So it's basically saying don't build McMansions next to small houses, which I can understand. Build them in suburbs where you're surrounded by other mansions.
I think what the piece says is that we balance our property rights with personal/ethical responsibilities... and pimping out houses to suit a grand lifestyle sometimes isn't always a great idea.
What I find interesting about these McMansions, is that insides of these homes do not match the exterior. When you drive by, yes they are impressive. However, I have been in some of these homes and there is a consistent trend - they have poor furniture. I dated a woman who was recently divorced. She had a$2 million McMansion. When I pulled up to pick her up, I thought to myself: 'wow, what a nice place'. Then, when I got inside it was a different story. She had furniture that was garbage.
Only stupid american would need this oversized home, it's always too big for small families. Stupid american always find stupidly big things to compenste their stupid small brain
As a 'Yue' I am surprised at your reaction! Im assuming that you are wealthy and reasonably well educatedso then where is all this anti-American sentiment coming from then?! Are you not reading these postings? Did you not watch the original video?! You are missing the point terribly in my opinion.
The folks that own these McMansions worth between 700 and 800 thousand bucks are crying like stuck pigs because they feel it is unfair they pay between 16 and 18 thousand a year in home taxes. My Cap Cod with an addition only pays 6000 thousand a year. These people resent us old timers living in NJ in our 50 year old modest homes. I asked one ladie why complain you knew what the taxes would be when you bought a house three times the value of the others in the area. She spit on me.
hey strykersux. mcmansions are not bad ,there good to people who can afford them ,and bad to people who cant.a simple case of nani-nani-nana,my house is bigger than you-rrs.lol
It is the poor usage of space that is bad. All of these buildings require resources that impact the environment. In the past this impact would have been distributed between several families in several homes but now only one or two people are using the same land space. This demands the same consumption of electricity, gas, etc. as that of several people. This is an unsustainable way to live. Not to mention the lack of aesthetic blending that many of these homes are guilty of.
well to a tree ''hugger''it would seem like a waste of space, but who are you to impose your way of life on other people ,people are different if the want to put a big ugly home up then thats there biz,just make sure you get a home with mellow rules,ass/fee,or complainto to the city,start at the top,not the bottom,this is america : - ]
Firstly, I am not imposing my way of life upon anyone (as if I had that kind of power!) it is merely an observation, based on experience. The space is immaterial; it is more about the consequences of how effectively it is utilized. Resources are not finite contrary to popular belief, and the more you erode those resources the less quality you garner from them.
The idea that one should be able to do whatever one wants comes upon a stumbling block when that choice adversely affect others. In that situation, should they be able? Not being a fascist I personally think that you cannot force people to do the right thing (whatever that may be) but I do think that as a society we should make an effort to be more aware of the consequences of our actions.
By the way, who are you to decide what is an isn't "to many" resources one is able to use to build their home. Why is your house or some previously built house the right size? It use to be that a person could buy a chunk of land and build whatever type of house they wanted, crazy, I know...
By definition, any is too many. It should always be a goal to minimize waste, as all types of consumption has consequences. We can try to offset this but the reality is that everything we do effects our environment. And no, Im not talking about the treehugger idea of the environment as you call it; I mean the land under our feet.
Large developments intrinsically change the way the ecological system works (water tables, run off etc.) just as small developments do, the difference is that the impact is more profound with less overall gain.
I don't except the premise that man is destroying the environment, so listening to you talk about consumption and local ecosystems is like listening to Charlie Browns teachers....
You might want to google 'Barton Springs Austin' then. The springs are being polluted by a development called Circle C Ranch. Or maybe that is too much trouble for you Charlie.
It is sad that you don't take the time out to look into stuff like that, I think if you did you would understand more about the impact of development and the points that I am trying to make below. But as you said, it's just too much trouble. I hope to be proved wrong belive me, because we will not easily be able to replace what is being lost. Who is Charlie? Well, if I'm as dull as Charlie Brown's teachers, then you must be Charlie Brown.
First of all, you were the one who inferred that it was "probably" to much trouble. I was simply agreeing with you And, if I don't accept the premise that man is destroying the environment, then the I agree, the info would be a waste of my time, just as reading the Constitution would be a waste of time for you.
It wasnt an inference about it being too much trouble, I was actually being sardonic; it is not a waste of time at all and I genuinely suggest that you look it up. That aside, you seem to have it in your head that I am some kind of tyrannical dictator, hell bent on removing all Americans constitutional right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness. Im not at all and of course the Constitution is not a waste of my time.
Again, I am not deciding anything for anyone, this is You Tube not State Government, I just believe that it is important to use our resources wisely and to preserve the integrity and cleanliness of the US. This can be achieved in large part by avoiding unnecessarily consumption.
I respect your opinion, but just because someone can afford to do something (and obviously with all of the foreclosures of late this does not seem to be the case) it does not necessarily mean that it is a wise thing to do.
Yes, but the wisdom of a desicion is to be left to the indiviual. Simplybecause you (personally)have come to the conclusion that a 4600 sq ft house is bad and a 1400 sq ft one is less bad, is of no consequence to me. You speak of it in terms of good and bad. I don't think you believe that bulding homes are bad, right? So if building a home is OK, then who are you to say how big the house can be?
So it's basically saying don't build McMansions next to small houses, which I can understand. Build them in suburbs where you're surrounded by other mansions.
Rac379 8 months ago
Definition of Mcmansion; "A nicer, bigger home than can be
afforded by the average envious person"
dgl1962 10 months ago
@dgl1962 LOL! well said.
wpollock13 10 months ago
@wpollock13 You wouldn't believe the venom and nasty words I get from people that make these videos bemoaning Mcmansions.
All of them use the words "shoddily built", but when I ask them if larger homes are exempt from building codes, they fall silent.
The old saying " we learn all that we need to know about people while in kindergarten" is true.
dgl1962 10 months ago
Comment removed
dgl1962 10 months ago
I think what the piece says is that we balance our property rights with personal/ethical responsibilities... and pimping out houses to suit a grand lifestyle sometimes isn't always a great idea.
wpollock13 1 year ago
I thought this was America, so much for private property.
walkonhome 1 year ago 3
What I find interesting about these McMansions, is that insides of these homes do not match the exterior. When you drive by, yes they are impressive. However, I have been in some of these homes and there is a consistent trend - they have poor furniture. I dated a woman who was recently divorced. She had a$2 million McMansion. When I pulled up to pick her up, I thought to myself: 'wow, what a nice place'. Then, when I got inside it was a different story. She had furniture that was garbage.
tothatextent 2 years ago
Never been better actually. :)
I think it's kinda sad that we even need to have this argument because pimping out houses in quiet neighborhoods is not truly necessary.
McMansions are available aplenty in the 'burbs.
wpollock13 2 years ago
Mr Pollock, how is your relationship with your neighbors doing?
LegalAlien100 2 years ago
Only stupid american would need this oversized home, it's always too big for small families. Stupid american always find stupidly big things to compenste their stupid small brain
testeridd 2 years ago
As a 'Yue' I am surprised at your reaction! Im assuming that you are wealthy and reasonably well educatedso then where is all this anti-American sentiment coming from then?! Are you not reading these postings? Did you not watch the original video?! You are missing the point terribly in my opinion.
LegalAlien100 2 years ago
@testeridd HEY, enough with the "stupid American" remarks, I'm American and wouldn't EVER think about living in one of these monsters.
sgtpepper1138 1 year ago 2
The folks that own these McMansions worth between 700 and 800 thousand bucks are crying like stuck pigs because they feel it is unfair they pay between 16 and 18 thousand a year in home taxes. My Cap Cod with an addition only pays 6000 thousand a year. These people resent us old timers living in NJ in our 50 year old modest homes. I asked one ladie why complain you knew what the taxes would be when you bought a house three times the value of the others in the area. She spit on me.
jobedied 2 years ago 2
hey strykersux. mcmansions are not bad ,there good to people who can afford them ,and bad to people who cant.a simple case of nani-nani-nana,my house is bigger than you-rrs.lol
tonmagicwon 3 years ago
Comment removed
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
they aren't green in terms of cooling/heating consumption and due to a poor construction quality.
zipacna1980 3 years ago
I don't get it, why are big houses bad?
strykersux 3 years ago
It is the poor usage of space that is bad. All of these buildings require resources that impact the environment. In the past this impact would have been distributed between several families in several homes but now only one or two people are using the same land space. This demands the same consumption of electricity, gas, etc. as that of several people. This is an unsustainable way to live. Not to mention the lack of aesthetic blending that many of these homes are guilty of.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
well to a tree ''hugger''it would seem like a waste of space, but who are you to impose your way of life on other people ,people are different if the want to put a big ugly home up then thats there biz,just make sure you get a home with mellow rules,ass/fee,or complainto to the city,start at the top,not the bottom,this is america : - ]
tonmagicwon 3 years ago
Firstly, I am not imposing my way of life upon anyone (as if I had that kind of power!) it is merely an observation, based on experience. The space is immaterial; it is more about the consequences of how effectively it is utilized. Resources are not finite contrary to popular belief, and the more you erode those resources the less quality you garner from them.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
Yeah, but they paid for it. So, they can (or should) be able to do whatever they want, right?
strykersux 3 years ago
The idea that one should be able to do whatever one wants comes upon a stumbling block when that choice adversely affect others. In that situation, should they be able? Not being a fascist I personally think that you cannot force people to do the right thing (whatever that may be) but I do think that as a society we should make an effort to be more aware of the consequences of our actions.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
By the way, who are you to decide what is an isn't "to many" resources one is able to use to build their home. Why is your house or some previously built house the right size? It use to be that a person could buy a chunk of land and build whatever type of house they wanted, crazy, I know...
strykersux 3 years ago
By definition, any is too many. It should always be a goal to minimize waste, as all types of consumption has consequences. We can try to offset this but the reality is that everything we do effects our environment. And no, Im not talking about the treehugger idea of the environment as you call it; I mean the land under our feet.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
Large developments intrinsically change the way the ecological system works (water tables, run off etc.) just as small developments do, the difference is that the impact is more profound with less overall gain.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
I don't except the premise that man is destroying the environment, so listening to you talk about consumption and local ecosystems is like listening to Charlie Browns teachers....
strykersux 3 years ago
You might want to google 'Barton Springs Austin' then. The springs are being polluted by a development called Circle C Ranch. Or maybe that is too much trouble for you Charlie.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
It is too much trouble, I agree. And, who is Charlie?
strykersux 3 years ago
It is sad that you don't take the time out to look into stuff like that, I think if you did you would understand more about the impact of development and the points that I am trying to make below. But as you said, it's just too much trouble. I hope to be proved wrong belive me, because we will not easily be able to replace what is being lost. Who is Charlie? Well, if I'm as dull as Charlie Brown's teachers, then you must be Charlie Brown.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
First of all, you were the one who inferred that it was "probably" to much trouble. I was simply agreeing with you And, if I don't accept the premise that man is destroying the environment, then the I agree, the info would be a waste of my time, just as reading the Constitution would be a waste of time for you.
strykersux 3 years ago
It wasnt an inference about it being too much trouble, I was actually being sardonic; it is not a waste of time at all and I genuinely suggest that you look it up. That aside, you seem to have it in your head that I am some kind of tyrannical dictator, hell bent on removing all Americans constitutional right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness. Im not at all and of course the Constitution is not a waste of my time.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
The gain is the fact that those that want to live in larger homes are aloud to. Thats the gain.
strykersux 3 years ago
Again, I am not deciding anything for anyone, this is You Tube not State Government, I just believe that it is important to use our resources wisely and to preserve the integrity and cleanliness of the US. This can be achieved in large part by avoiding unnecessarily consumption.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
Again, if people decide to pay for and build these homes, then they are clearly not unnecessary consumption.
strykersux 3 years ago
I respect your opinion, but just because someone can afford to do something (and obviously with all of the foreclosures of late this does not seem to be the case) it does not necessarily mean that it is a wise thing to do.
LegalAlien100 3 years ago
Yes, but the wisdom of a desicion is to be left to the indiviual. Simplybecause you (personally)have come to the conclusion that a 4600 sq ft house is bad and a 1400 sq ft one is less bad, is of no consequence to me. You speak of it in terms of good and bad. I don't think you believe that bulding homes are bad, right? So if building a home is OK, then who are you to say how big the house can be?
strykersux 3 years ago