I"ll see your Hell and raise you...

http://kunstler.com/featured-eyesore-of-the-month/

Well, at least someone is doing our culture a service with their sense of humor, although it's awful to see, as well. I have a couple recently built houses downhill from me that this blogger could shred. I borrowed a turn of phrase from S. Susanka, and call them "battling rooflines". The builder himself lives in one, and man is it ugly.

Hope this gets around to some of the "builders". Ugh.

OMG... you win mercurygirl

Thank goodness someone else feels my pain and makes it funny!

I live in a lovely valley surrounded by mountains, and at the main entrance to the valley there is a new house that looks as though the owner/architect/builder had some schizophrenia going on when picking roof lines and angles. It is exhausting to even look at, and it reminds me of the monstrosity of a car created in the episode of The Simpsons when Homer gets to design his own car. Then it makes me laugh.

I've often wondered if those multiple roof surface homes have problems later with water penetration. All those valleys, the rain concentration, one roof dumping into another, overrunning in heavy rain, the flashing, etc.

Whoa, mercurygirl! That "church" looks like it is trying to be an outlet mall!

Another Wake County resident here. I swear some of these look familiar. Is the term "jerkinhead" an actual word? I hate hate hate that "feature", it looks like they folded down the corner of the KFC box. And man, once a builder gets hold of an architectural style (if you can call it that), they build it to death. Cut down more trees and build more KFC boxes, all in shades of beige.

Jerkinhead is an actual architectural feature and it looks fine on the right sort of Medieval revival or Bugalow house. It looks stupid randomly tacked onto an Eclectic house.

I passionately hate the palladian entry to the point that I would pass on any house that didn't really, REALLY deserve Palladian windows just because of my deep hatred. Lol.

I defend what I despise!

The autoroof houses depress me so much.

Sarah Susanka's houses are mostly hideously ugly on the outside, too. She had no room to talk.

That horrible "church" is hilarious.

A style people hated even more passionately than Second Empire: Art Deco! I often like Deco buildings, as long as they have plenty of detail and done look like Brutalist monsters. And I hate 99% of Brutalism.

I've heard these called McModerns. We aren't getting them so much in my area (SF Bay Area), but my sister complains about how they are taking over Seattle

I'm not talking about single family homes, I'm talking about buildings that fill up half a block - and probably sometimes entire blocks, if I start looking around. Not that individual houses aren't being built here also that are of similar character - one L-shaped one that is being finished on a view lot in my town reminds me of a mini-mall.

Ironically San Francisco around Golden Gate Park for instance is exactly what the local conversion to giant boxes reminds me of. Eventually there's really not going to be any room left for trees except along the streets. Just like in much of S.F.

caligirl, is the neighborhood you refer to in Wake County on a golf course with a Scottish name?

@happy2b..gw, don't out me to the neighbors, lol

no worries.

I think that architectural style is a form of communication, it's a language, like music and art.

Good architecture communicates an idea, or ideas of a specific time, place and culture. Paying attention to details, size, scale, proportion and balance can result in incredibly beautiful buildings.

Thing is, architecturally, McMansions lack context, mix various unrelated architectural languages badly and so, speak unintelligible gibberish.

Having no ideas of their own, they are just an assembled hodgepodge of incompatible clichés borrowed from various eras and cultures. The multitude of materials, bump-outs, rooflines, bay windows and turrets is supposed to give these buildings instant history and demonstrate sophisticated complexity while reflecting the owners refined culture...

Alas, many people don't buy that intended message. Chateau sized romantic cottage style with Romeo/Juliette balconies, greek columns and a jumble of materials, just makes no visual sense to many people. Lack of proportion, scale, balance and context strikes many people as comical instead of eliciting admiration. Especially, as the over the top details and gargantuan size screams: I'm bigger! I'm grander! My owner is richer....

That would explain the "snark".

“Hold my beer” that’s disguised in my hydro flask!

Rebunky -lol

I am drawn to turrets. Every now and then I wonder if I could rip out a corner of the house to add one... perhaps tucked away in the back so it is not visible.

I don't think McMansions are usually trying to outdo each other. I think historically illiterate architects (yes, MOST architects are historically illiterate--the education for architects strongly de-emphasizes historical traditions at all but a few universities) and builders are trying to fill in the weird blank spaces they make on the outside, or they're designing room by room inside and then throwing a roof on it.

"Lack of proportion, scale, balance and context strikes many people as
comical instead of eliciting admiration. Especially, as the over the
top details and gargantuan size scream: I'm bigger! I'm grander! My
owner is richer....

That would explain the "snark"."

Yup, and it's also an opportunity to do something a lot of people love to do......make fun of people who do things they personally don't like and spend money on things they don't themselves think is worthy. This is just one more way (like being snarky about what people are wearing). Personally, I think it's a common human trait, but writ large on the internet because of the ability to gather a gang around you. Unfortunately, those types of comments are much like this architecture -- showing a lack of proportion, balance, and context.

Don't get me wrong......I'm not standing up saying these are lovely, great ideas, or anything I would want. But (seemingly unlike that writer) I know I live in a glass house and I know one day I'll likely be ripe for snark based on my preference of home, clothes, car, etc. So.....bring it on.....

I have to admit I'm drawn to gables, turrets, hips, valleys, dormers, eyebrow windows--anything you'd find charming on a fairy-tale cottage. But to get the big bedrooms, living room, media room, huge kitchen, multiple bathrooms, playroom, guest suite, etc., the fairy-tale cottage has to be the size of a McMansion.

The exteriors of these homes don't bother me--I'm willing to let the owners have whatever they want. I don't like walking into a home that has a two (or more) story entry or living area. It feels less like a home--more like a mall, large bank, etc. Maybe it's because I've lived in simple houses with low ceilings; current ceilings are 8', lower in the kitchen.

I liked looking through the pics--reminds me of a home decorating blog that makes fun of the decor of a fictional couple--it's been awhile since I read it, and the names escape me.

Mama G - It's http://catalogliving.net/. Funny stuff.

Buildings are a lot bigger and more dominating than cars and clothes. And they don't move out of view. Also they may often remain standing in place for decades, even when not built to last indefinitely.

Salex - I had to look up Homer designing a car. Haha! It's a great analogy for house design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHGczDHTDpo

Thanks, benjesbride -- that catalogueliving site is hysterical.

I love that website-kinda forgot about it.

I don’t think it matters how hideous these monstrosities are. They won’t last one generation with the way they are built. The beach towns near me are getting even less than 20 years out of them now. So no matter how ugly-at least they’ll be gone in my lifetime.

Toronto, I think a lot of people who buy these houses buy them because of the location and the perceived need of square footage and of volume. Then people buy them because they get used to looking at them and perceive that they look normal and they look current and it they are going to build they want to build within the norm and be up to date on style. Most people can't tell anymore what a pleasingly proportioned house is anymore and most people don't care so much. They care about building something that fits in.

My housekeeper has a great many clients who live in McMansions. She once told me that at least half those clients didn’t furnish all the rooms in their homes, or would own very minimal furniture, like a bed only, and some basic Walmart window shades without draperies. She said she believed many of them impoverished themselves with a mortgage, and couldn’t afford to actually furnish the home. I said maybe they were hoping for more children, and bought extra footage in anticipation. She laughed. Who knows? Folks have a right to spend it as they wish.

But it worries me, this trend of bigger and bigger houses that so far exceed our needs. Just this week I saw in the Wall Street Journal a mention that savings rates in the United States have hit a 10-year low. I fear that people continue to accept the myth that home equity = savings. But in the future, I fear that it will not be so, and that we are again sowing the seeds for a real estate crash. At present, the adults of my son’s generation do not want these large homes. When estates eventually must be liquidated, who will want to buy those houses? Or will personal values have swung the other way? Time will tell.

In addition to the low savings rate, the news in August that US consumer debt had reached an all-time high concerns me. It surprises me more people didn't learn to save more and spend less through the recession.

In addition to being house-poor, it's very hard to furnish oddly shaped, huge volumes with strange windows.

I live in a smaller, older house and have never ever thought much for McMansions but have to admit to the fact that after close friends built and moved in to one I was a bit seduced by how nicely the large open area entertained. I now can understand the lure of sacrificing balance and exterior aesthetics for more space, privacy and land.

Also, in my area the old historic large colonials are unobtainable and if available they are unaffordable, on busy roads and/ or on small plots in comparison to the new developments. Is space, a larger plot, new and shiny and a longer drive a trade I am going to make? No, but I can see why many do.

The problem, and I've seen it on a limited basis already, is going to be this:

A large 19th or early 20th century house can withstand a lot of neglect as long as the roof holds and there aren't a lot of broken windows. Entire neighborhoods here had houses that were neglected or abandoned for decades, or abandoned on the upper floors for decades, that were still essentially intact when they were ready for rehab. There were tenements in the Lower East Side that had the upper stories sealed off to meet fire codes for 70 years.

A modern house closed up starts to rot from the inside out almost immediately. These houses will become uninhabitable in a short time if they are not lived in.

Pal- is this because of the modern "building envelope?"

Of course there is always the Winchester House. Look it up for a fascinating story of a woman trying to cheat death.

Sarah Susanka's houses are mostly hideously ugly on the outside, too. She had no room to talk.

Sorry but I disagree. Nothing ugly about her houses.

(yes, MOST architects are historically illiterate--the education for architects strongly de-emphasizes historical traditions at all but a few universities)

And you know this how? I take it you're an architect who's studied what they teach in all the architecture schools?

" impoverished themselves with a mortgage,"

I remember looking around my old neighbourhood and thinking about how many of my neighbours were "mortgage poor" and essentially in debt to their homes. I believe it is a problem, and a lot of people (IMO) end up with possessions that own them, rather than the other way around. Granted, in some real estate markets that's the only way to own a home (the average detached house in Toronto is just under $1M, the average resale home price (including condos, semis, etc) is about $750,000.

"Sarah Susanka's houses are mostly hideously ugly on the outside, too. She had no room to talk.

Sorry but I disagree. Nothing ugly about her houses."And that's a huge, huge point.......there is nothing that says everyone must like or not like something just because an architect designed it, or even a famous architect. We all have different tastes, and that's a good thing. We don't have to "appreciate" (let alone like) a look because it's classic, or balanced, or authentic, or has stood the test of time. There are many who do, but they need not look down on (let alone try to scold or educate) those who don't share their view. We're talking about aesthetics (and this is totally different from build quality, which we really can't judge from a picture or an architect's drawing) -- and we're all going to have different tastes.

I looked up Sarah Susanka's website and show houses, and there's not much there that appeals to me. She's not an architect I would want designing for me because her taste and mine are obviously not alike, and whether she's rich, famous, awarded, or loved by my friends, that won't change anything. Vive la difference!

We love to watch all those home improvement shows set in the Toronto area. But the PRICES! It’s truly horrifying. Everyone must want to live there. You do wonder how young folks starting out can afford a roof over their heads. On the other hand, I suspect Canadians save more money, in general, than Americans? So maybe the down payment is easier.

benjesbride, Yes. the houses don't breathe.

Yes many architects are historically illiterate. I have a friend who is a talented architect, but he said he was given no real education in classical architecture or architectural history. Some programs only deal with the present or look forward.

Personally I prefer Susanka's theories and methodology more than her aesthetic. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I don't particularly care for transitional architecture.

I find it difficult to express when I think something looks acceptable, yet does not appeal to me. With things like McMansions in mind, many kinds of houses look great in comparison to me. There is a difference between a house I would not want because it is not to my personal taste and a house that is not well designed.

Well I think that a lot of people express their lack of appreciation for something that's not their style or that they think is dated by calling it "ugly".

Really there are quite a few things that aren't at all ugly that I don't personally like very much, and there are some things that are probably ugly that I like. I like complete expressions of bad taste sometimes, more than I like dull and bland.

But if you try to be objective about McMansion architecture there really are a lot of different components that don't fall within the realm of acceptable aesthetics in any classical terms.

I know people who have large houses that lack furniture, and it isn't a question of money. They just feel overwhelmed by it. They are expensive purchases that one tends to live with for years, maybe decades, and people get analysis paralysis when it comes to furnishings.

Wow cp - that was worth looking up! Amazing how current the house exterior looks, with respect to the interior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House#/media/File:Winchester_House_910px.jpg

There is a difference between a house I would not want because it is not to my personal taste and a house that is not well designed.

Exactly!

While I have no desire to live in a contemporary home, it doesn't mean that it's not well designed. And just because it's not my personal taste, doesn't make it ugly either.

This Sarah Susanka house looks like an ugly 80s church:

https://mobile.houseplans.com/plan/2100-square-feet-3-bedrooms-2-5-bathroom-cottage-house-plans-2-garage-33474

Seriously...the glass block. That is a material rarely used well. And it's badly used here. The entrance is terrible. It's better than the New Jersey's ugliest list, but there are a number of the houses on the McMansion blog that would be easier to rehabilitate than this.

I don't dislike her interiors from a design standpoint. They're a bit aggressively late 80s/early 90s, but I appreciate many details,even when I don't like them. There is a lot of balance and order in many of her rooms, and many feel somehow organic. I wouldn't want to live in any of them. They're not my style. But her interiors have a lot of good thought. From an aesthetic viewpoint, I appreciate them a lot without liking them.

Her exteriors range from fine to just awful. Her own house is a remodel, but it's still a snout garage that somehow still manages to look like a daycare center.

I thought her ideas were pretty awesome until I realized she just relabeled the formal living room as the "away room" and that the last thing a main staircase in a family house needs it to shove the family entry together with the main circulation point of the house and guest entry. Yes, two story spaces with no scale and balance are awful--I agree. But so are continuous low ceilings that make you feel like the house is squishing you.

Freeoscar, I could NOT figure out how to properly furnish the living room in this house for a long time. Last house was easy, but the traffic patterns in this one kept throwing me off. So I had a third of the room just empty for a while, then full of antiques because for a while it was just about impossible to find furniture that wasn't "overstuffed", and overstuffed can't fit the space properly. I need two sets of shallow furniture to space them against the walls the right way. (Also didn't want to pay a fortune on furniture when there are kids under 7 or so--and their friends. The neighborhood hangs out at my house. I have probably found 5 or more kids who are not mine STANDING on my couches.) Wouldn't have been a problem when the house was built!

CPArtist, I seriously considered doing architecture as grad school coming from engineering. So yes, it is from my own detailed research of many weeks. But you don't have to believe me. Brent Hull talks about it a lot. You could also learn this if you subscribed to Fine Homebuilding. Or maybe the old Architectural Digest.

Back then, I hated all modern design. HATED IT. So I desperately searched for a classical architecture program that had some promise of leading toward a decently paying job--or at least a program that had a strong rooting in historical architecture.

The University of Notre Dame had the only historical architectural program out there that treats it in any depth last time I checked. Of course, we are slowly emerging from the age when all artistic technical skill was scorned in academia, so more may follow.

By the way, I did read every landscape architecture textbook in the curriculum at my school. Studied them, too--I quizzed her for her hort classes, for instance. Just because it interested me, and my roommate was a LA major. Guess how much they had about historical gardens and garden design in the whole program?

Not a single thing.

Literally nothing.

Not even about Olmsted or L'Enfant.

Knew someone else who majored in Urban Planning. His coverage of historical urban planning was restricted to the US and only sort of correct--seen through the political lens of people pushing a high density agenda, there was NOTHING about how the growth of the horse-drawn and later electric streetcars caused the first boom of the suburbs. Nothing. In his textbooks, and the suburbs were a post-WWII fault of the highway administration, cars, and the FHA, only. No history of urban planning at all. Forget Paris' plan after the Revolution. Forget Tokyo or Beijing or anything that exotic. Forget a discussion of the impacts of and alternatives to modern zoning, for instance.

Anyway, rant over.

MizLizzie, many who are just married or with very young kids may see no need for the size of their house YET but know they'll need it. We lived in just a fraction of our old house when I had just one kid and he was with me all the time. We had empty rooms for years. Four totally empty rooms, including the formal living/dining. 1 only used for guests. 1 bathroom totally unused. Not even for guests. But needs change. Our house now has the same number of rooms and bathrooms, but we are using every corner and need more. I have a piano in my kitchen right now. That's not okay for me.

Others may see their current house as somewhat temporary. Decent shades that fit run you $250 per window. Good ones are $500+. My house has 18 windows, and that's with the three full bathrooms that have none. That's a big chunk of change if you think you're leaving in 3 years, especially for rooms you don't need a shade for.

Others may not really care about furniture.

Others may be buying for the school district or the distance to work.

Palimpsest, there was a foreclosure in our neighborhood that depended on the catch basin by the walkout basement being cleaned out regularly.

After the eviction, guess what didn't happen? The whole basement was finished--close to 2000 sqft. Bedroom. Living rooms. Bathroom. Laundry.

Had to be ripped out to the studs.

Given your love of rewriting--in a respectful way--over the text of the past, I've always loved your name here, btw.

"may see no need for the size of their house YET but know they'll need
it. We lived in just a fraction of our old house when I had just one kid
and he was with me all the time. We had empty rooms for years. Four
totally empty rooms, including the formal living/dining. 1 only used for
guests. 1 bathroom totally unused."

Also for cost reasons........when I was about 6 years old and we moved across the country, we moved into a 4 bedroom home but had very little furniture. The living room had just a ping-pong table (given as a gift) along with a card table and chairs. No dining room furniture (we had a kitchen table and chairs). No window coverings in the living or dining room initially. Eventually, as my parents got more established here and got better jobs, the house became more furnished, outfitted, and complete.