[bondarchuk]

>Disclaimer: These same principles do not always apply to Modernist or even canonically Postmodern architecture. These principles are for the classical or traditional architecture most residential homes are modeled after.

Seems like an obvious way out of this conundrum is reclassifying these so-called mcmansions as postmodern. Description instead of prescription.

[adjejmxbdjdn]

You would have the same critiques but applied from a different perspective.

It’s like reclassifying a really bad plane as a helicopter. The same critiques wouldn’t apply but it would probably be an even worse helicopter.

[bondarchuk]

Postmodernism is a bit more "anything goes as long as it's good". Once you move beyond really basic rule-based criticisms like "it's not symmetric" or "there are competing masses" then you can ask "but is it good?" i.e. does it work as a house for the persons it was built for in the context that it was built in? (To be fair from what I recall many entries in the blog actually do that to an extent, only using an air of neoclassical snobbery as a framework (for example that really funny bit about the pre-bathroom space where you can snort coke in the 80s is like this IMO))