6 ms·

Great looking presentation. Would have loved to hear it too. Was the following ever true? ...it doesn't matter how pretty your site is or how many "bells and

Great looking presentation. Would have loved to hear it too. Was the following ever true? ...it doesn't matter how pretty your site is or how many "bells and whistles" you have. While a high-quality site is important, the majority of people today value usability more than good looks or fanciness. I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. The human landscape needs to start looking better. Would you rather have a trailer or one of these? http://www.smallhousestyle.com/2007/07/23/the-mill-house-by-wingardhs/ http://www.smallhousestyle.com/2007/07/23/the-mill-house-by-... I know that not everyone can afford one of these but if there was more desire for them in the market the prices would come down and possibly be more competitive with a double wide.

gehant 17y ago
function over form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
anamax 17y ago
> I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. Do you really think that living in a double wide vs living in the mill house is a survival issue? > I know that not everyone can afford one of these but if there was more desire for them in the market the prices would come down and possibly be more competitive with a double wide. Yes, if more people wanted houses like that, they'd be cheaper. So what? (I'll note that "it's not common" drives much of what is considered "beautiful", so if it became more common, it's likely that it would lose a significant amount of its snob appeal.) I agree that it's a nice looking house, but I don't see anything wrong with someone who would rather spend the difference, no matter how small, on something else. How about you - would you rather someone be homeless because they can't afford to live in something from architectural digest and buy food? How about someone who'd rather spend the money on grad school? I'm sure that you have a list of things and amounts where you'd say "it's okay for someone to buy that instead of what I consider a pretty house", but why should anyone else care about your list?
- plainspace 17y ago
  I do believe it is a survival issue. Call me extreme but if we don't start making the manufactured landscape beautiful we are going to destroy the "natural" landscape completely. I would rather everyone be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. If we cover those bases the chances of living in a more aesthetically appealing world are much higher.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Call me extreme but if we don't start making the manufactured landscape beautiful we are going to destroy the "natural" landscape completely. This sounds almost like a tautology (depending on the definition of '"natural" landscape'). > I would rather everyone be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. If we cover those bases the chances of living in a more aesthetically appealing world are much higher. The claim had a causal connection that went the other way, that without aesthetics, something would die. You're claiming that if people live, beauty is more likely.
anamax 17y ago
BTW - you do realize that that house is okay in a wooded or rural area, but is a privacy disaster in urban/suburban area. Also, walls aren't just to keep other people from looking in, it's to keep protect them from seeing you. I'm glad that my neighbors have opaque walls.
- warfangle 17y ago
  While I agree it wouldn't work in an urban area... The reason it wouldn't work in most suburban areas is because most people have these weird ecological disasters they call "lawns." They fret over them. They urge them to grow, and then mow them down (reminds me of one of my exes.. ha!). And they poison the local water with their fertilizers and pesticides. If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees, and so forth.. having a house with windows wouldn't be such a problem. The problem is everyone wants to pretend they're in a house out in the country, with rolling fields. Unfortunately, what they get are facsimiles of rolling fields; facsimiles of forests and streams. And day after day they trundle on, with their houses that only face forward (you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever), like blinders to the reality of the fakeness they live in. Of course, I live in post-industrial bushwick, so I can't really say my surroundings are more natural. But at least they aren't a caricature... Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia.
  - sp332 17y ago
    I think the lawn (in the US at least) is just a holdover form the Jeffersionian agricultural utopia, where everyone is a farmer. Actually every complaint you have about lawns applies to most farming as well.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > The reason it wouldn't work in most suburban areas is because most people have these weird ecological disasters they call "lawns." Lawns have nothing to do with their privacy failures in a urban/suburban area. > If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees, You've got a very unnatural view of "natural area". With a few exceptions, the natural growth isn't nearly as dense as you suggest. (I now know that you haven't been to most of the US, Australia, Africa.) > you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever I'm looking out one. In fact, side windows are actually almost universal. There are a couple of recent styles that don't have them (because they're maximizing ground use) but they're the exception even in new construction in the US. > Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia. Not really - I suspect that a majority are in parks and those aren't really "outer rims" of suburbia. (Take San Jose and Sunnyvale CA.)
maigret 17y ago
Woh, thanks for the link - what outstanding architecture! Also for the related comments, trees, garden walls, and jalousies are here to get you privacy as you desire. We should look less at things like size and material power (think cars) vs more beautiful/zen ones. That would better our lives. Ubuntu houses instead of Microsoft ones :)
- dagw 17y ago
  > Also for the related comments, trees, garden walls, and jalousies are here to get you privacy as you desire. Again that works fine when you live in a forest, but less so when you live in Manhattan.
  - maigret 17y ago
    Hm where would you put that house in Manhattan? You must be really rich. That would work not only in a forest but in most of suburban America.
    - anamax 17y ago
      You've clearly never been to suburban america. Houses are too close together for that design to work and no, natural growth wouldn't help in most of the world.
      - maigret 17y ago
        Ok, maybe my memory is wrong... I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how it looks like. Small houses with very small ground pieces, bigger houses, some with forest around, but few with some kind of stone or tree hedge around it. But a vegetable hedge can get pretty high in a few years. If you live in a place where plants cannot grow you may not want a house with huge panorama windows. BTW vegetable walls are very good for cooling the garden, making shadow and possibly saving AC usage. But let's stop argue on that... I don't understand your point - are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? There are many such houses concepts in my area, though a minority of all houses, and most aren't as nice as the one here. The glass area don't have to be at all sides of the houses, there are lots of solutions for making such a house very private, even if many other houses are built near it. I don't have two hours to search for the best links, but with a fast Google search I find that for example http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus_XCd_03_1.jpg http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus... So you may not like that kind of design, but that's another story. Of course that house may not fit most of the world's area needs, but that's the beauty of architecture: it adapts itself to the area's climatic needs, and cultural preferences. I'm not saying this house is the solution to everything, I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment.
anamax 17y ago
> I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. I'm still waiting for any support for that outlandish proposition. I like pretty houses, but I'm pretty sure that ugly ones won't kill me or anyone else.
- plainspace 17y ago
  It is not really that outlandish. Ugly houses are not going to kill you or anyone else - directly. It is that the more we degrade the human and natural environment by creating ugly, depressing, inhumane spaces, places and practices, the less capital (natural, human, etc.) our children, their children and their children will have live on.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > It is that the more we degrade the human and natural environment by creating ugly, depressing, inhumane spaces, places and practices, the less capital (natural, human, etc.) our children, their children and their children will have live on. How about some evidence instead of merely restating your claim. I drove butt-ugly cars for several years. Did that do bad things to me? How about the people who were on the road with me? Again - some useful evidence would be nice. (You can argue that seeing ugly houses is different from seeing ugly cars, provided you have evidence supporting that proposition.) I note that to the extent aesthetics cost money, they use capital that we might otherwise use to live on.

gehant 17y ago

function over form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function

anamax 17y ago

> I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. Do you really think that living in a double wide vs living in the mill house is a survival issue? > I know that not everyone can afford one of these but if there was more desire for them in the market the prices would come down and possibly be more competitive with a double wide. Yes, if more people wanted houses like that, they'd be cheaper. So what? (I'll note that "it's not common" drives much of what is considered "beautiful", so if it became more common, it's likely that it would lose a significant amount of its snob appeal.) I agree that it's a nice looking house, but I don't see anything wrong with someone who would rather spend the difference, no matter how small, on something else. How about you - would you rather someone be homeless because they can't afford to live in something from architectural digest and buy food? How about someone who'd rather spend the money on grad school? I'm sure that you have a list of things and amounts where you'd say "it's okay for someone to buy that instead of what I consider a pretty house", but why should anyone else care about your list?

plainspace 17y ago
I do believe it is a survival issue. Call me extreme but if we don't start making the manufactured landscape beautiful we are going to destroy the "natural" landscape completely. I would rather everyone be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. If we cover those bases the chances of living in a more aesthetically appealing world are much higher.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Call me extreme but if we don't start making the manufactured landscape beautiful we are going to destroy the "natural" landscape completely. This sounds almost like a tautology (depending on the definition of '"natural" landscape'). > I would rather everyone be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. If we cover those bases the chances of living in a more aesthetically appealing world are much higher. The claim had a causal connection that went the other way, that without aesthetics, something would die. You're claiming that if people live, beauty is more likely.

anamax 17y ago

BTW - you do realize that that house is okay in a wooded or rural area, but is a privacy disaster in urban/suburban area. Also, walls aren't just to keep other people from looking in, it's to keep protect them from seeing you. I'm glad that my neighbors have opaque walls.

warfangle 17y ago
While I agree it wouldn't work in an urban area... The reason it wouldn't work in most suburban areas is because most people have these weird ecological disasters they call "lawns." They fret over them. They urge them to grow, and then mow them down (reminds me of one of my exes.. ha!). And they poison the local water with their fertilizers and pesticides. If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees, and so forth.. having a house with windows wouldn't be such a problem. The problem is everyone wants to pretend they're in a house out in the country, with rolling fields. Unfortunately, what they get are facsimiles of rolling fields; facsimiles of forests and streams. And day after day they trundle on, with their houses that only face forward (you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever), like blinders to the reality of the fakeness they live in. Of course, I live in post-industrial bushwick, so I can't really say my surroundings are more natural. But at least they aren't a caricature... Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia.
- sp332 17y ago
  I think the lawn (in the US at least) is just a holdover form the Jeffersionian agricultural utopia, where everyone is a farmer. Actually every complaint you have about lawns applies to most farming as well.
- anamax 17y ago
  > The reason it wouldn't work in most suburban areas is because most people have these weird ecological disasters they call "lawns." Lawns have nothing to do with their privacy failures in a urban/suburban area. > If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees, You've got a very unnatural view of "natural area". With a few exceptions, the natural growth isn't nearly as dense as you suggest. (I now know that you haven't been to most of the US, Australia, Africa.) > you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever I'm looking out one. In fact, side windows are actually almost universal. There are a couple of recent styles that don't have them (because they're maximizing ground use) but they're the exception even in new construction in the US. > Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia. Not really - I suspect that a majority are in parks and those aren't really "outer rims" of suburbia. (Take San Jose and Sunnyvale CA.)

maigret 17y ago

Woh, thanks for the link - what outstanding architecture! Also for the related comments, trees, garden walls, and jalousies are here to get you privacy as you desire. We should look less at things like size and material power (think cars) vs more beautiful/zen ones. That would better our lives. Ubuntu houses instead of Microsoft ones :)

dagw 17y ago
> Also for the related comments, trees, garden walls, and jalousies are here to get you privacy as you desire. Again that works fine when you live in a forest, but less so when you live in Manhattan.
- maigret 17y ago
  Hm where would you put that house in Manhattan? You must be really rich. That would work not only in a forest but in most of suburban America.
  - anamax 17y ago
    You've clearly never been to suburban america. Houses are too close together for that design to work and no, natural growth wouldn't help in most of the world.
    - maigret 17y ago
      Ok, maybe my memory is wrong... I had a long bus drive through New Jersey a few months ago - saw a lot of different suburb landscapes there. I think I know how it looks like. Small houses with very small ground pieces, bigger houses, some with forest around, but few with some kind of stone or tree hedge around it. But a vegetable hedge can get pretty high in a few years. If you live in a place where plants cannot grow you may not want a house with huge panorama windows. BTW vegetable walls are very good for cooling the garden, making shadow and possibly saving AC usage. But let's stop argue on that... I don't understand your point - are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? There are many such houses concepts in my area, though a minority of all houses, and most aren't as nice as the one here. The glass area don't have to be at all sides of the houses, there are lots of solutions for making such a house very private, even if many other houses are built near it. I don't have two hours to search for the best links, but with a fast Google search I find that for example http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus_XCd_03_1.jpg http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus... So you may not like that kind of design, but that's another story. Of course that house may not fit most of the world's area needs, but that's the beauty of architecture: it adapts itself to the area's climatic needs, and cultural preferences. I'm not saying this house is the solution to everything, I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment.

anamax 17y ago

> I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. I'm still waiting for any support for that outlandish proposition. I like pretty houses, but I'm pretty sure that ugly ones won't kill me or anyone else.

plainspace 17y ago
It is not really that outlandish. Ugly houses are not going to kill you or anyone else - directly. It is that the more we degrade the human and natural environment by creating ugly, depressing, inhumane spaces, places and practices, the less capital (natural, human, etc.) our children, their children and their children will have live on.
- anamax 17y ago
  > It is that the more we degrade the human and natural environment by creating ugly, depressing, inhumane spaces, places and practices, the less capital (natural, human, etc.) our children, their children and their children will have live on. How about some evidence instead of merely restating your claim. I drove butt-ugly cars for several years. Did that do bad things to me? How about the people who were on the road with me? Again - some useful evidence would be nice. (You can argue that seeing ugly houses is different from seeing ugly cars, provided you have evidence supporting that proposition.) I note that to the extent aesthetics cost money, they use capital that we might otherwise use to live on.