5 ms·

But a lot of these rules are silly pseudoscience. I am strongly reminded of the history of people obsessed with fitting everything into the golden ratio. Becaus

But a lot of these rules are silly pseudoscience. I am strongly reminded of the history of people obsessed with fitting everything into the golden ratio. Because it's "god's ratio" and supposedly appears everywhere in nature. It turns out a lot of that was BS. And it certainly didn't make paintings that didn't fit the golden ratio bad or inferior. There isn't any evidence to support that any of these rules actually make the architecture "better", whatever that even means. Even if a survey found that people prefer one style to another, it's still a highly subjective personal preference. There can be people with different preferences. If people didn't like this style of houses, they wouldn't be buying or producing them.

mseebach 10y ago
I think the general idea is that following the rules doesn't make your architecture good, it's that breaking them (probably) makes it bad. But if you break them in the right way in the right place for the right reason, it can be awesome. I guess code style can be a useful analogy: you can write absolutely horrendous, unmaintainable, unreadable code that follows all the best style practices, and you can have awesome code that breaks them. But when writing code in your day-to-day work, following the best practices, only breaking them when they're irretrievably in your way, is undoubtedly the best advice for not-super human non-geniuses to write good code. Most of the mansions showcased are well within the range of having been salvageable had the architect run checkstyle on the drafts.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  But my point is nothing about breaking these rules makes it "bad". At least OP didn't present any evidence that it does. Just that he, personally, doesn't like it. At least with code one could make an argument that a certain style increases readability and makes it easier to follow. Although even there I think it's a lot of subjective preference, and it doesn't really matter as long as you are consistent. With these buildings, changing the style to fit these arbitrary rules could make them worse. Like reducing the number of windows just so it fits into a certain style. Windows are nice and provide better natural lighting. Studies have found windows and natural lighting have a a very positive effect on mental health. Or forcing the house to be symmetrical. That could make the layout suboptimal. As opposed to if it was allowed to be built without that constraint. And so on for the other rules. Every rule adds more constraints, which requires sacrificing other aspects to satisfy.
  - thucydides 10y ago
    OK. Hopefully I'm not putting words in your mouth. You think the author's explanation of why McMansions look like garbage is too soft and squishy. Too "subjective." In reality, it's all just personal taste, and as we know, there's no accounting for taste. Serious question: do you think this house looks beautiful? http://65.media.tumblr.com/5cfa243ca7f2997cf794ed190c24c38b/tumblr_inline_obrdug3QsV1sppt0x_500.jpg http://65.media.tumblr.com/5cfa243ca7f2997cf794ed190c24c38b/... Does it look better, worse, or the same as this house? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Thomas_Jefferson's_Monticello.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Thomas_J... Do you think a large majority of people would agree with your personal, subjective taste in this case?
    - erichocean 10y ago
      Is there really a lawn on TJ's front porch? That looks fun to mow…
    - lake99 10y ago
      I agree with everything laretluval and Houshalter have said about the topic, and since they haven't answered your question, I'll do it. 1. I don't think it's fair to compare the two houses. The person who built the second house seems to have spent a lot more money than the person who build the first. 2. The first one gives the appearance that it has many tiny rooms, which I don't like. 3. I don't like the styling of either house. They both have weird styling elements (I don't the technical terms).
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Let's go back to the author's own explanation. Half the examples the author uses of appropriate balance in design look dreadful to me. I mean, I don't think you'll have problems finding people who think the purposeful asymmetry and complexity of the form of this McMansion (horrible details, but that's beside the point) http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/tumblr_inline_obrdua0UTB1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/... is less jarring than the oversized porch and rather forced symmetry of this house http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/tumblr_inline_obrdua0UTB1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/... I suspect that you won't find a majority who think this architecturally interesting but rather disconcerting house which seems almost to be split into two discrete components http://66.media.tumblr.com/ef085492f16fa90eca55b34c2edb4f6e/tumblr_inline_obrdubxrmA1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/ef085492f16fa90eca55b34c2edb4f6e/... is more balanced and harmonious than this bland McMansion with a rather more subtle asymmetry of styling and no centreline http://66.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/tumblr_inline_obrdueX7l51sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/... And above all, picking holes in an architect's work is easy. I'm really not convinced that many people would consider this house with its oversized, overbearing gable and clumsy porch with ludicrously oversized pillars to be a model of a "properly proportioned house", regardless of the author's delight at it as an example of how to balance the top and bottom halves of an elevation http://66.media.tumblr.com/aacf83efd66eded7cffe5f42716fbe36/tumblr_inline_obrdudifYk1sppt0x_500.jpg http://66.media.tumblr.com/aacf83efd66eded7cffe5f42716fbe36/... Architects can easily ignore centre-lines and rules of thirds and concepts of primary and secondary massing and matching windows and produce great houses, and they can easily follow them rigidly and produce something which is a shoddily-built mixture of poor imitations of different historical styles that's not built to a human friendly scale. P.S. I see your Monticello and raise you Fallingwater...
avn2109 10y ago
>> "...highly subjective personal preference." I'm sorry to be the smug guy linking PG on HN, but this essay [0] directly engages your point here and IMHO pretty conclusively refutes it. This is the money quote: "As in any job, as you continue to design things, you'll get better at it. Your tastes will change. And, like anyone who gets better at their job, you'll know you're getting better. If so, your old tastes were not merely different, but worse. Poof goes the axiom that taste can't be wrong." [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
- Houshalter 10y ago
  If the people buying and living in the house prefer it, how can you tell them their taste is wrong? What does it even mean for taste to be "wrong"? What are the actual consequences of it? If you go to a different culture, that has different food, architecture, music, art, etc, would you tell them they are wrong about everything and need to change? Would you listen to them if they told you your tastes were wrong? There is nothing objective about taste. It's entirely determined by associations you make in the brain. The author has associated "McMansion" architecture with things he doesn't like. Maybe the cheap construction they are associated with, or the people who live in those houses, etc. But other people can have completely different associations.
Noos 10y ago
I don't think they are psuedoscience, but it might be that architecture is an unusual case. With other art forms, yes they use these rules, but there's also things like line, texture, color, and other rules that disguise or soften them. With architecture, I think they don't have much technique to do so, and the symmetry, golden ratio, etc, come through much stronger. Many of the examples he gave in his blog of good symmetry were actually fairly boring houses, and the problem with too much symmetry is a boring picture. I mean the rules work, but in functional forms like houses, you have less ability to make them visually interesting overall. The McMansions might be the same principle in opposite-there isn't enough to make the non-symmetrical, almost abstract design less chaotic while keeping the visual interest.

mseebach 10y ago

I think the general idea is that following the rules doesn't make your architecture good, it's that breaking them (probably) makes it bad. But if you break them in the right way in the right place for the right reason, it can be awesome. I guess code style can be a useful analogy: you can write absolutely horrendous, unmaintainable, unreadable code that follows all the best style practices, and you can have awesome code that breaks them. But when writing code in your day-to-day work, following the best practices, only breaking them when they're irretrievably in your way, is undoubtedly the best advice for not-super human non-geniuses to write good code. Most of the mansions showcased are well within the range of having been salvageable had the architect run checkstyle on the drafts.

Houshalter 10y ago
But my point is nothing about breaking these rules makes it "bad". At least OP didn't present any evidence that it does. Just that he, personally, doesn't like it. At least with code one could make an argument that a certain style increases readability and makes it easier to follow. Although even there I think it's a lot of subjective preference, and it doesn't really matter as long as you are consistent. With these buildings, changing the style to fit these arbitrary rules could make them worse. Like reducing the number of windows just so it fits into a certain style. Windows are nice and provide better natural lighting. Studies have found windows and natural lighting have a a very positive effect on mental health. Or forcing the house to be symmetrical. That could make the layout suboptimal. As opposed to if it was allowed to be built without that constraint. And so on for the other rules. Every rule adds more constraints, which requires sacrificing other aspects to satisfy.
- thucydides 10y ago
  OK. Hopefully I'm not putting words in your mouth. You think the author's explanation of why McMansions look like garbage is too soft and squishy. Too "subjective." In reality, it's all just personal taste, and as we know, there's no accounting for taste. Serious question: do you think this house looks beautiful? http://65.media.tumblr.com/5cfa243ca7f2997cf794ed190c24c38b/tumblr_inline_obrdug3QsV1sppt0x_500.jpg http://65.media.tumblr.com/5cfa243ca7f2997cf794ed190c24c38b/... Does it look better, worse, or the same as this house? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Thomas_Jefferson's_Monticello.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Thomas_J... Do you think a large majority of people would agree with your personal, subjective taste in this case?
  - erichocean 10y ago
    Is there really a lawn on TJ's front porch? That looks fun to mow…
  - lake99 10y ago
    I agree with everything laretluval and Houshalter have said about the topic, and since they haven't answered your question, I'll do it. 1. I don't think it's fair to compare the two houses. The person who built the second house seems to have spent a lot more money than the person who build the first. 2. The first one gives the appearance that it has many tiny rooms, which I don't like. 3. I don't like the styling of either house. They both have weird styling elements (I don't the technical terms).
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Let's go back to the author's own explanation. Half the examples the author uses of appropriate balance in design look dreadful to me. I mean, I don't think you'll have problems finding people who think the purposeful asymmetry and complexity of the form of this McMansion (horrible details, but that's beside the point) http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/tumblr_inline_obrdua0UTB1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/... is less jarring than the oversized porch and rather forced symmetry of this house http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/tumblr_inline_obrdua0UTB1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/985ce3af7d99be6789a3d60733d87bdb/... I suspect that you won't find a majority who think this architecturally interesting but rather disconcerting house which seems almost to be split into two discrete components http://66.media.tumblr.com/ef085492f16fa90eca55b34c2edb4f6e/tumblr_inline_obrdubxrmA1sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/ef085492f16fa90eca55b34c2edb4f6e/... is more balanced and harmonious than this bland McMansion with a rather more subtle asymmetry of styling and no centreline http://66.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/tumblr_inline_obrdueX7l51sppt0x_500.png http://66.media.tumblr.com/b60dfce3f94da6a03ded2c7c1acd2f34/... And above all, picking holes in an architect's work is easy. I'm really not convinced that many people would consider this house with its oversized, overbearing gable and clumsy porch with ludicrously oversized pillars to be a model of a "properly proportioned house", regardless of the author's delight at it as an example of how to balance the top and bottom halves of an elevation http://66.media.tumblr.com/aacf83efd66eded7cffe5f42716fbe36/tumblr_inline_obrdudifYk1sppt0x_500.jpg http://66.media.tumblr.com/aacf83efd66eded7cffe5f42716fbe36/... Architects can easily ignore centre-lines and rules of thirds and concepts of primary and secondary massing and matching windows and produce great houses, and they can easily follow them rigidly and produce something which is a shoddily-built mixture of poor imitations of different historical styles that's not built to a human friendly scale. P.S. I see your Monticello and raise you Fallingwater...

avn2109 10y ago

>> "...highly subjective personal preference." I'm sorry to be the smug guy linking PG on HN, but this essay [0] directly engages your point here and IMHO pretty conclusively refutes it. This is the money quote: "As in any job, as you continue to design things, you'll get better at it. Your tastes will change. And, like anyone who gets better at their job, you'll know you're getting better. If so, your old tastes were not merely different, but worse. Poof goes the axiom that taste can't be wrong." [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html

Houshalter 10y ago
If the people buying and living in the house prefer it, how can you tell them their taste is wrong? What does it even mean for taste to be "wrong"? What are the actual consequences of it? If you go to a different culture, that has different food, architecture, music, art, etc, would you tell them they are wrong about everything and need to change? Would you listen to them if they told you your tastes were wrong? There is nothing objective about taste. It's entirely determined by associations you make in the brain. The author has associated "McMansion" architecture with things he doesn't like. Maybe the cheap construction they are associated with, or the people who live in those houses, etc. But other people can have completely different associations.

Noos 10y ago

I don't think they are psuedoscience, but it might be that architecture is an unusual case. With other art forms, yes they use these rules, but there's also things like line, texture, color, and other rules that disguise or soften them. With architecture, I think they don't have much technique to do so, and the symmetry, golden ratio, etc, come through much stronger. Many of the examples he gave in his blog of good symmetry were actually fairly boring houses, and the problem with too much symmetry is a boring picture. I mean the rules work, but in functional forms like houses, you have less ability to make them visually interesting overall. The McMansions might be the same principle in opposite-there isn't enough to make the non-symmetrical, almost abstract design less chaotic while keeping the visual interest.