Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First I'm jealous of rich people, now I'm an elitist?!
Two different people talking to you. I didn't say you were jealous. But your diatribes on design are the definition of elitist, even if some of them are accurate. But the ones like I responded to originally (the garage one) are not accurate. Just you forcing your singular opinions on others.
Quote:
But if you want to live in a garage go right ahead. It's not like I'm gonna be there to block the tractors. Maybe you can post a picture of it when your done so I can "review" it though.
Did you already look at my current house like I said?
A couple of the French-inspired houses that were listed are actually stock house plans that builders purchase from which to build spec homes, or from which a client of that type of firm purchases a house. Thus, they may not always be tailored to the given site on which they are located, yet fit within modern suburban lots, as opposed to authentic replica cheateaux that would be subject to zoning restrictions on height, placement, percentage of lot occupied, etc. I, too, find nothing wrong with a French-inspired house like the stock plan houses mentioned above, as they are what I would expect to find in recently constructed suburban settings in some areas.
The garage placement to the front allows for a smaller lot than would ordinarily be required, and preserves the back yard of the house, where many such houses are oriented. I do not prefer that style for myself, unless the garage in front is turned, parallel to the street with a curved driveway at the front of the house. I know of a couple of examples in this style with two or three garage bays that are well done, despite the massing toward the front of the property, especially since the sides and rear of the houses of which I am thinking are more oriented to the site than would be possible with a garage attached to the side of the house. And, the first floor is not interrupted by garage space in those houses, either, so the house allows for a better living experience, and is set back from the roadway by the depth of the garage. It's a different style, but I don't think that I could judge one as inherently better than another, though the garage as a feature should be well integrated into the structure of the house, since it is dominant from the street side of the house.
The condominium building that looks like a Georgian house mentioned above does not look bad on its own, in my opinion. Again, it's a production property, so the costs are controlled, and ornamentation limited, with use of a particular standard of material and scale, as opposed to exact historic reproduction standards. However, I would have to reserve judgment on it to see the clustering of the concept, as if it were done well, it could make for a well planned community, overall. It is certainly better than the usual suburban style walk-up exposed breezeway condominium concept that has been built for many years. Again, it's subjective, but I would actually prefer a well designed community of seemingly detached houses that were integrated into the site as opposed to the standard suburban condominium concept.
From the Forbes article, I find a few of the houses to be unique, and not exactly ugly in the true sense of the word. The castle house in Alpine, NJ is reflective of the area, which has many glitzy mansions that were built in recent years. You would not find the same house in Princeton, but it's a different area, demographically, as well. I also don't mind the ultra modern houses such as the house in Beverly Hills, though I do agree it could have used a bit more green space, though since it's in the hills, and likely the P.O., the lot probably drops off into a steep slope, and the view steals the show. Neither of these houses is for everyone, but then again, they are not production-built, or built from stock plans, such that they seek to attract a wide audience.
Production builders tend to utilize materials and production methods geared toward maximizing the profit per unit, hence the garage moved to the front that may not be well integrated, or the use of materials that may not be historically appropriate for the time period of the house. However, the houses are built to tighter energy standards, and the plans are tailored to the market in which the builder is currently operating, regardless as to the appropriateness of the constraints of vernacular architecture. While it may not be a preference for some, there are people who actually prefer new construction, regardless as to the degree to which their wealth is intergenerational.
So many people assume that because a house is newly constructed that it is a McMansion, when the true sense of the McMansion is a house that is an inappropriate fit in an existing neighborhood where the scale, materials, and orientation on the lot are at odds with the rest of the neighborhood. If one thinks of a fauxlonial stucco box with multiple arched windows, prominent portico, applied styrafoam decorations sprayed in the stucco, and a paved front yard in a traditional neighborhood with mature trees, say a first suburb, that's a McMansion. However, a new house that is similar in size/scale to its neighbors in a newer neighborhood of similar houses is a production home, regardless as to the stylistic/finishing elements that may be in common with a McMansion. The modern production home is derived mostly from the plan, with the façade being purpose-designed, not tailoring the plan to the house. If people wanted 100+ year-old plans, that's what builders would be constructing, rather than suiting the plan to the current state of the new home market.
Some of the houses in this thread may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, but there are some that are just modern production homes where taste is subjective and assumed foreknowledge of the source of wealth of those that live within the structure from a picture is irrelevant. On aesthetic terms, I can agree that some were perhaps not the best choices, in my own opinion, but I would never make the leap to cast aspersions upon those who live in a particular house because my aesthetic sense does not agree with theirs. What I may prefer, some others may consider ugly, just as I could not live in a Queen Anne house, or any of FLW's "lesser" houses (i.e., the Usonians that I find depressing), someone else may not want to live in an English Tudor or a surfside California Contemporary with a garage at the street, but a mere difference of opinion as to the aesthetics of the structure, especially from a picture on the Internet, i.e., not in its context, should not embolden a sense of aesthetic superiority because a particular house does not conform to the prevailing norm.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
My ugly house I'm designing. Single floor, U shaped, with the focal point at the back and a 4 car garage and shop. These are just quick renders to get the feel of it.
Well, as much as I'd like to flame your project Merc, I don't have much to say about it. It's just a unique, unabashedly modern house. The massing dosen't look too bad either.
It's not necessarily my personal taste but it's not what I would call an "ugly house".
My ugly house I'm designing. Single floor, U shaped, with the focal point at the back and a 4 car garage and shop. These are just quick renders to get the feel of it.
Well at least you know its ugly, Im i seeing this correctly, The front door leads directly into the kitchen?
Well at least you know its ugly, Im i seeing this correctly, The front door leads directly into the kitchen?
At least its original
No, it leads off to the side slightly (directly into the living room). But yes, the kitchen is the central point in the house, as it is so often the room were everyone gathers anyhow. The dining room if off to one side of the kitchen easily accessable from the kitchen, and the living room is on the other side. Each of the legs of the U is bedroom/bathroom areas and the bedrooms and off the dining room lead to the rear deck, with clerestory windows providing light to both sides. As Chango noted, it is inabashedly a modern house, but on a fairly small scale (no 3000+ square foot McMansion). The idea is that the rear of the house is facing water or a view and that that's the area that you would want to be in, so it's the focal point (a waterfall into a koi pond being the central feature of the upper rear deck, that would have plants around it for a garden feel).
Funny thing is that this house started out the design process as a container house, using 45 foot shipping containers arranged in a U. Then moved on to concrete block construction as found on, say, St Croix in the US VI (though initially it merely had a 2 car detached carport on it for that application). But, as I said, I'm a car guy and love cars and working on them so the latest version has a matching 4 car garage and workshop. I don't think it's ugly at all, but I love modern homes. I do understand that people that like more traditional design might find it ugly, however. I really don't care.
I decided to put this one here instead of the Oakville Custom Homes thread because it looks just that messed up. Reading the description on the real estate listing is funny.
Houses like this are called bungalofts (bungalow + loft)... this one supposedly has an elevator, not sure what for. It seems like a lot of money was spent on expensive features like copper roofs, a sauna, the elevator, granite countertops and gas fireplaces, but not much thought was put into how it looks from the outside.
There are a lot of things wrong about this, for starters, the windows above the right side of the garage.
I think they should have just been one window, the same side as the bigger one on the left. Instead, they have two windows, and they have shutters on only one side. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
The garage doors look nice and have a low arch, but they're framed by a square. The bricks should have been arched, like the window on the right side of the house or like this house: REALTOR.ca -Property Details H3090977
The dormer looks really awkward, especially with the way the window was done.
It looks like they bought their arched windows and openings and then decided to add more, but found out the origianl ones were discontinued. Oh we will just add these rectungular ones, it will look fine. Hey lets make the garage opening rectangualr too, that will save some money.
Actually I go back to my prior propoposition about how they design houses. Cut a bunch of design elements out of a catalogue, throw them into a hat, then draw them out ar random and stick them onto the house at various locations.
I have not yet gotten an architect to confirm this, but when I ask, they get strangely silent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the ones like I responded to originally (the garage one) are not accurate. Just you forcing your singular opinions on others.
