf and features a double height foyer on that steep climb from the entrance to the main floor).

The point isn't that no one should have a nice house or even a big house, it's that no one should have to spend $$$ on a house that could be so much better aesthetically and functionally.

Simple form, functional, gable roof appropriate for the climate. It's honest architecture and fairly true to its roots. Could do with some more historically appropriate cladding, though.

At least it doesn't have "DEPOSITS ONLY" printed on the side.

Hey robo. At least in your city the construction crew are provided with some type of washroom facilities.. Do you believe that in Ottawa, they do not provide such basic accommodations for construction crews. So guess what happens, yup, they use the facilities in any of the Unoccupied homes. My DD went into her home abt 2-3 weeks before she moved in, it was absolutely disgusting. To think that the facilities were well used by total strangers.! ):

Mark I was about to mention they all have humorous quotes around here like "Make a splash" or "now serving 1 thru 2"

McMansions are basically everything people who value craftmanship hate about mass market goods. They're the Art Van of the homebuilding world. So, where some of us will choose to buy the Smith Brothers couch, and potentiall have it for life with the occasional recovering, others will buy a new Lane every 5-10 years. And, while the financial advantage is in the Smith Brothers, long term, more people will go to Art Van. Even those who can be made to understand the math will find reasons why they "prefer" the cheaper option. Sometimes, that's all they can afford. More often, it's a matter of priorities. You will spend more for something well designed and well crafted. Because so many people can't recognize the difference, they'd rather keep the monetary difference and go do something else with it. Economics, and opportunity costs.

Homeowner: "I want a gas fireplace, and I really like flying doghouses and tumors"
Builder: "Say no more, I got you fam"

"You will spend more for something well designed and well crafted. Because so many people can't recognize the difference, they'd rather keep the monetary difference and go do something else with it"

And the opposite is true as well. You can spend less for something smaller and simpler, but people would rather spend the money on an overwrought, oversized house and pay it back in a mortgage because they consider that some sort of 'investment'" and then have large complex houses with minimal amounts of cheap furniture, because "furniture is not an investment".

I understand that it's not, but I don't understand whats particularly impressive about a huge house that has ready to assemble particle board furniture in all the kids bedrooms, and the "office" is a folding table and a file cabinet from Staples.

Part of it is that paying back huge sums of money has become abstract. I work within a University where students leave owing $500,000 or more in loans. Do they brown bag their lunches? Take public transportation? Have a part time plan with the school cafeteria? No, they have nice cars and they eat lunch in restaurants and live in off-campus apartments and then buy a huge house right out of their residencies. The amount of money they owe is so large it doesn't seem to matter if it's $500,000 or $1M.

A McMansion is to architecture what Thomas Kincaide was to the art world.

A McMansion is to architecture what Thomas Kincaide was to the art world.

Perfect!!! And look at what those TK giclee prints with some unknown artist putting a bit of real paint on are worth now. (Hint: It's not much at all.)

And the opposite is true as well. You can spend less for something smaller and simpler, but people would rather spend the money on an overwrought, oversized house and pay it back in a mortgage because they consider that some sort of 'investment'" and then have large complex houses with minimal amounts of cheap furniture, because "furniture is not an investment".

Pal good to hear from you again. Missed your words of wisdom.

Agree with you 100%. I think it's part of the American dream to keep "moving up" to "better". Unfortunately bigger in so many cases nowadays doesn't equate with better.

We would all be so much better figuring out how much square footage we really need and use and then build to that. I know that I could have built a larger house, (although mine is not small by most standards.) but it would have had to have been mostly a plain box and then I couldn't do things like moldings, or a beautiful fireplace, or room dividers.

Plus why would we need bigger? Someone came in the other day to our build and made a comment how our master bathroom seemed small for the size of our house. Our master bath has a 68" wide vanity, a 70" space for a free standing tub, a 42" x 5' shower and a toilet room. Plus there's enough space to maneuver around the room. Why would we need more? We don't spend hours a day in the bathroom.

Most would consider our master bedroom too small at 13' x 16'. It's big enough for our king sized bed, two nightstands and a 50" long dresser. But again, almost the only time we're in the bedroom is when we're sleeping. Compare that to the 17' 4" x 21' 10" great room and 15' 8" x 21' kitchen/dining area. We made our spaces right sized for how we live. If more people did that, they'd be a heck of a lot happier, and have more funds to create a truly wonderful house.

I'm in the market for a home. Each time I bump up the price range, all I get is a bigger box. How much empty space do I need? The construction is cheap, fast and slapped together. That's why I always seem to end up renovating.

Actually that's one of the reasons I wound up building Homechef. I prefer old as in before 1930, but anything I found from that era was either destroyed of any charm, or had been so chopped up (again destroying the charm) or would be a nightmare for two folks aging in place.

Most of the new places were too large with too many bedrooms and large wasted spaces.

There's not much that's romantic about that type of home, but a Victorian...that has all sort of possibilities. There's something to be said for beautiful details in a home.

Will anyone look back lovingly on these more current homes? Who knows...but I'd guess Victorian architecture will still be discussed in another hundred years. :)

It's interesting though..to try and understand why many people here feel they should need/want larger homes

here everything's bigger, sometimes significantly so. took me months of adjustment. now I don't pay attention anymore, but at first it's very very obvious, and a bit of a shock. Milk carton? Two times bigger. Bread loaf? 1,5 times bigger. Package of sugar? Two times bigger. Cars? huge. Malls and shopping plazas? huge. Distances? huge..if you think about it.

public transportation? mostly-sorely lacks. it's a car country. so people buy in bulk..buy a lot as not to return too many times...drive to their house..which has to become bigger-to accommodate for 1, 2 or more big cars, for storage for all the things that are big, for kitchen that's big..and the families are not bigger here, usually. It's just that everything around is big. Your eye adjusts to it as I've said. Within several years, a package of sugar you used all your life suddenly seems too small..:)

I still strongly prefer smaller spaces. (Well it's not like I will always go to a park rather then to a forest; I'll do the opposite, but nature is different).

But people live here all their lives. They probably perceive size differently, from the very beginning. Big doesn't seem really big-it's normal.

Will anyone look back lovingly on these more current homes? Who knows...but I'd guess Victorian architecture will still be discussed in another hundred years. :)

Hey Lavender. I missed you!

Regarding your question? I doubt it. Right now everyone who is building new in our development is building what my builder's Dad calls a sugar cube house. This is the model and seems to be the current "in" style in our area of SW FL. Now these are custom homes and they are built well, and are designed by the current architect in favor here, but I can't get excited about these houses.

And I shutter to think about those flat roofs!

I feel the same way about the overdone, large houses with all the jigs and jogs too. I mean how many gables, dormers, stone, wood, stucco, and brick can you put on one house?

yeah..I'm out of habit still look at the listings..there is a very expensive huge home in a great area, view and all..but so much stuff going on with the facade line..I think they've been 2 years on the market..I wouldn't get that multi million place even if I had several millions, because you need to sink another couple millions to make it less awkward. Why whoever did it to that poor house did that? It's probably a custom build too..I don't know what clients thought but why didn't that architect X and builder Y contribute their opinion, educate clients a bit, I don't know?

You're building something like that-you're kinda destined to loose money. Because you're not building anything remotely making sense. Even location, yard, view can't fully compensate for it since it needs to be very expensively redone.