Talk:McMansion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old comments

Absolutely delightful description :)

Yikes, this is a very one-sided, negative article. Not what I hope to see from Wikipedia.

Not now, I just rewrote it User:66.234.211.233

Grossly inflated and stripped of all humor by an anonymous contributor whose word for lightly mocking and gently critical is characteristic: "snide". sigh What a shame. Check the "History" for my original effort! Wetman 21:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I confess - I did it. While the original was a cute little non-neutral point of view essay, at least now it is disguised as a real WP article - all I need to do are to add some pictures. I know where some really ugly ones are located (Blackhawk, California), although these may be considered the supersized version of McMansions. The article is still way over the top on NNPOV, so someone living in one will probably feel free to rip it up. Sorry about that, but at now least one can read the defining characteristics and suspected social and environmental impacts of these piles of (well built) c**p. I've always thought that the purchasers of this kind of building had an imbalance in their money/taste ratio. BTW, snide has been reverted to your language, which I admit is so much nicer. As far as gross inflation goes, that is the very point to be made about these monstrosities. Thanks for the good start and best wishes, -- Leonard G. 01:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a hillarious article. I will say, the conclusion does not pass the NPOV test, but it's too rich not to keep. Afterall, how many McMansion owners consider themselves patrons of the art and cultural elites? Probably all, in a McArt kind of way. Indeed, the McMansion is just one element of a larger (pun intended) McCulture movement. I do think this can be writen about in a NPOV way, but might require some sociological language to sterilize and make PC, which would be a shame.Stbalbach 10:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think its funny what pompous elitist a-holes the critics of "McMansions" and "McCulture" (really original) are. Its ironic that they clearly derive their own self-worth from feeling superior to these anonymous folks who, according to the presumption, are guilty of deriving their self-worth from material objects. Is there a difference? I don't see one. Most of these university programmed social critics are about 1/10th as clever and interesting as they think they are and about 1/100th as original. I like the piggy back on the environmental wave for legitimacy though! If your point seems petty and arbitrary, give it some life by using a legitimate (if equally oversturated) debate. And for reference, no I dont live in a "McMansion". I live in a crappy brick rowhouse (the kind the quote from 1927 was arrogantly looking down on) in NYC. I would love to have more space. Is that criminal? I guess it is. You're only a valid lifeform if you pile yourself with 3 hippy friends into a 1 bedroom apartment and sit around mocking the "clueless suburban drones" or if you purchase the hated and despised (by the elites) crap-house from years past. So to sum up... New McMansion? Bad.. Yesterdays version of the McMansion that was looked down on by elitists? good. Micro apartment that was looked down on by elitists? Also good. SOMETIMES people just buy things they like and that they think look nice to them and that they can afford. They arent trying to define themselves or engage you in a debate on the societal merit of their home. THey dont have "more money than sense" they just find that having more room and a newer house that, to them, looks better seems like a better deal than the 30 year old crap house that someone feels they have an obligation to buy just because its been sitting there for 30 years. And of course 30 years ago, THAT house was new and someone hated it. Such a waste of time and so many shallow obnoxious attitudes all around. If everyone spent more time worrying about themselves everyone would be better off.

• Haha, typically hysterical nouveau riche attempt at self-justification. Why don't you hop in your hummer and see if you can find some sweet deals on wall to wall carpeting and vinyl siding? Just don't forget the family-sized hand sanitiser, there are so many germs these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Typical rationalization for being hugely judgemental. So your response to someone calling out the attitude of the elitists that own this page here is to say "typically nouveau riche"? Do you have ANY idea what an ass you sound like using the term "noveau riche"? The chip that people like you have on your shoulder is mind boggling. What is so unhappy in your life that all you can do is laser in on and criticize those who do not behave JUST like you? And yet I'm sure you'll say how amazingly tolerant you are of "all cultures", right? And before you sling more bullshit, I drive a Toyota. What does that do to your pathetic attempt at jamming everyone into your little categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

major cleanup

I went through and did a fairly significant edit in an attempt to clean up and clarify the article and tried (and probably failed miserably) to remove a bit of POV that I saw. I didn't make many structural changes or significant content changes but hopefully it is more readable now and someone else might be able to pick up and make the pieces fit a bit better. (I noticed a lot of redundancy.) Cheers! 70.92.160.23 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clear up the discrepency between whther McMansions are primarily, exclusively or not-at-all built in subdivisions? The article implies all three. Jhoude

File:Mcmansion.jpg

An innocuous middle-class house with minimal "classical" details, but no McMansion

The new version: humorless yes, but neutral?

Destructive nature:McMansions are usually built by developers on previously undeveloped land such as farmland or forest. The names of McMansion developments often describe the things that have been destroyed: "Oak Ridge" means the oaks have been chopped down, "Turkey Run" means the turkeys have been killed off, "Nature Preserve" means the original nature has not been preserved and "Shadow Brook" is probably shared with an underground storm drain. Will such pedestrian sarcasm do at Wikipedia? This is not a "deeply serious" subject, even for editors who aspire to a McMansion: but... "pejorative" The photo is of a nice conventional house, but no McMansion. Wetman 10:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tried to find a picture of a really over-the-top McMansion, but with no luck: they were all copyrighted, and I was unsure about fair use.

And yeah, that section is pretty POV, but the section is clearly marked as 'criticisms' of McMansions. I was just too lazy to attempt rewriting that bit.

- Katherine Shaw 10:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

pejorative is implicit of POV. That is made clear up front. What we have here is a POV term being writen about in a non-POV way. So it is perfectly reasonable to have POV content, so long as it is framed in a non-POV structure. I thought the section on "False Community" should be included in the criticisms section. Is it POV? Of course. Is it part of what defines McMansions? Yes. Somehow it got droped.

re: picture I have McMansions all over the place and will try and take a picture once the rain clears up. Stbalbach 12:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing some of those pictures of McMansions!

- Katherine Shaw 13:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

re the pix, its all about location. That looks like about 4000sf top and bottom combined with a side entry three car garage. Put that on 6000sf. lot in a development in the suburbs of the S.F. Bay area and you have a US$1.5 to 2.0 million setup (cheek to jowl with its neighbors and without the mature trees). Here we call that a McMansion. Of course in eastern Tennessee, or some such rural location far from the left or right coasts it is probably about $400K with the trees and 2 or three acres and a septic system - just an upper middle class house. Leonard G. 00:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag. Yes it is an inherently POV article. But. That doesn't mean that a positive or two can't be thrown in. There IS support for McMansions or else people wouldn't live in them. As it stands now, this article makes it sound like these people who live in these things are some sort of monster who doesn't give a damn about anything but how cool their house looks. Obviously, there is more to it than that. I will see what I can do to help a bit, but I think the NPOV tag is needed until its made more like 60-40 criticism instead of 90-10 or 80-20. --Woohookitty 19:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I toned down the POV and also I added a "reason why people move into McMansions" section. It was hard for me because I despise McMansions!! :) But that's not the point. There IS a reason why people move into them. Anyway, I basically just started the section. There is more to add. So add to it :) Also, what are the typical price ranges? That should be added. --Woohookitty 20:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. "McMansion" is a pejorative term. How does providing a "defense" of the indictment make it NPOV? --Stbalbach 22:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. Yes, it is pejorative, but these are very popular homes and there should be an article on it. Maybe this article should be renamed? To what I don't know. Is there another name for these places?? Luxury Move Up Homes is a euphimism and I'm not sure that works either. --Woohookitty 04:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term "McMansion" is notable enough for an article, as a Google search will show. Our job is not to dispute or support the validity of the term, but to report on its usage, meaning and history. As for an article that discusses expert opionions on the pros and cons of suburban housing, there are a number of other articles that allready do this in various forms. I don't think we should make "McMansion" the term though, as it is clearly pejorative and used to express disfavour, and the article should reflect that. --Stbalbach 04:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK I removed the sections I had added. I did keep the Luxury Move Up section. I'll leave it be. --Woohookitty 06:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slate Ghettoes

not sure if anyone else would find this amusing, so I didn't add it to the article, but my mom came up with her own pejorative, "slate ghetto". "Slate" in mockery of the drab slate and mauve colors of the standard models. And "ghetto", of course, because of the way they're all huddled shoulder-to-shoulder, big houses on relatively tiny plots, as if they're seeking safety in numbers...

The reason the article is ridiculously POV is that, sure its a POV term, but it isnt a very well defined one. Its just a goofy term made up by folks who thought they were clever and it stuck. This article is an endless rant regarding why these homes and the people who buy them are horrible. Its basically an essay on WHY "McMansions" are bad. A REAL Wiki entry for SUCH a trivial term should be one paragraph that states it is a term that became popular in the 80s as a pejorative used to denigrate large new home constructions that were cropping up in existing areas. One could argue that really nothing more than envy (and not a love of the garbage track houses that are typically being replaced - lets be real, no one is tearing down a historic colonial manse to put up a "McMansion" the way the article imples), but that would also be very POV. There is a BIG difference between an article that defines a POV term and an article that SUPPORTS one. This article is the latter, but given the political leaning of the Wiki in general, its expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.191.228 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

-Kasreyn

Perfectly stated. And of course the article stays because, as you said, it fits the leanings. Its just yet ANOTHER piece of the insidious social engineering that goes on with peole that are left leaning. Right leaning people just get in your face and criticize your choices, left leaning people PRETEND to be open, but then demonize and ridicule whatever it is that they feel doesn't "fit" as a way of letting you know what you "shouldnt be doing". IMAGINE if the article on, say, housing projects was this POV?? Housing Projects is a PERFECT example and anyone arguing in favor of this crap article is full of, well, crap. Just look at Govt Housing. It is EXACTLY what Kasreyn is describing - a single paragraph followed by a list of examples from specific nations. And "Govt Housing", it could be argued, is a topic that is FAR more relevant and worthy of FAR more elaboration, yet it keeps to just a quick overview. Meanwhile, "McMansion" gets a treatise. Assinine and embarassing for the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You people have NO idea what you're talking about. -Laikalynx (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

two cents

This article seems to define a "McMansion" a little too carefullu - I was under the impression that a McMansion was simply a large, new house often built on a small lot. I think the term "McMansion" mainly refers to the large size of the house, as compared to the large portion sizes and calorie counts of fast-food meals from places like McDonals, and not to the ubiquity or to the price, or "cheapness", of the house compared to a "true" mansion. McMansions also don't seem to me to be linked by "traditional features without an understanding of those styles' underlying logic and purpose" - the main thing that defines a McMansion is its size, both physical and implied by the smaller lot size that these houses are built on. Homes that don't seem to have a specific style because they borrow from all different traditions of traditional styles are not necessarily McMansions - they can be, and nowadays generally are, but in the end really end up being a new American "folk" style that can probably be termed "neo-eclectic."

I do agree that McMansions are often characterized by its "generally negative impacts on nature and community, and (its) tend(ency) to look the same despite their superficially unique features." McMansions, though, also seem to not "fit into" communities that they are in by their general size and ostentaciousness compared to the neighboring houses. They also are synonymous with "luxury move-up homes," but also seem to be synonymous with "neo-colonial" due to their direct stylistic descendence from American traditional Federal- and Colonial-style architecture, which in turn descend from Georgian and vernacular English architecture. McMansions can be considered examples of poor architecture, but not because they attempt to emulate European styles (many American traditional styles do, because of the country's heritage), but because they attempt to mash together modern materials and building techniques with various American and European-derived styles.

Anyway, thats my two cents. --notahilton

The styles are not limited to Georgian/English/Colonial. In Washington state (e.g. the once rural and now rapidly suburbanizing areas in the Monroe general area) one can see once forested ridgelines now graded down to a single street running along the ridgeback and lined on each side with Faux French Empire style McMansions. Leonard G. 03:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Gruesome, one-sided article

Gruesome, one-sided article. I can't help this poor thing as I have no knowledge of architecture, still I know biased writing when I see it. This needs a lot of work (from someone else) Paul, in Saudi 04:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions on this page. The term is supposed to be one-sided and biased, so we document the reasons why it is so. To write a balanced fair article, appologizing for the term, is original research and POV. Stbalbach 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Total BS. This article should be one paragraph... "The term is a pejorative coined in the 80s by people who objected to the wave of new, large home construction, in existing, typically middle-class, areas. It is a reference to the "McDonalds" approach of food service and the metaphor implies that the homes are generic, hastily constructed, and a pale impression of something substantial" A 1000 word treatise on why "McMansions" are horrible basically just demonstrates the bias of the person who wrote it (you maybe? too lazy to check) and really doesnt belong in the Wiki. But whatever. The Wiki is rife with garbage like this and this one is hardly important. Im sure the zealots for whom "McMansions" are a real problem in their life take some measure of solace from their "victory" here and thats fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.191.228 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

People who buy McMansions...

Further to this, doesn't the stereotype extend to the belief that the (mostly white) people who buy McMansions are likely to be SUV-driving conservatives who attend one of the new mega-churches? By contrast, the equivalently rich people who buy inner-city townhouses are much more likely to be liberals, may not be so religiously devout, drive smaller cars (and might cycle to work), and vote Democrat? --Robert Merkel 22:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

this has got to be sarcasm... funny that two folks actually took the bait showing just how farcical this obsession with applying labels to people really is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. The only stereotype about the people that seems common is wastefulness and opulence; politics and religion don't enter into it. siafu 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Megachurch does have a link on it's page that points, well, here Reynaert-ad 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the wealthier variant of Essex Man is also liable to buy a McMansion. Millbanks (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Although a very interesting article, it has a very strong POV.

In particular, why is this quoted? If someone else said it, then who was it? If it was someone here, then it shouldn't be quoted at all.

When a variance is not granted, McMansion plot sizes end up being 
"too small to farm, too large to mow"

Again, here:

This practice has led to the description of McMansion communities as a place 
"where they cut down all the trees and name streets after them".

--Andrew Eisenberg 00:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I can provide sources for both if you want. Ive just been too lazy to look up the details is the only reason they are not footnoted. They are both from a documentary. Keep in mind this is a slang pejorative term, not a neutral descriptor.Stbalbach 00:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Spot on!

Anyone who thinks this article is NPOV clearly has not witnessed the McMansion/intensive development phenomenon. Here in Australia I saw miles and miles of bushland ("woods") being bulldozed and literally every blade of grass being torn up to make way for generic, mass produced, garish looking structures. The estates and the streets were then given names describing their supposedly NATURAL surroundings! If anything this article does not go far enough in conveying the outrage that this practice generates.

Wiki isnt here to "convey outrage". Thanks for proving the point of those of us who realize that this is more BS POV activism by the deranged ideologues who just CANNOT handle the basic concept of an encyclopedia and instead, want nothing more than endless editorial pages masquerading as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts are nice, but Wikipedia does not advocate, not even environmentalism. Shawnc 11:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Garage Mahal?

It is my understanding Garage Mahals are large oppulant garages, and can be residential or commercial, or even garages converted into homes, or garages that look like homes. Which is not the same as a McMansion. --Stbalbach 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and a quick google for "garage mahal" in quotes indicates this. I had never heard the term until a few days ago, when it was added to this article, so I assumed it was referring to those "Welcome To My Garage" style tract homes, where the garage door makes up the bulk of the front of the house, with the front door and porch/stoop barely noticeable. I'll go ahead and remove the term from the article. --Birdhombre 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

McWikipedians?

No surprise that the original, unedited version found its way back up.Jackson744 12:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is the exact reason why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by large swaths of the population. The writing style was horrible (the world "McManison" appeard in virtually every sentence), the entire article was completely POV (despite the fact that the term is POV, it is possible to discuss such terms in NPOV), the entire tone of the article was sarcastic, and almost none of the "facts" were supported at all. Despite what some of you people may think, Wikipedia doesn't exist for your personal amusement or as a soapbox for your particular political grievances. I've attempted to fix the article as best as I could, but I have no doubt that it will not last. McWikipedians at work? I think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackson744 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps this article should be moved to neoeclectic and rewritten to describe the features in a NPOV way. I think the reason for the perceived sarcasm and POV in the current article is because the term is inherently both subjective and pejorative. If we instead focus on making it an article about neoeclectic architecture, the bias should naturally disappear. McMansion could then be mentioned in that article (with sources cited of course). Whatever we do, I think it's at the very least a topic that needs to remain an article; just about every new house built around here looks as if the owner printed out this article and handed it to the architect and said "make it happen." --Birdhombre 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that McMansion might not be the best name for this article. But is Neoeclectic really what they're called? I'd never heard it, and the term only gets 467 google results to McMansion's 115,000. This article does need some work... I don't think anyone is going to argue about that, despite Jackson744's indictment of all of Wikipedia... --W.marsh 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just a word of advice, the best way to get people to understand the problem you're talking about is rarely to insult said people in almost every sentence of your message... --02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When this issue was raised to these people in the past, they ignored the issue entirely. At any rate, when I see an "encyclopedia article" declaring that a certain segment of people are pretentious, I have to understand that the person who wrote the "article" wasn't particularly interested in the opinions of others.

The best reason anybody could give for that horrible excuse for an encycolpedia "entry" was that the term itself is "inherently POV", which is, at best, a poor cop-out. It's entirely possible to discuss POV terms in NPOV, for example: islamofascism, religious right, and so forth. This is how things are supposed to be on Wikipedia, not a bunch of ideologues wasting bandwidth by interjecting their personal opinions into every article on Wikipedia.

Now that said, I am not a Wikipedia basher, but I do know that it has its limitations. One of those limitations is that any controversial matter will be treated by some with all the professionalism of a preadolescent sitting at a keyboard, and this article is probably the worst I've seen. At least the intentional vandalisms of Wikipedia are overt in the fact that they are intended to be destructive. This sort of thing is inexcusable. It isn't that the entry itself should not exist, but rather that the adults should be the ones editing it. --Jackson744

"McMansion" is a term recognized by many people, it definitely deserves an article. Maybe you can move some content into another article, but the fact is, this phenomenon is real. Does do Wikipedia a disservice if the article's unprofessional and POV, though. Adam Mathias 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be some things that this article can be improved on but your attitude here is derogatory, name-calling, aggressive and confrontational. Please work with the community instead of entering into edit wars. Almost all of the changes you made I disagree with, and there was not a paragraph in this article you did not do a major edit on, with whole sections deleted. You need to justify those changes with legitimate and rational reasons instead of attacking people. You seem to be trying to "make a point" about Wikipedia in general. This article sets out from the very start in the lead section describing what its about. It documents the reasons why people use a pejorative term. That you would mistake that as "POV" is at best a mis-understanding and at worse an excuse to make a point about Wikipedia that is misplaced. --Stbalbach 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your posting in the very first portion of the discussion page indicates that you are clearly one of the people to whom I was referring. You may find the whole thing "hilarious", but you are in the minority. You are the only person here who has not thought that the article needed to be fixed. Maybe you find these sorts of people "pretentious" and that they consider themselves patrons of "McArt", but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Now, getting to your "contentions".

My "attitude" in this discussion page is befitting the attitude that you and your ilk take towards Wikipedia. It's the reason why nothing created by user-contributions can exist anymore. Invariably, somebody will screw it up. I've pointed out that my problem is not with Wikipedia - it is with people who think it's "funnie" to ruin Wikipedia because they have some personal agenda. I've also pointed out a couple of times now that it's entirely possible to discuss "pejoratives" without having to resort to posting clearly partisan hatchet jobs as fact. What's more, the article does not make it explicit, nor even imply, that the basis for the article is why people call these houses "McMansions". It presents itself as fact.

The changes I've made were clearly justified, and if you'd like to list your contentions with them, go ahead. Let's go straight down the list, and I'll tell you why I've made the edit. Until then, I'll assume that you've just thought that the "whole article was all too rich" to get rid of the POV, and go ahead and change it back.Jackson744 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My "attitude" in this discussion page is befitting the attitude that you and your ilk take towards Wikipedia. It's the reason why nothing created by user-contributions can exist anymore. Jackson744

It is clear you are not making edits in good faith and are trying to make a point about Wikipedia with this article. This is further supported by the fact you are using a new account, you are obviously not a new user, yet McMansion is the first major edit this account has ever made. What's your previous userid, why dont you use it?

As I said, this article can be improved, but your "improvements" are not it, you made a massive deletion of text from top to bottom with no viable explanation other than name calling and attacking people. This is a pejorative term and the article documents why people use it, it is clear up front in the lead section that is whats going on. -- Stbalbach 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It NEEDS a massive deletion of text. You cant see that because you're insanely biased on this topic. Until you're gone, Im sure this joke of an article will hang around to stain the Wiki and provide fuel for its critics. I suspect though, that you watch this thing like a hawk and will reverse any edit. PLEASE seek help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I put the NPOV tag on this article. I don't know what kind of axe you people have to grind, but the whole article is just an extended rant against these houses, their owners, and their builders.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .

There is a lot of negative stuff said about McMansions and it's really easy to let it seep into this article, especially as there's so little positive said about McMansions!

Having said that, I've just been through the article and tried to take out some of the non-NPOV stuff. It's really difficult, I find this a tough and tiring article to edit and it still needs a whole lot more work. I'll be coming back to do more work, if I can. I think we might need to rethink the structure - and possibly take out some of the detail? The detail is where the non-NPOV really begins to creep in.

Katherine Shaw 12:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The "McMansion" -- or "neoeclectic home," if one prefers the term -- is a very real trend in suburbs of the United States, just as drug stores with large parking lots wrapping around two sides and a front entrance on the corner are a very real trend. Many of the POV things in the article (some of which have been removed), while POV, do seem to be accurate, in my observation. The issue is that we can't just make these claims and leave it at that, as it would be original research unless we cite sources or attribute quotes. I don't think "critics allege" and "some claim" is the answer, as they would constitute "weasel words." However, it does seem, in the article's current state, pretty clear to me that the term is inherently pejorative, and thus anything describing said term is the opinion of those who use the term. To borrow Jackson744's example, I doubt many islamofascists call themselves islamofascists, just as I doubt any McMansion owner calls their house a McMansion -- but this does not mean the trend does not exist. --Birdhombre 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ive removed the NPOV tag as the reason given for it by 67.170.224.208 is not actionable nor clearly defined. I think Birdhombre comments are fairly accurate, it's not so much NPOV (it is a POV term) rather lack of citations, which on this topic is understandably difficult, but we do have a library of external links to draw from. I also think Katherine Shaw 's edits were good. Perhaps someone can go through and put {{fact}} tags on particular sentences/sections and if no one defends it, remove them on grounds of original research. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Birdhombre that the article is quite weaselly - some of that is my doing! - and that can definitely be improved. I think that one possible solution is stripping a lot of detail out of the characteristics section (which are the bits that lead to weasel words or bias) and adding them to the criticisms section. I think I might be making some bold edits soon, see what you all think.

And I also agree that the article didn't deserve the 'too long' tag - although I'm not sure that it's quite ready to be called NPOV.

Katherine Shaw 09:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is a lot better now, but it still has quite a ways to go. The problem is that it started out as a screed that simply took it as given that these houses and everything about them are evil. It's a matter of taste, and it's rather boorish to assume that one's own taste is the only opinion that can possibly be valid. This really belonged in some newspaper's opinion pages, not wikipedia. If I'd spotted it some time ago, I'd have just nominated it for deletion.

I think that the "broader criticisms" section is the crux of the NPOV issue. Just define the term McMansion, and be done with it. This doesn't seem like the place to summarise the arguments for and against planned communities.24.91.43.249 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? McMansions cannot be disconnected from their environment. Calwatch 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can say to you is lookup "Government Housing". THAT is what this article should look like. Notice a difference? How arrogant and self centered one must be to presume to stain an encyclopedic work because they cant separate themselves from their soap box! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can explain what a McMansion is, and why it is a pejorative term, without then writing an essay explaining why people hate them. Also, McMansions and planned communities are not always linked. We have McMansions in New England, but planned communities are quite rare. If you want to keep it neutral, you would need a section on why people like McMansions as well, and that is going to make the article too long.Caligi 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

McMansion pictures

All of these exemplify McMansions (out of place with geographic area, large house on small lot, mishmash architectural design). I will place one of them on the main page. Calwatch 06:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are representative, at least according to our article (3 car garage, large grandiose entry, giant lawns, et). But then whose to say what it is or isn't, it's a value judgment, and it seems to keep changing as the "norm" gets pushed larger. In the DC area where I live those 3 houses are fairly much run of the mill for new houses (although not typical in style). -- Stbalbach 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• They look a lot better than much of what is built around here.

I think it is more about fitting in with the surroundings than size. There are many large mansions in Chicago with some that are over a hundred years old that occupy 80%+ of the lot and touch the house next door. These can sell for $5-10 million. I wouldn't consider these McMansions at all.

Here are some links to some pics of some that I googled:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

• some that unfortunately no longer stand.

• [5]
• [6]

Kalmia 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But all of those above are quality, consistent architecture in an urban environment. The pictures I took are of a new tract with much denser lot spacing than the surrounding community, yet are marketed as "estate homes". They are an example of typical sprawl development in that they literally abut the mountains and are miles away from any services like a convenience store, much less a shopping center or bus service.

In reality there are two uses of the McMansion word: the typical tear down a functional one story house (1500 sq. ft on a 8000 sf lot) and plop a two or three story (3000-4000 sf) house on the same lot, or the usage that I and the other San Jose picture use, which are neighborhoods of these "estate homes" with odd ball architecture, far away from services and disconnected from their surroundings. These are tract homes marketed to the upper middle class ($1.5 million and up), as opposed to "standard" suburban development marketed at the $500,000 range (California prices). Calwatch 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the term McMansion is filtering downwards, and from what I can tell is now applied to a lot of larger tract housing. Strictly speaking, I don't think that house that just have "odd ball architecture, [are] far away from services and disconnected from their surroundings" are McMansions - the name still has that crucial connotation of unnecessary size. McMansion also has a connotation of newness - while I'd agree that there are some nineteenth century homes that are ostentatious, a mishmash of styles, and that don't fit in with their surroundings, their age (and their quality, Victorians prized solidity) puts them outside the McMansion category.

I'm not sure about all the photos that Calwatch posted; the central one I think is a pretty good example of the McMansion's general over-elaboration and complexity (bit of a shame that the frontage is in shadow, though), but the flanking photos are, IMHO, just large unpretty houses.

Katherine Shaw 16:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, that YOU think, about this minor topic FAR too much. *I* am here because MY pet peeve is RIDICULOUS bias staining the Wiki and a friend of mine pointed me here as an EGREGIOUS example. Its just AMAZING to me. I am sure you ENDLESSLY subject people to your *opinions* on this topic ALL the time. MUST you do it here also?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.200.167 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The term is evidently used to mock large houses that people consider 'uninspiring' or 'ugly' but beauty is subjective and surely a simple explanation of what the term is 'A derogatory term to describe houses/housing-estates that contain large modern surburban homes' rather than the somewhat drawn-out affair we have currently.

There are wild links to the apparent ecological/environmental impact of such homes with no evidence to suggest they are anymore wasteful than similar sized new-build homes. There is evidence of nothing more than 'snobbery' when it comes to architecture - As if only things built within the confines of architectural 'rules' are worthy.

In short this article should be changed dramatically. There is far to much opinion and bias in the article in my opinion.

ny156uk 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

it is a pejorative (opinionated) term. If this article has any problems, it is that the statements are not fully sourced - any pejorative description needs to be sourced on who said it. Otherwise the article is fine. If you agree or disagree with the opinions in the article is not the point - the very term "McMansion" is a negative opinion, and those who use the term are expressing an opinion. That doesn't mean they are right, but this is not an article to debate if an opinion is right or wrong, we just document what the opinion is. -- Stbalbach 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicely explained, makes sense when you put it like that. ny156uk 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the big centenarian houses in Chicago have well-defined uniqueness. The ornamentation and materials are genuine. Architectural effort is obvious. These are not simple bloats of plebeian designs, and they are eccentric enough to make someone take notice. The "McMansions" in contrast offend the sensibilities of those who appreciate cleverness in architecure and genuineness of materials. Medieval castles in a city recently a frontier town (Chicago was founded in 1833) might have been silly at the time -- but they are part of the description of Chicago, a city with about every sort of architecture possible in a city under two hundred years old.

The criticism is esthetic; who can prove an esthetic viewpoint? Can anyone prove that Shakespeare's Hamlet is superior to the usual output of Danielle Steele? Can anyone prove that more consistent delight is to be derived from (name favorite conductor) leading Mozart's 41st "Jupiter" Symphony than from some twangy country music?

Anything "accessible but empty" offends élite sensibilities, which explains why Old Money types aren't snapping up "McMansions". At least the hamburger franchise has its merits; nobody claims that McDonald's fast-food places offer grand fare. One knows what to expect at the Golden Arches: predictable, inexpensive, easily-consumed food in a safe, sanitary, friendly environment served promptly. The McMansions offer ersatz grandeur much as some pretensions restaurants offer cheap fish pressed to look like and given enough fake flavorings to resemble such expensive seafoods as crab and lobster... and you get to wait for the schlock food -- and of course you get ripped off. Thanks but no thanks, I say -- I'd rather get an honest fish sandwich from a fast-food place and save my money for the genuine article at a special occasion.

McMansions are kitsch, and opinions on kitsch will range from wild praise (those in the business and those who buy the stuff) to thrashing condemnation. Comparing them to a highly-visible chain of fast-food restaurants is grossly unfair -- to the fast-food chain.--Paul from Michigan 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmoul

This whole article might as well have been written by the Sierra Club or some other batch of eco-terrorist dweebs. It is still heavily slanted toward the viewpoints of progressive-liberal "you all need to live in high-density housing" types. It still needs a total rewrite to conform to POV standards. Hmoul 00:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmoul, McMansion is a pejorative term, no one uses it as a neutral non-judgemental description (ie. "House For Sale: McMansion"). This article describes a style of house that the pejorative term has been applied too - right or wrong is not the point (they are called other things besides McMansions); this is not an article to debate the merits of "large" houses, it is not the place to "appologize" and enter into an edit contest on who can defend large houses or rip them apart with the most clever links and language while staying within the confines of Wikipedia's NPOV rules (that would be Original Researcy). This article is really very simple: McMansion is a pejorative term that has an origin, a history of usage, and meaning behind its use -- if you (the reader) disagree with people who use the term is irrelevant and inappropriate to enter into political debate in the article. --Stbalbach 02:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmoul, please respond on this talk page not my personal page. Second request to engage in discussion here where others can contribute.

Now, this same exact discussion came up with media circus. It turned into an edit war because one editor thought "media circus" could mean whatever you wanted to mean -- ie. pejorative for some people, or a neutral or even positive term for others. The discussion can be found here -- it is the same exact issue - please read it. Calling something a McMansion is to comment on its appropriateness, it is a judgement, an opinion. It is not a neutral observation. And yes, I grew up in one, I know many people who live in one, and I see the term all the time, but it is still a term that casts judgement, and that judgement is not a positive one. It is a subjective analysis - it is not a statment of fact (one person may call it that, another person my disagree). They are calling it a "McMansion" in order to cast aspersions on either the size of the house, or McDonalds. To say anything else is original research. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC) _________

If you don't want stuff left on your personal page, don't leave stuff on mine you hypocritical twit.

That the whole page is just ridden with critical POV is obvious, and more slander just pops up out the enviro-freak side of the discussion on a constant basis. A large portion of the entry is still devoted to whimsical criticism that is totally devoid of neutrality, in essence turning most of it into a sounding board for those that hate them on idealogical grounds. Shall we start a rebuttal section that is equal in size and tone?

I live amongst hundreds of these homes, people describe their home that way on a regular basis with no negative connotation on a daily basis. That you see it mentioned frequently and in a negative light tells more about what you read than anything else. Of course nobody lists there home as a "McMansion", because as a style it doesn't exist - to use that as your argument is assuredly devoid of any intellectual honesty.

Apparently attempting to word the entry in a manner that satifies both points of view is abhorrent to you, which I suppose is to be expected. Hmoul 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page to respond on this page, because you were ignoring this talk page and engaging in edit war. "hypocritical twit" - oh great - looks like we have a behavioural problem in addition to a lack of communication problem. Rude, edit wars, opinionated, no reputation who skips around to various accounts - in other words, no one to take seriously. Anyway, you just don't get what this article is about - it documents the term and why people use it. Your suggestion that you would start a rebuttal section underscores your lack of understanding of how wikipedia works. This is not an original research essay where we debate the pros and cons of large houses. This article is very clear up front that this is a pejorative idiomatic term (do you know what pejorative means?). There are lots of slang idomatic pejorative terms on Wikipedia, you don't need to apologize for them, we document what people do, not tell people what they should do. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you POSSIBLY be THIS wrong on this topic and NOT realize it? You are just wrong. PLEASE lookup "Govt Housing" "Islamofacism" and "Neocon" for examples of how FAR more contraversial topics can be treated. What you are doing here is ridiculous and that it is your obsession is sad.

luxery move up

"We call them luxury move-up homes," says Rob Parahus, a developer.[6]" ::These lines too journalistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.142 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is when written like that. --Kalmia 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of "Wog mansion" in the introduction

Regarding the reverts to this page after my edit to the introduction:

"Wog mansion" is the only regional variation in the whole article, the rest all appear to be American, I reject that particular premise of Stbalbach's argument in his/her edit summary - "(the article is called McMansion - there is no need to list every different regional variation in the first sentence)". What "the article is called McMansion" adds to Stbalbach's argument I do not know, as I don't think anybody has proposed a page move.

Stbalbach argues that other alternative names for McMansion are covered in the article - "(rv - other names discussed in article)", except that they are not. Under the "associated terms" heading some architectural variations (not regional variations) have a sentence about them and sometimes also a link to an article about a particularly distinctive style of McMansion. Persian palace is the only term that could be considered a regional variation of the term, but it more just refers to a permutation of the architecture.

Wog mansion is an authentic regional variation, not an architectural one and was the sole term used the describe the phenomena in Australia until about 3 years ago when the term McMansion started to be used as well.

If every country had a different term, and they were all in this article, then it would be stupid to list them all in the introduction, however that is not the case.

Any questions? Grumpyyoungman01 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Other pejorative descriptions for "large costly house" include:

Wog mansion

Beltway Baronial

Starter Castle

Tract Mansions

Mini-Taj Mahals

Big Foot

Jumbo Abode

Gable-opolis

Persian palace

faux chateau

We will not be listing every one on the lead section, nor giving favored treatment to certain ones over others.

Some of these are regional in scope ("Wog" is an Australian term; Beltway refers to certain cities;). Some of these are specific about certain styles ("Chateau" and "Taj Mahals") which are also regionally oriented (there are no Taj Mahals in many places). If you look back through the edit notes and prior discussions you'll see people say "in Vegas we call it.." (I can't remember exactly, but it's there). Almost all of these are regional slang terms, that's how language works. In fact pejorative terms for this phenomenon can be found wherever this phenomenon exists - it is not limited to just the USA or Australia - nor is the list currently represented here complete (it has been slowly growing with time).

I could see an argument being made that the article should be made more generic about "big house slang terms", although from an article naming perspective, McMansion is the most commonly known and I believe the oldest/original. There is also no reason you could not create an article Wog mansion as others have done for faux chateau and Persian palace, and discuss the specifics from an Australian perspective. -- Stbalbach 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the "McMansion"

In the H. L. Mencken essay there is critisism of the housing styles, but can these houses be called McMansions? Maybe this is appropriate for tract housing. I am not familiar with this area that he wrote of. Someone who is familiar should reply. If someone knows of the exact zip codes of the area that he writes about, someone can look up real estate listings for that area for houses that are over 80 years old. realtor.com should have listings. --Kalmia 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

McMansion is an 80's term (McDonalds didn't exist in the 1920s), within the historical context of what happened in the housing markets starting in the 80s, we would have to be careful about projecting it backwards. -- Stbalbach 13:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the term didn't exist then, but the style could exist before the term. See also: Missing white woman syndrome --Kalmia 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the article is of course hostile to these houses. The common characteristics of the criticism of these houses is that they are

• 1. Wasteful of resources -- that is, expensive
• 2. Pretensious
• 3. Unimaginative
• 4. Dependent on mass-production on a large scale
• 5. Esthetically offensive
• 6. Undesirable to all but the owner
• 7. Ultra-modern
• 8. Impersonal
• 9. Market-oriented

In short, conspicuous consumption to little effect, or in more plebeian terms, little bang for the buck. One loves it or one hates it, and only a well-heeled subculture can like such places.

They are likely to offend aristocratic and populist sensibilities at the same time. Populists see the opulence and see money going to the 'wrong people'; aristocrats see violation of their own standards of what to do with wealth. Genuine aristocrats recognize that wealth is to be concealed and not flaunted, the opposite of what ahppens here. Populistic criticism is that the money wasted on these buildings could better have gone into their own hands instead of into those of rapacious parvenus; aristocratic sensibilities will find the gaudiness in violation of their own tastes. The 'class' that buys these places looks like brass targets for sharp criticism in any hard times that may ensue -- business executives who have lived all-too-well by treating others badly, professionals who have been more effective at scamming government than at providing service, and questionable celebrities more adept at marketing their bilge toward unrefined tastes than to any creativity.

It is relatively easy to see in them styles (an apartment complex for one family) obvious grist for criticism. These edifices are to be castigated for every possible reason. If any prediction is to be made about such places, it is that they are pre-fabricated slums whose owners have been deluded into paying far too much for.

I cannot speak of them without baring my prejudices; I see these buildings as the sort that will be torn down ofter the kids who inherit them can't keep them up. They will be sold to further development, probably to those who will impose [[high-density housing}slum]]s upon what used to be someone's showcase of wasteful, mindless excess.

Maybe these dreadful edifices shade off into buildings with somewhat better architectural design, buildings that allow more personal eccentricity, to buildings that people might enjoy looking at. What the heirs do with them will be interesting stories in their own rights.Paul from Michigan 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Overly One-Sided...

I am very disappointed with the stereotyping of this article. It is very one-sided and it sounds like it was written from someone whom has had a bad experience with wealthier people. Also, it states the the typical McMansion size is 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. If you ask me, that sounds a bit too small. Around here (in central Indiana), McMansions typically start at around 4,300 and go up to about 6,800 square feet. I would know since I live in a McMansion in a neighborhood full of them. However, I do have to agree with some of the article. The use of foyers is wasting space, even if they are nice to look at. In my house, we have an upstairs ramp way (or "bridge" as I call it) that goes from one side of the upstairs to the other with the bedrooms all off to the ends and at the edges. The bridge is about four-and-a-half feet wide and is about thirty-five to fourty feet long. On one side, there is the entrance foyer and on the on the other side is the great room. Also, the use of lighting really is over-used. We have about about thirty recessed lights, lighting under the kitchen cabinets, two lights per closet for each room, two large chandeliers, and lights I don't think we've even used yet. We even have recessed lighting in our garage (it's finished). One really conveniant thing about our McMansion, however, is the fact that there are two staircases. It made it very easy to move in when the movers were loading our stuff in and it's easier to just go down one instead of the other if you don't want to walk all over the place downstairs just to retrieve something. In my house, we have a staircase in the entrance and a staircase in the kitchen that connects to the one in the entrance about half-way up. The entrance staircase also has a winding presence. But enough about my house. But like I said earlier, this article seems a bit too one-sided (okay, extremely one-sided) and it should definently be re-written to please everyone rather than someone that's only middle class. Some of us are higher up than that level, you know.

Sharpay Evans 08:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Sharpay Evans

"McMansions" are intended to be, above all else, marketable. People who must still move at the behest of their employers and have credit lines that allow purchases of palaces cannot afford to take huge losses because their 'mansions' so reflect their own tastes instad of those of others of smilar means that they cannot be sold without taking a huge loss. Note well the dual stairways easily transformed into ramps that make the moving of furniture and personal effects is 'easier'.

The true upper class needs not concern itself with the opinions that others have of their chateaux; they aren't selling in the imaginable future. True upper-class housing is something that one is born into; family members are conditioned, so to speak, into accepting the eccentricities of an old house as the norm. The genuine uper class does not move to a new and essentially similar mansion every five years or so; corporate employees, even if executives with sultan-like salaries, do.

It's likely that there are four groups of people who could be involved in the debates of the merits and demerits of this sort of housing. One is the upper-crust who sees these houses as 'beneath' them because of their heavy use of mass-manufactured materials, bland design, and the crass marketing behind them -- bloated tract house, something for an "Al Bundy" made good. I figure that upper-crust people hate "McMansions". Such 'Old Money' people call their dwellings "houses", and never the Babbitt-like "homes" and especially not "mansions" that less-secure people call their McMansions, tract houses, condominiums, co-ops, shacks, mobile 'homes', or run-down apartments.

A second category is those who resent any display of success because they consider themselves poor by contrast through no fault of their own. The criticism is not so much esthetics (this populist tendency doesn't care) as it is that people have the means for spending a few million dollars on a house because they are paid well for imposing mass layoffs or getting sweetheart deals with the government. They'd rather have higher wages and more job security so that they can move to a tract house from some dismal apartment. Such people can be brushed off as ingrates, at least by those who have the seven-figure pay and seven-figure houses.

A third is the people who market and manufacture this housing. It's obviously a good business for them, so they are delighted with them. For lenders it's easier to manage one $1 million account of debt than ten accounts of $100,000 in debt to be repaid by marginal borrowers and on the whole more lucrative. It's remarkable that one can sell these bloated edifices and call them 'homes' as if they were still selling to unsophisticated rubes. Most people love an industry that rewards them well, whether it is a building trade, residential finance, or advertising.

A fourth is the people who own them. Are they happy? Most likely they are too busy to notice the criticism. They are too busy to notice that the usual characteristics of a high-priced house include uniqueness of architecture and location. The kids are impressed because they can play video games on a 50" plasma TV screen. If you have to leave greater Dallas for Greater Detroit, then there aren't any good views in Dallas, anyway.

When is it not a McMansion?

I propose that a unique location (as expressed in something other than advertising hyperbole) and highly-individual architecture that allows some eccentricity at the expense of marketability makes a house not a "McMansion". Hint: the places aren't heavily advertised in the glossy "Real Estate" sections of metropolitan newspapers, and they aren't concentrated in one general area of town.Paul from Michigan 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be "two sided", it would be original research to get into a debate about that. The term is obviously pejorative, as explained in the first sentence. We report on how people use and define the term. -- Stbalbach 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all pompous, judgemental, elitism. Paul's "categories" above are particularly outrageous. As if there can be no other category of opinion on this topic than that. As if all of these "types" of people are homegonous. In attemtping to define the judgmental tendencies of the folks it is addressing it is more egregiously judgemental than anything it is criticizing! Very similar is the ENTIRE article which, of course Stbalbach stalwartly defends once again! Kudos brave knight! Of course you can easily define a POV term without writing a treatise defending it, but NOT, apparently, if you're a POV kind of guy and it happens to be YOUR POV. The fact is that the term, the people who love it and feel its clever, and a lot of the dialogue here is just yet ANOTHER example of elitism and human arrogance. It seems there is no end to it. And apparently so FEW people can see the irony of mass categorising people and denigrating them because they dont fit YOUR vision of what reality "should" look like. So the sin of these folks is that they want to live in a larger house? Their sin is that they CAN afford a "McMansion" (not THEIR term, your) but they CAN'T afford a "real mansion"? I love the coattailing of the elitist "upper class". So the prejudices and bias of that much maligned social circle are all just hunky dory when used to slam someone YOU dont like. I can guarantee you that WHATEVER your (whoever YOU are that may be reading this) life situation is, there are ARMIES of extremist ideologues who have a problem with it and "want it stopped!" and are ready to compose a thesis on it. Just keep that in mind when viewing a discussion like this. Thats why I try not to judge ANYONE's choices in this way and why, to me, an article like this SCREAMS POV. But clearly as long as Stbalbach soldiers on, it will remain a little unflagged POV smeer on the Wiki character :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.191.228 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You understand that unless there are sources that talk about the positive nature of the label McMansion (which there probably aren't) then it is original research to include it here. The fact of the matter is that no one who approves of these types of homes, and enjoys them would ever use the term McMansion to describe them. This is a very useful article about a common architectural concept, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't accurate as to how this term is used and what it describes, you are reading far too deeply into this. Discussing the positive uses of McMansion would be a bit like discussing the positive uses of any other completely pejorative term, original research. Unless there are sources, note screaming isn't a source. IvoShandor 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)