There are tons of books on architecture for any building designer that cares. In rural America you can still find gems that were crafted by local carpenters with no formal training...but they had enough self esteem and pride of work to educate themselves on proportion, style, classic orders, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a great picture, but this lovely 1940s house near us sold for $2 million about six weeks ago, and, as of today, the site has been completely reduced to rubble.

We were pretty shocked that anyone would do this and are awaiting with trepidation what they will put up on the site. Some solace that to make it worthwhile, the new house will have to sell for at least $5 million, so good for our property value I guess.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5070-Millwood-Ln-NW-Washington-DC-20016/436547_zpid/

PP with an update on this house. I was wrong about what the new house price would be. $7.5 million rather than the $5 million I guessed. 9,000 square feet including a pool/guest house. The main house has an elevator to all levels.

The style is not totally in sync with the neighborhood but not bad like the modern farm house at the corner of Loughboro and Arizona, which is totally out of sync.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5070-Millwood-Ln-NW-Washington-DC-20016/436547_zpid/

This is…really bad. Sorry you have to see it everyday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The woman who runs the McMansion hell is a 23yo racist. What does she know about architecture? She is just a pathetic hater and idiots like you are her lackeys

I don't know her personally but a quick Google will tell you she's 32 and employed as an architecture critic. No idea why you think she's racist, but also no idea whether she is.

The relevant thing is she can explain why something looks bad, and how it would look better. Anybody can say "oh I don't like that, it's ugly" but if you can't explain yourself then why should anyone care?

NP here. I’ve read through her blog and she does sound like a hater or mean spirited person. Posting random home pics of unknown people and ridiculing them online, she has the maturity of a junior high schooler. She needs to find a more suitable method.

The two things that bug me are:

* Mixing architectural styles randomly together.

* Assymetry, except when it really is part of a particular style (example: Victorian).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The woman who runs the McMansion hell is a 23yo racist. What does she know about architecture? She is just a pathetic hater and idiots like you are her lackeys

I don't know her personally but a quick Google will tell you she's 32 and employed as an architecture critic. No idea why you think she's racist, but also no idea whether she is.

The relevant thing is she can explain why something looks bad, and how it would look better. Anybody can say "oh I don't like that, it's ugly" but if you can't explain yourself then why should anyone care?

Who cares? There is something for everyone. Not everything has to look like it belongs in 1700 colonial Williamsburg.

Anonymous wrote: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.

The woman who runs the McMansion hell is a 23yo racist. What does she know about architecture? She is just a pathetic hater and idiots like you are her lackeys

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Queen Anne style
Mid century
Brownstone Row house

I've seen shipping container houses that were attractive in the same way that a Mondrian painting is. They use color attractively in blocks that appear visually balanced and/or symmetrical.

I agree with the author of McMansion Hell on most design principles.

I live in an attached townhouse condo that has a mockable feature known as "mommy and baby" (arch, gable, etc). On our building of 6 units, it looks pretty decent because the scale of our mommy and baby gables is restrained, and the symmetry of repeating them across the 4 interior houses with different matched styles on the end unit TH's is pleasing rather than exaggerated/jumbled. And our visible walls are brick-faced, which I think looks nice. (I like red and painted brick houses from many eras...I lived in a Prairie-inspired white brick contemporary as a kid). But our community of 80-some units definitely is architecture linked to an era of poor design and excess.

McMansions offer generous interior spaces but are often echoey due to being open plan (living room big TV noise heard all over the house). They also have dumb features like big round windows on the front that can't be easily covered.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're not very bright and your take on math (and generational timing) is more proof.

I live in what many would probably label a McMansion, but I don't care, and it suits my family's needs great.

I think contemporary architecture/homes are ugly but I get that some love them.

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

It looks like a gust of wind would knock it over.

Possibly, but the modern farmhouse property has been on the market for ten months. 10,000 square feet with price reduced to $5 million.

https://www.trulia.com/home/4920-loughboro-rd-nw-washington-dc-20016-436528

Anonymous wrote: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’d love to live in falling water once they fix the moisture problem

Eh, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the owner likes their home, that’s all that matters.

Anonymous wrote:This is not a great picture, but this lovely 1940s house near us sold for $2 million about six weeks ago, and, as of today, the site has been completely reduced to rubble.

We were pretty shocked that anyone would do this and are awaiting with trepidation what they will put up on the site. Some solace that to make it worthwhile, the new house will have to sell for at least $5 million, so good for our property value I guess.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5070-Millwood-Ln-NW-Washington-DC-20016/436547_zpid/

PP with an update on this house. I was wrong about what the new house price would be. $7.5 million rather than the $5 million I guessed. 9,000 square feet including a pool/guest house. The main house has an elevator to all levels.

The style is not totally in sync with the neighborhood but not bad like the modern farm house at the corner of Loughboro and Arizona, which is totally out of sync.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5070-Millwood-Ln-NW-Washington-DC-20016/436547_zpid/