I am sure the argument is that the White House is somehow the original McMansion.
But the thing is, itās actually the home of the executive branch of one of the most powerful governments to have ever existed. Granted, we look shit at the moment, but itās ok for the White House to be purposely grand, purposely alluding to Greco-Roman times, purposely large.
Itās when wannabe powerful people try to emulate that, and fail, that the McMansion is born.
Could the White House be better? Architecturally speaking? Yes. Will Trump accomplish that? Of course not. Heās King of the McMansion mindset. Try to impress your fellow rich friends with ārich thingsā that are essentially the same features you thought looked rich when you were ten years old. Thereās no art in it. No challenge. No abstraction. No pushing of boundaries. No aspiration for the future.
The problem is the White House wasn't meant to be opulent and grand. It was meant to be a house. The original house wasn't grand at all. It was formal and more high class than a lot of houses at the time in the country, but it wasn't any more formal than a large farmhouse in the area. Think of Mt. Vernon. It isn't over the top. It's not huge. It's just a large house of the time. That's what the White House was supposed to be like. Quite frankly, they've ruined it already, with everything that's been added in such a formal way.
This. Washington deliberately paired it back to be more aligned to the people of America and to ensure Congress/Senate were larger in physical size. Symbolism.
The piece talks about how the American right is managing to hold onto relevance despite having unpopular ideas because it has successfully latched onto an aesthetic vision. It's ostentatious, and tacky, but cohesive in terms of what it means to convey. And that aesthetic language speaks to people in ways that intellectual arguments don't. If the left is meant to have a political future it would have to develop a competing aesthetic vision of the future. Instead, they feign indignation about the sacrilege of demolishing a portion of a building that nobody had much strong feelings about a year ago.
Hmmm thatās super interestingā¦ and not what I read. The link only took me to a short piece that sort of teased the argument but didnāt explore it fully, though there was no āto be continuedā indicating there was more. Maybe that was the lead-in and I need to enter my email to get the rest. Sounds like a great read. But dang I hate giving out the email address. I just unsubbed from so many random emails over the last 2 weeks.
A rebirth of an imagined past, more like. But if the point was just that Republicans are basically fascists in both ideology and taste, I generally agree.
Yeah, a tenet of conservatism is āweāre going to return to some idyllic past, but betterā. Usually that idyllic past is fictional. Fascism just does that but in a much more extreme way. Itās why right wing stuff gets more popular whenever times are hard and they used to be better.
So theyāre still gaslighting us with the idea that having taste and education is why weāre here and weāre just being whiny babies about a thing weāve all revered and did not consider to be in any danger a year ago. Cool cool cool.
The place being demolished wasn't "revered" by much of anyone. It was an unremarkable event space that had no lodgings for visitors so it would be used for low stakes 3rd and 4th tier events. There was wide scale acknowledgement that renovations would likely need to be made. But it wasn't the liberals who made these renovations, so they don't cater to those tastes. A dumb rich dipshit is doing it so it caters to dumb rich dipshit taste.
You didn't have strong feelings about it prior to hearing that it was going to be replaced, is the point. You are being asked to find it an irreplaceable piece of history when it is convenient to express distaste for Republicans. That much is obvious, not just to me, but for the bulk of the planet outside of a very specific liberal media bubble.
That much is obvious, not just to me, but for the bulk of the planet outside of a very specific liberal media bubble.
Would you like to provide a citation if you're going to claim the 'bulk of the planet' agrees with your position about something no one should care about? Especially since, if the rest of the world doesn't care about it, they're probably not talking about it. They may have to suffer with a lot of news that affects them too, but this is hardly that.
You are so self-aggrandizing that you think every request for information is sealioning? You're not that important, you're being asked for one (1) source to support a huge claim.
Edit:
u/JuanAntonio'Hiccums replied to your comment in r/McMansionHell
Instead of trying to force me to prove the negative, you could just provide a single example of anyone giving a shit about this portion of the
white house prior to the announcement of its replacement. You didn't, and neither did anyone else. You made the dumbass request.
16m ago
Asking you to prove that the rest of the world sees this as propaganda or a disingenuous position is not proving a negative, but it's a great way to bail out of having to defend your claim as long as you block anyone who might point point that out. Asking for a citation and immediately blocking is a class move.
True, but I write "left" here in broad terms, not "left" as a signifier of class-based politics. It's mostly liberals here who are aggrieved, and they're not entirely sure why, but it's self evident that this desecration of brick and mortar must somehow be an abject evil.
Theyāre not left-wing in almost any respect. Ā Theyāve willingly give up ground on social issues just as much as class issues, e.g., throwing trans people, particularly trans athletes, under the bus.
You're still talking about fairly minor defections from a very specific class of politicians, not "liberals" as a broad group which in the US comprises the majority of what could be called "the left," however pitiful that commitment may seem.
If you support capitalism, which liberals do, than you categorically are not on the Left. Ā The only reason liberals are considered on the Left in the United States is because the Overton window is so far to the right here. Ā Anywhere else, US liberals would be considered center-right, not least because the Democratic Party is full of comparatively moderate conservatives that left the Republican Party.
Itās serves a diplomatic purpose. Itās only proto-autocratic if the White House is owned by the president, but it isnāt. Itās owned by the country and the president just lives there for a few years. Thatās why it bothers me that Trump is acting like itās his house and making huge changes to it, thatās autocratic.
Itās only proto-autocratic if the White House is owned by the president, but it isnāt. Itās owned by the country and the president just lives there for a few years.
Distinction without a difference, especially as the powers of the American presidency have ballooned over the last four-plus decades. Ā The aesthetic of the White House plays a role in the POTUSā power, perceived legitimacy, and public image.
Huh? I read it. I totally agree with her on Trumpās taste. But she implied she was fine with destroying the East Wing. And I am intentionally filling in the blanks (she didnāt explain why)ā¦ of course I may be wrong, but my guess is she thinks the place was tacky pre-Trump (and so despite the fact that it will only get tackier, itās not a huge loss). I disagree on it being tacky pre-Trump, but Iām not an architecture journalist so take that with several grains of salt.
Totally fine to think Iām wrong, but I did read it.
The bunker has been there for a while. For pure convenience's sake, I can't imagine they wouldn't be making whatever upgrades they can while they have the walls open, so to speak.
Everyone in this sub should read her entire blog and click a button to agree they have read it before participating. It would get rid of most of the ādoes this count?ā titles in posts (theoretically, theyād know if it counts), and āthis is not a McMansionā comments, which are typically said about clear McMansions by the blog definitions. Itās maddening.
Honestly, had never even occurred to me that people would be here without having heard of Kate Wagner lol. I guess her "how to identify a McMansion" series should be on regular rotation around this sub
We used to have regular contributors in the sub who you take current McMansions and do similar mock ups like she did of the offending characteristics. It feels like the membership has gotten so large that the original intent is almost lost. The rules barely mention her anymore.
If that Oval Office newly cluttered with tacky gold tone decor isnāt McMansion-esc, Iām not sure what is. Iām sure the new wing will not be an architectural beauty.
Thereās a Wikipedia article on it along with many others. How can you possibly think that someone born in the 80ās/90ās created a term that was first seen in the 80ās? Anyone downvoting clearly canāt research
It doesnāt say anywhere in the Wikipedia entry that she claimed to have coined the term. I read her blog long before I ever found this sub, and she never said in the blog that she was creating the term. I had heard the term for years prior to reading it, as I grew up in an area which was overflowing with āMcMansionsā. I would have called her out on it myself if I had ever read she was claiming to be creating that term. She did, however, coin āMcMansion Hellā.
She just wrote a blog using that term, but adding āHellā to refer to poor uses of architectural features to connote wealth and often to make the homeowner appear to be wealthier than they were. Features which used to have a purpose, but were often just decorative and incongruent to the architectural style of the larger structure. Itās a great blog, and this sub is based on the ideas she wrote about.
Your post has been removed for breaking r/McMansionHell rule #3 (post does not conform to sub theme, which isn't whining.)
Does anyone have a link thatās not paywalled?
https://pastebin.com/u3iCQRFW
Thank you!
Huh, finally found a site removepaywalls doesn't work for. 5 options and the wayback machine all failed, damn.
I am sure the argument is that the White House is somehow the original McMansion.
But the thing is, itās actually the home of the executive branch of one of the most powerful governments to have ever existed. Granted, we look shit at the moment, but itās ok for the White House to be purposely grand, purposely alluding to Greco-Roman times, purposely large.
Itās when wannabe powerful people try to emulate that, and fail, that the McMansion is born.
Could the White House be better? Architecturally speaking? Yes. Will Trump accomplish that? Of course not. Heās King of the McMansion mindset. Try to impress your fellow rich friends with ārich thingsā that are essentially the same features you thought looked rich when you were ten years old. Thereās no art in it. No challenge. No abstraction. No pushing of boundaries. No aspiration for the future.
So, basically, Trump will McMansion a Mansion.
Cool. Cool. Cool.
The problem is the White House wasn't meant to be opulent and grand. It was meant to be a house. The original house wasn't grand at all. It was formal and more high class than a lot of houses at the time in the country, but it wasn't any more formal than a large farmhouse in the area. Think of Mt. Vernon. It isn't over the top. It's not huge. It's just a large house of the time. That's what the White House was supposed to be like. Quite frankly, they've ruined it already, with everything that's been added in such a formal way.
I decided to look up as i was curious - and it's interesting how the famous porticos were a much later addition.
Whilst the building was always neoclassical, as you say the mcmansion-esque columns weren't part of the original build.
This. Washington deliberately paired it back to be more aligned to the people of America and to ensure Congress/Senate were larger in physical size. Symbolism.
https://youtu.be/32G68FveL0A?si=GJ-SLwcc3GokS_e6
Correct. It was intentionally not built to look like a palace.
The piece talks about how the American right is managing to hold onto relevance despite having unpopular ideas because it has successfully latched onto an aesthetic vision. It's ostentatious, and tacky, but cohesive in terms of what it means to convey. And that aesthetic language speaks to people in ways that intellectual arguments don't. If the left is meant to have a political future it would have to develop a competing aesthetic vision of the future. Instead, they feign indignation about the sacrilege of demolishing a portion of a building that nobody had much strong feelings about a year ago.
Hmmm thatās super interestingā¦ and not what I read. The link only took me to a short piece that sort of teased the argument but didnāt explore it fully, though there was no āto be continuedā indicating there was more. Maybe that was the lead-in and I need to enter my email to get the rest. Sounds like a great read. But dang I hate giving out the email address. I just unsubbed from so many random emails over the last 2 weeks.
I like 10minutemail dot com for this.
Nazi architectural drawings spoke of a grand, new culture, too.
A rebirth of an imagined past, more like. But if the point was just that Republicans are basically fascists in both ideology and taste, I generally agree.
That's my take, spot on
Yeah, a tenet of conservatism is āweāre going to return to some idyllic past, but betterā. Usually that idyllic past is fictional. Fascism just does that but in a much more extreme way. Itās why right wing stuff gets more popular whenever times are hard and they used to be better.
So theyāre still gaslighting us with the idea that having taste and education is why weāre here and weāre just being whiny babies about a thing weāve all revered and did not consider to be in any danger a year ago. Cool cool cool.
The place being demolished wasn't "revered" by much of anyone. It was an unremarkable event space that had no lodgings for visitors so it would be used for low stakes 3rd and 4th tier events. There was wide scale acknowledgement that renovations would likely need to be made. But it wasn't the liberals who made these renovations, so they don't cater to those tastes. A dumb rich dipshit is doing it so it caters to dumb rich dipshit taste.
The East Wing was not an unremarkable event space. And it was demolished, not renovated. But whatever.
You didn't have strong feelings about it prior to hearing that it was going to be replaced, is the point. You are being asked to find it an irreplaceable piece of history when it is convenient to express distaste for Republicans. That much is obvious, not just to me, but for the bulk of the planet outside of a very specific liberal media bubble.
Would you like to provide a citation if you're going to claim the 'bulk of the planet' agrees with your position about something no one should care about? Especially since, if the rest of the world doesn't care about it, they're probably not talking about it. They may have to suffer with a lot of news that affects them too, but this is hardly that.
Good lord, now these pretentious assholes are trying to sea lion me rather than admit they bought into media spin.
You are so self-aggrandizing that you think every request for information is sealioning? You're not that important, you're being asked for one (1) source to support a huge claim.
Edit:
Asking you to prove that the rest of the world sees this as propaganda or a disingenuous position is not proving a negative, but it's a great way to bail out of having to defend your claim as long as you block anyone who might point point that out. Asking for a citation and immediately blocking is a class move.
Liberals are the ones feigning indignation. Ā Actual leftists donāt care about the fate of War Criminal Manor.
True, but I write "left" here in broad terms, not "left" as a signifier of class-based politics. It's mostly liberals here who are aggrieved, and they're not entirely sure why, but it's self evident that this desecration of brick and mortar must somehow be an abject evil.
Theyāre not left-wing in almost any respect. Ā Theyāve willingly give up ground on social issues just as much as class issues, e.g., throwing trans people, particularly trans athletes, under the bus.
You're still talking about fairly minor defections from a very specific class of politicians, not "liberals" as a broad group which in the US comprises the majority of what could be called "the left," however pitiful that commitment may seem.
If you support capitalism, which liberals do, than you categorically are not on the Left. Ā The only reason liberals are considered on the Left in the United States is because the Overton window is so far to the right here. Ā Anywhere else, US liberals would be considered center-right, not least because the Democratic Party is full of comparatively moderate conservatives that left the Republican Party.
Yeah I understood the distinction you were making in the first place and I made that extremely clear. This conversation is tiresome. Bye.
Beautifully put, Shartcookie
š
True, his House flipper expy is the one that buys all your McMansions (either him or the expecting couple)
No itās not. Ā Thatās a proto-autocratic thought.
Itās serves a diplomatic purpose. Itās only proto-autocratic if the White House is owned by the president, but it isnāt. Itās owned by the country and the president just lives there for a few years. Thatās why it bothers me that Trump is acting like itās his house and making huge changes to it, thatās autocratic.
Distinction without a difference, especially as the powers of the American presidency have ballooned over the last four-plus decades. Ā The aesthetic of the White House plays a role in the POTUSā power, perceived legitimacy, and public image.
Fair point. Iāll give that some thought.
Wild you wrote all that out and didnāt even bother to read a single paragraph of the article.Ā
Top tier reddit moment.Ā
Huh? I read it. I totally agree with her on Trumpās taste. But she implied she was fine with destroying the East Wing. And I am intentionally filling in the blanks (she didnāt explain why)ā¦ of course I may be wrong, but my guess is she thinks the place was tacky pre-Trump (and so despite the fact that it will only get tackier, itās not a huge loss). I disagree on it being tacky pre-Trump, but Iām not an architecture journalist so take that with several grains of salt.
Totally fine to think Iām wrong, but I did read it.
What is wrong with these people?
ummmm
https://preview.redd.it/3nppcdakx68g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=169b48bf0dc3968d4b4fb56af4d9d3c715e3907e
Did y'all see the video that has evidence they might be building an underground bunker/data center? šļøššļø
The bunker has been there for a while. For pure convenience's sake, I can't imagine they wouldn't be making whatever upgrades they can while they have the walls open, so to speak.
Iām sure thereās already an on-prem data center at the White House. They definitely have sensitive data there that canāt be stored on the cloud.
Also, itās funny how much of a boogeymen data centers have become. Like what are you afraid of? That the White House will have secure data storage?
Article is behind a paywall but if sheās saying good riddance because the White House was built by enslaved folks then fuck yeah, good riddance
**Edit typo
There was some of that.
Who is Kate Wagner?
The author of the blog McMansion Hell, the reason behind this entire subredditĀ
Everyone in this sub should read her entire blog and click a button to agree they have read it before participating. It would get rid of most of the ādoes this count?ā titles in posts (theoretically, theyād know if it counts), and āthis is not a McMansionā comments, which are typically said about clear McMansions by the blog definitions. Itās maddening.
Honestly, had never even occurred to me that people would be here without having heard of Kate Wagner lol. I guess her "how to identify a McMansion" series should be on regular rotation around this sub
We used to have regular contributors in the sub who you take current McMansions and do similar mock ups like she did of the offending characteristics. It feels like the membership has gotten so large that the original intent is almost lost. The rules barely mention her anymore.
Who is that?
[deleted]
If that Oval Office newly cluttered with tacky gold tone decor isnāt McMansion-esc, Iām not sure what is. Iām sure the new wing will not be an architectural beauty.
r/DontYouKnowWhoIAm
She coined the term mcmamsion, so not really
She definitely did not coin the term McMansion, which has been around for decades, she just further popularized it
Specifically, she came up with "mcmansion hell," whose blog this sub is based on.
No she did not, she claims to have but is a liar.
I'm guessing you don't have evidence of that.
Thereās a Wikipedia article on it along with many others. How can you possibly think that someone born in the 80ās/90ās created a term that was first seen in the 80ās? Anyone downvoting clearly canāt research
It doesnāt say anywhere in the Wikipedia entry that she claimed to have coined the term. I read her blog long before I ever found this sub, and she never said in the blog that she was creating the term. I had heard the term for years prior to reading it, as I grew up in an area which was overflowing with āMcMansionsā. I would have called her out on it myself if I had ever read she was claiming to be creating that term. She did, however, coin āMcMansion Hellā.
She just wrote a blog using that term, but adding āHellā to refer to poor uses of architectural features to connote wealth and often to make the homeowner appear to be wealthier than they were. Features which used to have a purpose, but were often just decorative and incongruent to the architectural style of the larger structure. Itās a great blog, and this sub is based on the ideas she wrote about.
Itās amazing you think I give a shit enough to read all that
And yet, you did.
So when did she claim to have created the term?
When did you find the time to give a shit so much about my comment? Go get some fresh air
You don't even remember why you thought that in the first place. And of course, I'm the villain for making you realize that you're being stupid.
Yes, I think you are
[deleted]
https://preview.redd.it/6kdmcfcij28g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7770fc7241902d8b898551efa50726047a953002
https://preview.redd.it/qahc0l2rx68g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c8926f3937126b96ea2e9a31806d9bc3ee60113
https://mcmansionhell.com/about
Absolutely begging you to read.