5 ms·

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 the

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...
- wpietri 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. This is a commonly expressed notion on HN, and one I've never understood. As if every blog post in the world were being evaluated as a doctoral thesis. I personally prefer it when people do me the courtesy of assuming,absent evidence to the contrary, that I am competent in my profession and a reasonable reporter of my own experience. Perhaps we could do the same for others? Regardless, here it's wrongly applied. He did give evidence: photos. A couple I didn't quite get, but several gave me "aha" reactions. In seeing houses like these previously, I knew there was some problem, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I forwarded the article to my dad, whose immediate reaction was, "I like the McMansion article. It explains the problem I have with the back of our house." You also seem to have a notion that subjective preference is arbitrary and random, shifting with every viewer. But there are at least two kinds of subjective preference involved here that are neither: the cultural context of architecture and the human perceptual system. Whether his rules are somehow "objective" or merely about what current neurotypical American humans generally prefer doesn't really matter for his point. Either way, he's explaining an important regularity relevant to, among other things, the building and buying of houses.
  - plorkyeran 10y ago
    I didn't find the pictures of "bad" houses to be particularly less attractive or off-putting compared to the "good" houses, both before and after reading the justification for why one was supposedly bad. As a result, the evidence presented left me with the impression that the rules being given were just arbitrary declarations made to justify the author's taste. I suspect Houshalter's reaction was similar.
    - njharman 10y ago
      Maybe you just lack "taste", an aesthetic sense.
      - bluGill 10y ago
        Maybe you [and everyone who thinks like you] lacks taste... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You like one better than the other, I like the other better than the one. There is no right or wrong. God is not going to send lightening down on you for the wrong home design. (no matter which god you pick) An engineering I can look at a design and construction method and objectively state that one is better than the other - but there is no reason the "ugly house" cannot come out better.

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...
wpietri 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. This is a commonly expressed notion on HN, and one I've never understood. As if every blog post in the world were being evaluated as a doctoral thesis. I personally prefer it when people do me the courtesy of assuming,absent evidence to the contrary, that I am competent in my profession and a reasonable reporter of my own experience. Perhaps we could do the same for others? Regardless, here it's wrongly applied. He did give evidence: photos. A couple I didn't quite get, but several gave me "aha" reactions. In seeing houses like these previously, I knew there was some problem, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I forwarded the article to my dad, whose immediate reaction was, "I like the McMansion article. It explains the problem I have with the back of our house." You also seem to have a notion that subjective preference is arbitrary and random, shifting with every viewer. But there are at least two kinds of subjective preference involved here that are neither: the cultural context of architecture and the human perceptual system. Whether his rules are somehow "objective" or merely about what current neurotypical American humans generally prefer doesn't really matter for his point. Either way, he's explaining an important regularity relevant to, among other things, the building and buying of houses.
- plorkyeran 10y ago
  I didn't find the pictures of "bad" houses to be particularly less attractive or off-putting compared to the "good" houses, both before and after reading the justification for why one was supposedly bad. As a result, the evidence presented left me with the impression that the rules being given were just arbitrary declarations made to justify the author's taste. I suspect Houshalter's reaction was similar.
  - njharman 10y ago
    Maybe you just lack "taste", an aesthetic sense.
    - bluGill 10y ago
      Maybe you [and everyone who thinks like you] lacks taste... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You like one better than the other, I like the other better than the one. There is no right or wrong. God is not going to send lightening down on you for the wrong home design. (no matter which god you pick) An engineering I can look at a design and construction method and objectively state that one is better than the other - but there is no reason the "ugly house" cannot come out better.