6 ms·

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. B

For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. And add a small stone tower off to the side to make it look even better. Another big problem is the 2 or 3 car garages which always have to be immediately infront of the house which makes it look like you'r coming home to a parking garage and not a home. Put the garage in the back, where it belongs and have a 6' wide small driveway with nicely paved bricks. Another even bigger problem is the propensity of people to put down pavement EVERYWHERE. the driveways are insanely big. the streets are waaay to wide. and then if that's not enough, they fill up the backyard with pavement too. If you take an arial shot, you'll notice almost half the lot is filled up with pavement: talk about ugly. And, there's no trees. Why? it doesn't cost much to put down some trees. it makes the neighborhood so much more beautiful and even decreases the temperatures in the summer. you could even make them fruit trees so people can get free food.

ryandrake 5y ago
> Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. On the other hand, you can go overboard with rooflines and end up with McMansion monstrosities: [1]. 1: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149948821221/mcmansions-101-roofs https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149948821221/mcmansions-101-r...
deathanatos 5y ago
> I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side A 3,000 sq ft lot is 54' on a side, if square. Your suggested 20' wide perimeter would leave a 14'×14' postage stamp, or 196 sq ft. That was about the size of my freshman dorm. > and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. There's no second story — you've got no room for the stairwell!
- rory 5y ago
  Stairwell? Just hang a climbing rope! Better home and personal aesthetic.
dehrmann 5y ago
You're describing a lot of US residential neighborhoods built between 1900 and 1940.
quercusa 5y ago
> it doesn't cost much to put down some trees. It would cost even less to leave some on the site, but it seems that builders prefer to scrape all the topsoil off.
quesera 5y ago
> Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. These are clearly conservative preferences, not objective truths. Like social conservatism, there are valuable learnings embodied (steep roofs shed water -- more important in some climates than others), but there is also a lot of fearful aversion to the unfamiliar (i.e. anything not traditional western European). > And add a small stone tower off to the side to make it look even better. I would never want to live in a structure that pretends to be a castle. Or, more generously, one that is a vague echo of a style that once served a purpose.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  "I would never want to live in a structure that pretends to be a castle. Or, more generously, one that is a vague echo of a style that once served a purpose." That's a valid aesthetic choice, but I personally enjoy such callbacks to the past. Based on aesthetics alone, I'd love to live in a place like this: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6a/9f/3e/6a9f3e7d4304c5f463ddf8c2bcb896a5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6a/9f/3e/6a9f3e7d4304c5f463ddf8c2b... (but only if they were rare, it wouldn't be nearly as fun if everyone had houses like that)
- oblio 5y ago
  > i.e. anything not traditional western European Traditional Chinese housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siheyuan#/media/File:Siheyuan_model.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siheyuan#/media/File:Siheyuan_... Traditional Japanese housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiya-zukuri#/media/File:Shoin.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiya-zukuri#/media/File:Shoi... A style of traditional African housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Africa#/media/File:Kumasi.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Africa#/media/... (and many more are like it) Slanted roofs are super common throughout the world and history.
- ericmay 5y ago
  It’s odd to me to place this as a “conservative” preference. In what way is this conservative? And why is that meaningful? Anyway - there is growing evidence of “objective truths” in architecture and design. Namely work tracking things like heart rate, eye movement, etc. Findings are indicating that asymmetrical houses or imposing skyscrapers are actually stressful to humans. The fist being stressful because you naturally look for symmetry (notice how you see faces in certain things?) and most “modern” architecture was created by people who lived through World War 1 and 2 and created houses that were asymmetrical and in some cases even shaped like bunkers if you are inclined to spot it. Skyscrapers create a disconnect not just from their imposing presence (will this fall on me??) but they’re also bad because they remove the human presence from the street and create sterile environments. Anywhere you look the most desirable neighborhoods and the places where everybody takes pictures of and travel to feature “conservative” housing styles that were almost universally adapted from local building materials and for local weather patterns (white building in the Mediterranean or a-frame cabins) and naturally attract people. When you search for a city like Amsterdam you get pictures of the beautiful homes on the canals. Nobody travels there for the ghastly glass modern architecture which certainly has never been described as quaint. We already know how to build homes and walkable towns and neighborhoods. Unfortunately that doesn’t stroke the ego of useless academic architects who are trying to create more and more self-serving, disfigured structures so we get houses that just look ridiculous. Does a car live here or a person? I can’t tell. And if you’re still confused go look at the Soviet style bunker apartments that look like crap or Boston City Hall building which surprisingly doesn’t cause people to commit suicide on the spot on account of its absolutely hellish design.
OJFord 5y ago
North American houses from my UK perspective: - Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! - Garage in front. I.. ok. Practical I suppose. Bloody ugly. - Fake shutters!! I'm mentioning it last but it bugs me the most. At least have them wide enough that they look like they might be usable. But no, inch-wide 'shutters' on a six-foot window, why not.
- arp242 5y ago
  One of the thing that struck me about British houses and apartments is that they tend to have en-suites "no-matter-what". I don't think I've ever seen a single house or apartment with an en-suite before I moved to England (also: carpets in the bathroom, wtf?! And the weird thing with two taps.) I find it rather curious waste of space, especially in ~50/60m2 apartments. Why do you need more than toilet and shower? I suppose that parallelized pooping and/or showering can be useful in rare occasions, but usually doing it serially works well enough and overall seems like an exceedingly poor trade-off. But the Brits seem to love 'em shrug. Crossing borders can also be fun; with some crossings you can see an immediate and marked difference in building style; the Dutch/Belgian border is like that for example. New Zealand houses are just horrible, full stop. Don't know how they managed to get so far behind on the rest of the Western world with that. Not sure what I'm trying to say with this comment; don't really have a specific point as such. I just find it interesting that different countries have such different approaches to building and arranging houses, even though they're relatively similar in culture, climate, etc.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    I think we've over-corrected on that front. Indeed, one place in which I lived (a modern build) had (on paper) five bedrooms and four bathrooms (three en suite). But there were four of us, so two of those 'bedrooms' weren't used as such; leaving too many bathrooms. Mad really, I agree. Downstairs WC in addition to those. (And it's not like there were a plethora of reception rooms to go with them - surely a family that was going to actually use five bedrooms as five bedrooms would want space to spread out a bit, even if a couple of them had to share a bathroom as a result?!) (Before that a three-bedroom Victorian build - one nice large bathroom and a small WC+shower room, I suspect the latter was a later division. Neither en suite. Point is it is (was?) a modern fetish, and I think (hope?) it's waning slightly.)

ryandrake 5y ago

> Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. On the other hand, you can go overboard with rooflines and end up with McMansion monstrosities: [1]. 1: https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149948821221/mcmansions-101-roofs https://mcmansionhell.com/post/149948821221/mcmansions-101-r...

deathanatos 5y ago

> I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side A 3,000 sq ft lot is 54' on a side, if square. Your suggested 20' wide perimeter would leave a 14'×14' postage stamp, or 196 sq ft. That was about the size of my freshman dorm. > and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. There's no second story — you've got no room for the stairwell!

rory 5y ago
Stairwell? Just hang a climbing rope! Better home and personal aesthetic.

dehrmann 5y ago

You're describing a lot of US residential neighborhoods built between 1900 and 1940.

quercusa 5y ago

> it doesn't cost much to put down some trees. It would cost even less to leave some on the site, but it seems that builders prefer to scrape all the topsoil off.

quesera 5y ago

> Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shallow and underdefined rooflines typical of ranch house style. You need to have steep well defined rooflines that give the house shape. These are clearly conservative preferences, not objective truths. Like social conservatism, there are valuable learnings embodied (steep roofs shed water -- more important in some climates than others), but there is also a lot of fearful aversion to the unfamiliar (i.e. anything not traditional western European). > And add a small stone tower off to the side to make it look even better. I would never want to live in a structure that pretends to be a castle. Or, more generously, one that is a vague echo of a style that once served a purpose.

robbrown451 5y ago
"I would never want to live in a structure that pretends to be a castle. Or, more generously, one that is a vague echo of a style that once served a purpose." That's a valid aesthetic choice, but I personally enjoy such callbacks to the past. Based on aesthetics alone, I'd love to live in a place like this: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6a/9f/3e/6a9f3e7d4304c5f463ddf8c2bcb896a5.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6a/9f/3e/6a9f3e7d4304c5f463ddf8c2b... (but only if they were rare, it wouldn't be nearly as fun if everyone had houses like that)
oblio 5y ago
> i.e. anything not traditional western European Traditional Chinese housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siheyuan#/media/File:Siheyuan_model.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siheyuan#/media/File:Siheyuan_... Traditional Japanese housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiya-zukuri#/media/File:Shoin.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiya-zukuri#/media/File:Shoi... A style of traditional African housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Africa#/media/File:Kumasi.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Africa#/media/... (and many more are like it) Slanted roofs are super common throughout the world and history.
ericmay 5y ago
It’s odd to me to place this as a “conservative” preference. In what way is this conservative? And why is that meaningful? Anyway - there is growing evidence of “objective truths” in architecture and design. Namely work tracking things like heart rate, eye movement, etc. Findings are indicating that asymmetrical houses or imposing skyscrapers are actually stressful to humans. The fist being stressful because you naturally look for symmetry (notice how you see faces in certain things?) and most “modern” architecture was created by people who lived through World War 1 and 2 and created houses that were asymmetrical and in some cases even shaped like bunkers if you are inclined to spot it. Skyscrapers create a disconnect not just from their imposing presence (will this fall on me??) but they’re also bad because they remove the human presence from the street and create sterile environments. Anywhere you look the most desirable neighborhoods and the places where everybody takes pictures of and travel to feature “conservative” housing styles that were almost universally adapted from local building materials and for local weather patterns (white building in the Mediterranean or a-frame cabins) and naturally attract people. When you search for a city like Amsterdam you get pictures of the beautiful homes on the canals. Nobody travels there for the ghastly glass modern architecture which certainly has never been described as quaint. We already know how to build homes and walkable towns and neighborhoods. Unfortunately that doesn’t stroke the ego of useless academic architects who are trying to create more and more self-serving, disfigured structures so we get houses that just look ridiculous. Does a car live here or a person? I can’t tell. And if you’re still confused go look at the Soviet style bunker apartments that look like crap or Boston City Hall building which surprisingly doesn’t cause people to commit suicide on the spot on account of its absolutely hellish design.

OJFord 5y ago

North American houses from my UK perspective: - Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! - Garage in front. I.. ok. Practical I suppose. Bloody ugly. - Fake shutters!! I'm mentioning it last but it bugs me the most. At least have them wide enough that they look like they might be usable. But no, inch-wide 'shutters' on a six-foot window, why not.

arp242 5y ago
One of the thing that struck me about British houses and apartments is that they tend to have en-suites "no-matter-what". I don't think I've ever seen a single house or apartment with an en-suite before I moved to England (also: carpets in the bathroom, wtf?! And the weird thing with two taps.) I find it rather curious waste of space, especially in ~50/60m2 apartments. Why do you need more than toilet and shower? I suppose that parallelized pooping and/or showering can be useful in rare occasions, but usually doing it serially works well enough and overall seems like an exceedingly poor trade-off. But the Brits seem to love 'em shrug. Crossing borders can also be fun; with some crossings you can see an immediate and marked difference in building style; the Dutch/Belgian border is like that for example. New Zealand houses are just horrible, full stop. Don't know how they managed to get so far behind on the rest of the Western world with that. Not sure what I'm trying to say with this comment; don't really have a specific point as such. I just find it interesting that different countries have such different approaches to building and arranging houses, even though they're relatively similar in culture, climate, etc.
- OJFord 5y ago
  I think we've over-corrected on that front. Indeed, one place in which I lived (a modern build) had (on paper) five bedrooms and four bathrooms (three en suite). But there were four of us, so two of those 'bedrooms' weren't used as such; leaving too many bathrooms. Mad really, I agree. Downstairs WC in addition to those. (And it's not like there were a plethora of reception rooms to go with them - surely a family that was going to actually use five bedrooms as five bedrooms would want space to spread out a bit, even if a couple of them had to share a bathroom as a result?!) (Before that a three-bedroom Victorian build - one nice large bathroom and a small WC+shower room, I suspect the latter was a later division. Neither en suite. Point is it is (was?) a modern fetish, and I think (hope?) it's waning slightly.)