It is an interesting concept but why are efficient houses ugly as sin? | Hacker News Reader

It is an interesting concept but why are efficient houses ugly as sin?

rocioromero.com

11 pointsbmaier19 comments

I actually really love the rocio romero designs. I find them modern but not cold and impersonal. They aren't even that unusual on the continuum of modern architecture. Great big windows, efficient layouts, and reasonably inexpensive.

Ugly is the more expensive, HUGE houses that crop up on subdivisions around america with cheesy granite everywhere.

"... why are efficient houses ugly as sin? ..."

I can think of a number of reasons

- kit form means (some) pre-construction

- simpler shapes and consistency means easier and faster construction

- form follows function

Would I buy one?

If I did the building has no verandas so I'd cook in summer. No sloped roof (increasing surface area slightly) for water collection, solar heating & power. High roof means lots of heating in winter but great in summer. Not much on the materials (insulation, windows) are listed so I can't tell how thermally efficient the building or what footprint it leaves. One thing I notice is the building does not integrate well into the surroundings. Geography does play a part as well and coming from 34 degree southern latitude with mild winters and hot summers.

I ascribe my architectural appreciation to watching Kevin McClouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCloud ) UK, Ch4 show, Grand Design ( http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/ind... ) every Thursday night on the tube. If you ever get the chance to watch the Grand Design series, do so.

In each episode, McCloud dissects the process of people constructing/re-constructing buildings into their own houses. Asking questions on how to improve construction. Critiquing the building process such as construction, financing, management and execution. The analogy to constructing software applications is obvious.

That sort of crap has been around for a long time. It features the grimmest of the grim socialist/faux intellectual German taste in things. Severe, cold, cheap, right-angled, colorless, inhuman, inhumane, and above all efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus

The best take down that I'm aware of is here:

http://www.tomwolfe.com/Bauhaus.html

Bauhaus crap? Uh, please at least recognize the influence on design.

"Severe, cold, cheap, right-angled, colorless, inhuman, inhumane, and above all efficient."

Yes, exact. Its own kind of beauty.

Looks way better to me than the average McMansion.

This is cool timing. I go to NCSU, and just last night we had a paneled discussion with Charlie Rose about sustainability in the future; one of the men on the board was Thom Mayne, a noted architect who's doing work on sustainable buildings (though mostly office buildings).

One of his key themes from the talk was about how it used to be that design (making buildings artsy) and efficiency (in an energy sense) used to be kind of divided in the architecture world, particularly when he was a student. He said that there has been a major paradigm shift and a merge in the two philosophies.

For examples, check out the Phare Tower that he's working on. The entire tower is optimized for using natural light and airflow, rather than artificial light and air conditioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phare_Tower

He had some other awesome examples, but I don't know where to find them.

Many good things look ugly to people at first, because their instincts steer them away from the unfamiliar. If you find yourself thinking, "this is objectively good, but ugly", give it a little time.

Unfortunately, much of what is called modern design isn't objectively good at all; it only looks the part, to people who don't pay attention. Villa Savoye, probably the most famous example of modern residential architecture, didn't meet even the most basic requirements of being a good house--it failed to keep out the elements.

I should clarify what I meant in a larger than the title field. Ok so this house is incredibly efficient in energy and space use and I really like the design of the interior. You would think then that it would also blend well with the landscape and not stick out like a sore thumb. However all you see from the outside is is a rectangular box that you only get to pick the color of. I just think the exterior lines are a bit harsh and out of place for something that is otherwise so well designed.

so all it needs is some rounded corners?

something to let it interact with the lot its placed on...

Heh heh heh.

You need to pick a designer who believes, as you do, that Modernist buildings are sins against nature. I'm told that such designers do exist, although apparently they never get hired by MIT.

Because they are built by people who think houses are a sin. Compare the idea of electric "punishment cars". (http://www.teslamotors.com/about/company.php)

Let me stop ou there buddy. the rocioromero house are very nice, elegant and open. You can truly tell that this house is designed to let you breath. Seriously all the extra we are adding to house is to personalize them. Why? Why trying to be so freaking different. I am a victim of that problem as well, we need to all relax and spend less on material crap

People think ugly == trendy?

different == trendy

So then different == ugly?

not necessarily, I disagree with the assertion that ugly == trendy. And different of course doesn't always equal trendy..

In the end, these things are really hard to pin down.

A more serious answer... I believe that concepts like this are often of an "unusual" design as a way of capturing your attention and forcing you to really look at the package.

Current "normal" housing designs are capable of being highly efficient with (relatively) minor visible changes. However a super high-eff house that looks like any other house won't have the same punch that a high-eff house that also looks like an architectural innovation would have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com