4 ms·
To clarify, I wasn't criticizing the "names" he calls things. It was the criteria. For example, he has this rule: The secondary masses should never compete
by jasode 10y ago
To clarify, I wasn't criticizing the "names" he calls things. It was the criteria. For example, he has this rule:
The secondary masses should never compete with the primary mass.
Whether he wrote it as "secondary outlines should never compete with primary outlines" or "secondary shapes should never compete with primary shapes" ... it doesn't matter what the labels are. I disagree with the rule as of the defining features of what makes a house a "McMansion". It's an inconsistent guideline.
- blatherard 10y agoArchitecture has been using rule-based language since long before the advent of modern science. See, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius
- jasode 10y agoI'm not against using a rule-based language. I disagree with his particular rules. We are bikeshedding on the word "science" so I regret using that phrase because it diverted the replies from my point. Perhaps it would have been better to say I disagree with his opinion on house design presented as some kind of universal aesthetic. His condescending tone[1] used throughout the article in an attempt to sound "authoritative" seems strange considering many professionally trained architects deliberately design houses with the "voids" and "masses" he dislikes. In another example he writes, "another issue with McMansions and mass is the use of too many voids". For some reason, the author doesn't acknowledge that many classically trained architects will deliberately put in "too many voids" so it brightens the interior of the house with light. The other reason for extensive windows/voids is to provide an expansive view of an outdoor feature such as a lake from inside the house. Smaller windows or no windows as the author advises detracts from these desirable design goals. [1] e.g. "it means that they are simply not educated in basic architectural concepts."
- omginternets 10y ago>For some reason, the author doesn't acknowledge that many classically trained architects will deliberately put in "too many voids" so it brightens the interior of the house with light. This strikes me as a reasonable argument, but then the issue isn't the author's vocabulary; it's the contents of his analysis!
- eridius 10y agoThat's still not scientific, or pseudo-scientific. I'm starting to wonder if you know what "scientific" even means. What you quoted is a design principle, and just because you may not understand the reason for the principle (which is probably just "houses that violate this are ugly") doesn't make it invalid.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoIt reads like an appeal to authority. "This house has too many windows" is clearly an opinion. "This mass of this house has too many voids" sounds weighty and important, like a technical critique, a proven rule, a fact.
- omginternets 10y agoBut architectural aesthetics aren't a quantitative field of study, so it's obvious from the get-go that we're not dealing with the same kinds of facts as in the natural sciences. From there, it's fairly obvious that these terms describe principles, not authoritative laws of nature. It's quite strange to get hung up on this issue. Yes, those principles are subject to interpretation/taste/subjectivit/etc, but that's hardly the point. I mean no disrespect to anyone in this comment thread, but this line of criticism is pedantic.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoHe leads off by essentially saying "If you don't share my tastes, don't worry, you're not stupid, just uneducated." It all comes off as quite certain that his taste in architecture is objectively, factually correct, not merely a matter of opinion. That's why people are getting rubbed the wrong way over it.
- omginternets 10y agoI read it as "if you can't verbalize why you don't like McMansions, it's because you're unaware of the architectural principles they violate.