Lots of architectural styles predate modernism and very few of them lacked ornamentation, especially Gothic, Roman/Romanesque, Byzantine, Victorian, etc.

It would be ludicrous to tell Justinian that the mosaics found in the Hagia Sophia aren’t honest since many elements and designs were used to make the tessaraes appear to be made of something they weren’t.

And, as this thread has revealed, the opinions on what is honest and what isn’t is VERY subjective to each person. So, in the end, I am not sure it really matters as long as the home is a welcoming, inviting, cohesive atmosphere that allows the mind to experience beauty and stimulation (but not too much). For some that may be a four-corned, severely simple house and others, it may be a home with more ornamentation. One isn’t more “honest” than the other, though.

@shead you are referring to religious and civic architecture - most residential architecture , and especially peasant architecture, throughout history, has been simple and unadorned.

its the modern age of wealth and debt that has brought about dishonest architecture as no one wants to be thought of as poor and everyone wants to appear wealthy.

*interesting aside - In my line of work I get to talk to a lot of independently wealthy people - multi millionaires . a lot of the ones I work with seem like they go out of their way to NOT appear wealthy. buying their clothes at thrift stores, clipping coupons, driving 15 year old vehicles, living in an inexpensive house in a working class neighborhood, etc. So, wealthy people try to appear not wealthy, and in so doing become MORE wealthy. And poor people in trying to appear not poor, become MORE poor.*

what I have learned from this thread is EVERYONE dislikes dishonest architecture to some degree. some are more extreme than others. Some are ok with fake beams but dont like "flying stone" and some dislike any design that uses materials designed to imitate something else

I also think ignorance is better -its definitely easier to be ignorant. I used to like brick houses when I thought the brick was structural and thus more durable - finding out the brick is stuck on like a siding, for looks, was a sad awakening.

Throughout time, there have been efforts made to make "home" as pretty as possible, within the means of the owner. (check out excavations from Knossos and Pompei)

Yes, a woman with a sod house had a simple dwelling. But you can bet your boots most of them did their best with what they had. And lobbied for "upgrades" as they were affordable.

Even the more modest of we "peasants" go in for decoration if we can:

As to this

Several years ago there was quite a bit of hoopla over a house in town that went "natural" with their yard: no lawn, and all supposedly native plantings. But it didn't look like anything was planned and to many people it just looked like a crazy jungle of weeds. It's very near a grade school, and kids with allergies (bees or pollen) often have to cross the street when they walk to school.

While I'm not going to plan my landscaping around someone else's allergies, it should still be attractive to look at and appear well kept. I'm not a fan of lawns - they're a waste of time, energy, and water without any sort of return on that investment. But "native plantings" should be carefully curated.

a lot of the ones I work with seem like they go out of their way to NOT appear wealthy. buying their clothes at thrift stores, clipping coupons, driving 15 year old vehicles, wealthy people try to appear not wealthy, and in so doing become MORE wealthy. And poor people in trying to appear not poor, become MORE poor.*

Hmm, my pickup is 16 years old and my wardrobe is Walmart Ts and my kid's hand-me-down jeans. So I am wealthy after all. What a relief!

Holly

all the pictures you posted look like a modern day attempt to try to upgrade a humble house - and as usual,in trying to beautify the home, they spent money to make them more ugly

"Hmm, my pickup is 16 years old and my wardrobe is Walmart Ts and my kid's hand-me-down jeans. So I am wealthy after all. What a relief! "

Lol at another wealthy person trying to come across as not wealthy. Ya aint fooling nobody

@DE if it makes you feel better, my Victorian has a bricked first floor that is structural. :)

all the pictures you posted look like a modern day attempt to try to upgrade a humble house - and as usual,in trying to beautify the home, they spent money to make them more ugly

You do realize that all of those are well over 150 years old? Some of them as much as 300, more than likely.

" *interesting aside - In my line of work I get to talk to a lot of independently wealthy people - multi millionaires . a lot of the ones I work with seem like they go out of their way to NOT appear wealthy. buying their clothes at thrift stores, clipping coupons, driving 15 year old vehicles, living in an inexpensive house in a working class neighborhood, etc. So, wealthy people try to appear not wealthy, and in so doing become MORE wealthy."

I'm going to disagree to a point. Frugality is a way of life for some (like my in-laws who would fall into the category you are describing) but they aren't going out of their way to intentionally appear frugal/poor. It's just who they are. I don't think any of these people say to themselves consciously, "Well, I'd really like to have a Mercedes but that would make me look 'rich' so I'm going to go buy a 15yo Toyota Corolla instead." Instead, a Mercedes just never enters their mind as a want because frugality is who they are. As for becoming more wealthy, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Wealth building often involves taking risks and I've known many "wealthy" people that get to a point where their wealth flatlines or slowly decreases as inflation increases and buying power decreases. My FIL will spend $5 in gas to get to a gas station where gas is $0.05 cheaper per gallon. In his mind, he's being "smart" and "frugal" but in reality he's losing his $$$.

"And poor people in trying to appear not poor, become MORE poor.*"

I'd agree with this to a certain point. No one should overextend themselves financially but if crown molding and fake columns and fake stone are within your budget, I see no reason why one should not have those things.

@shead I do not disagree with the wealthy being wealthy by being frugal. The way to have money is to make what you have grow instead of blowing it on stuff. I know someone who has 25 million. earns more than 100k a month in bond interest and drives a 2003 truck. I call people like this "Ninja rich"- you would never know if they were in the same room with you. I wouldnt say they go out of their way to appear poor either but they definitely want to avoid anything lavish.

being wealthy can be stressful,even dangerous - resentment from friends AND family,neighbors and strangers, exposure to lawsuits from anyone and everyone, everyone has their hands out for something, endless calls from charities, alma maters, Theft etc.

Sometimes its just easier to fly under the radar.

If something has to be financed, then I say the person CANT afford it. They can afford the payments and thats about it.

I spent some time living in Eastern Europe myself, and I can attest that those pics Holly posted are not modern reworkings of traditional homes: they are traditional, and I've seen many similar. And it's flat out wrong to suggest that ""most residential architecture , and especially peasant architecture, throughout history, has been simple and unadorned."

Here's one of the simplest of peasant homes - a yurt. Notice anything?

I've got books full of pictures of tribal carpets, rugs, tent bands, cushions and bags, all woven in colors and patterns that are far from simple and unadorned. I own quite a few pieces, too, and a salt bag is not less honest because it is woven with colorful wools in intricate patterns. It is a natural thing for people, even peasants living in the simplest of circumstances, to love color and texture and adornment.

Anyway, I'm not sure why peasant houses should be considered more "honest" than middle class houses. There was certainly plenty of adornment in middle class Victorian homes and architecture - those homes were notorious for their cluttered look. I inherited a few pieces from my great grandmother's family, and simple they are not.

I have to agree that honesty is in the eye of the beholder. Having read all the comments, I know we probably all agree that McMansions are generally dishonest, but there, I think, the consensus ends. I do not consider timber-built, brick clad, homes to be dishonest: the house has to be clad in something, and brick is a functional solution.

If something has to be financed, then I say the person CANT afford it. They can afford the payments and thats about it.

Except that paying below market interest rates, even 0%, while earning income at a higher rate on the capital not put into a declining asset is free money. (Except for the government's take.)

Such leverage is at the heart of real estate investment.

^^^^Yes, what worthy said. It's not all cut and dry no matter what Dave Ramsey preaches.

Just because people borrow money for some things (like a house, boat, etc.) doesn't mean they don't have a positive net worth nor does it mean they are "poor." They just have their assets allocated differently.

those people who borrow to keep investing their assets dont HAVE TO borrow. big difference from the person who has to borrow to purchase.

Yes, there is a big difference. Lumping everyone that is technically in debt into one category is an unreasonable assumption and asserting that those “in debt” should choose less expensive but “more honest” materials (or simply do without) is a real stretch of the imagination as well.

if you like fake, that's your prerogative. I don't like fake, and I don't apologize for that.

Actually, DE, you do like some fake. You like MDF cabinets from IKEA and you like plywood panelling. Neither is genuine wood as it comes from the tree. Why are they ok and other unreal things not? Where do you draw the line between real and fake. I happen to think that IKEA cabinets may be fake, but they're honest - well made, functional and even attractive and of course affordable. So perhaps we're defining our terms badly. Brick veneer houses arent the same as structural brick houses, but if they're attractive, functional and affordable how much does it really matter?.

@jmm1837 I think that is a little bit of a stretch.

what is an ikea mdf cabinet pretending to be?

I also like the cheap ikea fiberboard countertops - what are they pretending to be?

also, who would mistake plywood for anything BUT plywood?

btw, I just built a nice king bed out of plywood.I officially love plywood.

true to form it is unstained and unfinished - let the plywood be honest :)

An MDF cabinet is pretending to be a wood cabinet, just like a brick-sided house is pretending to be a structural brick house. The fact that they're not quite the real thing has no bearing on whether they're either attractive or functional. And, to my mind, both are honest even if they're not quite what they seem, because they give people a chance to live with better-looking materials at an affordable price. What's the problem with that?

I think I'm coming around to the view that even fake beams would be okay if they're aesthetically pleasing and suited to the house they're in. If it's okay for nomads to have fancy painted doors on their tents and colorful fabrics on their walls, I can't see why it's wrong for us middle class folk to have the odd bit of ornamentation :)

^^^^This times 1000!

I think Mrs. Pete nailed it upthread ;)

Well...I don't think the issue of an honest use of materials and methods is challenged necessarily by the use of decoration and ornament.

Architectural history, after all, is full of examples of decoration and ornament.

The issue, seems to me, has to do with authenticity. Is the decoration or ornament consistent with similar historical usage? Or not?

McDonald Burger houses are an example of inappropriate materials, methods and forms...to an excess.

We can find similar, if not quite so excessive, examples in builder's and plan factory houses where 6 different types of exterior siding, nested gable roofs, and other excess prevail.

If all a house is is simply a utilitarian enclosure to keep the rain off and the cold out, then the issue of honest use of materials and methods hardly matters.

On the other hand, if one is striving for something more than simple shelter, honest materials and methods may matter a great deal.

So is it "honest" that the quartz kitchen counters I'm leaning towards installing are imitative of a cheaper material, concrete?

If you like concrete counters why don't you just use them...?

Sealing, staining and cracking. As a resident pro here writes: "Driveways or countertops, concrete is never guaranteed against cracking.."

I'm struggling with some of this. I happen to have quartz countertops - the original version with the little speckles. They don't look like stone, and certainly not like marble. They're functional, easy to maintain, and reasonably hard-wearing, which to me makes them an "honest" product in that they serve the purpose for which they were intended, and serve it quite well. Would the same material be dishonest if it looked like marble or concrete instead? I'm not so sure.

jmm if you bought an imitation Rolex, is the watch honest or dishonest?

If I buy an imitation Rolex, it's dishonest. But if I buy a Seiko, which is a decent watch, is that dishonest just because it isn't a Rolex?

if it's pretending to be a Rolex then it's dishonest. it's it's being a humble watch and you wear it proudly then it's very honest.

that's the difference- imitation

"if you bought an imitation Rolex, is the watch honest or dishonest?"

If one buys MDF crown molding, is the molding honest or dishonest?

If one buys hollow core doors, is the door honest or dishonest?

If one buys IKEA cabinets with foil doors, are the cabinets and doors honest or dishonest?

If one buys plastic laminate countertops with a pattern that looks like slate or marble, is the countertop honest or dishonest?

If one uses Hardie Plank cement board lap siding, is the siding honest or dishonest?

If one wood look tile, is the tile honest or dishonest? Or slate look? Or marble look?

If one builds a house to look like a cargo container or from a cargo container, is the house honest or dishonest?

If one uses stained concrete, is the concrete honest or dishonest?

Of course, these examples could go on and on and we'd all probably have different answers to the questions I posed. For certain materials, we all seem to have a higher tolerance for "dishonesty."

Frankly, if everyone held to a strict code of honesty and dishonesty of materials in home building, no house would be affordable and there would be no middle class housing. 99.9% of us would be living in houses reminiscent of medieval peasant housing with dirt floors and thatched roofs. So as much as any of us can say we abhor "fake", it's a fairly disingenuous assertion.

If one searches and uses fantastical examples, is it ridiculous or nonsensical?

And I thought this was a serious discussion among inquiring people.

Silly boy...

Why do you consider those fantastical examples? I do consider this a serious discussion - a discussion that had led me (and probably most others) to realizing that some level of dishonesty is ALWAYS inherent in home construction. Abiding by a "strict code" of allowing no dishonest material into your home is a pretty fantastical notion, wouldn't you agree? In reality, I think most of us are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on what's acceptable or not, which is a clear indicator that honest vs dishonest is generally relative, which should make us all more tolerant of each other's decisions and not overly dogmatic about our own.

No, I don't agree. Your examples exceed ridiculous.

if honesty of materials and methods is not your thing, that's fine.

But don't over generalize everyone into your own set of evaluations.

It is certainly possible to design and build a house with honest materials and methods.

If that's important.

shead , I know you ain't trying to convince me ,so I can only surmise that you are trying to convince yourself. do what you have to do. fake beams can look nice it doesn't make them not dishonest or pretentious!

This is true, but only if the fake beams are installed in the same manner as if they were actually structural.

Installing them 6'-8' on center will look authentic. Fifteen or twenty feet on center will scream fake...

And of course, the fakes have to be good quality styrofoam...

:-)

So good fakes are honest.

But the trouble is that many/most buyers won't accept imitation materials above a certain price point. Thus away went my garage full of 14.1 mm laminate...

"shead , I know you ain't trying to convince me "

That would be the definition of insanity, as many of us can vouch ;)

"if honesty of materials and methods is not your thing, that's fine. "

I asked for examples of what true "honesty" would look like. I got a few examples from you and others that I'd agree with, but honestly, I expected a far greater list. It seems that there are a few "biggies" like flying stone, etc. that most agree on, but after that, it's a lot more nuanced. I doubt any of your clients are going to insist that their brick or stone walls be structural instead of veneer.

If one is holding to the position that a material is dishonest simply because it's trying to be something it's not or is imitative of other, often more expensive or more complicated materials, then my list shows that there is still much to consider if one claims to be a purist.

Now, I don't believe you tout yourself as a purist on these things and I believe that you see the necessity of using imitative materials to a certain degree. Others, however, such as D E, do tout themselves as purist and I'm curious to see how exactly that plays out in their homes.

"I can only surmise that you are trying to convince yourself. "

Nope, not really. I have never needed any convincing ;) I simply asked some questions in the OP that have not been answered to the degree I was seeking for whatever reasons. Most likely it's because most people don't think in terms of a house or materials being "honest" or "dishonest." Only those that are highly trained in architectural details and a select group of others do.

"...So good fakes are honest..."

Well... like so many other things I guess it depends on one's value system.

An imitative material or an unnecessary building method is...imitative and unnecessary.

Whether or not that matters depends on the value and priority one places on architecture.

It seems obvious to me that the greater one is educated and experienced in architecture, the more important it becomes to be honest in the use of materials and methods.

Unless it's really high quality styrofoam...

Not!

Shead, a while back you said....

I’m not sure which camp is better to be in: the uninformed but happy with it all or the “enlightened” who can thus spot the “dishonesty” a mile away. But I am not a caviar-type person, either ;)

I am beginning to believe that it is better to be in the uninformed camp. Before I was on this forum (and very ignorant) I was happy with a lot of things. But since being "educated" on here there are a lot of things I am seeing that bother me. Example: an addition with stone, brick and stucco. But the owners are very happy and love their choices...... And honestly, I'd rather hang out with the happy but ignorant crowd than one that is always seeing the wrong or dishonesty in homes. Like is said on here "You don't know what you don't know" and sometimes (not always) that is a good thing.

"Unless it's really high quality styrofoam..."

I'm still wondering where styrofoam beams were ever mentioned ;) I know they make them but when I consider using "fake beams", I only consider ones clad in REAL wood.

"Like is said on here 'You don't know what you don't know' and sometimes (not always) that is a good thing."

I wish I'd learned that lesson a LONG time ago.

And yes, the happy, but ignorant, crowd is much more pleasant than a group of grumpy intellectuals. I should probably retire from these forums because I feel like the more I'm here, the grumpier I get :/

"I'm still wondering where styrofoam beams were ever mentioned ;) I know they make them but when I consider using "fake beams", I only consider ones clad in REAL wood."

hmm. so does using a fake beam made of real wood make it more pretentious, or less pretentious???

As in many things there are different degrees of purity. I like to think of myself as a purist, but I am a closet realist for myself and my clients. Economics is alway a factor to some degree, although there have been projects when it was very low on the priority list, slipping of the page. There are most times the ability to save the integrity of the architecture with out spending more money or at least getting a bigger bang for the buck.

"hmm. so does using a fake beam made of real wood make it more pretentious, or less pretentious??? "

It does become a bit like a cat chasing it's tail, doesn't it? LOL.

There's honesty of material and honesty of use.

The first, I suggest, is less clear than the second. Hence, quartz (which itself is a manmade not natural stone) standing in for concrete in a counter. Or fabricated stone instead of quarried and carved stone. But styrofoam crown mouldings instead of plaster? Not quite there yet!

However, stone veneer above stucco (or EIFS) is never honest, no matter how common a Neo-eclectic style.

Economics is alway[s] a factor ...

I recall one of Giorgio Armani's Italian homes in which his first step was to reface all the interior walls in cut stone. What, you expected drywall??

A real beam is real. A fake beam is fake.

What's so hard to understand?

The real beam may or may not be structural. It's still a beam. Then it becomes how it is used. It's about materials AND methods--both realistic.

How are these used? Could you live with this method?

But...styrofoam will never be real no matter how it's used.

"Honesty" in terms of architectural materials and methods really involves both issues--honest use of materials and an honest method of using them.

Here's some honest materials used in completely incompetent ways:

You see...materials AND methods!

So a real beam used in a fake way is dishonest? I'll buy that.

Real beams in a real way. (Honest, or spider-web nirvana?) 9 Peyton Lane, Toronto.

nice house

Its really very simple. Dishonest materials won't look you in the eye when you ask what they are.

And we're no further ahead. To a purist, everything must be real and genuine or it's dishonest (with arbitrary exceptions made for non-genuine materials the purist likes, such as IKEA cabinetry). For the near purist, materials must be honest and the method of use must also be honest but non-genuine materials are acceptable if the method looks correct (in other words, really good fakes are honest - stone veneer around the foundations on all 4 sides of the house gets a pass mark). For the practical person, a concrete-look countertop is honest because it's a more user-friendly surface than actual concrete, just as brick veneer or hardiplank may be a better cladding than clapboard.

It seems to me we're all applying our own definitions of what the term "honest" really means, and perhaps confusing it with "genuine" which isn't quite the same thing. I've personally always been conflicted about wood veneer furniture. A lot of it is pretty poor quality junk, so neither genuine nor honest, but what about the very high end veneered furniture? Where does a veneer cabinet that's a real Chippendale fit into the honesty scale? I suspect, when it comes right down to it, aesthetics plays a bigger role than we think in deciding what's honest. We dislike McMansions because they're ugly more than because they're fake, while we like 1920s mock Tudors or modern, brick veneer Georgians because they're well proportioned and attractive, even if they're not the real thing.

Well...there is something to be said for being well proportioned and attractive...