[GatorD42]

I’m not sure I agree with these examples and I’m not big on architecture criticism like this. I think it’s important not to overvalue a building based on how it looks - 99.9% of your time will be spent inside the building, .1% or less will be spent outside looking at it. Modern houses can be much nicer inside: larger open areas, larger kitchens, larger bathrooms and (usually) less lead paint and asbestos.

The same goes for office buildings, where I think the conservation movement overvalues the small amount of time people spend looking at a building vs the huge amount of time people work inside it. I’ve been in old beautiful office buildings in NYC and modern ugly office buildings and the modern buildings usually have a much better working environment and layout.

Example 1 looks fine to me, I would be happy to live in this house. It’s not beautiful but it’s not ugly.

Example 2 is ugly, the windows on the front are weird and the side has too few windows. My main issues with McMansions is they look cheaper than older houses because of the materials and sometimes facades have no windows or few windows, while old houses tend to have more windows and they are evenly balanced.

Example 3 looks fine, it’s almost pretty.

Example 4 would be better if the dark brick part on the house’s left had a window, and the white brick with random dark bricks is kind of ugly. Not terrible though.

Example 5 looks fine and I like red brick houses.

Example 6 is okay too.

I’d be happy with most of these houses if they had a nice interior and nice yard.

[kasey_junk]

One thing that is not pointed out in the article as it is mostly about aesthetics is that most of the traditional houses that McMansions are based on, have regional variants that were developed for the climates and conditions they were built in.

For instance, the top windows in example 2 provide important airflow to a part of the house that will normally get very hot.

McMansions are rarely (if ever) designed with their climate and locality in mind and are therefore very inefficient. They would not be at all livable without AC and are frequently monstrous to heat and cool.

Contrast that with the houses they are modeled on, even in places where AC is a huge boon.

That gets to the heart of why I hate McMansions.

[tomxor]

> I’ve been in old beautiful office buildings in NYC and modern ugly office buildings and the modern buildings usually have a much better working environment and layout.

I'm not literate in architecture, but there is one dimension that seems prominently easy to identify to me: with the singular "brutalism" at one end; and an open ended array of ornate at the other.

I think the "modern" functional office building architecture you refer to are close to the brutalism end (but not at it), and therefor not a fair comparison. These mansions are quite far form it, whoever is designing them cares about the aesthetic, but regardless of your taste they seem to lack something... cohesion and thoughtfulness perhaps, they want to be something but they don't seem to know what - it makes them feel fake.

[klondike_]

The problem with these houses is mostly aesthetic. Most of them are otherwise fairly functional. McMansions are a consequence of modernism, where people got sick of the minimalistic architecture and returned to traditional styles.

However, new construction in these architectural styles ends up often looking like a cheap knockoff because of the mishmash of different styles from totally different time periods.