This is basically an article of the form "I believe the status of X should be lowered," giving some reasons why.
I'm sure they believe it. Everyone always thinks their own culture has better taste. That's pretty much what culture is, a loose agreement on what the best X is for a wide variety of X.
The best way out is not to play. Why have any opinion at all about "mcmansions?" Also, why a special term? Why not just call them mansions?
> Also, why a special term? Why not just call them mansions?
Because they do share characteristics distinctive from large homes (e.g. mansions). The wikipedia article takes a nice crack at it, "The term 'McMansion' is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style,[8] which prizes superficial appearance, and sheer size, over quality."
Or in other words, conspicuous consumption without commensurate quality.
> Also, why a special term? Why not just call them mansions?
This one's pretty straightforward. McDonald's is low status. Therefore, mcmansions are also low status.
(I believe the term originates in the desire to mock mass-produced buildings, e.g. a big tract where all the houses basically share a form. That is clearly not how it's being used here.)
I don't think the status of McMansions was particularly high to begin with, so there's no sense trying to lower it. It's more like explaining the cause for their low status.
Sometimes people do a better job explaining why you should care about X even if it's not something you'd normally care about. (There probably are some good reasons why so-called McMansions are interesting, but these aesthetic concerns aren't really doing it for me.)
I'm sure they believe it. Everyone always thinks their own culture has better taste. That's pretty much what culture is, a loose agreement on what the best X is for a wide variety of X.
The best way out is not to play. Why have any opinion at all about "mcmansions?" Also, why a special term? Why not just call them mansions?