3 ms·

Architecture 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.wik

• jasode 10y ago
  I'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!