Tag Archives: design

“25 Lessons You’ll Learn From a McMansion”

Posted on by

One contributer to MyOldHouseOnline.com finds humor in things you can learn from a McMansion:

1) The builders did not have all the answers.  Sometimes, they didn’t understand any of the questions.  Feel free to display bewilderment and dismay at their cluelessness.

2)  When you find a light or window in an inexplicable location or missing where one should decidedly be, refer to lesson #1.

3) Four words: What Were They Thinking?

4) McMansion owners can be the best-dressed people at the party.  But when the party is at their house, try not to stare, point, or snicker…

The main joke here appears to be that McMansions are not built that well. Hence, be prepared to find lots of things to fix or to have to make major changes to poor decisions by builders.

What do McMansions look like on Shutterstock?

Posted on by

After earlier this week looking at an iconic McMansion photo, I decided to see how Shutterstock, a stock photo site, portrays McMansions. See the results here.

Some patterns:

1. Most of the homes are in suburban settings. While the term McMansion can also apply to teardowns or large homes on small lots in more crowded neighborhoods, these stock photos are primarily about big houses in neighborhoods with larger lots.

2. Most of the homes are “normal” looking McMansions. They share features like a two-story foyer, at least a two-car garage, and multi-terraced roof line. There are few photos of homes with more castle-like features or modern architecture.

3. There appear to be some particular audiences for these photos: real estate agents who need pictures of nice homes with sold signs in the front yard and people who like flagpoles in the front yard (it appears a number of these are the same photoshopped flag).

4. The photos are mostly of lighter-colored houses, either either white or grey siding with some light brick mixed in. Few homes had darker brick or stucco.

All together, there could be a lot more variety of McMansions on this site.

Fake Georgian office building to hide electric substation next to fake Hard Rock Cafe in Chicago

Posted on by

It is not uncommon for cities to have fake buildings or facades to hide infrastructure and here is an example in Chicago where the same architect designed the Hard Rock Cafe and fake mansion next door:

The most noteworthy, a faux Georgian mansion in the River North area of downtown, was designed by perhaps the city’s most famous living architect, Stanley Tigerman, former director of the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“The building is somewhat tongue-in-cheek , a bit of a joke,” said Tigerman, who had first designed a restaurant just west of the site. “The Hard Rock Cafe: fake stucco, fake Georgian, nothing real about it. Then they came to me and wanted me to do the ComEd substation next door, but to be contextual, to relate it to this ersatz piece of junk.”

So rather than construct a bogus building based on a fake, albeit one he designed, Tigerman cut the other direction.

“I decided to go absolutely hard core, as classically designed as I could, done authentically Georgian,” he said. “The brick bonding is  English cross bond, the one Mies van der Rohe used whenever he used brick. It’s very expensive to to lay bricks that way, but it makes the walls sturdy and impervious to cracking. I knew the building would never receive any maintenance, so the idea was to do as good a building as I could.”

He also had to take into account the building’s true purpose — so if you look closely, what seem to be windows are actually vents, to help cool the 138 kV electrical transmission equipment inside.

Hiding in plain sight. Here is the Google Streetview image of the two buildings, the covered substation on the left and the Hard Rock Cafe on the right:

55WestOntarioChicago

This could lead to a great architecture conversation: which of the buildings is more fake or authentic? The restaurant which is about evoking a particular spirit (a museum? an imposing older structure intended to lend more gravitas to rock ‘n’ roll?) to make money? Or the fake mansion with more pure design that does nothing but hide the infrastructure that is necessary for big cities? Both could be considered postmodern for their application of old styles to new purposes, their exteriors projecting certain images that don’t match their interiors.

Building large buildings over the Hudson Yards in Brooklyn

Posted on by

How are large skyscrapers and buildings constructed on top of a railroad yard? See the example of Hudson Yards in Brooklyn:

Hudson Yards is the largest private development project in U.S. history, and it’s being built without footings or foundations. Instead, the project is going to sit atop 300 concrete-sleeved, steel caissons jammed deep into the underlying bedrock. Work on the platform broke ground last week, and will take roughly two and a half years to complete. In that time, there’s a lot of engineering to do.

Caissons are a technology borrowed from bridge building, and they are what makes this project possible. The engineers will drill them anywhere from 40 to 80 feet into the Manhattan schist (the dense, metamorphic bedrock that supports the city’s soaring skyline). The caissons are meticulously arranged in the narrow spaces between the tracks. Above, the they will connect to deep-girdle trusses – some up to 8 stories tall – that control and redirect the towering weight overhead. Finally, the slab. “The total punishment is somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000 tons of steel and 50,000 cubic yards of concrete,” says Jim White, the lead platform engineer. And that’s before they start loading buildings on top.

Building an elevated platform over an active train yard requires clockwork scheduling. White used computer models to coordinate the tempo of his drilling and truss-laying around the rhythm of the rails. “We look at the area of the yard and model in the train traffic, when it moves on an hourly basis and actually design the connections so we can install these 100 foot long trusses when have a window of opportunity,” says White. For the two and a half years it will take to complete the platform, there are only four scheduled track closures.

That is quite a lot of weight over a rail yard. However, such projects are not unknown in large cities where people look to maximize both space above and below ground. Space is at a premium so construction projects need to get creative and allow for a multitude of uses.

College architecture class develops floating “Petropolis” to be built in the coming years

Posted on by

An architecture class at Rice University developed an idea for a floating city for oil workers that may be built off the coast of Brazil in a few years:

The newer discoveries push the limits of normal helicopter range. That means getting to and from work on the oil platforms is both expensive and a grind. So the Brazilian oil company Petrobras is looking for a new, better way for its employees who must work on these platforms…Their solution seems right out of an Arthur C. Clarke novel. The class designed three large floating islands that are surrounded by 42 smaller islands. These smaller islands would provide the larger hubs with among other things, crops and electricity through solar and wave power. The three main hub islands would be as large as 1 kilometer by 2 kilometers [0.6 by 1.2 miles] and would be a mix of residential, office and industrial centers…

“With the ballasting techniques, not only can you raise and lower the island by the ratio of water to water, they also have techniques now for digitally sensing wave levels and these things are constantly being calibrated,” Bhatia says. “So the technique of using digital stabilizers that are constantly reballasting the tanks would be what was employed.”

The three hubs would serve as oil transfer facilities, pumping the offshore crude back to the coast through three large pipelines. The hope by Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, is to build and have operational floating residential islands in the next five years. Just how much of the Rice students’ elaborate concept ultimately might be realized is still unknown. The company’s project is in its early phases on the drawing board.

It sounds like there would be a lot of work to design these but the idea is interesting. Oil companies might be one of few organizations that could pull this off given the resources and money needed, the expertise on hand (oil rigs are complicated in themselves), and the return on investment the islands might provide.

Additional questions I would want answered:

1. What is the maximum population for such islands? The article suggests 25,000 people – is this the maximum weight that might work or are there other considerations?

2. What would the life-span of one of these islands be and what happens when things start breaking/leaking/falling apart? (How many lifeboats have to be on hand?)

3. While oil companies may have the most interest now, how long until someone builds one of these for any number of reasons (pirate traders, people who want to live outside national borders, multinational corporations who want to be truly offshore, countries seeking military bases, etc.)?

 

3.

Critiquing a high-security bunker McMansion in New York City

Posted on by

McMansions may be designed to impress but what happens if they are built in such a way to push away the outside world? See this example from New York City:

The massive, ground up 7,000-plus-square-foot West Village McMansion belonging to oil heiress Hyatt Bass and her screenwriter husband is being quietly shopped around, the Post has learned. There’s no official listing yet, but Bass hopes to fetch $35 million or more for the fortress home, which was built to be impenetrable following a 2007 incident in which Bass’s mother was held hostage in her own Connecticut abode. Since it was unveiled to the public last year, the bunker home, at Greenwich and West 12th Streets, has made headlines for its incongruous brutalist architecture and ultra-high security features.

Bass purchased the property for $7.5 million in 2001 and has reportedly never occupied the 802 Greenwich Street citadel. Earlier in the year, the compound was brought to our attention by a tipster for failing to shovel out front (Guess no one was there to turn on the heated sidewalks that were installed over the summer.) Someone who recently toured the property told the Post that the it feels “locked-in” and “weird” despite its well-appointed terrace and garden. We have a feeling that this home, built “specifically for this family around their security needs,” is likely to have a hard time selling. When it does, we hope the new owners throw a cornice or any other kind of architectural detail on the misplaced stronghold in the heart of the historic district.

This large home seems to share the odd architectural stylings that tend to mark McMansions. Yet, that odd architecture is often intended to show something positive about the owner, to represent some marker of success or wealth. But, this particular combination of architecture is intended to clearly set the house apart from the public even though it is in a very public setting. Is this even a more in-your-face McMansion because it intentionally pushes people away? Could a home be built that combines the security features found here, the size of this home, and a more welcoming exterior or does privileging security necessarily lead to an outcome like this?

Another contender for “The Anti-McMansion”

Posted on by

Combine a tiny house and minimalist design and the New York Times gives you another contender for an anti-McMansion:

Living in a one-room house with an ultra-minimalist aesthetic and two small children sounds more like the setup for a joke than something any reasonably sane person would attempt.

And yet that’s exactly what Takaaki and Christina Kawabata set out to do when they renovated an old house here. They were convinced that an open space with as few toys and material possessions as possible was a recipe not for disaster, but for domestic calm…

“Most of the people we’ve invited here are shocked by how we live,” Ms. Kawabata, 41, said. “How we can raise kids without toys and clutter and stuff everywhere.”…

Eventually, there will be an addition, a 1,500-square-foot structure that may be connected to the main house with an open walkway. But that’s a few years off. For now, instead of walls, the family makes do with transparent room dividers created out of metal frames wrapped with nylon string.

There are three features that set up this home apart from conceptions of a McMansion:

1. A smaller size. This one-room house has 1,200 square feet. It is interesting to note that the home will eventually include another 1,500 square feet which would then put it above the average for a new American home at 2,500 square feet.

2. A different and better design. Rather than having spaces for everyone to do their own thing, this home is one big open space where the family is always together. Additionally, the minimalist design is presumed to be better aesthetically (and presumably in durability and appeal to others) than the typical McMansion attempt to impress and mash together numerous styles.

3. The commitment to live with less stuff. McMansions might be so large because even as the average American household has decreased in size, the average new home has increased dramatically in order to hold more consumer goods.

At the same time, I would guess most Americans would not accept this particular design as the best anti-McMansion: it is too open (do household members want to be that close?) and minimalist design does not appeal to everybody.

What is the most McMansion-y feature of a McMansion?

Posted on by

A Chicago area McMansion prompts Curbed Chicago to ask which feature truly makes a McMansion:

What is the most McMansion-y thing a home can have? Gaudy ornate interior styling? A swimming pool and tennis court? A grand staircase, a home theater and a four car garage? How about all of the above. Some people want to make a statement with their home, and this one is a testimony to money and opulence. Did we also mention that it is located in the middle of nowhere? Built in 2004, this 15,500 square foot five bedroom, seven bathroom home epitomizes the McMansion boom in the far suburbs from ten years ago. The listing says that the original cost to build this modern day Richie Rich palace was a steep $6.5 million. It could be yours today for $3.2 million.

Those are some features. I might vote for the 5 story turret as the most McMansion-y part.

I think a good case could be made that this is beyond McMansion with over 15,000 square feet and the neighborhood has really big lots. And, what exactly do $1,050 monthly HOA fees get you? But, interestingly enough, it is quite close to I-94, Gurnee Mills, and Great America so it isn’t too far from a lot of people.

Adding the Chicago Spire to the Chicago skyline

Posted on by

New tall buildings may be exciting but they can dramatically alter a skyline. See what the revived Chicago Spire would do to the Chicago skyline:

The supertall skyscraper’s hasn’t quite had a Cinderella story, as the project has gone through name, design and ownership changes since it was conceived in 2005. If completed, the 2,000 foot building would become the tallest structure in the Western Hemisphere.

The various proposals are quite interesting. Two things to note, beyond the proposed height:

1. The Spire has a unique location that helps it stand out from other buildings in the skyline. It is positioned in front, closer to the lakefront and Navy Pier than other tall buildings in Chicago which are closer to the business district or Michigan Avenue.

2. The design helps it stand out as skinny, unusual because of its twists, and unusually tall.

Contrast this with the last major addition to the Chicago skyline, the Trump Tower:

TrumpToweronChicagoRiver

While the Trump Tower dominates the approach in and out of the Chicago River, it is near a bunch of other taller buildings and it has a more traditional design (glass and steel in stacked sections). In contrast, the Spire stands out in front of other skyscrapers and has a more unique design.

If built (and this is still a big if), how long before the Spire becomes a “normal” part of the Chicago skyline? How will it actually cohere with the rest of the skyline?

Americans want the “New Old House,” an older-looking home with McMansion amenities

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal describes the trend of architects and builders putting together homes that look old and have character but have all the latest features:

“The first words that come out my clients’ mouths are, ‘We’d love to have a real old house. We just can’t find one,’ ” said architect Russell Versaci, who runs a Middleburg, Va.-based practice. “And the second thing they say is, ‘We are so sick of McMansions. We just want to get out and get back to reality.’ ”

What architects like Mr. Versaci—along with certain discriminating prefab builders and house-plan companies—offer instead is known as the New Old House: a sanely proportioned residence that’s historically accurate on the outside, but conceived for the needs of modern Americans on the inside. Austere Greek Revival farmhouses with roomy island kitchens. Time-travelesque Craftsman bungalows with startlingly open floor plans. Walk-in closets designed to hold more than a few Civil War-era muslin petticoats…

The exhibition is timely. According to Amy Albert, editor of Custom Home—a Washington, D.C.-based magazine that caters to architects, designers and high-end builders—a hankering for authentic traditional residential design is one of 2014’s big trends. That said, “People aren’t seeking exact replicas of historical houses,” she added. “They want architectural purity in the elevations and the details, but inside they want connectivity and open floor plans.” Discerning homeowners, she said, are demanding that custom builders bone up: “Mixing a Palladian window with a Craftsman column is not going to cut it. Even if people don’t have the vocabulary to articulate why it’s wrong, they instinctually know it is.”…

Both Mr. Versaci and Mr. Schafer acknowledged there’s something potentially inauthentic about recreating oldness, especially if you go to the extent of simulating patinas on stone (using coffee) or, as Mr. Schafer mentioned, importing $50,000 mature beech trees so your New Old House’s landscaping doesn’t look too new. “Making a mirage is an issue,” said Mr. Versaci. “My personal preference is to let a house age through natural processes. If you choose quality, natural materials like unlacquered brass, they will eventually age. But some 21st-century Americans, who are used to ‘add water and serve,’ just don’t want to wait.”

One of the more interesting parts of the new second edition of A Field Guide to American Houses is the last section on newer houses, dubbed Millennial Mansions, which discusses the differences between an authentic looking older home and a fake looking older home. For example, a new home in a Craftsman style might not have the correctly proportioned pillars on the porch or might be built on a slab when such older homes in this style usually had a basement.

Yet, the problem with historicity is not just about recreating the past. There is also an odd lack of interest in a historic interior as it is all about the exterior. If anything, this just reinforces the same mindset these people criticize about McMansions: it is all about making an impression with the exterior and then having a flashy interior. Would the people who complain McMansions don’t provide a good psychological fit make the same complaint about these new old houses?

Also, are these New Old Houses much smaller than the average McMansion?