this is in the public domain so I can post it. it explains, from more than 100 years ago, why American houses are ugly

more

money gives people an opportunity to display bad taste

If life is not effected by architecture, then why do you want a rectangle?

Do you think you would get the same life experience living in these two different houses?

I want a rectangle because it's honest- and affordable to build.

yes, I would get the same life experiences in those two houses.

at first they may seem different, but once you've lived in either one for a few days, life takes over and routines are the same and you forget what the exterior of the house looks like.

it's like fragrance. after a while you do not notice it any more.

I attended a party at a mcmansioney house last weekend. million dollar house in a mcmansion hoa neighborhood. first thought was yuck-so much adornment.

and that was the last thought paid to the house. everything else was great conversation and connection with friends and family-the stuff that really matters

If you are ever in Chicago, tour the Robie House, or if you find yourself in Buffalo, New York tour the Martin House. Have you ever been in a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright?

not yet. pray, tell, what is special about a Frank Lloyd wright house?

I'm with Mark, and Zaha Hadid: "Architecture is really about well-being. I think that people want to feel good in a space… On the one hand it’s about shelter, but it’s also about pleasure."

Some here might be familiar with the TED talk by Don Norman, the cognitive scientist and author of "The Design of Everyday Things"; the talk is entitled, "Three Ways Good Design Makes You Happy",

https://www.ted.com/talks/don_norman_on_design_and_emotion?language=en

Norman is a proponent of user-centered design, which means optimizing the product (for example, a house) around how users (or homeowners) can, want, or need to use the product, rather than forcing users (homeowners) to change their behavior to accommodate the product (house). This is what cpartist and I tend to bang on about : ) . Norman has also said, "Good design is actually a lot harder to notice than poor design, in part because good designs fit our needs so well that the design is invisible."

Speaking of the pleasure and enjoyment derived from well-designed items, we drive Ford trucks on our farm. For our needs, they work well and we can get them fixed in town. Several years ago, we took our kids, then older teens, to France and Germany, where we rented a BMW upon arrival. It was such a joy to drive, and did its job in such elegant, effortless fashion (going back to Norman's theory about good design being invisible), that we still talk about it. If we could in any way reasonably justify the purchase of a BMW non-truck, which would need to be serviced in the big city (a 250-mile roundtrip), we'd do it in a heartbeat.

It is hard to describe, it is best to be experienced. There are Frank Lloyd Wright designed homes in almost every State in the Union and most of them are privately owned, but some are open for tours. Here is a link to a site that lists some of his buildings (not all houses) and their locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works

Perhaps one is near you for at lease a drive by; or if they are open to the public, a tour. For me being in a Wright designed house is unforgettable, but that's me. If my tally (and memory) is correct, I have been in nine.

We've lived in our new house for just over a year, so we've experienced it in all five seasons -- winter, mud, spring, summer, autumn, and winter. I keep expecting to start taking the house, and living in it, for granted, but it hasn't happened yet. Every day, I marvel at the graceful and pleasing proportions of the rooms, the quantity and quality of light. I think I tell my husband at least once a week, that living in this house feels like living in a vacation home. It's truly delightful.

And in this house we've been able to host several family holidays -- Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter -- which was never possible, because of size and flow of rooms, in our previous house. The design of our new house supports "the stuff that really matters", as DE calls it.

my two favorite houses I've been in- Joel contreras'(not an architect) Dayton in Arizona, and Chad Reeves (an architect) 16 vanguard way,

wowed me when I stepped in. simple design with little pretentiousness.

but I guarantee that after a week in them the shine would have worn off and we would be back to worrying about what to fix for dinner.

I believe that good ergonomic design is great but I disagree that my life depends on it, is all I'm saying.

matter if fact I would go so far as to say that some of us focus so much on our dream house that it could ruin our lives.

When that "worrying about what to fix for dinner" starts is when the effect of the architecture starts to permeate the subconscious.

we'll agree to disagree

I'm not sure I'd use a Wright house as an example. They are quite idiosyncratic. Designed specifically for the one who commissioned it, and definitely reflecting the architect's beliefs, and no thoughts of resale! I have read quotes from people who have lived in them, that it takes a little different adjustment than other houses, and they were a bit constrained by its design. I don't know how much of their issue is layout, how much is construction methods, and how much is materials used.

I visited one that was in active use as a family residence. It's beautiful. The family did say, it's FLW, not theirs. But they could still make dinner.

I visited another that was designed by a student of FLW. Gathered around the dining table with the architect/owner, looking at the home drawings and talking, I think I could live in the house, though I'd have to replace all my furniture, but I definitely would not want to make dinner in it. The kitchen was cool-looking, but not one I would ever, ever want to use. I think I'd order out all the time. Oh, and I noticed a placement flaw on the property that I know for a fact is a real problem when it rains heavily. (For the roof, though, he designed the coolest gutters and downspouts I've ever seen.) I guarantee, when he sells, it will be a tough process.

FLWs are wonderful to visit, don't know I'd want to live there.

This is an illuminating thread, and the conversation helps illustrate the many different ways in which architecture is perceived and appreciated...or not.

Mark points out the importance and difference good design makes, and how it is best when it's personal and tailored to the users life style.

Becky describes the delight and difference in her life that her new houses brings week after week.

bpath acknowledges unique nature of Wright's designs, but raises the question of whether his approach to design fits her life style and preferences.

And Debbie...Debbie demonstrates that for some architecture is Simply shelter...whose primary and only purpose is to keep the rain out. Thus she prefers the simplest and cheapest form possible--a rectangle--which she advocates again and again as if it was some sort of newly discovered, magical and universal solution.

All in all, a very diverse illustration of how architecture is viewed...or isn't.

lol @ virgil carter- nice try.

***I'm not sure I'd use a Wright house as an example. ***

This 100%. Interesting? Yes. Linked to the site? Yes, in most cases that I've seen although on a grid suburban block it is less obvious and less successful. Lives well? Very subjective of course but I've never been in one that I would choose to live in.

yes, I would get the same life experiences in those two houses.

at first they may seem different, but once you've lived in either one for a few days, life takes over and routines are the same and you forget what the exterior of the house looks like.

I beg to differ and I'm not talking about the exterior ornamentation or not. When one lives in a well designed home (in terms of flow, etc) one constantly feels that the house is doing what it should be doing. When one lives in a poorly designed house, one is constantly feeling that they need to adapt to the house. And since the exterior is tied to the interior, it all needs to relate.

My last condo and my house work for us. However in-between our condo and our current house, we rented an apartment. This apartment was larger than our condo apartment and yet it worked very poorly because it was not laid out well. The living room was large with about 10' in the middle of wasted space because of how it was laid out with a sitting room/office that was opened up to it. So all the furniture had to be squished into one corner.

The kitchen had the fridge angled in one corner, and the sink in another. The DW was on the left and the stove right next to the sink so the only place to really prep was on the peninsula to the right of the stove.

To get to the w/d one had to squish past the peninsula and wall (only 28" wide).

The doors on the closets in the front hallway when opened didn't allow for being able to access the full closet.

The hall toilet was closer to the master bed than the master bedroom toilet.

There were a lot more things wrong and while we adapted to it, even my DH who normally says he doesn't care, found himself annoyed over and over.

I keep expecting to start taking the house, and living in it, for granted, but it hasn't happened yet. Every day, I marvel at the graceful and pleasing proportions of the rooms, the quantity and quality of light. I think I tell my husband at least once a week, that living in this house feels like living in a vacation home. It's truly delightful.

And in this house we've been able to host several family holidays -- Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter -- which was never possible, because of size and flow of rooms, in our previous house. The design of our new house supports "the stuff that really matters", as DE calls it.

^^^ This!

And this will be different based on each families needs.

you just described the ergonomics of a house, not style items like balance, symmetry or color

^^^ yes!!! That's how I feel about our home every day. When the light changes and highlights a new spot depending on the time of year or day. When my red cabinets still make me go "oh...Oh! (I'll have what she's having)" every day. When I drive up the drive and it makes me smile, even though you don't see the front of the house from the drive. Because we put it where it went with the LAND and the woods and the view.

but I guarantee that after a week in them the shine would have worn off and we would be back to worrying about what to fix for dinner.

And when you can just worry about what to fix for dinner, is when you know you've designed a house that truly works for you and your family. To repeat:

"Good design is actually a lot harder to notice than poor design, in part because good designs fit our needs so well that the design is invisible."

As I pointed out with my rental above, bad design will annoy you in so many small ways day in and day out. You may not be able to identify what or why, but it's there.

you just described the ergonomics of a house, not style items like balance, symmetry or color

It all has to relate together. One doesn't negate the other.

When my red cabinets still make me go "oh...Oh! (I'll have what she's having)" every day.

lol Lori : )

style and ergonomics are completely , and again I say , completely, unrelated.

Debbie, you continue to post nonsense like the above because you have no experience.

Aesthetics and function are always linked together and inseparable, in every strong and successful design.

It's the poor and unsuccessful designs where one thinks and develops them independently, as if there is no relationship between them.

Kinda like the designs you post from time to time.

lol. another weak try from virgil carter.

note that the discourse has been cordial so far even if there is disagreement. you are the only one trying your best (and failing) to inject drama.

style and ergonomics are completely , and again I say , completely, unrelated.

The principles of design -- including balance, proportion, rhythm, harmony, and so on -- apply to interior design and landscape design as well as to architecture.

" The principles of design -- including balance, proportion, rhythm, harmony, and so on -- apply to interior design and landscape design as well as to architecture "

and how do those dictate the ergonomics of a house?

if I want a perfectly ergonomical house, could a good architect style it as a ranch house? could that style the same plan as a cape cod? could the exact same plan be a modern?

thats what Im saying

a perfectly ergonomical house

Yes, that's what you're saying, but I don't know what you mean.

copy that. What Im saying is, the ergonomics of a house, or fondly referred to here as "how a house lives" are separate and unrelated to the style of the house .

or, the style of a house(be it modern, revival, ranch, etc) does not dictate "how a house lives"

And this is why the designs you post are so lifeless and aesthetically unappealing.

You simply don't understand that any home design is strongest when form and function are developed together in harmony.

It's something which would greatly enhance your body of knowledge and substantially strengthen your design skill.

We have a red house in our neighborhood- looks similar to the shade in the OP, maybe a little deeper/darker. It’s the perfect shade of red and looks spectacular! It really stands out in the best way possible. The one in our neighborhood has white trim with stained wood front porch posts (like a dark walnut color).

"When one lives in a poorly designed house, one is constantly feeling that they need to adapt to the house. And since the exterior is tied to the interior, it all needs to relate."

I must agree with you cpartist. If poorly designed includes a poor layout. I live in a raised ranch and we adapt to the house. It forces us to move certain ways and we've had to forgo certain experiences because the house makes them impossible without huge renovations.

I do agree with D E that "your life depends on it" is hyperbolic. Your life might be the poorer for living in an poorly designed house but you'll live.

ETA: Must agree with Becky on the BMW. Like riding a cloud. Tried one for a day and it's been my dream car since.

And, for Debbie's sake, the organization and function of a Cape Cod, ranch house, Colonial and many of the other recognized architectural style is very different from one another. The form and function of these houses are quite distinct from one another.

DE, so what you're asking is how do balance, proportion/scale, rhythm, harmony, and so on, affect how a house lives for its inhabitants?

Is that correct?

Well, of course it's hyperbolic and possibly even a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's Mark!

"DE, so what you're asking is how do balance, proportion/scale, rhythm, harmony, and so on, affect how a house lives for its inhabitants?

Is that correct?"

no. I'm stating that style is independent of a house's ergonomics. completely independent

So...you think the organization and function of a Cape Cod, ranch, Craftsman and a dog-trot are all the same...they simply have different siding so as to have their unique exterior appearance?

The various plans you have posted in the past could possibly be made into something ranch-like or Modern. They could never become a Cape Cod, Craftsman or dog-trot.

Architectural style is never independent of function.

You're awfully inexperienced to be so dogmatic about architecture.

Clarification: "Your life depends on it."

Not that it is a matter of life and death, rather that it is a matter of life and life; a life full of enhancement and individuality, or a mundane life of daily routine and mass production and cheap reproductions.

We'll agree to disagree.

I watched a documentary on happiness and they travelled the world searching for happy people and what makes them happy. Ironically enough many of the happiest people lived in the most basic of shelters, huts, yurts, apartments etc

I think a person who derives their happiness from their possessions must be a sad person indeed.

Let's come back to earth and remember where we are. This is a forum about designing and building a house. A custom designed and built house is pretty much a first world issue isn't it?

And one of the frequently raised issues is the conflicting approaches of: 1). Adapting one's family and life style to a pre-designed, often pre-built house, versus 2). Adapting a custom designed home to support one's family and life style.

Mark has posted elequently on the two different approaches to designing and building a home, and the very different results.

Certainly, folks who see a home as nothing more than shelter could care less. And just as certainly folks who care greatly about the positive impacts possible with a creatively designed custom home seek nothing less.

We see postings daily from each segment and view.

Um, don't most Frank Lloyd Wright houses leak? (That would most definitely affect my enjoyment...)

No...I wouldn't say "most" of FLW's houses leak? But certainly, there are some very will known stories about some of his projects (houses and other types of buildings) which did have very well publicized leaks.

I have no idea what percentage of his projects those were.

But he was a very innovative designer and often designed long-span structures will did frequently leaked.

I, for one, am constantly amazed/ dismayed at how one poster can skew/derail a congenial conversation about an interesting home. And, in this thread, its interesting color.

No offense intended, but really?

Many of us would not or could not build the subject home, but can appreciate many of its its qualities. It's truly beautiful in form, and design. And, it was designed specifically for the wants and needs of the family.
I love homes of many disparate styles. I love Craftsman. Victorian. Bungalow. Cape cod. And, my heart is always drawn to mcm.

Does everything have to become a battle?

I certainly wish not.

Perhaps if there was less unfounded dogma.

Back to the original posting...this is a wonderful house.

Why?

Lots of reasons, many of which Mark summarized early in the posting.

For me, the red color located in what appears to be a forested site, creates the expectation of something special and unusual, promising an enjoyable stay.

The simple dual gables and windows create a clearly residential feeling, sorta "homey" and welcoming feeling to me.

Is this a home for everyone? No. No home is.

But, for me, I find the home welcoming, engaging and inviting--not the least bit pretentious or precious. A happy place.

I love that house. It's got a very welcoming look - the entrance kind of embraces you as you head for the front door. And the red reminds me of pictures I've seen of Scandinavian houses -perfect in a wooded setting. (Where I used to live, there was a Victorian style house painted in various shades of purple, surrounded by dense gardens, some very large trees and a mauve fence. Where I live now, the newer houses are all varying shades of grey or beige. I miss that purple house). So, the red house gets two thumbs up from me ;)

Where I used to live, there was a Victorian style house painted in various shades of purple, surrounded by dense gardens, some very large trees and a mauve fence.

<3 <3 <3

I would just die to see a house like that. Wow!

following