4 ms·

This feels like the architectural equivalent of linguistic prescriptivism. If "basic architectural concepts" declare buildings to be "especially hideous", but p

by Pete_D 8y ago

This feels like the architectural equivalent of linguistic prescriptivism. If "basic architectural concepts" declare buildings to be "especially hideous", but people are seemingly happy to buy and live in them, what grounds do we have to decide that the people are wrong and not the concepts?

dqv 8y ago
I think the linguistic equivalent would be a verbose sentence with gratuitous use of adjectives, several inane parenthetical interjections, and punctuation misuse. It's okay if I'm reading a letter from a friend or family; otherwise, I want to read something that has good linguistic flow. It's not a judgement against people who like McMansions. It's a guide for people like me: I see a house, find it offputting, but I can't figure out why and what to look for to get a house that isn't. She gives me, a layperson, the information I need to pick a house I'll like. Her blog actually has articles that go into detail about different architectural periods and the elements of architecture. There's nothing wrong with liking McMansions, but I want a cute house, not too big, that I love on the outside and the inside.
- theoh 8y ago
  You're right that this is about judgements of value. But part of the problem is that architecture can't be reduced to bite-sized principles and quick-reference rules of thumb. Architecture is so much more complex and nuanced than that. Even "A Pattern Language" falls into the trap of providing reductive prescriptions. Ask literally any architect what they think of Christopher Alexander's actual built work, and they will either dismiss it or (more likely) won't even have heard of it.
  - dqv 8y ago
    I wouldn't say Wagner is really reducing it so much as teaching the layperson to explore their own conception of a house and why a house design doesn't quite coalesce. She didn't teach me to identify that a Frankfurt house must have a wingdar, a gongle, and a shivbopped roof. It just taught me to look closer at all the different elements that make my brain say "that's a house" vs "that's a weird house"
    - theoh 8y ago
      Even to think that it's a matter of a shopping list of elements is reductive. Architecture is holistic. While it's obviously great to be made aware of and be able to analyse various standard components and their relationships, components/patterns are not the story. It's not engineering.
kasey_junk 8y ago
We don't have any grounds to say that the people are wrong to buy and live in these houses (except maybe when it comes to the externalities that aren't priced into them). But we can't dismiss subjective criticism on the basis that some people like the things the subjective criticism says is bad or that people uneducated in the subject don't understand. The criticism is of course not above evaluation but setting a subjective standard is not something that is impossible. This is an important concept in software. The vast majority of decisions software developers make are subjective. Yet the vast majority of us do not have frameworks for doing subjective criticism. I think that contributes to the flame wars, cyclical fads and generally bad state of our software as code. We'd likely all be better off if we had more subjective concepts in software and not less.
- cgoecknerwald 8y ago
  To add, the same author also wrote "McMansions 101 Revisited: Aesthetics Aside, Why McMansions Are Bad Architecture" to provide "objective list of reasons why McMansions are bad architecture that ignores aesthetics." [1] [1] http://mcmansionhell.com/post/150597521816/mcmansions-101-revisited-aesthetics-aside-why http://mcmansionhell.com/post/150597521816/mcmansions-101-re...
MisterTea 8y ago
devils advocate: Take your profession, now look at people working in your field who you, with all your experience, can comfortably say "That person is doing it wrong". That is the perspective of this article.
- clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  This argument tends to come up with anything visual because people often (incorrectly) assume that visual things are subjective, when the whole point of this article is to try and give objective criticisms. Would you say the same of ux design? Or the visual design of an application? I think we can pretty definitely say when thise things are “bad”

by Pete_D 8y ago

dqv 8y ago

I think the linguistic equivalent would be a verbose sentence with gratuitous use of adjectives, several inane parenthetical interjections, and punctuation misuse. It's okay if I'm reading a letter from a friend or family; otherwise, I want to read something that has good linguistic flow. It's not a judgement against people who like McMansions. It's a guide for people like me: I see a house, find it offputting, but I can't figure out why and what to look for to get a house that isn't. She gives me, a layperson, the information I need to pick a house I'll like. Her blog actually has articles that go into detail about different architectural periods and the elements of architecture. There's nothing wrong with liking McMansions, but I want a cute house, not too big, that I love on the outside and the inside.

theoh 8y ago
You're right that this is about judgements of value. But part of the problem is that architecture can't be reduced to bite-sized principles and quick-reference rules of thumb. Architecture is so much more complex and nuanced than that. Even "A Pattern Language" falls into the trap of providing reductive prescriptions. Ask literally any architect what they think of Christopher Alexander's actual built work, and they will either dismiss it or (more likely) won't even have heard of it.
- dqv 8y ago
  I wouldn't say Wagner is really reducing it so much as teaching the layperson to explore their own conception of a house and why a house design doesn't quite coalesce. She didn't teach me to identify that a Frankfurt house must have a wingdar, a gongle, and a shivbopped roof. It just taught me to look closer at all the different elements that make my brain say "that's a house" vs "that's a weird house"
  - theoh 8y ago
    Even to think that it's a matter of a shopping list of elements is reductive. Architecture is holistic. While it's obviously great to be made aware of and be able to analyse various standard components and their relationships, components/patterns are not the story. It's not engineering.

kasey_junk 8y ago

We don't have any grounds to say that the people are wrong to buy and live in these houses (except maybe when it comes to the externalities that aren't priced into them). But we can't dismiss subjective criticism on the basis that some people like the things the subjective criticism says is bad or that people uneducated in the subject don't understand. The criticism is of course not above evaluation but setting a subjective standard is not something that is impossible. This is an important concept in software. The vast majority of decisions software developers make are subjective. Yet the vast majority of us do not have frameworks for doing subjective criticism. I think that contributes to the flame wars, cyclical fads and generally bad state of our software as code. We'd likely all be better off if we had more subjective concepts in software and not less.

cgoecknerwald 8y ago
To add, the same author also wrote "McMansions 101 Revisited: Aesthetics Aside, Why McMansions Are Bad Architecture" to provide "objective list of reasons why McMansions are bad architecture that ignores aesthetics." [1] [1] http://mcmansionhell.com/post/150597521816/mcmansions-101-revisited-aesthetics-aside-why http://mcmansionhell.com/post/150597521816/mcmansions-101-re...

MisterTea 8y ago

devils advocate: Take your profession, now look at people working in your field who you, with all your experience, can comfortably say "That person is doing it wrong". That is the perspective of this article.

clay_the_ripper 8y ago
This argument tends to come up with anything visual because people often (incorrectly) assume that visual things are subjective, when the whole point of this article is to try and give objective criticisms. Would you say the same of ux design? Or the visual design of an application? I think we can pretty definitely say when thise things are “bad”