Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See- the architectural snobs can't provide examples of anything that is attractive aside from colonial.

Frank Lloyd Wright styles are nice.

if you are a boomer, but if you are under the age of 40 the so called new builds mcmansions are desirable

GenZs are 40+

You’re not very bright and your take on architecture is more proof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See- the architectural snobs can't provide examples of anything that is attractive aside from colonial.

Frank Lloyd Wright styles are nice.

if you are a boomer, but if you are under the age of 40 the so called new builds mcmansions are desirable

Desirable does not mean they’re attractive. Just means people have bad judgment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See- the architectural snobs can't provide examples of anything that is attractive aside from colonial.

Frank Lloyd Wright styles are nice.

if you are a boomer, but if you are under the age of 40 the so called new builds mcmansions are desirable

This one costs the same but has loads more charm in the same neighborhood:
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3724-Northampton-St-NW-20015/home/9970640

Anonymous wrote:See- the architectural snobs can't provide examples of anything that is attractive aside from colonial.

Frank Lloyd Wright styles are nice.

This is in my neighborhood, and it is hideous:
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/6116-30th-St-NW-20015/home/177097681

McMansion Hell does a really good job explaining why certain houses are ugly. It's mostly to do with proportion - proportionate height vs width, use of visual "blocks," and proportion of windows to each other and the house.

To a lesser extent she points to symmetry, and to mixing architectural styles badly. I don't always agree with her on these - for example, I love Victorians, which are typically asymmetrical (but still proportionate and visually balanced, if done well). Her issue with mixing styles seems to mostly be about features that had a function in their original style, but putting them in a place that negates that function. So for example, gables on a roof that doesn't need them; unusable porticos that pop out like warts, huge tall foyers that need a catwalk-style upstairs passageway to get around.

I am not a fan of colonials, btw - and I love a Sears house. But when you look at what McMansion Hell points out and compare to an actual mansion, you see the difference.

See- the architectural snobs can't provide examples of anything that is attractive aside from colonial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, but I think we can all agree that all the current Mccraftsmens are ugly as sin.

No, we can't. Many are attractive and have features contemporary buyers want. Whether they are affordable is another question. But not everyone wants a little square house with a carport and small rooms built in the 40s or 50s.

Strong disagree. But sorry you purchased that already outdated style home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, but I think we can all agree that all the current Mccraftsmens are ugly as sin.

No, we can't. Many are attractive and have features contemporary buyers want. Whether they are affordable is another question. But not everyone wants a little square house with a carport and small rooms built in the 40s or 50s.

Provide examples.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, but I think we can all agree that all the current Mccraftsmens are ugly as sin.

No, we can't. Many are attractive and have features contemporary buyers want. Whether they are affordable is another question. But not everyone wants a little square house with a carport and small rooms built in the 40s or 50s.

I don't know, but I think we can all agree that all the current Mccraftsmens are ugly as sin.

These weird self proclaimed architectural snobs that post on here try to claim that things like original sears homes aren’t ugly. Just because something is old, it is not automatically somehow attractive. Those houses are cheap looking and sinfully ugly. Who cares what they think. Are you going to live in falling water? No? Move on.

I see so many comments about houses being ugly, particularly the new builds. So for those of you who often comment about a house's exterior being ugly - what, in your mind, is not ugly? Just a plain ol' colonial?