Nobody is actually using their formal living and dining rooms. Families actually spend most of their time in the kitchen and the informal living room or den.
Yet we continue to build these wastes of space because many Americans still want that extra square footage, and for a long time, that want has been miscategorized as a need.
— Curbed
McMansion Hell creator, Kate Wagner, makes a passionate case against wasting precious square footage (and associated resources) on formal living and dining rooms in our homes.
Her plea is backed by data from a recent UCLA study which suggests that entertaining rooms, instead of bringing families together, actually divide us: "There’s a reason why the UCLA study showed that the most-used common areas are the kitchen and the informal living room: People like to spend time together eating and watching TV, without the glare from those two-story great-room windows. Large, unused spaces designed for social functions foster isolation instead."
A valuable critical analysis that barely scratches the surface of lifestyle and behavior.
"I happen to agree with Kate's conclusions here, but I think it's important not to confuse her analysis of a small portion of the UCLA data with the study in its entirety."
Ditto.
Also, anecdotally, I've been in probably hundreds of suburban single family homes, most with formal living or dining rooms, almost none of which are used on anywhere near a regular basis.
The point (which some in this thread seem to be positing in order to easily dismantle) is not that formal dining rooms should be eliminated, but that houses should be tailored to the way we actually inhabit them, and not around some Real Estate Agent Check-box of perceived needs.
Your conclusion is bad. Therefore your response to the bad conclusion is bad.
All 17 Comments
More generic theses from Wagner in search of evidence (and pseudoscience) usually in the form of bad faith abductive logic. So it’s a good thing that families no longer eat dinner together and spend time talking in the living room? Or perhaps it’s just lower class families that don’t have the luxury of evening dinner time? Let’s all just accept the future of phone zombies stacked into micro prefab McUrbanism.
McMansion Hell seems to be revealing a disturbing anti-architecture philosophy not uncommon in top-down elitist technocrat snobs. Just make sure to show pictures of the most gaudy McMansions to prove your non-point.
It's just a waste of space, resources and energy to build houses larger than they need to be or are being used. That's what this research hints at if I'm not mistaken.
People build formal dining rooms, because that's what you simply should have in your house, when they never really spend time there and actually have their quality family time eating and sitting around the kitchen table.
You jump to a weird conclusion that not including formal dining rooms leads to micro prefab McUrbanism, while it actually makes more budget available for better designed houses: doing more in less square meters for the same money. People will have more money to use better finishes, hire architects instead of picking a catalogue home from a builder and use less of the plot to build wasted space to have bigger gardens etc.
A smarter column would tell people to ask themselves what they really need in a house. If formal dining and living rooms are what they want, it isn’t for snobby leftists to tell them they can’t. I’d agree if the argument was that these spaces have become too large and out of scale in new developments. In older and good modern houses they are much better designed. So, design matters.... but that doesn’t compute in dumb UCLA “studies”
Wagner has previously written that high density (McUrbanism) apartments are off limits for critique, so I’m seeing the curtain come down on an another proto McUrbanist.
i think you're missing her point: this is not against living and dining rooms, it's against having formal living and dining rooms IN ADDITION to the informal living and dining rooms that families actually love and socialize together.
The only thing you can get from this is the 32 LA houses studied here are lazy TV addict couch potatoes with no friends or healthy family life.
think we forget the monumental is a base human need. when suppressed it leads to all kinds of social ills.
Who's suppressing monument? You're getting to some wild conclusions on this article.
This thesis is stating formal dining and living is passe, using flawed data. Formal dining/living isn't purely "functional" but more monumental. Kind of like how tech bros and conservatives use "data" to justify hypothesis of male vs. female interests (or racial categories) ignoring underlying causes and complex history/context/etc and future goals.
The monumental is an underrated aspect of architecture, can give symbolic weight to domestic ideals as well as social ones (libraries, courthouses, etc). Even old vernacular dwellings have some aspect of monumental in their buildings--carried from old craft traditions. The new technocrat functionalists want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The picture above is manipulative and misleading. Put a few chairs there and you have something!
There is value in formal gatherings of people, for ceremonial purposes. Holiday dinners with family and friends and not about impressing others, but are a gift to our loved ones. These are good an noble impulses.
It's interesting how this subject ties into the difference between traditional and modernist philosophy of art and architecture. It's a traditional notion to lay out a house in a way that reflects how we aspire to live. In other words, many believe that there is value in more formal family dinners without televisions, so we design our houses to reflect that map. A more modernist notion is that we must design our architecture not to reflect what we aspire to, but the reality of our baser instincts. So we give in to our inclination to stare into the tube while choking down our warmed-up dinner, and we design houses that support that model.
Also, this is an example of how modern society has expunged the symbolic and the ceremonial from public life. In Kate's view of society and the family, the only thing that has value is the functional.
When the average homebuyer can't even afford the functional, a cultural expectation of the symbolic and ceremonial only pushes the dream of homeownership farther out of reach for more people.
A valuable critical analysis that barely scratches the surface of lifestyle and behavior.
I clicked on the link, and it's like a rabbit hole until you get to a book that was apparently the result of the study, and the book is more about clutter and unnecessary consumerism than spacial analysis or architectural function. The graphic below is also misleading, not showing bedrooms or outdoor spaces. If this girl purpose was to rant against mc mansions, I would suggest she keeps doing her blog.
I need a bigger house 'cause I have too much stuff.
https://youtu.be/cl4cLEToPfc
Carlin on Stuff
Last night at diner with some colleagues I heard of a new 76000 sq.ft. "home" in AZ
Around here that's known as a cottage.
with three zeros? bigger than a walmart!
For a while (before it was overturned) we had a 'superstore' law that limited retail development to 15,000 sf. Houses are limited to 20,000 sf.
Just went and read a bit about the UCLA study -- it was of 32 dual-income families in the LA area. And the widely shared diagram below was of ONE family. So you are going to base your entire theory of design on ONE family? ONE house (that doesn't look that big). And doesn't take into account different variables--like what virtues you are aiming for, as stated above (is it GOOD people aren't eating together as families? is it GOOD they aren't socializing?). Nobody wants a house designed around mindless functionalism.
Media has become infected with narratives in search of evidence.
Did you really just mistake an example for the entire study?
this is "the study"
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931745617/ref=nosim/moneyboss-20/
it's a gift for voyeurs.....
you could cut a third out of that house without hurting it
it is pretty cool they play that piano fairly regular though
Seven people used the toilet and one person washed their hands? Ewww!
I had to do a bit of digging to find the background info on the study. 32 middle-class, dual-income households were photographed and filmed from 2001-2005. The authors' definition of "middle class, dual-income" being "The family must own its home, and both parents must work over 30hrs per week outside the home" and also include 2-3 children.
To me it seems like the original UCLA study set out to reassess how families are actually using their homes to inform better design for future homes (among other things). The book published in 2012 presents the results of the study along with some related facts about food and television consumption, but generally doesn't make value judgments.
Kate's article in Curbed takes the study's data on the use of spaces and expands upon that piece to make an argument for efficient space-planning in home and evaluating wants vs. needs. I happen to agree with Kate's conclusions here, but I think it's important not to confuse her analysis of a small portion of the UCLA data with the study in its entirety.
I'd also be curious to see an updated study in 2018, after the proliferation of computers and smartphones.
"I happen to agree with Kate's conclusions here, but I think it's important not to confuse her analysis of a small portion of the UCLA data with the study in its entirety."
Ditto.
Also, anecdotally, I've been in probably hundreds of suburban single family homes, most with formal living or dining rooms, almost none of which are used on anywhere near a regular basis.
The point (which some in this thread seem to be positing in order to easily dismantle) is not that formal dining rooms should be eliminated, but that houses should be tailored to the way we actually inhabit them, and not around some Real Estate Agent Check-box of perceived needs.
yeah I'll take a McBalcony, a McArch, a McFireplace, an order of McStairs, and two scones. Vanilla.
Seriously though, I actually prefer to hang out in rooms that aren't designed around TV's. I could read in there with some different lighting.
My wife and I chose to go with a screen / projector so we didn't have a giant black rectangle sitting in front of the windows. ... ... ... Don't ask us how often we use it, please. :)
That sounds nice. If I do consume screen media, it is in my backyard after dark on my phone or the ipad. A projector would be great out there. With kids upstairs sleeping, it's the closest thing I can get to going out sometimes. We have a TV but I threaten to throw it out all the time. We literally never use it.
McChemex is.....wrong.
So, it's a good thing that people build oversized homes, and contributing to the horrible climate situation we're in, all for one shitty Thanksgiving Dinner?
Give me a break already.
McMansions are bad
McMansions have a lot of unused formal living and dining space
Therefore formal living and dining space is bad.
———— congrats, you are all suckers! Enjoy life, sheep!
Your conclusion is bad. Therefore your response to the bad conclusion is bad.
I think Chemex is right on the money on this. There is a lot that's wrong with these conclusions, I think, and I'm not really sure where to start. The most irritating is Kate's conclusion that people like formal rooms primarily because they are designed to impress others. Although some may have that intention, that she paints everyone with that brush is snarky and elitist. There are plenty of good reasons for having a formal dining room in a house, which have nothing to do with impressing others.
Kate's trajectory in her writing has been moving away from common sense architectural critique, which I thought was really valuable, toward snarky lecturing of the bourgeoisie, which is tedious.
You state there are plenty of reasons, yet cite no legitimate reason.
"There are plenty of good reasons for having a formal dining room in a house, which have nothing to do with impressing others."
You're not wrong there, but that's - again - a response of a point no one is making.
It's telling that every single comment challenging Kate Wagner's column conveniently ignores the cost of building and maintaining formal space and the increasing economic precarity of the middle class in America.
Theorize and philosophize all you want, but it's a practical solution to an overburdened population who've - in my opinion - been hoodwinked by homebuilders and real estate agents (and HGTV) into thinking they need more space than they actually want.
right, it's a place to show off your Christmas tree and stack all those presents! Wait, not "show off" the Christmas tree and your grasp of consumerism - we're not here to impress people. We just want to make sure we have some room in the house where the dogs can't go. What's bougie about that?
I guess this is the best we can hope for... high wood ceilings, nice
What a beautifewe space.
meeeeeh, it looks crowded.
That room is a shear delight.
useful, and you aren't going to put your cat down if it gets a urinary tract infection
People aren't building or buying houses for how they live. Rather they are building or buying houses that contain the "amenities" that the next buyer will want. Before the would be home owner signs on the dotted line they are already considering the resale.
It's a Ponzi Scheme.
Home design is cultural construct commodity: packaged and sold by Realtors and Reality Television.
Kate Wagner’s architecture commentary is more a reflection on the limitations of her own life than the flaws in other people’s homes. One can surmise that Wagner’s smug contempt of middle class suburbia is rooted in her lack of a husband, children, family vacations, carpools, kids’ sporting events, backyard BBQs, etc.
Formal spaces are not “wasted spaces.” A formal dining room might become a home office, a formal living room might be used as a playroom or music room. And for those who want a formal dining room to distinguish between everyday meals and special occasions, or a formal living room to receive guests in a space reserved to be tidy, those formal spaces are every bit as valid.
Dubious architecture comes in all sizes, budgets, and types of homes. But Wagner’s ire is an attack on the upwardly mobile middle class, or nouveau riche, to those who think achieving success is inferior to ancestral wealth. How dare those affluent graspers aspire to more!
Kate Wagner is the pied piper of we-say-so smugness that feels free to scold a very specific class of people for the sin of success that falls short of the multi-millionaires club. It’s an ugly, insular arrogance, and the lemmings who follow her sound even more foolish for repeating her.
Did you just create an account and resurrect this old thread just to bless us with your bad perspective? Your position is laughably bad. MAGA all the way bitches!
awwww. If Kate Wagner wants a family she can call me. If you want a home office, design a home office, not a dining room.
McMom is an overly-proud upwardly-mobile parvenu who confuses money with such things as intelligence, class, etc. Rather than being offended, she should consider that many find her values offensive. Recommended reading: Class, by Paul Fussell.
parvenu is a great word
"the upwardly mobile middle class"
Please provide evidence such a thing exists in a sufficient quantity as to justify all of the rest of your bullshit, McMom.
parvenu is the polite way to say vulgarian
Why not build an office? Why not build a playroom?
I have an office and a playroom in our house...and a bar.
Hurts, doesn't it, you feckless twit.
miles, your vocabulary can only come from the Hamptons
Vulgarian Paradise.
The formal living room is an outgrowth of the parlor (or parlour) which signified a first step toward middle class in the 18th and 19th century. It was/is where all the best furniture and family belongings are kept. The bizarre concept of removing walls between the kitchen, dining room, and living room was supposed to make us all free but there is something weird to me to be sitting in someone's living room and eyeballing their dirty dishes and blackened pots and pans.
maybe you just need to make better friends who clean their shit before having guest over.
Or have better friends who don't eyeball dirty dishes and blackened pots and pans with judgement in their hearts.
ok though, but get bar keepers friend or sometimes replace the cookware. If it's not an iron skillet, it won't last forever.
Stop “wasted” space now!
No ceilings over 6’6” anywhere ever again! Why? Because it’s wasted space.
Churches, mosques, and synagogues should be closed because they’re primarily used one day a week. Why? That’s wasted space.
Schools and libraries should be shut because they’re not used it a night. Why? Because that’s wasted space!
All bathroom should be removed. Why? Because they’re not occupied most of the time. They are wasted space!
Kate Wagner thinks the dining room I don’t use every day, but is a special place in which I have some of the best memories of getting together with friends and family is wasted. I think Kate Wagner should drop her ceilings to 6’6”, rent her home out to WeWork when she’s not there, and get a shower/toilet combo that fits over her kitchen sink , and then let’s talk about wasted space.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
Really blows my mind how people read "This shouldn't be the norm" and interpret it as "This shouldn't be allowed"
Point taken. So it shouldn't be the norm that people have any ceilings at home or in the office over 6'6", because that is wasted space. No laws: just shaming because it shouldn't be the norm.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/37/Appeal-to-Normality
That's the opposite of my argument.
Anyway let's take your point seriously for a second but change 6'-6" to 8'-0" ...I would argue that ceiling heights of 8'-0" are sufficient and anything above that could be considered wasteful. Not in terms of space but in terms of money and resources (both to construct the space and to condition the space). Should we outlaw high ceilings? No. But 8'-0" should be the default.
Further, to your point above... do houses really need 4.5 bathrooms? Does each individual really need an ensuite? A typical American family could survive just fine with 2 bathrooms. Maybe 2.5. Again, anything more drives up the price of construction and increases resource use.
These are luxuries that, through marketing and a culture of one-upping, have become perceived necessities. They aren't.
As I said above... It's telling that every single comment challenging Kate Wagner's column conveniently ignores the cost of building and maintaining formal space and the increasing economic precarity of the middle class in America. Theorize and philosophize all you want, but it's a practical solution to an overburdened population who've - in my opinion - been hoodwinked by homebuilders and real estate agents (and HGTV) into thinking they need more space than they actually want.
I agree, people have indeed been hoodwinked by homebuilders and real estate agents and definitely HGTV and Marie Kondo and about what their home should be like.
But I vehemently don't think the solution to that sad state of affairs is to allow some measurable metric concerning the amount of time spent in a space be any indicator of the quality/the memories/the symbolic value/the fun/the stress relief of the time spent in a space. The importance of a space is NOT in any way directly proportional to the amount of time spent in it.
And can you please explain why 8'0" rather than 6'6"?
It was a piece to provoke thought from readers about how much space they actually need. You are getting stuck on some type of assumption that there was a clear-cut solution embedded in there that applies to everyone. It doesn't offer any solution except to say, think about your needs and buy an appropriately sized home. In other words, you're looking for a one-size-fits-all solution in some type of measurable metric (like ceiling height), and the article never even hinted at that as a solution.
No, not at all. I am saying one should think about what kind of space one needs to make a home very carefully -- and not get stuck on "scientific" studies like this that want to turn how we think about home into a collection of metrics that normalize average behaviors of typical-sized families that occur within generic existing plans. My first email was facetiously presenting where this kind of "measure the geolocations of the center of gravity of subjects over a defined period of time" thinking can potentially lead, and it is nowhere good.
You (any so many others in these comments) are rejecting a metric that was never proposed, and people are trying to explain that to you.
And can you please explain why 8'0" rather than 6'6"?
Because 6'-6" is uncomfortably low. But, aside from the specific number, your ironic assertion accidentally makes a serious point - that above a certain height, any benefits gained from that extra space are offset by detriments such as material cost and operational energy. I think about 8' is where that balance starts to tip.
The first paragraph of the article says: For a recent study, UCLA-affiliated researchers in fields ranging from anthropology to sociology used cameras to record in great detail how 32 dual-income families living in the Los Angeles area used their homes. Their findings link real data...Families actually spend most of their time in the kitchen and the informal living room or den. THESE ARE METRICS: time and position that are recorded to provide data. That is exactly what metrics are.
So you think 6'6" is "uncomfortably low", but that space is rarely occupied. Many people think that the lack a large dining room that is used only very rarely for special occasions is uncomfortably cramped.
"Many people think that the lack a large dining room that is used only very rarely for special occasions is uncomfortably cramped."
...lol nobody thinks that.
The study is used as a jumping off point to explore a more rhetorical argument - that homes are overbuilt. The study itself is neither the entirety of the thesis nor the only basis on which the conclusions are reached. To insist otherwise is deliberately dense for agrument's sake.
You just said I am "rejecting a metric that was never proposed." The metrics are proposed in the first paragraph. Now you say they are only a "jumping off point". They are a very flawed jumping off point. As @Chemex said above this is "mindless functionalism." See Kevin Lynch's work, for a helpful way to study how people see, use, and under the space around them. (In his specific case, urban space.) And work of his type is a good jumping off point. Measuring how often a space is occupied is a reductionist exercise that is a terrible jumping off point in understanding "home". Houses are indeed overbuilt, but maybe the now unused dining room should be kept, rather than the overused family room -- which is simply the mindless room of the lowest common denominator. Just because a space is occupied less, does not automatically mean it's the overbuilt space.
"Just because a space is occupied less, does not automatically mean it's the overbuilt space." We agree, but conversely, it doesn't mean it's *not* an overbuilt space. There's a spectrum, and many more factors to consider than simply space. I have the sense that the detractors in this thread are mistaking the example for the thesis, which is silly. All I'm saying is that houses are overbuilt and it's causing all kinds of problems - from affordability issues to sustainability issues to loneliness.
It is not the space, it is how the space is finished and furnished. Here is basically the same ugly fireplace in a Swiss chalet:
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.