On this week's episode we’re joined with Kate Wagner, the author of McMansion Hell, a blog that balances serious essays on architecture and urbanism, with brilliantly funny analysis of the absurd trends in American suburban architecture. Kate has recently emerged, triumphantly, from a widely publicized threat from Zillow to stop using their imagery. As reported on Archinect recently, Zillow withdrew their legal threats after the Electronic Frontier Foundation responded on behalf of Kate, and McMansion Hell is back in business, with a larger following than ever.
Listen to "Bro, Do You Even Quoin?":
We've been down this path before, where architects try to one-up each other instead of addressing real issues responsibly. But what offends me the most is what McMansions pretend to represent - financial achievement, as if that is the defining measure of success. Paul Fussell wrote about proletarian drift in 'Class', and the McMansion is the best example of it.
All 24 Comments
What a good, unique new voice. She has a perfect blend of pop-culture and high architecture knowledge that resonates. Was interested to see her take on the current design media scene--I hope she sticks to her blog and doesn't get taken in by Curbed or some other watered down hodge-podge site. Sadly she's right that theres not much criticism beyond niche media.
That was definitely one of the most interesting Sessions episodes for sure - she is an excellent speaker on so many levels!
Well done and engaging.
Here is another interpretation of the house that McMansion Hell makes fun of. This style is popular in the Texas 'hill county' that was settled by the Germans and French (Alsace) in the 1830s. The European influence is evident in the arched doorway, the eyebrow windows, and the roofline. You may or may not like the home but the elements were brought here by those early settlers from Europe and are now part of the hill country vernacular.
I think you may have missed this in the conversation. She makes "fun", or is critical of what McMansions represent, or the lack thereof. In that, I am complete agreement.
Mansion vs. McMansion
I think she missed the point. The house she posted is ugly, but it is not a McMansion.
b3ta's link gives at least three well-considered checklists for testing "McMansionness", and this house satisfies all of them.
I prefer the 'McMansion" in Chapel Hill (gables and all) to the "Mansion" in Greenwich. The relentness symmetry of the Greenwich house is overwhelming as well as banal. Actually I prefer it to the "Mansion" in Greenwich as well. That looks like some kind of factory.
One important note on McMansions she brings up is how they are rooted in postmodernism (another reason to hate em) as well as on extra space for maid/servant quarters that no longer exist (unless you are a true baller... which is not 99% of these owners). When the revolution happens, Perhaps they should be retrofitted into multi-family or lower income housing (after being refurbished) with towers coming out the back
I'd like to see her become architecture critic of the NYTimes since the current [urban design] critic seems busy flying over Rotterdam on his way to paid gigs in Dubai
Volunteer,
Could you post a picture of a historical precedent, so we can compare and contrast "V.A.F. Style?"
Well, here is an example with the half-hipped roof, arched windows (rather than doorway in this case) and two kinds of siding, brick and stone. The Mcmansion Hell example and my earlier example also has at least one arched window.
Awesome podcast, she's very clever - too bad that teacher told her she couldn't do architecture bc of math - its a big fat lie.
Most of my arch class in university only passed basic calculus (graduation requirement) bc the hockey team set the curve for us and took all the D's and F's. We all passed with C's after doing problem sets together and failing all exams...!!
If you're interested in the euro version of mcmansion hell (specific to Belgium) where building laws are lax and everyone wants to build their own house and be their own designer!! : http://uglybelgianhouses.tumbl...
Thanks-
So I looked at this image a compared them to others and just don't see an appropriate association. So then I looked at some other examples online and was even less convinced. It seems to me that a defining characteristic of this housing type is how the roof works to provide shade from the high sun and some incidental rain protection. The example provided simply doesn't. And the use of masonry as a thermal mass makes sense as part of vernacular, but the wall on the example doesn't look as if that was its intended function, not to mention that fussy band on the recessed wall to either side.
And then I got a little snarky. Let's play the matching game...
Two randomish selections.
and
Hill houses or no?
No, the above two photos are not houses designed with a nod to the traditional Texas hill-country elements, although they may well be built there. As for the top one, after remnants of a hurricane come through they will be looking for the roof in Oklahoma. Are you saying the three houses (two from Texas, one from Europe) whose small photos you posted do not have strong similarities?
Taking it further you could take the "Sessions" house paint the whole exterior an off white, do something to change the green window tint, install quality shutters and (gasp) some snap in mullions, do some quality landscaping, and you would have a house that at least would not scare the dogs in the neighborhood. And it would fit in with the other two houses you posted adjacent. Whereas the two modern ones you posted would not.
Volunteer, calling that hill country is a bit of a stretch, but, from experience doing some work down there, I'd say if you throw some limestone up, and put a little pitch on the roof it'll pass. Marc's example #1 would pass as well, looks more like a BBQ pit, but BBQ pits can be Hill Country!
I have seen more attractive lumber sheds in building supply yards.
We could paint both the sessions house and your "authentic" hill country example white and they would be more in keeping with the house you first posted. Of course, that would not be advisable given that would lessen the impact of rusticated effect accomplished using different masonry types. And they'd still be closer in articulation and appearance. And while I realize that this is not your intent, you are no Hill country house roof is susceptible to tornado damage, because that is a defining characteristic of the construction.
And that's really the point I'm trying to get at- defining characteristics of construction. The original example posted by you has some of the materials of that regional type but also has a lot more that could make that something that you could see in central Illinois.
I am only saying that the elements of the house were not grabbed out of the ether and thrown randomly together like many of the no-question McMansion houses.
As for the ugly 'Sessions" example, if you can think of any other ways to make it reasonably presentable at a modest cost fire away.
McMansion.
It's corner glass, it makes the roof "float" and if you have it and your neighbor's don't, you know who is more special.
The red portion of the facade signifies your inner child, forever begging, "pay attention to me! someone? anyone?"
"gentrification vernacular"
McModern
You forgot commentary. Bro, do you even push/pull?
Very McMansion.
this one is a beaut:
Truly horribly awful McMansion.
Do you like roofs? I got roofs. All kinds. You like lights too? Lights in roofs? Got em.
I was reminded this morning that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and that they are ugly creatures. Fire does work though.
But I'm not trying to make this a discussion about aesthetics or structural mistakes, but about the defining characteristics of regional housing. And yes, there are some qualities to the construction that are in keeping with the region and type, but there appear to be some significant omissions and additional features that would suggest that this is not grounded in a single place, but many.
I think that's part of the point of the McMansion discussion. It's been designed to appeal to a broad range of people, across a range of places, with a mind to keep image present as much possible while allowing for the lowest costs to the point of sacrificing craft and specificity.
It points to the need to communicate something (wealth?) across the broadest range possible. It's not enough to own property with a detached dwelling, it must suggest value based on a range of historical combinations to appeal to the person who moves from Illinois to Texas. Regionalism cedes to a different type of construction method based not on place, but the fact that the people who purchase that home may be out of towners but need easy clues to see they are purchasing quality.
I just don't think that is the same thing.
Another Modern McMansion? Which is uglier, the "Sessions" house or this?
Bro, do you even chain link?
The difference is that it's ugly on purpose. If it's intentionally ugly, then it's ok.
Can't tell if being sarcastic or serious.
You know me pretty well by now, Donna. We've been doing this for quite a while, haven't we? :)
In all seriousness... in my opinion, architecture should almost never be intentionally ugly. Especially residential architecture in an established neighborhood. To create intentional ugliness is perverse.
I can't figure some of you out. I love this house, I love all of the off-the-shelf kit of parts. I love that it offends the delicate sensibilities of Santa Monica liberal elites.
It's certainly more American than anything a McMansion can provide, and it seems more rooted in the vernacular of trailer park adhocism.
I'm sure Frank Gehry agrees with you. This house is a good example of the part of his portfolio which is designed to take something that people love, like a 1940s vernacular house in an established residential neighborhood, and deconstruct it. "Hey, you know this little house that you think is so comfortable and charming, in this nice neighborhood? Well, look what I can do to it!" He wants to offend.
I'm not clear how you can associate an experiment (designers description) with ad hoc, knee-jerk, safety symbolism. with ad hoc, knee-jerk, safety symbolism. My Spidey sense always tingles when I hear beauty used as a universal term when we know that is not the case. True, there are hot messes out there in the world, but that does not make those Frankensteins unlovable by default- as is this is the case the case with "pretty" pastiches with multiple personalities.
We've been down this path before, where architects try to one-up each other instead of addressing real issues responsibly. But what offends me the most is what McMansions pretend to represent - financial achievement, as if that is the defining measure of success. Paul Fussell wrote about proletarian drift in 'Class', and the McMansion is the best example of it.
"Spidey sense". :)
My Spidey sense tingles when I hear opinions described as if they were facts which have been established, and are now beyond question. It is your opinion that there is no aspect of beauty that is universal. But it is an open question.
Objective beauty? Nature. Everything else is entirely subjective.
We are part of nature. So isn't it reasonable that we might be genetically wired to find certain things beautiful?
Which is what makes the beauty of nature objective.
I agree. And I'd argue that to the extent that our art and our buildings exemplify the qualities of nature that we appreciate as beautiful, they will be beautiful, as well.
After listening to the Invisibilia concept album, I'm increasingly suspect of the universal idea. Yes, we are all part of nature, and so are rock, mantis shrimp, and unknown gases on pluto. Yes, it's an opinion, but it's all opinion.
But back to the point Miles made, you can't omit cultural signs and economic constraints from both mcmansions and vernacular homes. These provide valuable contexts for reading the construction. It's not just a matter of aesthetics, and never has been.
Perhaps we're squirming at what will become a next/new vernacular based on nationalism/globalism instead of regionalism.
Well, the last "next/new vernacular based on nationalism/globalism" was the glass box. That didn't turn out so well. How can you have a national vernacular, never mind global, when the temperature alone varies from -40F in Alaska to +120F in Phoenix. Just for starters.
No, the last one was (and is) the McMansion. McMansion Hell documents them across both time and temperature zones from Phoenix to Anchorage.
Since we were just talking about paint colors in a few other threads, this seemed appropriate to post.
Perfect color and pattern to hide stains. Never needs cleaning!
How many years did it take to collect enough moose droppings to be able to liberally smear them on the wall for a fine finish like this??? That's how you know you are rare.
wow. That's a bad bathroom.
Their is a difference between poser - a guy who drives around to all the cool beaches with a surfboard strapped to the roof, but who never, ever, goes in the water - and parvenu, which can be described as the dog that caught the car ("WTF do I do now?!").
Once again I refer everyone to Fussell's hilarious and insightful book 'Class'.
I will read it on your recommendation--it does look good--but I am also quite amused at amazon's "Customers who bought this item also bought" sections, which includes gems such as:
1) The Old Money Book: How To Live Better While Spending Less: Secrets of America's Upper Class
2) The Official Preppy Handbook
and who can forget
3) The Official Filthy Rich Handbook
The kind of neighborhood a lot of people want but between the builders offering McMansions and the architects offering Frank Gehry shit, little of quality gets built.
mcmansion owner's are "poser's"
Does it really matter if it's a huge house for a rich person or a huge house for the bourgeois middle-class?
Does the architectural detailing of a well-designed 1920s display of ostentatious wealth make it any better because it is old and well detailed?
Is this about architecture or society?
What are you really snarking at here?
What is the huge difference between upper middle class wealth and real wealth? Better taste? (Ahem, Donald Trump) Ability to hire an architect? (Most still do not) I personally like Kate Wagner at the level of snarky architectural criticism. When she strays into social commentary, she loses me.
I'd argue McMansions about speculation and representations of wealth. I'd also argue that this thread is about the inability of architects curate this construction type to effect change towards a more designed aesthetic at any noticeable scale.
@Marc - accurate, except to the extent of architects having any real control over the built environment. Many work for developers or are catering to the whims of the parvenu. At the higher end they are often commoditized as fashionable brands.
I'm not speaking about the built environment as a whole, but housing. Architects as a whole group have little leverage because our formal interaction with this type is limited due to open code requirements and larger market pressures. What direct contributions Architects is still a small part of the market, leading to the interactions you describe above for fear of loosing the client/cash.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.