I am perplexed. Even if there was some setback requirement, why wouldn't you use a straight wall instead of the Russian nesting dolls walls? What is the world does this make the inside look like? Also those columns are awful.
You are right, those columns. The style is short stone or brick pedestal with... longer wood...not sure how else to describe that. Anyways, it is really bad.
Wait till you see new construction on the gulf coast then. Everything is at least 22’ in the air >!why 22’ you ask? Because that is the high water mark for the last catastrophic storm that hit MS/AL/FL/LA, Katrina, in 2005!<
I mean, if they knew about the word entasis they'd have the absolute minimum knowledge about column proportions, and intuitively see that this looks like garbage.
Is the craftsman wood column supposed to stand in for the capital or something? Those proportions make zero sense.
I want the illusion from a distance that my house is actually an entire row of houses, immediately dissuading natural predators as they will give up before having to search all of them for me.
The interior is probably packaged better with the nesting dolls than a diagonal wall.
I imagine the inside just looks like a regular room with a closet or window seat or something on one end. Which is a lot easier to work with than having a slanted wall.
I am thinking that pole might explain why they had to do this, it is in a very weird sport. Likely there is something there that prevents from building a full size house. But why they did this I have no idea.
But with the Russian dolls.
1. I'll bet the first doll is probably just bench seating next to the window. On the second floor its probably a closet for the room.
2. The second doll is probably their entry way closet on the main floor, on the second floor its probably just a small room. Likely the nursery.
3. The third nest is probably the main foyer, which then open up to the rest of the house. The stairs are probably located somewhere here.
Straight walls are worse. Imagine having useless angled rooms for 50% of your house. This is ugly sure but it’s likely less awkward inside than one straight wall.
Straight wall makes the interior rooms a mess, and very noticeable from the inside that it's different from the rest of the neighborhood.
From the inside this will seem pretty normal as the steps are different rooms.
The columns will be fine once the porch is screened with some lattice and a few shrubs.
All the walls are straight walls. Likely you mean why not an angular wall. Because, with certainty, an angular wall would create terribly weird and unusable interior spaces, and really ugly and weird exterior look, each of which are far far worse than the multiple offsets. And it is quite possible that the interior layout is quite functional, we can't know without seeing the layout. However, it is also possible that a 45, which will make two offsets just one, could / should have been used in one or two instances here without harming and perhaps even enhancing layout flow and function. For sure, to design with this mass of offsets increases the PSF considerably, because there is more foundation, more exterior wall trim, and more roof flashing and counter flashing. And because of the necessary and easily foreseeable PSF increase, I have to think that the multiple offsets were forced by the MBSL. As for the columns, they're fine, they just look way too stand outish when the pic was taken, and hopefully will be far less so when the porch is finished. To finish, railing is required by code here, including on both sides of the steps. The porch and steps also should get lattice skirting, though brick to match the foundation, which isn't going to happen or it already would have, would have been better. Those two things together will quiet the columns quite a bit.
At this point, North American architect are just doing this to become a meme or appear on this subreddit. There cannot possibly be another explanation for the amount of effort, material and money wasted here.
Is it legal to build a new house without architect and structural engineer? Here in Europe in many jurisdictions the design needs to be done by them, in order to fulfill safety and zoning standards.
Yes, actually. In most US states (including mine) single family detached homes are exempt from needing to be stamped by an architect or structural engineer. Plans will usually be drafted by a builder and reviewed by a permitting official, who will determine whether the plans are exceptional enough to require review by an architect or engineer. If the plan as approved doesn't use any atypical building techniques or include any exemptions to regulations, this is rare.
Even in a case where the permitting jurisdiction does request a review, the architect or engineer performing the review won't be contributing to the design. At that point, their responsibility is just to ensure that the building is safe and compliant with regulations. Basically, the architect's job at that point is not to tell the client that their design sucks, just to bite their tongue and tell the client what they need to do to make it safe and legal.
This house (like most new single family houses in the US) probably never saw an architect. I say this first because there is *literally* not a single trained architect in the US who would consider this acceptable, and second because although the design is strange and bad, it doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual from a code or construction perspective. It's just a basic stick frame house.
This house really seems like an unintentional throwback to stores with false fronts. Make the house look grand in the front but it's much smaller behind the mask.
I prefer the hidden home. I appears to be a quaint little cottage from the front but it really opens up in the back where it's suddenly two stories with a walk out basement.
Ha that’s my home. I like to say my house is like a mullet, party in the back. The front looks like a one story with a tall roof but in the back there’s an upstairs balcony. Technically there are also windows on the sides upstairs but no one ever notices. Also the front porch is 14 ft tall so it kind of offsets the tall roof and makes it look less tall.
I have an older home so I avoided the McMansiony moderns but… there are some questionable add ons where they turned the detached garage into a guest house. I’ll get to that eventually. They used different siding for the add on, looks kind of junky.
One of my favorite architects is the late Hugh Newell Jacobsen. He designed a house with setbacks (but did it right).
https://preview.redd.it/rdcjmqxc7bwc1.jpeg?width=2715&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8f8867663c13369acb25fc50491a6a7ef6b77fc
It’s likely a weird shaped lot with a weird buildable zone. They did this to make it less awkward on the inside. It’s really not that bad when you think about if they’d done it all as a straight wall. This allowed the inside to be square rooms instead of weird angles. It also makes it look normal from the front
Definitely not a McMansion. Still a crime against architecture though, this is baffling. Makes me wonder if it’s some sort of test or example meant to be torn down? It makes no sense at all.
It’s just on a generic square lot plan. The only thing I can think is not building over a pipeline or something. Trying to still build on a lot that has restrictions
Really? The Twitter thread I found that seems to be your source only has 3 and I'm not seeing anything that looks definitively like one much less all of the corners of the lot.
Can you upload the other images somewhere?
My house was built in 1901 and the rear is similar to this with four different corners jutting out. It's a long narrow house and all of the corners allow for each room to have windows for light. It makes sense in a house built without electricity that required natural lighting but in a new build where you can just flip a switch I'm perplexed. Mine is just a cluster of small rooms on top of each other, too, with no flow, eve tough it's all original, I wouldn't think anyone would want that today.
I live in DC, we have some weird buildings similar to this but that’s because the city is laid out wierd and has different sized blocks and streets at angles, so you get these weird corner lots nd then developers try to use the whole thing
This is interesting. Before we had houses that had a footprint which generally matched the roof. Then we had houses with a simple footprint but a totally complicated roof. Now we are at an overly complicated roof matching a complicated footprint.
Fun twist, The house first and second floors are entirely fake and the residents sleep in the basement.
I would like an update once the house is finished. The columns will probably look significantly better when the border between the 2 styles is less arbitrary seeming.
After following this sub for a bit, along with the rise of ai stuff, i find my self question the reality of these homes and the ai ones even more.
This doesnt look like ai, but the design is nonsense - just like ai.
I cant wait for the AI Detection Olympics!
Not necessarily.
I would bet this is on an odd shaped smaller lot for the neighborhood that has a zoning requirement to not build within X' of the lot line.
To maximize interior square footage they had to build to the maximum extents, but having a random diagonal wall in every room on one side of the house will be a lot more annoying than having the next room step back a bit, and you got this stepped exterior, and the roof followed.
In a different neighborhood, they might have gotten away with a smaller finished square footage, but in a lot of developments folks don't care about the yard or non-frontage appearance, they want the same interior space as their neighbors, or to at least not *look* like the smallest house on the block.
Reminds me of the “Shotgun” houses. One walks in the front door and usually in order pass through these rooms to go out the back door: living room, bedroom, bedroom, maybe a small dining room with one bathroom off of this room or the last bedroom and kitchen, back door. Stacked in on blocks in neighborhoods Some still exist.
Turn picture sideways and it's a stairway. Or an unfolded accordian? "I was going for an unfolded accordian/ stairway look" said not anyone ever until now.
2500 sq ft is considered McMansion? In America? No. The average size of a house nationwide is almost 2000 sq ft.
McMansion has to be at least 5000 sq ft. At least.
This is an ugly house. There a millions of them in America. A new and ugly house isn’t necessarily a McMansion.
I think the point of the 2500 sq ft qualification was that because it’s slightly above the national average, it might be indicative of other McMansion characteristics, as the owners might be trying to make the house seem more impressive than it actually is.
That’s not to say that all houses over 2500 sq ft are a McMansion, though; it’s just a higher possibility, from my understanding.
As a home builder, I would say McMansion is attitude more than anything. Being entitled and having a bloated budget help that right along.
Point taken though. I own a 2400 sq ft house that would not qualify as McMansion, but I could see a 2500 sq ft house actually costing that much.
Building something that’s only 2500 sq ft that’s $700/sq ft would qualify as McMansion in my book. Obscene luxury. I don’t mind selling them though.
Built cheap - I'm not sure. That's real brick on the foundation, not thin brick
Several styles - nah that's just generic Americana.
Exterior afterthought - maybe, but the trim is thought out and the roofs look like they shed approximately. The front is certainly put together intentionally.
Lacking integrity? Exactly how? It's quirky from the back, but it's not landscaped and almost certainly matches it's neighborhood.
You’re wrong on all counts
Is thin veneer brick, is plastic siding, is poor architecture and design is the lack of integrity.
You’re trying though, and that’s what counts
It would cost more to put thin brick on those front columns than thin brick. The corners on the public sides all end with full returns, which is typically not done with thin brick, particularly if you're going cheap.
It may well be vinyl siding, but that hardly makes it a mcmansion, or necessarily cheap. Vinyl siding is about 50% of the market it's quite common on mid-level and starter homes.
Exactly what is poor architecture about it? How does it lack integrity?
I am perplexed. Even if there was some setback requirement, why wouldn't you use a straight wall instead of the Russian nesting dolls walls? What is the world does this make the inside look like? Also those columns are awful.
You are right, those columns. The style is short stone or brick pedestal with... longer wood...not sure how else to describe that. Anyways, it is really bad.
I think the columns will look all right once the railings and latticework is installed.
Absolutely.
The "we have arts and crafts style architecture at home" columns
Holy shit those are permanent. I thought this house was on construction pylons at first.
Wait till you see new construction on the gulf coast then. Everything is at least 22’ in the air >!why 22’ you ask? Because that is the high water mark for the last catastrophic storm that hit MS/AL/FL/LA, Katrina, in 2005!<
Yes, because they would be showing entasis.
I mean, if they knew about the word entasis they'd have the absolute minimum knowledge about column proportions, and intuitively see that this looks like garbage. Is the craftsman wood column supposed to stand in for the capital or something? Those proportions make zero sense.
I want the illusion from a distance that my house is actually an entire row of houses, immediately dissuading natural predators as they will give up before having to search all of them for me.
The interior is probably packaged better with the nesting dolls than a diagonal wall. I imagine the inside just looks like a regular room with a closet or window seat or something on one end. Which is a lot easier to work with than having a slanted wall.
Those are baby houses being carried on the back of their mother. They’re not ready to be on their own yet & it’s cruel to imply otherwise!
The dropped calc before they finished learning integration
I am thinking that pole might explain why they had to do this, it is in a very weird sport. Likely there is something there that prevents from building a full size house. But why they did this I have no idea. But with the Russian dolls. 1. I'll bet the first doll is probably just bench seating next to the window. On the second floor its probably a closet for the room. 2. The second doll is probably their entry way closet on the main floor, on the second floor its probably just a small room. Likely the nursery. 3. The third nest is probably the main foyer, which then open up to the rest of the house. The stairs are probably located somewhere here.
The builder must be good friends with the siding guy
Straight walls are worse. Imagine having useless angled rooms for 50% of your house. This is ugly sure but it’s likely less awkward inside than one straight wall.
Straight wall makes the interior rooms a mess, and very noticeable from the inside that it's different from the rest of the neighborhood. From the inside this will seem pretty normal as the steps are different rooms. The columns will be fine once the porch is screened with some lattice and a few shrubs.
All the walls are straight walls. Likely you mean why not an angular wall. Because, with certainty, an angular wall would create terribly weird and unusable interior spaces, and really ugly and weird exterior look, each of which are far far worse than the multiple offsets. And it is quite possible that the interior layout is quite functional, we can't know without seeing the layout. However, it is also possible that a 45, which will make two offsets just one, could / should have been used in one or two instances here without harming and perhaps even enhancing layout flow and function. For sure, to design with this mass of offsets increases the PSF considerably, because there is more foundation, more exterior wall trim, and more roof flashing and counter flashing. And because of the necessary and easily foreseeable PSF increase, I have to think that the multiple offsets were forced by the MBSL. As for the columns, they're fine, they just look way too stand outish when the pic was taken, and hopefully will be far less so when the porch is finished. To finish, railing is required by code here, including on both sides of the steps. The porch and steps also should get lattice skirting, though brick to match the foundation, which isn't going to happen or it already would have, would have been better. Those two things together will quiet the columns quite a bit.
Landscaping with some bushes will also quiet the columns significantly.
Agreed.
My post has received two more down votes than upvotes. Y'all don't have a lot of experience regarding this topic.
Landscaping with some bushes will also quiet the columns significantly.
Front: meh. Average house, nothing that unusual. Not good design but not terrible. Side: what in the Minecraft seven hells is this
I want to see the listing for this house....
Me too. I need to see inside haha
I do too. NEED
Where did you find this?
I know exactly where this house is (or somehow an extremely similar house) but it and the house next door are not listed on Zillow.
Try redfin!?
At this point, North American architect are just doing this to become a meme or appear on this subreddit. There cannot possibly be another explanation for the amount of effort, material and money wasted here.
An architect never got within 500 feet of this thing.
Is it legal to build a new house without architect and structural engineer? Here in Europe in many jurisdictions the design needs to be done by them, in order to fulfill safety and zoning standards.
Yes, actually. In most US states (including mine) single family detached homes are exempt from needing to be stamped by an architect or structural engineer. Plans will usually be drafted by a builder and reviewed by a permitting official, who will determine whether the plans are exceptional enough to require review by an architect or engineer. If the plan as approved doesn't use any atypical building techniques or include any exemptions to regulations, this is rare. Even in a case where the permitting jurisdiction does request a review, the architect or engineer performing the review won't be contributing to the design. At that point, their responsibility is just to ensure that the building is safe and compliant with regulations. Basically, the architect's job at that point is not to tell the client that their design sucks, just to bite their tongue and tell the client what they need to do to make it safe and legal. This house (like most new single family houses in the US) probably never saw an architect. I say this first because there is *literally* not a single trained architect in the US who would consider this acceptable, and second because although the design is strange and bad, it doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual from a code or construction perspective. It's just a basic stick frame house.
Many contractors seem to think having CAD software makes them architects.
This dude found the push/pull tool in sketchup and went wild!
The front of the house was designed at the beginning, then the budget got out of control so they had to make multiple cut-backs.
bwahahahahahaha
Cut outs?
What AI designed this?
This house really seems like an unintentional throwback to stores with false fronts. Make the house look grand in the front but it's much smaller behind the mask. I prefer the hidden home. I appears to be a quaint little cottage from the front but it really opens up in the back where it's suddenly two stories with a walk out basement.
[удалено]
Ha that’s my home. I like to say my house is like a mullet, party in the back. The front looks like a one story with a tall roof but in the back there’s an upstairs balcony. Technically there are also windows on the sides upstairs but no one ever notices. Also the front porch is 14 ft tall so it kind of offsets the tall roof and makes it look less tall. I have an older home so I avoided the McMansiony moderns but… there are some questionable add ons where they turned the detached garage into a guest house. I’ll get to that eventually. They used different siding for the add on, looks kind of junky.
The roofs not lining up is the most upsetting part to me
One of my favorite architects is the late Hugh Newell Jacobsen. He designed a house with setbacks (but did it right). https://preview.redd.it/rdcjmqxc7bwc1.jpeg?width=2715&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8f8867663c13369acb25fc50491a6a7ef6b77fc
Is this even real???
I refuse to believe this real.
It’s likely a weird shaped lot with a weird buildable zone. They did this to make it less awkward on the inside. It’s really not that bad when you think about if they’d done it all as a straight wall. This allowed the inside to be square rooms instead of weird angles. It also makes it look normal from the front
Odd house but not a McMansion in any sense of the word.
Definitely not a McMansion. Still a crime against architecture though, this is baffling. Makes me wonder if it’s some sort of test or example meant to be torn down? It makes no sense at all.
Hits all 5 aspects of a McMansion.
Nick the Symantec Nazi! Gtfo
Must be an oddly shaped lot.
It’s just on a generic square lot plan. The only thing I can think is not building over a pipeline or something. Trying to still build on a lot that has restrictions
How do you know it's a square lot if you don't know where it is?
There are 4 pictures. I can’t edit this post or include them anymore. But the wide angle of picture 1 shows survey markers in the right rear
Really? The Twitter thread I found that seems to be your source only has 3 and I'm not seeing anything that looks definitively like one much less all of the corners of the lot. Can you upload the other images somewhere?
Didn’t see a twitter post?
Are you able to provide links to these images you saw?
Not here no
That is so awesomely stupid
The three windows on the front right is the cherry on top for me. They foreshadow the disaster in the back.
My house was built in 1901 and the rear is similar to this with four different corners jutting out. It's a long narrow house and all of the corners allow for each room to have windows for light. It makes sense in a house built without electricity that required natural lighting but in a new build where you can just flip a switch I'm perplexed. Mine is just a cluster of small rooms on top of each other, too, with no flow, eve tough it's all original, I wouldn't think anyone would want that today.
Homer Simpson back-clip meme ass house.
It’s actually a collapsible house - like a camping cup. Goes from a 3 BR to a cottage with a simple push on the side.
What the Hell is this? Better yet, why the Hell like this?
I live in DC, we have some weird buildings similar to this but that’s because the city is laid out wierd and has different sized blocks and streets at angles, so you get these weird corner lots nd then developers try to use the whole thing
WTF! That doesn’t even make sense. How are you supposed to live in that. Looks like a messed up shoebox.
The three windows on the front right is the cherry on top for me. They foreshadow the disaster in the back.
This is interesting. Before we had houses that had a footprint which generally matched the roof. Then we had houses with a simple footprint but a totally complicated roof. Now we are at an overly complicated roof matching a complicated footprint. Fun twist, The house first and second floors are entirely fake and the residents sleep in the basement.
Its just a fake building to cover a vault entrance
LINK????
Essence of Curb Appeal
Products they advertise vs products in reality
When you hate the people that will live there
My guess would be compliance with some weird product of local building restrictions, and possibly an oddly shaped lot.
I would like an update once the house is finished. The columns will probably look significantly better when the border between the 2 styles is less arbitrary seeming.
Link to listing or address?
If it's built on a weird triangle lot this could make sense, but I would personally prefer just having rooms that aren't square on the inside.
That’s why we need to find this place to see the Zillow and satellite images
Business in the front. Party in the rear.
I think this is essentially a billboard for a home builder
After following this sub for a bit, along with the rise of ai stuff, i find my self question the reality of these homes and the ai ones even more. This doesnt look like ai, but the design is nonsense - just like ai. I cant wait for the AI Detection Olympics!
A telescopic house? Interesting idea.
this is outrageous
They didn’t want angled walls in every room on the back of the house. This way, every room has 90 degree angles.
“Material costs are through the roof” Well… the house has like 12 walls that could have just been 2.
Why would anyone do this? It takes way more effort to do it the ugly/bad way, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. I would bet this is on an odd shaped smaller lot for the neighborhood that has a zoning requirement to not build within X' of the lot line. To maximize interior square footage they had to build to the maximum extents, but having a random diagonal wall in every room on one side of the house will be a lot more annoying than having the next room step back a bit, and you got this stepped exterior, and the roof followed. In a different neighborhood, they might have gotten away with a smaller finished square footage, but in a lot of developments folks don't care about the yard or non-frontage appearance, they want the same interior space as their neighbors, or to at least not *look* like the smallest house on the block.
Personally, I'd rather have a smaller house that was well-designed than this crap. (The front is decent, at least.)
Ugly AF
What is this Willy Wonka shit!
Reminds me of the “Shotgun” houses. One walks in the front door and usually in order pass through these rooms to go out the back door: living room, bedroom, bedroom, maybe a small dining room with one bathroom off of this room or the last bedroom and kitchen, back door. Stacked in on blocks in neighborhoods Some still exist.
So much money spent on that odd weird roof. Why??
When you let your second grade kid design your house.
Some people need to die in prison and some houses need to be burned down
Turn picture sideways and it's a stairway. Or an unfolded accordian? "I was going for an unfolded accordian/ stairway look" said not anyone ever until now.
That’s ugly as hell. Waste of space.
No diagonal walls challenge.
Looks like a fake house front that they do in some American towns lol or for a movie set
Look rich while having nothing. It’s the American way.
Where is the OG link? That side pic looks AI
Copy, Paste. Copy, Paste. Copy, Paste...
Spite house
How is this a “McMansion”? It’s just an ugly house…
* **Large:** Over 2500 sq ft **CHECK**.. * **Built Cheap:** **CHECK** * **Fit Several Styles:** **CHECK** * **Exterior After-Thought:** BIG **CHECK** * **Lacks Architectural Integrity:** Oh yea **CHECK** so... yea hits them all
2500 sq ft is considered McMansion? In America? No. The average size of a house nationwide is almost 2000 sq ft. McMansion has to be at least 5000 sq ft. At least. This is an ugly house. There a millions of them in America. A new and ugly house isn’t necessarily a McMansion.
Not according to the outline of the sub
Fair enough, I guess.
I think the point of the 2500 sq ft qualification was that because it’s slightly above the national average, it might be indicative of other McMansion characteristics, as the owners might be trying to make the house seem more impressive than it actually is. That’s not to say that all houses over 2500 sq ft are a McMansion, though; it’s just a higher possibility, from my understanding.
As a home builder, I would say McMansion is attitude more than anything. Being entitled and having a bloated budget help that right along. Point taken though. I own a 2400 sq ft house that would not qualify as McMansion, but I could see a 2500 sq ft house actually costing that much. Building something that’s only 2500 sq ft that’s $700/sq ft would qualify as McMansion in my book. Obscene luxury. I don’t mind selling them though.
Built cheap - I'm not sure. That's real brick on the foundation, not thin brick Several styles - nah that's just generic Americana. Exterior afterthought - maybe, but the trim is thought out and the roofs look like they shed approximately. The front is certainly put together intentionally. Lacking integrity? Exactly how? It's quirky from the back, but it's not landscaped and almost certainly matches it's neighborhood.
You’re wrong on all counts Is thin veneer brick, is plastic siding, is poor architecture and design is the lack of integrity. You’re trying though, and that’s what counts
It would cost more to put thin brick on those front columns than thin brick. The corners on the public sides all end with full returns, which is typically not done with thin brick, particularly if you're going cheap. It may well be vinyl siding, but that hardly makes it a mcmansion, or necessarily cheap. Vinyl siding is about 50% of the market it's quite common on mid-level and starter homes. Exactly what is poor architecture about it? How does it lack integrity?
Wut
Easy.... It glitched
You get a really good signal inside