dale austin wrote:

Amen to crappy McMansions-waste of a good alfalfa field. When searching
for my current home, I let the realtor know-in no uncertain terms-after
showing us a 1970's split-level ranch that I would not consider any
house built after the war. And I didn't mean the one John Wayne fought
in either. I meant the Great War. He did me one better and found us a
house built before what my friends from the South sometimes call "The
Late Unpleasantness" between the States. This puppy is framed with white
oak-including sills and joists that are 8X8 and hand-hewn.

It's not huge, but more than adequate for a family of 4-6. I'm having a
ball renovating too . .

If you are curious:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrwizard/501/501.html

That's a beautiful place, and a wonderful website as well.

Apropros to the thread in general: If you've ever flown into the
Dallas/Forth Worth airport, you've probably seen the Texas version of
the McMansion as you began your approach. The only difference being
that in Texas each one has a swimming pool.


Chuck Vance

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:47:01 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Jimmy's rolling over in his grave with that one.
"Kiss the sky", dufus.

"There's a bathroom on the right!"
Ok - I'm done.

I think Jimmy's rolling for a variety of reasons.

In article ,
Larry Jaques writes:
"'Cuse me! While I kiss this guy!"
Jimmy's rolling over in his grave with that one.
"Kiss the sky", dufus.

I'll remember this post the next time you **** and moan
about someone spelling *your* name incorrectly, Larry.

--
Jeff Thunder
Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
Northern Illinois Univ.
jthunder at math dot niu dot edu

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
|
| Specifically in the key of D ... worn out and overplayed...

Ugh, yes. But you can sing "Jolly Old St. Nicholas" to it -- same chord
progression. Try it some time.

--Jay

Having grown up in a family of architects my dislike for the McMansion
(a.k.a. the Starter Castle) knows few bounds.

A good friend of mine owns one -- built as close to the property lines as
the building code will allow; rooms sized not so much for comfort and
utility as to intimidate and impress.

Square footage for its own sake is bad. But that's not to say that lots of
square feet aren't useful. Another friend owns a proper mansion built in
the late 1800s sitting on several acres (complete with swan pond). While
often mistaken for a train station, it does have the quality of being
composed of livable, usable spaces properly married to the grounds. And her
lifestyle is such that this is an appropriate house for her.

What amuses me are those people who pay for such misproportioned and
ill-suited surroundings, and then spend the majority of their time in the
small, hidden-away spaces that are what they really wanted. Nancy, the
owner of the train station, is a wealthy socialite who entertains
frequently. The formal living room is a must for her. David, my other
friend, is an engineer who does no formal entertaining. His formal living
room gathers dust while the social center of his house is back in the great
room.

Another close friend, Charles, renovated an 1870s farmhouse (with an add-on
dating to about 1930) into a perfectly-sized house for two people. It
features the proverbial living-room-on-the-right and dining-room-on-the-left
with a center staircase going up to the second floor. The second floor is
really a unified attic which he has finished out into a spacious home
office. The kitchen, bedroom, master bath, patio/pantry and laundry are all
on the main floor -- not huge, but big enough. The main floor is perhaps
1,500 square feet. The dining room isn't used often, but doubles as the
display area for the couple's collectables. No garage. A simple shed in
the yard provides the shop and storage area. This is not a spacious house,
but it is a very comfortable house that "feels" large in the right places
and cozy in the right places.

I understand the economical need for "cookie-cutter" designs. Frank Lloyd
Wright was a fan of cookie-cutter design, where it would mean that people
could get an affordable house that fit all their needs. But where people
obviously have the money to spend on a fine home, I fail to see why they
apply that toward square footage as opposed to good design and fine
workmanship. I see custom-designed homes (sadly, occasionally from
architects who are friends of mine) that are monstrosities of the false
gables, cheep veneers, and other features that characterize the McMansion.
The baronial style is fine as long as you are willing to apply the full
baronial aesthetic to it.

Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied. A plethora of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

--Jay

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:51 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

Having grown up in a family of architects my dislike for the McMansion
(a.k.a. the Starter Castle) knows few bounds.

A good friend of mine owns one -- built as close to the property lines as
the building code will allow; rooms sized not so much for comfort and
utility as to intimidate and impress.

Square footage for its own sake is bad. But that's not to say that lots of
square feet aren't useful. Another friend owns a proper mansion built in
the late 1800s sitting on several acres (complete with swan pond). While
often mistaken for a train station, it does have the quality of being
composed of livable, usable spaces properly married to the grounds. And her
lifestyle is such that this is an appropriate house for her.

What amuses me are those people who pay for such misproportioned and
ill-suited surroundings, and then spend the majority of their time in the
small, hidden-away spaces that are what they really wanted. Nancy, the
owner of the train station, is a wealthy socialite who entertains
frequently. The formal living room is a must for her. David, my other
friend, is an engineer who does no formal entertaining. His formal living
room gathers dust while the social center of his house is back in the great
room.

Another close friend, Charles, renovated an 1870s farmhouse (with an add-on
dating to about 1930) into a perfectly-sized house for two people. It
features the proverbial living-room-on-the-right and dining-room-on-the-left
with a center staircase going up to the second floor. The second floor is
really a unified attic which he has finished out into a spacious home
office. The kitchen, bedroom, master bath, patio/pantry and laundry are all
on the main floor -- not huge, but big enough. The main floor is perhaps
1,500 square feet. The dining room isn't used often, but doubles as the
display area for the couple's collectables. No garage. A simple shed in
the yard provides the shop and storage area. This is not a spacious house,
but it is a very comfortable house that "feels" large in the right places
and cozy in the right places.

I understand the economical need for "cookie-cutter" designs. Frank Lloyd
Wright was a fan of cookie-cutter design, where it would mean that people
could get an affordable house that fit all their needs. But where people
obviously have the money to spend on a fine home, I fail to see why they
apply that toward square footage as opposed to good design and fine
workmanship. I see custom-designed homes (sadly, occasionally from
architects who are friends of mine) that are monstrosities of the false
gables, cheep veneers, and other features that characterize the McMansion.
The baronial style is fine as long as you are willing to apply the full
baronial aesthetic to it.

Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied. A plethora of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

--Jay


I'll blame television.

Americans have come to expect to have their tastes handed to them in
20 second commercials, one after the other. just hand 'em the
highlights... the idea that there could or should be an underlying
body of knowledge is an affront to the instant gratification mindset.

Conan the Librarian wrote:



That's a beautiful place, and a wonderful website as well.

Apropros to the thread in general: If you've ever flown into the
Dallas/Forth Worth airport, you've probably seen the Texas version of
the McMansion as you began your approach. The only difference being
that in Texas each one has a swimming pool.


Chuck Vance


Thanks. I can take credit for the website, but not the house. I'm just
the most recent in a long line of caretakers. Barring catastrophes,
she'll be standing long after I'm looking up at the universe through six
feet of dirt. On which note-we have a cemetery just up the street a bit
with some 300 Civil War vets, and most of the prior owners of my
house-including George Custer's mother-in-law who owned it for a while.



Dale

On 7 Oct 2004 17:16:20 GMT, (Jeffrey
Thunder) calmly ranted:

In article ,
Larry Jaques writes:
"'Cuse me! While I kiss this guy!"
Jimmy's rolling over in his grave with that one.
"Kiss the sky", dufus.

I'll remember this post the next time you **** and moan
about someone spelling *your* name incorrectly, Larry.

Um, OK. Erm...why, Sir Jeffrey?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

Jay Windley wrote:
snip

I fail to see why they apply that toward square footage as opposed to good
design and fine workmanship.

Because the people they're trying to impress wouldn't know good design and fine
workmanship if it ran out from under the front porch and bit them on the leg.

In fairness, I have to point out this is not a new phenomenon. In an earlier
life I was on the board of directors of a museum which acquired a Queen Anne
mansion built in the 1870s for a leading merchant family in a small western
town. Once we got it on the museum grounds, we had to renovate the house.

Talk about an experience! Talk about shoddy workmanship where it wouldn't show!
I was particularly charmed by t he fact that the chimney was a structural member
helping to support the upper floors. There was stuff like that all through the
house.


How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Depends on what you're trying to do. My wife and I occasionally play the 'when
we win the lottery' game where we design our ideal house. The place is huge, but
almost all the space is libraries, workshops, sewing rooms and a kitchen the
size of Texas. The actual living space usually comes out between 1200-2000 sq.
ft.



Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

Does anyone here remember a Limeliters' song called "Charlie The Midnight
Marauder"? Based on an actual incident, so I'm told.

--RC



--Jay

Larry Jacks wrote:
Um, OK. Erm...why, Sir Jeffrey?



I think he's maybe suggesting you go out and buy a Hendrix
album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

UA100

What is anathema to me is the concept of "volume space".

The multi-story walk in at the entrance is beyond pretentious and
bleeds over into the concept of hubris.

These little turds violate the expression of homeliness, that should
be the core consideration of residential architecture.

They confuse the public expression with the private, and seek to take
on the trappings of grandiosity that are usually reserved for public
buildings.

The spaces that they describe as the high percentage of their total
volume are uninhabitable and are meant to project nothing more than
the expression of ego.


Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
since the beginning of the twentieth century?

The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.

The International Style is nothing more than a reduction of ornament
to the point of absurdity.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.


Well, I've spewed my guts on this - have at it.





On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:51 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

Having grown up in a family of architects my dislike for the McMansion
(a.k.a. the Starter Castle) knows few bounds.

A good friend of mine owns one -- built as close to the property lines as
the building code will allow; rooms sized not so much for comfort and
utility as to intimidate and impress.

Square footage for its own sake is bad. But that's not to say that lots of
square feet aren't useful. Another friend owns a proper mansion built in
the late 1800s sitting on several acres (complete with swan pond). While
often mistaken for a train station, it does have the quality of being
composed of livable, usable spaces properly married to the grounds. And her
lifestyle is such that this is an appropriate house for her.

What amuses me are those people who pay for such misproportioned and
ill-suited surroundings, and then spend the majority of their time in the
small, hidden-away spaces that are what they really wanted. Nancy, the
owner of the train station, is a wealthy socialite who entertains
frequently. The formal living room is a must for her. David, my other
friend, is an engineer who does no formal entertaining. His formal living
room gathers dust while the social center of his house is back in the great
room.

Another close friend, Charles, renovated an 1870s farmhouse (with an add-on
dating to about 1930) into a perfectly-sized house for two people. It
features the proverbial living-room-on-the-right and dining-room-on-the-left
with a center staircase going up to the second floor. The second floor is
really a unified attic which he has finished out into a spacious home
office. The kitchen, bedroom, master bath, patio/pantry and laundry are all
on the main floor -- not huge, but big enough. The main floor is perhaps
1,500 square feet. The dining room isn't used often, but doubles as the
display area for the couple's collectables. No garage. A simple shed in
the yard provides the shop and storage area. This is not a spacious house,
but it is a very comfortable house that "feels" large in the right places
and cozy in the right places.

I understand the economical need for "cookie-cutter" designs. Frank Lloyd
Wright was a fan of cookie-cutter design, where it would mean that people
could get an affordable house that fit all their needs. But where people
obviously have the money to spend on a fine home, I fail to see why they
apply that toward square footage as opposed to good design and fine
workmanship. I see custom-designed homes (sadly, occasionally from
architects who are friends of mine) that are monstrosities of the false
gables, cheep veneers, and other features that characterize the McMansion.
The baronial style is fine as long as you are willing to apply the full
baronial aesthetic to it.

Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied. A plethora of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

--Jay

Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:07:05 GMT, patrick conroy
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:47:01 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Jimmy's rolling over in his grave with that one.
"Kiss the sky", dufus.

"There's a bathroom on the right!"
Ok - I'm done.

Not Jimmy, but

"Big jet's got a light out"
[credit to comedian whose name I have forgotten]


I think Jimmy's rolling for a variety of reasons.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:30:13 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

What is anathema to me is the concept of "volume space".
.... snip
The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.


I kind of understand where you are coming from, in my opinion, they
stopped writing music in about 1850 or so and it had been in decline from
the late 1780's or so until then with only a few brilliant exceptions.

... so I can see where someone might have the same attitude and
impression of architectural trends as well.





Well, I've spewed my guts on this - have at it.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:30:13 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

The International Style is nothing more than a reduction of ornament
to the point of absurdity.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.

That's because you're in the USA and only got the bad stuff. Mies van
der Rohe period Bauhaus was the degenerate art of a degenerate
society. All the interesting ideas were purged to fit in with snipped
for Goodwins Law and later on for Ayn Rand (I always get those two
confused anyway).

Johannes Itter as Corporate Mind ? The guy was as crazy as a Usenet
poster!

For good International style, look at the South Coast of England - De
La Warr pavilion, Burgh Island hotel (watch any BBC Agatha Christie),
any of Lubetkin's work.

--
Smert' spamionam

Hubris it is. Whether it is rooted in ego gratification or a sense of being
lost in a conformist nation is a nice discussion in itself. Someone made the
undeniable point to me that people have a right to build whatever they want.
(He did not say "can afford.") Granted, but personal rights are not the
issue. Rather, where is the responsibility? Where is the very conservative
urge to not waste, to preserve, to "conserve?" My brother-in-law built a
3,600 sq ft. "retirement" home that is exactly twice the size of his
previous one, replete with pool and waterfall, 10 foot ceilings and video
theater. It's sad to think of all the good that might have been done with
just the money wasted in that home.

Bob

or
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
What is anathema to me is the concept of "volume space".

The multi-story walk in at the entrance is beyond pretentious and
bleeds over into the concept of hubris.

These little turds violate the expression of homeliness, that should
be the core consideration of residential architecture.

They confuse the public expression with the private, and seek to take
on the trappings of grandiosity that are usually reserved for public
buildings.

The spaces that they describe as the high percentage of their total
volume are uninhabitable and are meant to project nothing more than
the expression of ego.


Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
since the beginning of the twentieth century?

The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.

The International Style is nothing more than a reduction of ornament
to the point of absurdity.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.


Well, I've spewed my guts on this - have at it.





On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:51 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

Having grown up in a family of architects my dislike for the McMansion
(a.k.a. the Starter Castle) knows few bounds.

A good friend of mine owns one -- built as close to the property lines as
the building code will allow; rooms sized not so much for comfort and
utility as to intimidate and impress.

Square footage for its own sake is bad. But that's not to say that lots
of
square feet aren't useful. Another friend owns a proper mansion built in
the late 1800s sitting on several acres (complete with swan pond). While
often mistaken for a train station, it does have the quality of being
composed of livable, usable spaces properly married to the grounds. And
her
lifestyle is such that this is an appropriate house for her.

What amuses me are those people who pay for such misproportioned and
ill-suited surroundings, and then spend the majority of their time in the
small, hidden-away spaces that are what they really wanted. Nancy, the
owner of the train station, is a wealthy socialite who entertains
frequently. The formal living room is a must for her. David, my other
friend, is an engineer who does no formal entertaining. His formal living
room gathers dust while the social center of his house is back in the
great
room.

Another close friend, Charles, renovated an 1870s farmhouse (with an
add-on
dating to about 1930) into a perfectly-sized house for two people. It
features the proverbial living-room-on-the-right and
dining-room-on-the-left
with a center staircase going up to the second floor. The second floor is
really a unified attic which he has finished out into a spacious home
office. The kitchen, bedroom, master bath, patio/pantry and laundry are
all
on the main floor -- not huge, but big enough. The main floor is perhaps
1,500 square feet. The dining room isn't used often, but doubles as the
display area for the couple's collectables. No garage. A simple shed in
the yard provides the shop and storage area. This is not a spacious
house,
but it is a very comfortable house that "feels" large in the right places
and cozy in the right places.

I understand the economical need for "cookie-cutter" designs. Frank Lloyd
Wright was a fan of cookie-cutter design, where it would mean that people
could get an affordable house that fit all their needs. But where people
obviously have the money to spend on a fine home, I fail to see why they
apply that toward square footage as opposed to good design and fine
workmanship. I see custom-designed homes (sadly, occasionally from
architects who are friends of mine) that are monstrosities of the false
gables, cheep veneers, and other features that characterize the McMansion.
The baronial style is fine as long as you are willing to apply the full
baronial aesthetic to it.

Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the
organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied. A plethora
of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what
you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in
his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to
enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

--Jay

Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

The problem I have is now trying to reconcile the notion of "modest home
with a grand shop". Plus a "large quilting studio" for LOML.

You see where the problem lies? A 24x40 shop is wretched excess for most
of my acquaintances, whereas a swimming pool and a 4500 sq ft home is
somehow "appropriate".

Patriarch

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

Oops! Mea culpa on that one t(w)o(o).

Speaking of LP's - anyone else still shlepping theirs around?
I finally worked through my issues and unloaded my last box.
Turntable too.
Stanton 681EEE stylus.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.


Hmmm - put me in "Your loyal opposition" on this one.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:51 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:


Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied.

Well said!


A plethora of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

Taste is - well subject to one's taste. So many factors apply - from
nature to nuture. Unfortunately money and style aren't always
together. As evidenced by my Tour-Of-Horror-Home Eyetalian Villa.


Heck, AFIAC, too many people hang their pictures too high...

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

Larry Jacks wrote:
Um, OK. Erm...why, Sir Jeffrey?



I think he's maybe suggesting you go out and buy a Hendrix
album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

UA100


Jimi said, quoting Zimmerman,:

There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There’s too much confusion
I can’t get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey hey

No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we’ve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour’s getting late
Hey

Hey

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Bare-foot servants to, but huh
Outside in the cold distance
A wild cat did growl
Two riders were approachin’
And the wind began to howl
Hey
Oh
All along the watchtower
Hear you sing around the watch
Gotta beware gotta beware I will
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower




Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:30:13 -0400, Tom Watson
scribbled:


Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
since the beginning of the twentieth century?

Gaudì?

http://www.op.net/~jmeltzer/gaudi.html

The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.

The International Style is nothing more than a reduction of ornament
to the point of absurdity.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.

Agreed with the above.

Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:28:20 GMT, patriarch
wrote:

The problem I have is now trying to reconcile the notion of "modest home
with a grand shop". Plus a "large quilting studio" for LOML.

You see where the problem lies? A 24x40 shop is wretched excess for most
of my acquaintances, whereas a swimming pool and a 4500 sq ft home is
somehow "appropriate".

Patriarch



yep.

I'd guess I could fit my household stuff adequately in about 600 sq.
ft. at this point I'd have to get rid of some stuff, but it's all junk
anyway ; ^ )

I have a 1600 sq. ft. house, an 840 sq. ft. shop on 1/3 acre of land-
and I live alone. I'd much rather have those footages reversed....

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

Larry Jacks wrote:
Um, OK. Erm...why, Sir Jeffrey?



I think he's maybe suggesting you go out and buy a Hendrix
album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

UA100


Jimi said, quoting Zimmerman,:

There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion
I can't get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey hey

No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour's getting late
Hey

Hey

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Bare-foot servants to, but huh
Outside in the cold distance
A wild cat did growl
Two riders were approachin'
And the wind began to howl
Hey
Oh
All along the watchtower
Hear you sing around the watch
Gotta beware gotta beware I will
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower

Yeah, and Longfellow's spinning like a top in his grave. Gotta be the worst
lyrics since doo wop.

Bob

Adequate room for the production of any useful goods is not a waste. A
monstrous home produces nothing--it only absorbs.

Bob

"patriarch astDOTnet" patriarch wrote in message
.77...
The problem I have is now trying to reconcile the notion of "modest home
with a grand shop". Plus a "large quilting studio" for LOML.

You see where the problem lies? A 24x40 shop is wretched excess for most
of my acquaintances, whereas a swimming pool and a 4500 sq ft home is
somehow "appropriate".

Patriarch

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:32:07 -0700, Mark & Juanita
calmly ranted:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:30:13 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

What is anathema to me is the concept of "volume space".
... snip
The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.


I kind of understand where you are coming from, in my opinion, they
stopped writing music in about 1850 or so and it had been in decline from
the late 1780's or so until then with only a few brilliant exceptions.

Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn? Yeah, I agree. bseg


... so I can see where someone might have the same attitude and
impression of architectural trends as well.

I think Tom and you might like "The Not-So-Big House" by Sarah
Susanka if you haven't already been introduced to it or her.
She has several books out, but the original was by far her best.
http://www.notsobighouse.com/ ASIN # 1561581305
AFTER you read NSBH, get "Creating the Not So Big House", her
2nd book. They're published by Taunton, BTW.

Her tips: Limit the square footage, make THAT count with detail and
better quality materials, double/triple/re-task rooms for the way you
actually live. If that means doing without a formal living room, so
much the better.

I dislike places with Cathedral ceilings where the floor is 64F
and the roof (2 man-heights above you) is a toasty 90F. It's not
only ugly and uncomfortable, it's inefficient and expensive to
heat/cool. Stickley and the Greenes made their homes with shorter
alcoves for good reason: People like small places, where they feel
more comfortable. Sadly, the vast majority of these idiots in
mega-S/F homes are all uncomfortable most of the time and they
don't realize why. Smaller footage + more/nicer personalization =
much happier occupants of the dwelling.

Here are some of Sarah's articles:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2000...esign_1-1.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2000...esign_1-1.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...585145-5535032


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

"Bob Schmall" wrote in
:

Adequate room for the production of any useful goods is not a waste. A
monstrous home produces nothing--it only absorbs.


Aye, there's the rub: useful goods. This is a hobby for me. If I took
money for what I do, I'd have tax and insurance consequences I'd rather not
consider.

So substitute "large boat" for "large shop", on the scale of social good.

Patriarch

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
|
| Because the people they're trying to impress wouldn't know good
| design and fine workmanship if it ran out from under the front
| porch and bit them on the leg.

That's really too bad.

| Depends on what you're trying to do. My wife and I occasionally
| play the 'when we win the lottery' game where we design our ideal
| house.

Yes, I do that too.

Obviously you have to stay within your means on any project, and that means
trade-offs. At least with me there's always a difference between what I
want and what I can afford. The band saw I really want isn't the band saw I
can afford. Which is okay too, in a way, because the band saw I really want
would only fit in the shop I really want, which again isn't the shop I can
afford.

I suppose we all have our own ideas about what constitutes "nice things".

--Jay

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:20:36 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

Yeah, and Longfellow's spinning like a top in his grave. Gotta be the worst
lyrics since doo wop.

But Longfellow was a lousy guitarist, even when he wasn't setting fire
to it.



Oh ? You mean _Dylan_ recorded All Along The Watchtower as well as
the real version ?

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...
|
| Taste is - well subject to one's taste.

Agreed. If someone's idea of Shangri-la is Egyptian columns with Victorian
gingerbread trim and Arts & Crafts furniture, then more power to them.
He'll be happy, and someone will stay in business by giving it to him.

But let's go back to my friend Charles. His house -- which I consider
reasonably well appointed -- is decorated in a style that does not
particularly appeal to me. But it is style-consistent and appropriate in
both organization and detail. So for me there's a hierarchy of design
appreciation:

1. "I like that; it's really neat."

2. "I don't like it, but I can see where a lot of other people would."

3. "I don't see how anyone could like that."

The difference between 1 and 2 for me is fairly small.

A lot of people look at Krenov cabinets and say, "Ew, why would I want
something like that in my living room? The legs aren't even straight." But
the smart ones can say, "Hey, that's some great inlay there," or "Look at
what he did with the grain on that drawer; I'll bet I could do that with a
clock face."

You have to avoid the opposite extreme and try not to be a Style Nazi. Some
styles have elements that mix well with other styles. A guy two doors down
from me built a Mies van der Rohe wannabe house and put a Japanese garden in
back. At the outset I wouldn't have lumped Bauhaus and Imperial Japan
necessarily into compatible categories, but the result is brilliant.

Look at the Louvre. Controversial as it seems, the Pei pyramid is generally
seen as harmonious with the rest of the architecture even though it's as
different from it as it can possibly be.

But with some designs you can easily get the idea that some particular
feature or detail was chosen not because it was stylistically appropriate,
but because it was the cheapest thing in the catalogue that month. You
don't build a grandfather clock case and put in a modernistic clock face and
hands just because they're cheaper than the baroque ones. That's not an
adventurous mixing of style; that's just being cheap and half-assed.

If I thought some of the McMansion architecture was based on adventures in
style, I'd have less disdain for it. But when it's so apparently just
providing the semblance of elegance it's not very appealing to me. It's one
thing to create a monstrosity to order. It's another thing to create a
monstrosity out of laziness or cheapness and try to convince people it's
what everyone needs.

Many years ago, one of my first design jobs was at Herman Miller. We spent
a lot of time fuming over the fact that Laz-E-Boy outsold us ten to one.
But just because the market favors something doesn't make it objectively
good.

--Jay

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
|
| Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
| since the beginning of the twentieth century?

Sure. A few people have mentioned some individual architects. Let me throw
in Frank Gehry. People either love his stuff or they hate it.

You can point to Luxor or Chartres or the Mormon tabernacle and say that
it's such great, distinctive architecture from the past. But you have to
also keep in mind that stuff from the past is here in the present because it
survived, and it survived because enough people deemed it worthy to survive.
The crap architecture that surely must have been around back in those times
too didn't survive because it was crap.

But here we sit in modern times looking at both the crap and the cream of
our time. The McMansions of today hopefully won't survive because they'll
be properly deemed ephemeral and unexemplary, or because they'll just fall
apart under their own crapulence. But hopefully the cream of the 20th and
21st centuries will persist.

--Jay

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:16:22 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

At the outset I wouldn't have lumped Bauhaus and Imperial Japan
necessarily into compatible categories,

That's an accident of history. Germany had relatively little contact
with Japan up to WW1, in comparison with Britain, France or the USA.
They're not seen as related, compared to someone like FLW who was
hugely influenced, but convergent evolution certainly made them
compatible.
--
Smert' spamionam

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:28:20 GMT, patriarch
wrote:

The problem I have is now trying to reconcile the notion of "modest home
with a grand shop". Plus a "large quilting studio" for LOML.

You see where the problem lies? A 24x40 shop is wretched excess for most
of my acquaintances, whereas a swimming pool and a 4500 sq ft home is
somehow "appropriate".

Patriarch


I'm sorry, I don't see the problem at all. Your acquaintances may think you're
a little peculiar, but that's their look-out. To me it is perfectly logical to
have shop space four or five times the size of the living area (less the
enormous library and huge kitchen, of course.)

As I see it this is the direct opposite of the MacMansion. A house built to
suit you rather than to impress other people.

--RC

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

snip
I kind of understand where you are coming from, in my opinion, they
stopped writing music in about 1850 or so and it had been in decline
from the late 1780's or so until then with only a few brilliant
exceptions.

Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn? Yeah, I agree. bseg

Well, Lyle Lovett is often amusing. If it just weren't all about Texas! ;-)

I think Tom and you might like "The Not-So-Big House" by Sarah
Susanka if you haven't already been introduced to it or her.

Amen to this as well.

Patriarch

Jay Windley said:


Many years ago, one of my first design jobs was at Herman Miller. We spent
a lot of time fuming over the fact that Laz-E-Boy outsold us ten to one.
But just because the market favors something doesn't make it objectively
good.

They probably advertised 10 times as much - thereby convincing a
gullible public of their version of the truth. Like politicians. :-\


Greg G.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:06:56 GMT, patrick conroy
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:38:18 GMT, Unisaw A100
wrote:

album (a CD to allayouse dilettantes) and check out his
first name.

Oops! Mea culpa on that one t(w)o(o).

Speaking of LP's - anyone else still shlepping theirs around?
I finally worked through my issues and unloaded my last box.
Turntable too.
Stanton 681EEE stylus.

Guilty as charged. I just brought my 100 LPs, Technics SL-DD2 t-table
and Audio Technica DR300E stylus 900 miles north to Oregon 3 years
ago. The first album on: King Crimson "In the Court of the Crimson
King" blasting "21st Century Schizoid Man" through the old Bose 501s.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:20:36 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
calmly ranted:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message

Jimi said, quoting Zimmerman,:
-snip-
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower

Yeah, and Longfellow's spinning like a top in his grave. Gotta be the worst
lyrics since doo wop.

Thank Bob Dylan for the lyrics and Jimi for the hot licks.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development
--Pandora * http://www.diversify.com

Jay Windley wrote:


"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
|
| Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
| since the beginning of the twentieth century?

Sure. A few people have mentioned some individual architects. Let me
throw
in Frank Gehry. People either love his stuff or they hate it.

You can point to Luxor or Chartres or the Mormon tabernacle and say that
it's such great, distinctive architecture from the past. But you have to
also keep in mind that stuff from the past is here in the present because
it survived, and it survived because enough people deemed it worthy to
survive.

Or because it was so massive and strongly built that pulling it down was
more effort than it was worth.

The crap architecture that surely must have been around back in
those times too didn't survive because it was crap.

But here we sit in modern times looking at both the crap and the cream of
our time. The McMansions of today hopefully won't survive because they'll
be properly deemed ephemeral and unexemplary, or because they'll just fall
apart under their own crapulence. But hopefully the cream of the 20th and
21st centuries will persist.

--Jay

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:54:43 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:


"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...
|
| Because the people they're trying to impress wouldn't know good
| design and fine workmanship if it ran out from under the front
| porch and bit them on the leg.

That's really too bad.

| Depends on what you're trying to do. My wife and I occasionally
| play the 'when we win the lottery' game where we design our ideal
| house.

Yes, I do that too.

Obviously you have to stay within your means on any project, and that means
trade-offs. At least with me there's always a difference between what I
want and what I can afford. The band saw I really want isn't the band saw I
can afford. Which is okay too, in a way, because the band saw I really want
would only fit in the shop I really want, which again isn't the shop I can
afford.

I suppose we all have our own ideas about what constitutes "nice things".

--Jay


... and there I think you have hit the crux of it. If people are
acquiring these kinds of homes because that is what those people consider
"nice things", then who are any of us to denigrate that? OTOH, if someone
acquires anything: large house, small but elegant house, etc. simply to
impress others, then that is truly a sad thing. It's not the things we
have that necessarily give satisfaction, but what we do with the things we
have that give that satisfaction.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:01:31 GMT, "Bob Schmall" wrote:

Hubris it is. Whether it is rooted in ego gratification or a sense of being
lost in a conformist nation is a nice discussion in itself. Someone made the
undeniable point to me that people have a right to build whatever they want.
(He did not say "can afford.") Granted, but personal rights are not the
issue. Rather, where is the responsibility? Where is the very conservative
urge to not waste, to preserve, to "conserve?" My brother-in-law built a
3,600 sq ft. "retirement" home that is exactly twice the size of his
previous one, replete with pool and waterfall, 10 foot ceilings and video
theater. It's sad to think of all the good that might have been done with
just the money wasted in that home.

Bob


Why do you view something that someone has done with their own resources
for their satisfaction as money wasted and "not doing good?" Certainly
the people building the house benefited from its construction -- it
provided money and jobs. Those supplying water and fuel will benefit as
will those who provide maintenance and upkeep or who provide the supplies
for those activities.

It seems more Hubris to place oneself in judgement of what another does
with their resources and judging "all the good that might have been done
with just the money wasted ... "



or
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
.. .
What is anathema to me is the concept of "volume space".

The multi-story walk in at the entrance is beyond pretentious and
bleeds over into the concept of hubris.

These little turds violate the expression of homeliness, that should
be the core consideration of residential architecture.

They confuse the public expression with the private, and seek to take
on the trappings of grandiosity that are usually reserved for public
buildings.

The spaces that they describe as the high percentage of their total
volume are uninhabitable and are meant to project nothing more than
the expression of ego.


Has there actually been an interesting viewpoint into architecture
since the beginning of the twentieth century?

The Chrysler Building rocks; the Twin Towers (rip) suck.

Bobby Venturi can push his concept of Post-Modernism as much as he
wants but the fact is that there is nothing new contained in it. It
is a dissolution and diminution of elements and ornamentation.

The International Style is nothing more than a reduction of ornament
to the point of absurdity.

BauHaus is the Corporate Mind and looks like absolute ****.


Well, I've spewed my guts on this - have at it.





On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:02:51 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

Having grown up in a family of architects my dislike for the McMansion
(a.k.a. the Starter Castle) knows few bounds.

A good friend of mine owns one -- built as close to the property lines as
the building code will allow; rooms sized not so much for comfort and
utility as to intimidate and impress.

Square footage for its own sake is bad. But that's not to say that lots
of
square feet aren't useful. Another friend owns a proper mansion built in
the late 1800s sitting on several acres (complete with swan pond). While
often mistaken for a train station, it does have the quality of being
composed of livable, usable spaces properly married to the grounds. And
her
lifestyle is such that this is an appropriate house for her.

What amuses me are those people who pay for such misproportioned and
ill-suited surroundings, and then spend the majority of their time in the
small, hidden-away spaces that are what they really wanted. Nancy, the
owner of the train station, is a wealthy socialite who entertains
frequently. The formal living room is a must for her. David, my other
friend, is an engineer who does no formal entertaining. His formal living
room gathers dust while the social center of his house is back in the
great
room.

Another close friend, Charles, renovated an 1870s farmhouse (with an
add-on
dating to about 1930) into a perfectly-sized house for two people. It
features the proverbial living-room-on-the-right and
dining-room-on-the-left
with a center staircase going up to the second floor. The second floor is
really a unified attic which he has finished out into a spacious home
office. The kitchen, bedroom, master bath, patio/pantry and laundry are
all
on the main floor -- not huge, but big enough. The main floor is perhaps
1,500 square feet. The dining room isn't used often, but doubles as the
display area for the couple's collectables. No garage. A simple shed in
the yard provides the shop and storage area. This is not a spacious
house,
but it is a very comfortable house that "feels" large in the right places
and cozy in the right places.

I understand the economical need for "cookie-cutter" designs. Frank Lloyd
Wright was a fan of cookie-cutter design, where it would mean that people
could get an affordable house that fit all their needs. But where people
obviously have the money to spend on a fine home, I fail to see why they
apply that toward square footage as opposed to good design and fine
workmanship. I see custom-designed homes (sadly, occasionally from
architects who are friends of mine) that are monstrosities of the false
gables, cheep veneers, and other features that characterize the McMansion.
The baronial style is fine as long as you are willing to apply the full
baronial aesthetic to it.

Nothing irritates me more than mixing design idioms, or applying the
ornaments from a certain style without attention paid to the
organizational
aesthetic in which those details are supposed to be applied. A plethora
of
false gables doth not a mansion make. Would you mix the fruit cup, the
salad, the steak, the potatoes, and the cheesecake into one bucket?

How much more satisfying to pay an architect a fair fee to design a house
that fits you and your lifestyle, and who can help you distinguish what
you
want from what you think you want. How much more satisfying to have 2,000
square feet of warm walnut than 8,000 square feet of featureless Sheetrock
painted in Sherwin-Williams Off-White no. 8263 chalk-based latex.

Perhaps the most telling episode in this state of affairs is David's
confession that he spent several minutes one evening working the key in
his
front door and ringing the bell, only to find out he was attempting to
enter
the house one street over from his that happened to be fundamentally
indistinguishable from his own. So much money, so little value.

--Jay

Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Andy Dingley wrote in
:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:16:22 -0600, "Jay Windley"
wrote:

At the outset I wouldn't have lumped Bauhaus and Imperial Japan
necessarily into compatible categories,

That's an accident of history. Germany had relatively little contact
with Japan up to WW1, in comparison with Britain, France or the USA.
They're not seen as related, compared to someone like FLW who was
hugely influenced, but convergent evolution certainly made them
compatible.

Didn't FLW do the the big hotel in Tokyo from which MacArthur ran post-war
Japan?

Patriarch