Eye candy is a critical business requirement
slideshare.net
slideshare.net
Was the following ever true?
...it doesn't matter how pretty your site is or how many "bells and whistles" you have. While a high-quality site is important, the majority of people today value usability more than good looks or fanciness.
I firmly believe that if we (the collective we) don't start paying more attention to aesthetics, we are not going to survive this mess. The human landscape needs to start looking better. Would you rather have a trailer or one of these? http://www.smallhousestyle.com/2007/07/23/the-mill-house-by-...
I know that not everyone can afford one of these but if there was more desire for them in the market the prices would come down and possibly be more competitive with a double wide.
Do you really think that living in a double wide vs living in the mill house is a survival issue?
> I know that not everyone can afford one of these but if there was more desire for them in the market the prices would come down and possibly be more competitive with a double wide.
Yes, if more people wanted houses like that, they'd be cheaper. So what? (I'll note that "it's not common" drives much of what is considered "beautiful", so if it became more common, it's likely that it would lose a significant amount of its snob appeal.)
I agree that it's a nice looking house, but I don't see anything wrong with someone who would rather spend the difference, no matter how small, on something else.
How about you - would you rather someone be homeless because they can't afford to live in something from architectural digest and buy food? How about someone who'd rather spend the money on grad school?
I'm sure that you have a list of things and amounts where you'd say "it's okay for someone to buy that instead of what I consider a pretty house", but why should anyone else care about your list?
This sounds almost like a tautology (depending on the definition of '"natural" landscape').
> I would rather everyone be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. If we cover those bases the chances of living in a more aesthetically appealing world are much higher.
The claim had a causal connection that went the other way, that without aesthetics, something would die. You're claiming that if people live, beauty is more likely.
The reason it wouldn't work in most suburban areas is because most people have these weird ecological disasters they call "lawns." They fret over them. They urge them to grow, and then mow them down (reminds me of one of my exes.. ha!). And they poison the local water with their fertilizers and pesticides. If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees, and so forth.. having a house with windows wouldn't be such a problem.
The problem is everyone wants to pretend they're in a house out in the country, with rolling fields. Unfortunately, what they get are facsimiles of rolling fields; facsimiles of forests and streams. And day after day they trundle on, with their houses that only face forward (you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever), like blinders to the reality of the fakeness they live in.
Of course, I live in post-industrial bushwick, so I can't really say my surroundings are more natural. But at least they aren't a caricature...
Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia.
Lawns have nothing to do with their privacy failures in a urban/suburban area.
> If they just grew some natural areas with large flowering shrubs, trees,
You've got a very unnatural view of "natural area". With a few exceptions, the natural growth isn't nearly as dense as you suggest. (I now know that you haven't been to most of the US, Australia, Africa.)
> you don't see windows on the sides of houses in the 'burbs... do you? I haven't ever
I'm looking out one. In fact, side windows are actually almost universal. There are a couple of recent styles that don't have them (because they're maximizing ground use) but they're the exception even in new construction in the US.
> Besides, trailers/double-wides are typically in more rural areas, like the outer rims of suburbia.
Not really - I suspect that a majority are in parks and those aren't really "outer rims" of suburbia. (Take San Jose and Sunnyvale CA.)
I guess if you're living out in the desert you've got to worry about not having enough ground cover. But then again, you chose to live in the desert ;)
Funny, almost none of the houses built in my father's neighborhood circa '92 have windows on the side. And they have fairly large yards.
Really? You're basing the "majority of parks" on some small observations about cali? Have you ever driven through georgia, alabama, ohio, north/south carolina, florida, etc?
California is not representative of the US - especially "middle america."
Not at all. I just thought that the Silicon Valley counter-examples were interesting. Most people don't know how common trailer parks are.
> Have you ever driven through georgia, alabama, ohio, north/south carolina, florida, etc?
I haven't driven through the carolinas or georgia, but the rest, yes. I've lived in the midwest, was born in the "mid central", and have driven through all that plus most of the west and part of the northeast.
I do apologize for not having a current count on the number of my relatives who currently live in "manufactured housing", but feel free to assume what ever you'd like from the fact that the number in the past is >0.
I'm still waiting for any support for the assertion that ugly houses are harmful to survival.
Here you go.
http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-Well-Being-Health-Architect...
(Review was one of the first results on Google for "environmental aesthetics affecting health"... Did you research this question before you posed it?)
Again that works fine when you live in a forest, but less so when you live in Manhattan.
But let's stop argue on that... I don't understand your point - are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live? There are many such houses concepts in my area, though a minority of all houses, and most aren't as nice as the one here. The glass area don't have to be at all sides of the houses, there are lots of solutions for making such a house very private, even if many other houses are built near it. I don't have two hours to search for the best links, but with a fast Google search I find that for example http://www.exit-solutions.net/archkom/wp-content/photos/haus...
So you may not like that kind of design, but that's another story. Of course that house may not fit most of the world's area needs, but that's the beauty of architecture: it adapts itself to the area's climatic needs, and cultural preferences. I'm not saying this house is the solution to everything, I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment.
A "vegetable hedge" isn't natural in most places - it's the result of significant human activity.
Note also that the house itself, while pretty, is unliveable by most folks, especially those with kids.
> are you telling me it's not technically possible in most places or that it's culturally not welcome where you live?
Of course it's "technically possible" to grow the relevant plants in most places, but your claim was far stronger.
I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places.
> I'm just supporting the idea that more aesthetics and efficiency in architecture could improve our lives further without damaging the environment.
Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it.
I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival.
And what is the issue with planted vegetables? Out here in Europe, vegetable hedges are considered a very important for the ecosystem.
>New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, >let alone of the world in a "natural" state.
Huh? You were asserting I don't know suburbian America, which is wrong. Stop moving the discussion.
>I've no objection to you wanting to live in a forest. My point is that many people don't and that forests are unnatural in most places.
My point is you don't need a forest for such a house.
>Actually, you're just asserting that idea. You've done nothing to support it.
Asserting if you want, I just had the wrong word. I'd like to continue that argument in French ;) Also I live in a very modern and well-isolated house (that's law requirement in Germany) where I don't need any AC. That's my modest contribution. I just miss some vegetables around here...
>I've already asked twice for some support for the claim that such aesthetics are relevant to survival.
Where? Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too. If you don't believe energy prices will soon go high again, then don't - not my problem :)
You were claiming that the surroundings required to make that house usable were "natural".
> You were asserting I don't know suburbian America
No. I was pointing out that the required vegetation, vegetation that you claim is "natural", is not natural in much of the world and gave examples.
> My point is you don't need a forest for such a house.
You need dense growth at a low level. That's not natural in much of the world.
> Architecture is not only aesthetics, it's efficiency too.
The original aesthetics is essential to survival claim in this thread was about beauty.
Actually, construction is efficiency.
However, architecture can make certain types of efficient living difficult. This house is an example. Ignoring the privacy problems, it simply doesn't allow for efficient handling of stuff. It's a great place to visit but as a long term working residence, it's a failure. (And no,it's more than being kid hostile; kids are just an easy way to see the problem.)
New Jersey isn't particularly representative of the world, let alone of the world in a "natural" state.
I'm still waiting for any support for that outlandish proposition.
I like pretty houses, but I'm pretty sure that ugly ones won't kill me or anyone else.
How about some evidence instead of merely restating your claim.
I drove butt-ugly cars for several years. Did that do bad things to me? How about the people who were on the road with me? Again - some useful evidence would be nice. (You can argue that seeing ugly houses is different from seeing ugly cars, provided you have evidence supporting that proposition.)
I note that to the extent aesthetics cost money, they use capital that we might otherwise use to live on.
This could contribute to the chasm between "features,reliable,usable,convenient" and "pleasurable,meaningful", if the organization is run by people who already get the latter from the former.