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.

Have you ever seen the McMansion Hell author? She should take some tips that explain why she is poorly proportioned and unattractive, because, I can promise you, she’s nothing to write home about.

This is sort of country cottage. In the city but was built as an escape from the central congestion. Is it a colonial? I like it despite the need for a new kitchen and paint.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6803-N-12th-St-Philadelphia-PA-19126/10546223_zpid/

I judge “ugly” by the size of the house — not its style per se. I find large homes are self-indulgent gross, a prime testament to the fact that we’ve been drugged as Americans to surround ourselves with space and crap we don’t need and define ourselves by what we consume.

A multi-family dwelling or small SFH is always going to look prettier to me.

Anonymous wrote:I really dislike what I've heard called "garage-forward" or "car-forward" houses-- where the garage or the car pad is the first thing you notice about a house.

Many of these simply were compromises for houses built on lots that just aren't very wide. It is an ugly compromise to be sure. Much nicer if garage is on one side.

Anonymous wrote:I really dislike what I've heard called "garage-forward" or "car-forward" houses-- where the garage or the car pad is the first thing you notice about a house.

I'm torn on these. I get why it's not visually attractive, but I think it's really practical to minimize driveway and to put utility areas between the street and the living area.

I really dislike what I've heard called "garage-forward" or "car-forward" houses-- where the garage or the car pad is the first thing you notice about a house.

Anonymous wrote:I hate Frank Lloyd Wright. That whole style just depresses me. I get seriously depressed at the windows (and the seals?) in MCM.

I like a nice Tudor. I adore a staircase that bends up a wall. Wendy's house in Fish Called Wanda? Yes please.

I visited Fallingwater. It was so dark, so damp, and so cramped. It was just sort of depressing. The ceilings were very low, and on the tour they told us he was a smaller man who made derogatory remarks about tall people-haha.

I appreciate why others appreciate it, but thought it would be so dreary to live in.

99.9% of the users on this form have 0% knowledge of architecture but they 100% competent on being critical.

Anonymous wrote:I love Frank Lloyd Wright, Eichler, Queen Anne folk Victorian, Sears bungalows, American four square, Neutra, Eames Case Study, etc., etc. There are a lot of great architectural styles out there. I find center hall colonials mostly boring.

I'm not a fan of Wright. Garage with a house attached. I worked at the Minona terrace a building he designed, well he didn't design the inside he designed the facade and garage. I don't like these big suburban houses built around the garage. You can just see the cramped kitchen inside, oh but they look big and impressive.

Anyway, regarding the McMansion style. The designs just don't work with the craftsmanship. Like you can see them slumping and leaning and the siding isn't square or level, the roof was installed poorly and is going to have all kinds of leaks because they didn't flash them. It's a mismatch between the craftsmanship and the architectural design with a faux balcony attached. I'd still go for a McMansion over a small-town home any day, but I get what hangs people up about them and their design. Faux balcony isn't a selling point.

I mean it would be one thing if the designer/architect knew it was going to be executed poorly and designed it simpler so that defects aren't noticeable, but they use all of these fancy cad programs. The thing probably looks great in with the 3D flythrough, but when it they build it, oh the gables aren't quite level that's really obvious.

^element

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand why the elementary on the left (topped with a triangle) doesn't balance the similar element on the right. And that portion has bad windows design. I think there's a bathroom where the tiny window is. It still looks weirder than it needed to be.

I think that houses that look out of place are ugly - usually. They can be too big or the architecture looks like it belongs in California or Florida not the DMV. It wrecks the vibe of the neighborhood.

Also, if the materials or colors are cheap or ugly - that also makes it look out of place and wrong. UGLY HOUSE>

Anonymous wrote: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).

You are my soulmate! Cannot stand asymmetry! Also strongly dislike houses what are just a random collection of trendy elements.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I read on this forum about the concept of punching up. She's allowed to make fun of these houses because they are invariably expensive and out of reach for most people. If she was making fun of an ugly pink brick 1940s ranch that would just be mean.