[mrcsparker]

This whole article reeks of magical thinking (as do many of the comments here).

I have been looking for information on what constitutes a McMansion vs a non-McMansion and the arguments parallel the same sort of stuff that made Feng Shui so popular: there are magical rules that make things right or wrong.

Would love so see a real test done on these assumptions. If there are real rules that are being violated with these homes, then an unbiased test should be easy to put together.

[ghaff]

I suspect you're looking for a more absolutist set of principles than exist when, in fact, these things exist on a continuum and opinions vary. I think there are certain overall factors that trigger the broad McMansion dislike but they're not universal.

(From an architectural perspective) a lot of mishmashing of architectural styles and features without any sort of unifying aesthetic. Yes, that's a matter of taste, and there are ugly buildings with unified modernist aesthetics but we can probably agree that architecture should be more than pich two from column A, one from column B, and one from column C.

In many cases, McMansions are in large developments with big houses on small property lots with, often, minimal landscaping both for reasons of space and because they're fairly new, which accentuates all that there is to not like about the houses themselves.

I suspect that the McMansion style gets wrapped up in a lot of cultural biases and attitudes such as you see here.

[ADDED: The OP did make an effort to offer some tests. My untrained paraphrase would be that McMansions tend to be sort of a jumble of often seemingly random design elements.]

[imgabe]

If you like McMansions and think they constitute good design, you are more than welcome to spend your money on one.

The "Mc" part comes because they are cheaply mass produced with little thought or effort put into the design. The didn't decide to "break the rules" because they were pursuing some artistic vision. It was just a matter of expediency to create the most volume for the least money.