Homes of wealthy Roma (Gypsies) in Eastern Europe:

Aaaw, verb... Please don't be too disheartened by a little group of house snobs. :-) Everyone has their things, you know? Keeps life interesting.

I'm sure there are plenty of things about my life that would drive you bonkers, too (like maybe my username is sexist?). ;-)

Kudzu, I have never see anything like those Roma homes in my life! Those stacked roofs are somethin' else.

mverb, I'm loving your home.

Weird but those gypsy homes have a certain charm to them.

The interiors of the Roma houses are rather....inspired, too!:

Odd...after viewing all of these images, I feel an urge to sit down with a nice glass of wine...!

I don't really understand what is either "glass house" or "brutal" about this conversation.

I posted the house in the original post as an offshoot of cpartist's post about the McMansion hell blog because of a couple things in that particular thread, that I don't really agree with:

1) That this type of design is limited to large houses on over built tiny lots

and

2) The underlying notion of "More money than taste".

So the house I found is a relatively modestly priced house, and a relatively smaller house on a fairly large lot, but it has many design earmarks of the McMansion.

And I don't ever like to point out class differences as related to taste, because I think that people's tastes are completely independent of their financial status, and I do find it a bit off-putting that any time someone says "More money than taste" this always gets a free pass, but if someone said something in the opposite like "too poor to have good taste" there would be objections to this. I don't think money or taste are related at either end of the spectrum, although I do think that people at the extremes of the spectrum will often be more free with their self-expression than the people in the middle.

Of the houses 1 and 2 that ARG posted, they don't bother me much for the reasons I stated earlier on.

Houses 3 and 5, hmm, I think people could be as critical as they wanted in the most vocal kind of way and the owners would not care in the least. They are houses built by people who follow their own drummer, and they probably think everyone else's houses are ugly.

House #4 is unfortunate. But again, I don't think this house was designed all at one time. I think there is an old house underneath there and rather than sell they expanded it and it ended up at a weird scale.

The post-Modernist/High tech LA house with the Pompidou Centre Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers influences; again, I don't think they are trying to conform to average tastes, they aren't interested in being popular. The house in Toronto, the same, I don't know what the influences here are, but they aren't trying to win a popularity contest.

I think the Roma houses are fine for what they are, it's a different culture, and I don't understand the culture well enough to know how they all fit in and what the various influences are.

Since this is a design forum, I think it should be a place to critique design, and that means that sometimes there will be criticism. And I not sure that anyone who lives outside a complete vacuum is unaware of the general criticisms of the McMansion style in our culture. So my feeling is that people who buy them are buying primarily by amenity and location and don't care so much what they look like, don't like the way they look but buy them because of amenity and location, or like the way they look and think the criticism is wrong. I happen to like a fair amount of Brutalism, and this is extremely unpopular, but I like it anyway, so I don't really care if people criticize it

All these homes are in one Romanian town, Buzescu, population 5,000.

According to a piece in Al Jeera, most families live in just one room, as they can't afford to heat the whole place. (My guess is that Passiv technology isn't a big inspiration.)

Whatever the architectural precedents and references for these homes, a couple are clear--the three-pointed Mercedes star at the peak of at least one home and the focus of a massive marble staircase:

While they're too exuberant for the button-down look of most North American nouveau riche--even rap royalty Jay Z and Beyonce prefer Miami Vice style--the motivation is the same: you got it, flaunt it. Even if it's all on credit and loans. (JZ and B were eventually outbid by the creator of Minecraft.)

Oh, I think I figured out where the neighbors came from!

Only kidding. Maybe.

worthy-

The one you cropped is one of my favorites. I will say that this is a wider phenomenon than just that one town, although that is the most famous. This style of house is also found, for example, in parts of Moldova.

Moldova. That was on the tip of my tongue! Of course, the architectural influence is Greek Orthodox meets hip hop.

****

The one you cropped is one of my favorites.

Absolutely wonderful marble staircase!

worthy-

You nailed it!

P.S.: Moldova is also famous for being home to many Internet scammers and hackers...but I make no connection.

My current house. During winter

The dollar sign used literally as a sign of wealth, by people in Eastern Europe who have undergone centuries of repression, and now want to flaunt material success. It says something about how American culture is perceived, but I'm not sure I've got the analytical chops for this one...

Current house - back and side (can't find the front pic):

The last house in ARG's first post... that's in my neck of the woods. The original mastermind passed and the guy who scooped up the estate has been trying to sell it off and on for years, the interior is even more eccentric.

Oh the Indiana pimps, they are something! That house is one of those you have to drive by at least once in your life and then go back for another look!! oy!

Back to the first picture in the thread - I've often wondered when people custom build homes that look like that...did they realize that was how the exterior would look, or are they slightly disappointed that the design didn't end up being how they imagined it would be?

I always wonder the same thing. If they just thought about the interior rooms and how big this room is, etc. and never consider what the exterior will look like with all that going on inside. I wonder the same thing about remodels that look so odd on the outside....

There is some discussion that the average person is having a harder and harder time interpreting what something will look like from a drawing.

Before photography people could interpret more from drawings, and now that there is 3D modeling, Photoshop and other "realistic" renderings, people are having an even harder time understanding three dimensions from a two dimensional drawing. I think this will only get worse. Someday, I think the average person may require near virtual reality to understand what something that doesn't exist yet is going to look like.

But part of the equation is that our expectations of what we need to see ahead of time have been raised very high. I think people used to build houses and be perfectly fine that they may not fully know what a room felt like until it was done. However, rooms used to be rectangles and people could compare a rectangle they knew of to one they hadn't seen yet. Now though, that some rooms are literally random indescribable shapes that flow one into the other with very irregular boundaries, it's difficult to figure out in advance.

So to answer the question, I think, no, people do not realize what some of these houses will look like until they are actually built.

Someday, I think the average person may require near virtual reality to understand what something that doesn't exist yet is going to look like.

The KD our builder likes uses it now. You put on the goggles and the KD "walks" you around your kitchen to see it.

So to answer the question, I think, no, people do not realize what some of these houses will look like until they are actually built.

Additionally palimpsest, how many people have come onto this forum with floor plans and no elevations and claimed, "I really don't care about the exterior. It's the interior I need to work right for us."

I wonder how many of those folks after the house is built regret their words.

I think though that 3D rendering has a number of limitations and raises expectations that may not necessarily be met in reality.

Then there's what it looks like in the rendering, usually straight on or angled from one side or another, and what it looks like IRL from the street, a foot or more below the angle of the rendering, and in the real lighting, and surrounded by the rest of the neighborhood. It may look great on paper,mbut in the context of other houses it might look very odd. There is a Stanley Tigerman house not too far away that is really cool-looking, but it's in a neighborhood of mid-century ranch houses, and I don't mean atomic-ranch or MCM cool, just staid ranch houses. Doesn't fit.

3D goggles to "see" your kitchen? No thanks. :-) I don't even want a computer generated rendition of a floor plan or exterior. I like drawings.

I think though that 3D rendering has a number of limitations and raises expectations that may not necessarily be met in reality.

Agreed.

Personally I am quite capable of "viewing" my kitchen and my home in my mind in 3D, but of course I have an art background. I find it a bit "annoying" that when I go there next week, I have to put the goggles on to "see" my kitchen because he's assuming I can't envision it without the goggles.

And heaven forbid if he changes my floor plan too much from what I gave him, considering it meets mine, DH's and the dog's needs and was vetted on the Kitchen forum. Hopefully he stuck to the plan. LOL.

bp, there is that too, where houses stick out like sore thumbs because they go against the character of the neighborhood.

Palimpsest, I guess like you, I consider a McMansion more to be a poorly designed house, whatever the size, vs the actual size of it.

Once upon a time, kids were taught geography, drawing, and music. A lot if that has been cut, so people can't give directions, visualize, or even carry a tune.

The 'Pimp House' is for sale for $875,000, and has had a recent price drop of approx. $23,000.

• Single-Family Home
• 4 Bedrooms
• 8 full Bathrooms
• 29,140 sqft
• $30/sqft
• Lot size: 1.66 acres
• Built in 1953
• 112 Days on Trulia

http://www.trulia.com/property/3076053751-4923-Kessler-Boulevard-East-Dr-Indianapolis-IN-46220

"I really don't care about the exterior. It's the interior I need to work right for us."

To some extent I understand this and agree with it. But I think if you approach this the right way, you could still end up with a well proportioned, plain rectangle or L shape rather than something so convoluted.

However, I have lived in a city for several decades and the house is defined by a rectangle by necessity.

To illustrate what I mean about exteriors, and to get back to the exterior in general, I am still not going to show you a picture of my actual house, but I will show you some houses designed by the same architect.

He had an unusual esthetic point of view, and unfortunately he was also hampered a great deal by budgets and I don't think that any of the cost saving measures employed by the builders were improvements.

Some of these are bad MLS pictures. Some of them were taken at a time when there was still a highrise housing project a couple blocks away, and I think the outsides of the houses were maintained in certain ways as a defense mechanism. The neighborhood was marginal. The interior of these is very livable. I used to think these were the two ugliest houses in the neighborhood. They look cleaner and in better condition now.

The one below may have been built prior to the rehabilitation of it's neighbors. You can see the one on the left still has security bars, and a shortened first floor window while the one on the right does not.

Look at this one: my realtor lives near this and said "I never even knew these were houses" (there are two) " I thought this was the back end of something".

Of course it has been further degraded by the security door, the bad window replacement and some neglect. But it was never pretty in a conventional sense.

What is does provide is two outdoor spaces and a light filled interior in what was a bad neighborhood. How is the interior light filled when it looks like it has no windows? Would you expect this to be inside? Very specific esthetically but a nicely proportioned, light filled space regardless.

So, my taste is isn't limited to only traditional architecture. It's probably easy to assume that I don't like anything designed after the 19th century, but that's not really the case.

BTW Pal, I'll be at the Rittenhouse Art show the third weekend in Sept. If interested, message me and I'll give you my booth number. :)

I think people who are commenting on this thread have a very specific interest in architecture and esthetics. I hope I don't sound elitest, but I think that is an interest not widely shared or valued in the U.S., and accounts for a lot of the mundane "architecture" that is unconsciously accepted in housing developments. You need look no further than the fronts of many suburban houses which are dominated by garage doors. In this case, form follows function, but not in a good way.

I also see people asking for comments here on online architect house plans they are thinking of buying, and, while many of these houses are architecturally complex, I often find them fussy and trying too hard to make a statement, as it has become a popular ideal to live in a cross between a scaled down English manor and an upscaled Thomas Kinkaid cottage.

However, it would be boring if we all had the same taste. My taste, after many years of fancying myself an amateur architect is very particular. I have chosen to live in a modern house (not designed by me, though) which is different enough that some people find it quirky or too severe or too plain. But it works for me, and I have yet to tire of it after more than ten years living in it. I know that is true of many other people when it comes to their own homes, and that is what counts. And the bottom line is that being able to worry about the architecture of one's home is really a first world problem.

palimpsest

Our latest "superjail" looks more inviting.

I can kinda understand the interior-as-only-priority thing. Kinda. My family is large by modern standards (even though it only feels medium-sized to me, lol), and we are a fairly odd bunch, so most of what's out there is either completely unworkable or pretty inadequate. Poor flow/design causes tons of daily stress, darn near 24/7. So I get that part. I understand wanting to avoid that.

What I don't get is how the outside is just so undervalued. It's one thing if you're stuck in an economical urban box that was produced for the masses, and you make the interior as awesome as you can. It's quite another if you're starting from scratch.

I honestly don't see the point in having a perfect inside if the outside is atrocious. I'd rather not own a house at all. Which is one of the reasons I'm renting at the moment. :-) Go ahead, call me shallow, lol.

Edited to add:

I totally agree with kudzu. People look at me funny when I say things like, "Meh. I have no real interest in going to [insert exotic location here] except for the wildlife and architecture!!!!!" My husband thinks it's funny when he takes photos of various things when he's traveling, and I gush over the cute little houses, older than dirt hotels, and gardens kept up for a few dozen generations.

I don't think the point of this thread (or the OP) was to try to arbitrate aesthetic taste, but rather a sort of humorous continuation of another thread about McMansions and what defines them. We all have different tastes and find different things appealing--it's what makes for an interesting world, IMO!

But the sharing and exchanges of experience, ideas and preferences--when constructively managed--is a good thing, I think. It helps expand the awareness and knowledge of all of us through the sharing of insights and value systems concerning the appearance of houses.

As a retired architect and university professor (for a time), now turned a serious painter, I have very specific preferences about what I find appealing and what is not. I have a very focused approach to my own work--my watercolors. But that doesn't mean I can't respect the designs and work of others when it is creatively and professionally done. I think (hope) most folks are similar.

Sharing what we each find appealing (and not-so-appealing) can be a good thing for a subject such as aesthetics--which is hardly taught outside art, architecture, interiors and landscape schools.

There is much more to architecture than simply aesthetics to be sure, but without aesthetics houses are simply shelter from the elements.

Now, with all of that out of the way, back to McMansions: this informative image from Goggling McMansions Hell. Not my commentary; I'm just posting this:

Virgil-

Great observations! But please tell me that's not a real house ;-)

Where's my knight in shining armor?

Hmmm... No place to let the horse out to pasture?

Something tells me the site wasn't considered when building this house....

VIrgil, love that picture. It sounds like DH and me when we roam the neighborhoods.

Cpartist, what is gypsy style?

Devoted, I wonder about the neighbors across the street, how do they feel about it? I love the house across the street from us, so glad it's what I see out my kitchen window.

That was my first thought (okay, really my second)... "If I bought a house like that, I'd be forever apologizing to my neighbors." I am spoiled rotten in my rental here... I look out my front (plastic grid) windows and see undeveloped land full of trees and overgrown brush. And I just LOVE it.

Cpartist, what is gypsy style?

The ones that Kudzu posted above my comment. :)

Not your house!!! That was two different thoughts in one post. First I was praising your home, and then commenting on the gypsy homes.

I wouldn't build a castle because I live by resale.

But I admire anyone who goes with their well proportioned homage! Consider Sir Henry Pellat's Toronto castle. Before the financiers in their downtown skyscrapers, let alone the hoi polloi in their condos, he could actually see Lake Ontario miles below.

More recently, consider

30 Fifeshire Rd. , Toronto, modeled on sections of Versailles.

I love Craftsman houses and feel most at home living in that style.

However, I can appreciate a well designed home that is Federal style, Georgian style, Victorian style, Art Deco style, Shingle style, Pueblo style, International style, MCM style, French Provencial style, Greek Revival style, Prairie style, Contemporary style, etc, etc. A well designed home's exterior and interior will transcend its style and work within it's boundaries.

So while I may never want to personally live in a sleek contemporary home, I am certainly able to appreciate how one that is well designed helps the inhabitants live well within its walls.

Yes, a thousand times what CP said!

Except I don't have a specific love of Craftsman. I like it, but I like almost anything well done.

I will admit, only here and only this one time, an absolute adoration of Storybook homes. :-) No way in a million years will my husband agree to a house like that, lol. Tudor Revival is my closest hope. And only because we can do a red brick Tudor (he really wants red brick). :-D

Worthy,

I don't think "welcoming" was really high on the list for the facades facing that street at the time they were designed. At the time, the street they were on still had the potential to be little more than a feeder for a planned cross town expressway one major block south. That project was quashed in the early post Jane Jacobs vs. Robert Moses era. Fortress like, was more like it. However there are large glass areas in other parts of these houses.

My house is on a slightly quieter street and is less forbidding but it still appears have few windows. But in reality the entire front of the house is a ribbon of windows at the first floor ceiling line, which lets in a lot of light, and they don't have to be covered because no one can see in. The more conventional houses on the street with normal or large windows have closed window treatments all the time. I have none.

And there are two walls of glass in my house. They are just in areas that aren't apparent from the front street level.

So in an urban context at least, I can understand the importance of the inside vs. the outside appearance.

However, I do agree that it is different for a lone standing house on it's own lot when you are starting from scratch.

But I am not so sure that the exterior is undervalued, so much as it is a reflection of the convoluted floor plan of the interior. And many of these houses are just as convoluted in plan as they look in elevation.

****

I've always been drawn to the building forms of early childhood memories of rural small towns flavoured by a nine months residence in the long demolished 19th Century Toledo State Hospital.

time there, one had been drained.

I found a very early post-construction photo of the houses above and you can see the original "idea" a little more clearly in these, although even here the proposed visual continuity of glass up the vertical recess of the smaller houses was already reduced by the use of conventional doors and windows. The top Juliet balcony actually opens from a porch that is backed by a wall of glass doors and windows.

The other houses were first conceived to have a car port and entry on the bottom that I suppose could be used as enclosed patio space at times, that was linked to another outdoor space in the back with an entry and den in between, but this was converted to a garage and conventional entry for security reasons most likely. These were conceived as part of a master plan, most of which was never built, and the neighborhood was still transitioning 30 odd years after these were finished.

Palimpsest, looks like Philadelphia.

You were talking about how so many people can't tell what their homes are going to look like.. well, that's me!!!! The architect even offered to do renderings, but I said, I might as well save the money because I still won't know until I walk inside!

On a side note, my friend got me to watch "Queen of Versailles" this week. Talk about McMansion!

Virgil, it is Philadelphia. These houses, I think, were actually supposed to engage each other from inside the block, and that part of the development was built by someone else who just backed up rows of houses to these, which was not the original concept. These still present an un-engaging streetscape.

There are older more conventional versions of this concept where you walk through a gate into houses facing each other across front gardens, but the part that faces the main street is a row of garage doors and the sorts of random window placement, vents and utilities seen on the backs of houses, much more utilitarian than these.