Talk:McMansion

King of the Hill

So why has the "king of the Hill" reference been removed from the popular references section? I have place it there but it keeps getting removed. I feel like the reference is applicable, but do people disagree?

24.21.139.5 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

pictures

I swapped the picture with one I took two summers ago of a museum exhibit that dealt with McMansions. I haven't done much other than shrink it down, so perhaps the photo could use some cleaning up. Still, it seems a better choice than the random picture of a McMansion, seeing as we already have such a picture elsewhere in the article. --Our Bold Hero 9 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Great addition. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Two staircases?

There's this one neighborhood in town built in the early 1990s...follows all the characteristics: Brick or stone veneer façade? Check. Multiple roof line façades? Check. Lack of mature trees? Check, although the city never had any "large, mature trees" due to poor soil. Lack of porches? Check, unless you count a small sheltered area near the front door a "porch". Large, unfinished attics? Can't tell. I've never snooped around upstairs. Walkways to nowhere? Check. Grand rooms? Check. However, there's usually two staircases...a sweeping, polished staircase in the grand room entrance, and a functional, less grand staircase in the back. Is that common?

Potential sources

these were listed as sources in "Persian palace" article which has been redirected here.

References

• Alexander, Karen. "The Big-Box Battle of Beverly Hills." Los Angeles Times, 13 June 2004.
• Groves, Martha. "No Rhapsody on Roxbury." Los Angeles Times, 12 August 2005.
• Mitchell, John. "Wave of Wealthy Iranians No Ordinary Group of Immigrants." Los Angeles Times, 4 January 1990.
• Moaveni, Azadeh. "Councilman Plays Role of Cultural Mediator." Los Angeles Times, 19 April 2004.

POV, take 2

There is someone(s) that is/are tenaciously protecting this article to prevent it from becoming neutral in tone. It needs to be gutted and rewritten without all the unsubstantiated opinion and glaringly POV commentary. 206.169.197.222 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it needs some rewriting, but your edits aren't helping. tedder (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does need some series work to remove the overly disorganized POV tone and to remove some unsourced and dubious statements. I've added the appropriate tags. GrandWagoneer13 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning

I feel like the first line of this article highlights a subjective notion- that McMansions are classified by their pretentious or poor architectural taste... however, the second sentence really brings out the real point and meaning of the term- that McMansions are classified by mass production and homogeneity. I say the sentences should be switched or the wording altered, but perhaps I'm way off base with this thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.217.94 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the term "McMansion" — by equating a type of house with the McDonald's fast food restaurant — is pejorative. Saying so in the article is not POV or subjective, but accurate. (Saying that you agree with this usage would be POV.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have elaborated on the "subjective" point- that seems to be the main thing you address. That's not really the issue I'm concerned with. The first descriptive sentence of the article talks about how McMansion are pretentious or in poor taste... that may be true in most cases, but there are plenty of houses that fit that category; what truly makes a McMansion a McMansion is the fact that they are mass produced and are aesthetically/structurally homogenous. Take this definition from the World English Dictionary: "informal , derogatory a large modern house considered to look mass-produced, lacking in distinguishing characteristics, and at variance with established local architecture."