3 ms·
What I hate is that it seems to be a dichotomy. Small house, simple style. But as soon as it gets to a certain size, you have to put in stupid things like the
by LanceH 3y ago
What I hate is that it seems to be a dichotomy. Small house, simple style. But as soon as it gets to a certain size, you have to put in stupid things like the grand entrance with a showpiece staircase.
Other things have to happen, apparently. The vaulted 20 foot ceilings above the living room. I now have the choice in the winter to heat the upstairs to 80 or keep the living room at 60. Of course, you'll need an ostentatious fireplace that will never be used here in Texas. It has helpfully been placed as the focal point of your living room, where most would want a tv.
I'm continually amazed at how bad designs are on half-million dollar purchases which require 30 years to pay off.
- ghaff 3y agoThere certainly are large house designs that are, to me, aesthetically pleasing. They tend to be simpler and more classic. I see quite a few up in coastal Maine. It probably helps when you have a view from the house which tends to focus the design on features that take advantage of that.
- rsynnott 3y ago> But as soon as it gets to a certain size, you have to put in stupid things like the grand entrance with a showpiece staircase. I mean, you don't, but people tend to. Though, also, the "certain size" here is generally a minimum of about 6000sqft. This is too large to be a practical house, so you end up with either unreasonably large rooms (uncomfortable, undesirable), completely superfluous rooms (probably the least-worst option) or massive grand entrances and other not-quite-room features (most common approach). Of course, the sensible thing would be to build a smaller house, but that doesn't appear to work for the people who like these.