One Internet user posted about their fondness for McMansions earlier this week in a City-Data.com forum:
I just love them.
The exception is if it’s a historic area/themed area, that I consider a bad thing.
I think it’s so cool when you’re driving around a plain jane area and then this gigantic flashy fancy suburban house pops out of knowhere and makes you look at it. I think it’s amazing when you as one homeowner can add so much niceness to a block.
If I become rich one day then I want to one day live in a McMansion in an average area. Most wealthy [suburban] areas have huge lots with very little tight-knitness & interaction; those type of areas are not my cup of tea.
I can’t tell if sarcasm is involved here or not but regardless, this is an uncommon statement. Some of the features that critics dislike, such as the size, gaudiness, and the wealth that is implied, are the very thing this poster likes. One might be able to praise larger houses or defend the need for more space but to publicly express that you like McMansions? The term itself has been given so many negative connotations in the last 13 years or so that it makes a statement of liking a rarity.
At the same time, this person also suggests two things they don’t like about McMansions:
1. McMansions in older, historic neighborhoods. This is one dimension of McMansions that is sometimes forgotten since such homes are often tied to suburban sprawl; teardowns can also be considered McMansions. I’m not sure exactly what it means to have a McMansion in an “average area” as this seems like it could be a teardown situation.
2. Neighborhoods of McMansions on big lots where neighbors don’t know each other. This is the opposite of an older neighborhood and is tied to ideas about McMansions being for wealthy people in sprawling areas.
Perhaps this post just reinforces the negative ideas about McMansions: even when defending the homes, the poster has to also say they don’t like all McMansions or all of their traits.