we've found it folks: mcmansion heaven

Hello everyone. It is my pleasure to bring you the greatest house I have ever seen. The house of a true visionary. A real ad-hocist. A genuine pioneer of fenestration. This house is in Alabama. It was built in 1980 and costs around $5 million. It is worth every penny. Perhaps more.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Come on, Kate, that's a little kooky, but certainly it's not McMansion Heaven. This is very much a house in the earthly realm. Purgatory. McMansion Purgatory." Well, let me now play Beatrice to your Dante, young Pilgrim. Welcome. Welcome, welcome, welcome.

It is rare to find a house that has everything. A house that wills itself into Postmodernism yet remains unable to let go of the kookiest moments of the prior zeitgeist, the Bruce Goffs and Earthships, the commune houses built from car windshields, the seventies moments of psychedelic hippie fracture. It is everything. It has everything. It is theme park, it is High Tech. It is Renaissance (in the San Antonio Riverwalk sense of the word.) It is medieval. It is maybe the greatest pastiche to sucker itself to the side of a mountain, perilously overlooking a large body of water. Look at it. Just look.

The inside is white. This makes it dreamlike, almost benevolent. It is bright because this is McMansion Heaven and Gray is for McMansion Hell. There is an overbearing sheen of 80s optimism. In this house, the credit default swap has not yet been invented, but could be.

It takes a lot for me to drop the cocaine word because I think it's a cheap joke. But there's something about this example that makes it plausible, not in a derogatory way, but in a liberatory one, a sensuous one. Someone created this house to have a particular experience, a particular feeling. It possesses an element of true fantasy, the thematic. Its rooms are not meant to be one cohesive composition, but rather a series of scenes, of vastly different spatial moments, compressed, expanded, bright, close.

And then there's this kitchen for some reason. Or so you think. Everything the interior design tries to hide, namely how unceasingly peculiar the house is, it is not entirely able to because the choices made here remain decadent, indulgent, albeit in a more familiar way.

Rare is it to discover an interior wherein one truly must wear sunglasses. The environment created in service to transparency has to somewhat prevent the elements from penetrating too deep while retaining their desirable qualities. I don't think an architect designed this house. An architect would have had access to specifically engineered products for this purpose. Whoever built this house had certain access to architectural catalogues but not those used in the highest end or most structurally complex projects. The customization here lies in the assemblage of materials and in doing so stretches them to the height of their imaginative capacity. To borrow from Charles Jencks, ad-hoc is a perfect description. It is an architecture of availability and of adventure.

A small interlude. We are outside. There is no rear exterior view of this house because it would be impossible to get one from the scrawny lawn that lies at its depths. This space is intended to serve the same purpose, which is to look upon the house itself as much as gaze from the house to the world beyond.

Living in a city, I often think about exhibitionism. Living in a city is inherently exhibitionist. A house is a permeable visible surface; it is entirely possible that someone will catch a glimpse of me they're not supposed to when I rush to the living room in only a t-shirt to turn out the light before bed. But this is a space that is only exhibitionist in the sense that it is an architecture of exposure, and yet this exposure would not be possible without the protection of the site, of the distance from every other pair of eyes. In this respect, a double freedom is secured. The window intimates the potential of seeing. But no one sees.

At the heart of this house lies a strange mix of concepts. Postmodern classicist columns of the Disney World set. The unpolished edge of the vernacular. There is also an organicist bent to the whole thing, something more Goff than Gaudí, and here we see some of the house's most organic forms, the monolith- or shell-like vanity mixed with the luminous artifice of mirrors and white. A backlit cave, primitive and performative at the same time, which is, in essence, the dialectic of the luxury bathroom.

And yet our McMansion Heaven is still a McMansion. It is still an accumulation of deliberate signifiers of wealth, very much a construction with the secondary purpose of invoking envy, a palatial residence designed without much cohesion. The presence of golf, of wood, of masculine and patriarchal symbolism with an undercurrent of luxury drives that point home. The McMansion can aspire to an art form, but there are still many levels to ascend before one gets to where God's sitting.

If you like this post and want more like it, support McMansion Hell on Patreon for as little as $1/month for access to great bonus content including a discord server, extra posts, and livestreams.

Not into recurring payments? Try the tip jar! Student loans just started back up!

companies really have got to be okay with stagnant profits. what is wrong with earning the same amount every year? why does it always have to be more? it’s not sustainable. there are only so many people on the planet you can profit from 😭

This is the thing. If there are only so many people they can profit from, and they demand to see profits go up every year, they will have to steal more out of the pockets of the little people each year, either by paying less, or by charging more. And that is the problem. Because that is exactly what is happening. And the rich get richer. And the poor are getting so poor that it is coming to a crisis point. They seem to have forgotten what happens at the crisis point though: people who have nothing to lose, will rise up and fight.

Cancer: a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically (Merriam Webster)

See also: Capitalism

But also, “increasing profits every quarter” is a relatively recent thing. It’s new since the 1980s! In the 1980s, Reagan heavily promoted the economic theories connected with the Chicago school of economics. (“Reaganomics” is basically the Chicago school ideas dumbed down to fit in soundbites.) The Chicago school is, among other things, responsible for such wonders as “all regulation in the marketplace is always bad” “monopoly is good because it’s efficient” and “trickle-down economics.” When those ideas became mainstream, and were adopted wholeheartedly by Wall Street, they spawned the idea that the most important measure of a company was its stock increasing in value. Not how much business it was doing, not how well its customers liked and valued it, not how stable it was for the long-term. Is its stock increasing is the only measure of value.

Prior to that point, a business–even large corporations!–were valued more on how reliable they are. If I invest in this business, will it still be there five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now? Businesses were good if they were profitable and stable. Increasing profits was wonderful! But they understood that that is not infinitely sustainable, and that if you wanted to maximize long-term profits for individual investors and for the economy as a whole, you did not want flash-in-the-pan trendiness, and you didn’t want a business cannibalizing itself, you wanted a business that was stable and took good care of its customers so they’d keep coming back.

The reason that businesses have to grow forever to be successful now is that the people who own the businesses don’t make a significant portion of their money from profits. They don’t care about profits for themselves; those profits are chump change. They don’t make their money from the value of the business. They make their money from the increase of value of the business.

The wealth these people have is measured by how much more their stocks are worth now than when they bought them. That is, how much the business has grown. If someone owns a bunch of $1,000 stocks that they bought for $990 each a year ago, and a bunch of $100 stocks that they bought for $10 each a year ago, those $100 stocks are a better investment. Most of their money comes from stock trading, and securities and loans that are based on the strength of that stock portfolio. A stagnant business is a waste of money because it’s tying up money that you could be putting into more profitable businesses.

So your $100/stock company is far safer than your $1,000 stock company in the above example. Because your $1,000/stock company is almost stagnant and risks collapsing because investors might pull out to invest in a faster growing company. That company survives by becoming more valuable, which usually means increasing profits, and it doesn’t matter if those profits are in the tens of thousands, or the millions, or the billions – what matters is that they go up as much as possible so the stock price doesn’t collapse. When profit increases slow down, the company is at risk. Companies that are happy with regular profits don’t get big enough to really affect the economy because high-level investors see them as dead weight. Companies that are large and want to be happy with regular profits will die.

This is why late stage capitalism is a problem. It’s not a just question of Bezos and Zuckerberg and soforth being arseholes. It’s the inevitable conclusion of how money and value works in a system like this. (The assholery of billionnaires is still relevant re: their ability to affect government policies and regulations, direct international wars, etc., to worsen the problem, but again they are dangerous because they make the system worse; the system is the problem.)

Another lie the Chicago school pushes that has poisoned the brains of a lot of rich people is “supply side economics.” The claim is that what drives the economy is rich people investing in companies to produce goods and services. It’s just assumed that if rich people create it then it will be sold and the economy will flourish.

This is horseshit, of course. The economy is driven by demand. It’s possible to artificially create demand by convincing people they have a problem that needs a product to fix it (all sorts of soaps and toothpastes and other body image related companies have done quite well at selling the solution to a problem they created) but for the most part a company can only succeed if the demand is already there. That’s why so much techbro shit keeps falling apart, they think they are innovative job creators and that supplying the public with stuff like NFTs and the Metaverse will make them rich, but there’s no demand for that crap. Rich people aren’t job creators.

However while it is true that Reagan and the Chicago school and Clinton deregulating Wall St and a bunch of other bad decisions made by economists and politicians have made things worse then they used to be, this isn’t the first time there’s been huge wealth inequality as a handful of capitalists used monopoly power to chase short-term growth in the US. If we started treating the Chicago School like flat earthers (which is what they deserve) and regulated Wall Street we could improve things for a time, but as long as capitalism is around this will just keep happening. We need a better system.

Why can’t any of you say “communism”? You want some degree of nationalising land and capital, right? Just say, “Our rents wouldn’t be so high if we all lived in public apartments” or “Supermarkets waste our grocery bills on the acquisition of capital”. That’s what we want, really. People won’t stop being poor until we break up the de facto aristocracy.

Because I don’t know about anyone else in this thread, but I’m a democratic socialist, not a communist. Every communist regime to ever exist has rapidly devolved into in-name-only with a trail of broken and bloody bodies and disappeared people left behind.

Ask anyone from the former Soviet bloc how they feel about communism. It’s great on paper and in real life it works for about five minutes.

Also “our rents wouldn’t be so high if we all lived in public apartments” just say you hate rural people and go.

# [me from former socialist Yugoslavia: bro do you really thing communism is the only answer anyone can accept?] # I don't hate american communists in theory # it's in the 'family' of political stances where I can mostly assume people have good intentions # but some of them... do not want to address historical horrors caused by that system

Welcome to the new economy.

GET OUT

#LOVE/HATE-READING 'HOUSE BEAUTIFUL' #CLASS #HOME #GOLD #EAT THE RICH AND STEAL THEIR WINDOW TREATMENTS

(via novaya zemlya)

I

The election of 2012 raises two perplexing questions. The first is how the GOP could put up someone for president who so brazenly epitomizes the excesses of casino capitalism that have nearly destroyed the economy and overwhelmed our democracy. The second is why the Democrats have failed to point this out…