3 ms·

I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are

I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are wrong or his are right. But he talks as if his preferences are objective facts, and seemed condescending to anyone that disagrees (which would seem to be a decent percentage of Americans that are buying these houses.) Anyway there is a long history of weird superstitions and made up rules in subjective arts like this. I mentioned the golden ratio BS which also affected architecture. There is only vague handwavy reasoning behind it, but many architects really believed in it and tried to force it in everywhere.

wpietri 10y ago
Note that you have changed your complaint from "OP didn't present any evidence" to that you "didn't find them convincing". (I note that you don't provide any evidence for that claim. Shocking! What, are we supposed to just take you at you word?) But if that's the case, so what? His article aside, it's undeniable that A) some people like McMansions and that B) a lot of people don't. He also notes right up front, "These principles are for the classical or traditional architecture most residential homes are modeled after." He is trying to make clearer what's going on in case B. Your liking the McMansions is only proof that you're in category A. Maybe you don't know much about architecture. Maybe you're not a big fan of classical architecture. Maybe you're a fan of something else entirely. It is not proof that he is wrong about what makes something good classical architecture, that his explanation of category-B reactions is useless. > Anyway there is a long history of weird superstitions and made up rules in subjective arts like this. Yes, thank god we work in technology, where there are never any fads, superstitions, or made up rules that people really believe and try to enforce inappropriately. </sarcasm> That technology has a lot of fads, superstitions, and misapplied rules doesn't mean there is no objective reality, that all opinions are arbitrary, that educated taste is meaningless. The same is true of architecture. The same is true of most human activities. Just because a domain is too complicated to be reduced to a small, human-comprehensible set of "objective" axioms doesn't mean there's nothing smart or interesting there. And it certainly doesn't mean we have to be condescending about any attempt to increase clarity.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > Note that you have changed your complaint from "OP didn't present any evidence" to that you "didn't find them convincing". (I note that you don't provide any evidence for that claim. Shocking! What, are we supposed to just take you at you word?) Houshalter didn't change the complaint. Their original complaint was that the author did not provide evidence for why breaking the rules is inherently bad, not that the author did not provide evidence for why the pictured McMansions were bad. The comment you are replying to restated this: > I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case [this refers to the houses themselves, not the rules]. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are wrong or his are right [this is the original complaint]. The rules aren't convincing because there is no evidence that they are anything other than semi-arbitrary preferences that the architecture world, or at least a subset of it, as coalesced around. I agree with Houshalter, which is why I am responding.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    The article's author did not claim that the rules were anything inherent about the universe, or anything other than "semi-arbitrary preferences" of a particular set of humans. I also note that the author didn't claim that they were rules, but rather principles, which is an important difference. And there's even an explicit disclaimer saying that they only apply to a particular style of architecture. If Houshalter is complaining that the article didn't prove something it didn't claim to prove, I have no idea why that's relevant to anybody. But assuming instead that he is asking for something actually related to the scope of the article, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For those with an eye for architecture who have spent time puzzling over McMansions, that is sufficient to demonstrate the principles. You're welcome to complain that you didn't understand the evidence, didn't find it convincing. But I reject the assumption that is a problem with the article. This was clearly written for people with an interest in and some knowledge of residential architecture. There's no reason an article has to explain everything to everybody.
    - 10y ago

wpietri 10y ago

Note that you have changed your complaint from "OP didn't present any evidence" to that you "didn't find them convincing". (I note that you don't provide any evidence for that claim. Shocking! What, are we supposed to just take you at you word?) But if that's the case, so what? His article aside, it's undeniable that A) some people like McMansions and that B) a lot of people don't. He also notes right up front, "These principles are for the classical or traditional architecture most residential homes are modeled after." He is trying to make clearer what's going on in case B. Your liking the McMansions is only proof that you're in category A. Maybe you don't know much about architecture. Maybe you're not a big fan of classical architecture. Maybe you're a fan of something else entirely. It is not proof that he is wrong about what makes something good classical architecture, that his explanation of category-B reactions is useless. > Anyway there is a long history of weird superstitions and made up rules in subjective arts like this. Yes, thank god we work in technology, where there are never any fads, superstitions, or made up rules that people really believe and try to enforce inappropriately. </sarcasm> That technology has a lot of fads, superstitions, and misapplied rules doesn't mean there is no objective reality, that all opinions are arbitrary, that educated taste is meaningless. The same is true of architecture. The same is true of most human activities. Just because a domain is too complicated to be reduced to a small, human-comprehensible set of "objective" axioms doesn't mean there's nothing smart or interesting there. And it certainly doesn't mean we have to be condescending about any attempt to increase clarity.

vonmoltke 10y ago
> Note that you have changed your complaint from "OP didn't present any evidence" to that you "didn't find them convincing". (I note that you don't provide any evidence for that claim. Shocking! What, are we supposed to just take you at you word?) Houshalter didn't change the complaint. Their original complaint was that the author did not provide evidence for why breaking the rules is inherently bad, not that the author did not provide evidence for why the pictured McMansions were bad. The comment you are replying to restated this: > I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case [this refers to the houses themselves, not the rules]. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are wrong or his are right [this is the original complaint]. The rules aren't convincing because there is no evidence that they are anything other than semi-arbitrary preferences that the architecture world, or at least a subset of it, as coalesced around. I agree with Houshalter, which is why I am responding.
- wpietri 10y ago
  The article's author did not claim that the rules were anything inherent about the universe, or anything other than "semi-arbitrary preferences" of a particular set of humans. I also note that the author didn't claim that they were rules, but rather principles, which is an important difference. And there's even an explicit disclaimer saying that they only apply to a particular style of architecture. If Houshalter is complaining that the article didn't prove something it didn't claim to prove, I have no idea why that's relevant to anybody. But assuming instead that he is asking for something actually related to the scope of the article, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For those with an eye for architecture who have spent time puzzling over McMansions, that is sufficient to demonstrate the principles. You're welcome to complain that you didn't understand the evidence, didn't find it convincing. But I reject the assumption that is a problem with the article. This was clearly written for people with an interest in and some knowledge of residential architecture. There's no reason an article has to explain everything to everybody.
  - 10y ago