The ugly house thread... (church, houses, construction, price)

[archineer]

Originally Posted by Chango

There is one style that almost invariably fails whenever we try to copy it today. That would be this style.

Apparently some people are brain-dead because while they love all things Victoriana, they consistently think they can make great Victorian style houses out of off-the-shelf home depot parts and fittings and with modern proportions/construction techniques.

Here's a lesson on why you shouldn't even try to go with Victorian Style in new construction unless you have a private architect and enough cash on hand to buy a moderate sized Caribbean island. Here's a REAL Victorian house to help the learning process along:



Take a second and notices the vast differences between house "A" and house "B". On the real Victorian house there are no shutters. There is A LOT of very complicated foo-fra. There is no vinyl. There are many, MANY different sized, yet similar windows.

You can't buy those windows or that trim at Home Depot. Nor can you try to build a balloon framed building and still get a building permit, so you can't pull off the slim tower and very high ceilings without some seriously expensive wood and creative engineering, which would require a proverbial act of god to get approved by your local code enforcement Nazis.

So why on god's green earth do you think you can get "Victorian style" on modern terms? It's like asking for fine wine made out of Vodka, Koolaid and Sweet N Low! It ain't gonna happen... you are inevitably gonna get a crap beverage that you can call "wine"... but it ain't gonna fool anyone.

Seriously, stop doing it! ...unless you want to do things the hard way.

ALL historical styles fail when copied today. The simple fact is that with the onset of the industrial revolution, building technology changed so much it rendered historical styles obsolete. Unless people are going to build using authentic traditional methods (good luck getting it past planning and building control!) then they shouldn't even attempt to ape history. Buildings should be 'of their time' and nothing else. The real talent in any given era is always at the cutting edge of design - the best architects look back to learn, not to copy.

[beachmouse]

I see plenty of House A in rural areas where you've got really old farmsteads. Even back then, not everyone had the money to do full metal Victorian, but a lot of century old farmhouses will have some Victorian elements to them.

[TheOverdog]

There are more architectural mistakes on this facade than a hobby architecture critic like myself can possibly make while criticizing it, but the worst is the entry.

I can agree with you on that one - What normal house needs 2 front entrances? UPS guy:"Where do I drop the package off again? I'm going to look through the french doors and see if I can see anyone..."

Also look how the garage is sort of rounded and looks off kilter with the rest of the house. It looks like a worm turning a corner.

Some don't like different sized windows, but I do because different rooms used for different purposes need different light and privacy and importance. This house is a great example. Check the windows on the garage. They are essentially the same as the ones for the living area next to the front door(s). So your stack of boxes and old rags gets equal prominence to your Christmas tree.

Also maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but it looks like the ground slopes towards the garage doors. Why not? Everyone loves cleaning up after a flood!

I'm not even going to mention the landscaping. You have a 3 car garage. Do you need a rounded driveway to pull your semi up to the front doors too?

Finally the cavalcade of roofs concept was taken to extreme. I counted 12 roofing surfaces on the front side alone, and that random rounding on the far left is not repeated anywhere else on the front side.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I like the look of this house. Could someone explain what is wrong with it.

[TheOverdog]

Could someone explain what is wrong with it.

too many minivans. jeez!

[T. Damon]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I like the look of this house. Could someone explain what is wrong with it.

Collision of roofs, arches, apparent focal points; what is the most important thing here- The prominent gable with the arches, balustrade balcony and bay window, the over the top entry (with the oddly pedestrian shed roof element), the turret? No sense of proportion whatsoever, over scaled garage, too many window types, explosion of tiny fake muntins in the windows, and partial decorative quoins, really, quoins?

Oh, the rules that have been broken here are too many to even count!

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

Collision of roofs, arches, apparent focal points; what is the most important thing here- The prominent gable with the arches, balustrade balcony and bay window, the over the top entry (with the oddly pedestrian shed roof element), the turret? No sense of proportion whatsoever, over scaled garage, too many window types, explosion of tiny fake muntins in the windows, and partial decorative quoins, really, quoins?

Oh, the rules that have been broken here are too many to even count!

I see a normal tract house here. Normal track homes come with devided lights within the windows. (Can you even buy them another way anymore?) They are easier to clean that way. Not sure how the garage is too small as it is a normal 3 car garage. Many newer homes have 4 and 5 car garages now with at least a 3 being the standard. What I see with including this picture with the others is a comparison of apples and oranges. maybe it doesn't fit a specific style but your trying to compare tract home with specifics styles of homes.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I see a normal tract house here. Normal track homes come with devided lights within the windows. (Can you even buy them another way anymore?) They are easier to clean that way. Not sure how the garage is too small as it is a normal 3 car garage. Many newer homes have 4 and 5 car garages now with at least a 3 being the standard. What I see with including this picture with the others is a comparison of apples and oranges. maybe it doesn't fit a specific style but your trying to compare tract home with specifics styles of homes.

Where in the world do you live? That isn't a "normal tract house" anywhere I've been.

Anyway...as far as problems go, it is the architectural equivalent of a donk car:



It is a complete mish-mash of disparate details... almost every one in the book... with the intention of visually overwhelming everything around it with "building bling" in a rambling mess that takes up practically the entire lot (that's only one side, BTW... it continues on unabashedly around the corner in the same haphazard fashion). It has no decent focal point, no style, no proportion and is simply flashy, expensive crap.

But the worst sin this house commits is that it is smack-dab in the middle of a neighborhood of small 50-60's ranch houses... which makes it stand out on the road, well... like a donk car.

But this question is also the reason I've spent too much time writing stuff here. People are so accustomed to bad architecture that it's just "normal" to them. They even aspire to own garbage like this! This is the greatest tragedy of all, and the main reason why the problem perpetuates itself.

[Shooting Stars]

Originally Posted by Chango

This is kind of embarrassing, but this *might* just explain why I have so much fun writing ugly house critiques... I actually paid money to live in this house a few years back:

We called it "The milk carton"... I wanted to sell advertising space on the side but my wife wouldn't have it.

Critics of domestic architecture would be quick to note that cars live here, but so did a dysfunctional family with a crazy father and a stinky dog.

IT wasn't all bad though. This house was so well designed that the tiny bedroom in front with the only front facade window (West facing to boot) was PERFECT for drying beef jerky during the summer time. To think the builder actually took that into consideration when designing the place! Everything else pretty much sucked, but life's problems have a way of working themselves out when there's plenty of jerky around.

The other great thing about it was that once your jerky was dry, you could take it to the car and drive off without ever letting your neighbors see how ashamed you were to live in such an ugly house!
Now the really embarrassing part. I sold it for around 40K more than I bought it. I'm ashamed to have participated and profited from crappy architecture, and tried to join a strange religious cult for a while in an attempt to do penitence for my sins... though I had trouble finding the garage to park my car so nobody would see me:

That's a fake bell tower too. I found out the hard way... don't ask.

Man. I hate it when I fall in love with someone on the Internet based on one post.

Keep the ugly houses coming.

[Shooting Stars]

Originally Posted by archineer

ALL historical styles fail when copied today. The simple fact is that with the onset of the industrial revolution, building technology changed so much it rendered historical styles obsolete. Unless people are going to build using authentic traditional methods (good luck getting it past planning and building control!) then they shouldn't even attempt to ape history. Buildings should be 'of their time' and nothing else. The real talent in any given era is always at the cutting edge of design - the best architects look back to learn, not to copy.

As someone who recently fell in love with a low-country type house plan, I'm wondering what you would consider a good building "of our time".