Ultimate Suburban McMansions

[freshcutgrass]

Why is that? It's certainly better built, and possibly a better 'whole', but it was definitely built as a F-U House.

Definitely not an F-U house. He was a total romantic, and it was built using a large portion of his wealth, using it support his and his wife's favorite causes, and planned to leave it to the city as a museum. He was a very civic-minded person (we're talking Edwardian civic-mindedness of course). I'd say it was motivated by personal enjoyment and to leave a legacy to the public, rather than pure ego.

What's the quality that makes those hideous houses McMansions? Is it just the jumbled, stupid, aesthetic? Or is it their size alone?

Well, I tend to ask what does the "Mc" part mean. Obviously it refers to McDonalds. And what does that imply? It means the worst crap packaged to appeal to the biggest audience, at the lowest price.

McMansions don't generally impress anybody but the warped people who built/bought them. And why would they...they aren't big enough, nor of good enough design or quality to qualify for anything other than ridicule.

Casa Loma on the other hand, was, and still is (and at 180,000 sq ft, will always will be)...bigger than anything built as a private residence in north america (it's 5,000 sqft bigger than the largest Vanderbilt mansion...Biltmore).

He hired the city's top architect to design it, and spared no expense employing the absolute state-of-the-art technology, materials or skilled workers building the place

I see no correlation between Casa Loma and any of these McMansions or "Monster Homes", which are of a cousin.

 

[Mustapha]

Imagine a street of these

'Mid century' is officially in. There are at least 2 magazines at the World's Biggest Bookstore that celebrates this great era. Me, I would have to put curtains in this place.

 

[Mustapha]

Definitely not an F-U house. He was a total romantic, and it was built using a large portion of his wealth, using it support his and his wife's favorite causes, and planned to leave it to the city as a museum. He was a very civic-minded person (we're talking Edwardian civic-mindedness of course). I'd say it was motivated by personal enjoyment and to leave a legacy to the public, rather than pure ego.





Well, I tend to ask what does the "Mc" part mean. Obviously it refers to McDonalds. And what does that imply? It means the worst crap packaged to appeal to the biggest audience, at the lowest price.

McMansions don't generally impress anybody but the warped people who built/bought them. And why would they...they aren't big enough, nor of good enough design or quality to qualify for anything other than ridicule.

Casa Loma on the other hand, was, and still is (and at 180,000 sq ft, will always will be)...bigger than anything built as a private residence in north america (it's 5,000 sqft bigger than the largest Vanderbilt mansion...Biltmore).

He hired the city's top architect to design it, and spared no expense employing the absolute state-of-the-art technology, materials or skilled workers building the place

I see no correlation between Casa Loma and any of these McMansions or "Monster Homes", which are of a cousin.

Wonder if there is a lesson here? He stretched himself financially. When his business went south, he could no longer pay for it and only lived in it a short while. The swimming pool was never finished, only roughed in. I remember seeing the rough-in as part of the tour.

When my kids were little we took them to see Hearst castle. Well worth it of course, especially the California countryside around it, Seal beach a few miles away with hundreds of sea lions lolling on the bech, but I digress. I never saw so much poured concrete in my life. The brick was just facing. And this was built in the 1920s!

 

[adma]

Wonder if there is a lesson here? He stretched himself financially. When his business went south, he could no longer pay for it and only lived in it a short while. The swimming pool was never finished, only roughed in. I remember seeing the rough-in as part of the tour.

And that was probably more my point...

 

[freshcutgrass]

Wonder if there is a lesson here? He stretched himself financially. When his business went south, he could no longer pay for it and only lived in it a short while.

I don't think there is any lesson to be learned here that can be translated to today, as Pellat's downfall was a result of really bad luck, rather than ego and your grasp exceeding your reach.

First of all, he was a romantic edwardian in a world quickly losing interest in that idea.

Then he had his successful pioneering ventures (electric power, the precursor to the TTC, and his aviation manufacturing businesses) confiscated by the government with no compensation.

Fine

So then he tried making money in real estate by developing property...but again, bad timing had it right in the middle of the recession following the end of WW1.

Then comes income tax and property taxes.

The poor guy just got caught at the wrong end of changing times, most of which, was not something he could have anticipated or prevented.

Regardless, he wasn't your average joe, trying to show-off with something that isn't much of a statement at the end of the day, which is what McMansions are.

Even if he was guilty of showing off...he certainly pulled it off.

McMansions don't.

 

[TKTKTK]

Casa Loma on the other hand, was, and still is (and at 180,000 sq ft, will always will be)...bigger than anything built as a private residence in north america (it's 5,000 sqft bigger than the largest Vanderbilt mansion...Biltmore).

I had no idea it was that large. That's something that should really be acknowledged more.

That's a pretty big F-U to Asheville, N.C.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "F-U" part. I don't believe this is the only motivation for why people do things, and even if it were, would require more personal knowledge before such characterizations are made.

 

[TKTKTK]

would require more personal knowledge before such characterizations are made.

Very Spooky freshcutgrass!

I hope you have a Halloween party!

 

[freshcutgrass]

Ok


Anyway...I think the question was answered back on the first page, when Shocker quoted Clewes...

"In their own way they parallel what Peter Clewes refers to, in the recent Mays interview, as "the desire of the middle class to be recognized as important, with something that has an individualized expression"

I think it's just a clear case of good ol'e petty bourgeoisie behavior, which is back with a vengeance, after a brief remission in the latter half of the 20th century. Only now, standards are considerably lower.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Not necessarily in all cases - my Clewes-prompted earlier post suggests that there are several options for the petit bourgeoisie - the Big Hair Starchitect designed high fashion 'Marilyn' tower and the "I've-got-good-taste-because-I've-bought-a-huge-Blast-From-The-Past-chunk-of historicist-pastiche" McMansion.

 

[freshcutgrass]

...or perhaps, there just needs to be a third classification that ranks below the petit bourgeoisie.

I'll give you the honors of naming it.

 

[Urban Shocker]

McMasstige?

 

[freshcutgrass]

mmmm....McStige rolls off the tongue better? No?

I dunno....child-molester is taken right?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Sigh. There are so many different tribes these days, wanting to live in buildings that represent their different values and aspirations ...

McMansions are clearly for the tribe of conspicuous consumers. They're trophies, a sign of having arrived ... somewhere. Somewhere north of the city. Somewhere where cartoonish historical references in buildings count for quite a lot, apparently.

 

[LowPolygon]

this goes to something i have long wondered about. when it comes to high rise living Toronto is obviously very eager to embrace the neo-modernism of buildings like Spire, Murano, Lumiere et al. For that reason i have long been baffled by the sad state of new low rise residential developments.

why are we swimming in an endless sea of dreck like:

?

?

?
i guess the question really is: why are developers afraid of building townhomes and singles in a modernist style??

why the irrational attachment to these bogus 'ye olde' stylings?

is it too expensive to build something sleek and simple? do they think that people will reject them for some reason? too sterile, too cool??

i know there is the odd small infill development in a modern style scattered here and there downtown but in general all the bigger developers seem completely uninterested.