Yeah, I don't think the house is really that bad. All of the 'architectural features' were properly used and not phony.
The thing I hate the most is the cheap roof. Considering this is a kind of combination french chateau-meets-rocky mountain... I would have liked to have seen some mansarddddddd action.
I side with crave. I'm not too high on it. Indistinctive massing. The elements of this home are begging for more symmetry. There is almost no order. Too busy and confused. Obviously they had a large budget and it looks like they're trying to fit one of everything into the design. Notice how the fascia of the turret roof on the right aligns with the fascia of the adjacent hip roof? Bad design, yet the rest of the roofs jog. I'm not positive that's a mansard, it may just be a shallow gable (also a bad idea in Aspen).
this faux old world crap is soooo played it's all starting to look the same to me. what compels people to want to live in something that appears to be from another century, while parked in the garage is a new bugatti?
@crave
Because two centuries ago, the thing that would have been parked in their garage was an Arabian stallion.
All architectural styles are played out. The only thing you can do with style is have fun with it.
I would have probably extended the two towers up about 15' feet. Turned the roof into a mansard clad in unfinished copper and do away with that porch thing. Probably would have spent more money on the front doors. Maybe 12'-16' solid glass french doors?
@beekay
There's not mansard. I was just saying I hope there would have been.
The cost of this house was more than likely less than $5 million wholesale. It sits on 44 acres of prime realty in Aspen country. The lot right now probably runs in the neighborhood of $18-22 million.
hey, at least they didn't build/buy another one of these:
I'm not sure if you've ever been to Aspen or really anywhere in the mountain southwest... but half the homes look like this bizarre Mediterranean half-breed style.
It's actually much better than faux-native-american FLW or "trying to hard modern-esque."
I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the current house is scraped and a monument to oneself is built. Those mediterranean half-breeds seem to be all over the country!
Most architects are totally biased against non-ultra contemporary architecture.
It is definitely not my cup of tea, but the interior spaces seem "homy" (not easy to achieve in a pretentious house) and the design seems well-balanced.
Not my style at all, "overgrown generic" comes to mind. However, some of the mtn stuff is really atrocious (as UG points out, just strange "hey, I want a modern, uh, no, lodge, uh, no, a Spanish, uh, well, make it a little of all".
Some gorgeous modern homes too, but rare. Such a shame, both in the restrictions the cities place on the architecture (for lodges, basically dictating they all look identical) and the bizarre mtn taste and style (you go to the Ritz in Aspen and it is like "I think this is nice, but I can't tell because it is made to look like it is worn 100 yr old lodge".
The only thing thats missing is a room full of dead animal heads on the walls. Rich people don't have any personal taste, they just buy whatever costs more, even it is a pile of shit.
But by my rough calculations, that house ended up costing 487,627,253 pounds (2008) or $950,873,143 (2008). Which is a bit more than $31.5 million.
Only by a bit.
I found a figure of the total square footage to be around 350,000... so that puts the budget at around $2,700 per square foot.
Not bad for a house that used several dozen tons of turquoise and lapis lazuli for paint, 100 kilograms of pure gold, roughly 10 metric tons of silver, tons upon tons of gemstones, has over 680 chandeliers and something like 2,000 windows.
They did this without Revit in less than 20 years!
It was even rumored that during the middle of construction, the roof was originally gold-foiled. But Catherine had all of the gold foil painted over because she didn't want to come off as ostentatious!
There is little architecture I enjoy more than a well done mountain home. Unfortunately, most of them turn out looking like the architoddler dumped out the barrel of lincoln logs again, especially since the Californians began invading Colorado the past couple decades.
Don't make fun of Spanish/ Native American. I dig adobe. Get it?
(But seriously, I do.)
Nov 12, 10 3:26 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
$31.5 million dollar estate in Aspen
proof once again, just because you have money, doesn't mean you have good taste.
macaroni grill
all in all that house is pretty tasteful, IMO
Yeah, I don't think the house is really that bad. All of the 'architectural features' were properly used and not phony.
The thing I hate the most is the cheap roof. Considering this is a kind of combination french chateau-meets-rocky mountain... I would have liked to have seen some mansarddddddd action.
Can you even build a mansard roof with that kind of snow load?
I side with crave. I'm not too high on it. Indistinctive massing. The elements of this home are begging for more symmetry. There is almost no order. Too busy and confused. Obviously they had a large budget and it looks like they're trying to fit one of everything into the design. Notice how the fascia of the turret roof on the right aligns with the fascia of the adjacent hip roof? Bad design, yet the rest of the roofs jog. I'm not positive that's a mansard, it may just be a shallow gable (also a bad idea in Aspen).
this faux old world crap is soooo played it's all starting to look the same to me. what compels people to want to live in something that appears to be from another century, while parked in the garage is a new bugatti?
@crave
Because two centuries ago, the thing that would have been parked in their garage was an Arabian stallion.
All architectural styles are played out. The only thing you can do with style is have fun with it.
I would have probably extended the two towers up about 15' feet. Turned the roof into a mansard clad in unfinished copper and do away with that porch thing. Probably would have spent more money on the front doors. Maybe 12'-16' solid glass french doors?
@beekay
There's not mansard. I was just saying I hope there would have been.
The cost of this house was more than likely less than $5 million wholesale. It sits on 44 acres of prime realty in Aspen country. The lot right now probably runs in the neighborhood of $18-22 million.
@unicorn
I like your ideas...I think it's missing one thing though...
hey, at least they didn't build/buy another one of these:
I'm not sure if you've ever been to Aspen or really anywhere in the mountain southwest... but half the homes look like this bizarre Mediterranean half-breed style.
It's actually much better than faux-native-american FLW or "trying to hard modern-esque."
Gag.
I'll take Macaroni Grill Architecture for $31.5 million, Alex.
I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the current house is scraped and a monument to oneself is built. Those mediterranean half-breeds seem to be all over the country!
It is not that bad.
Most architects are totally biased against non-ultra contemporary architecture.
It is definitely not my cup of tea, but the interior spaces seem "homy" (not easy to achieve in a pretentious house) and the design seems well-balanced.
Not my style at all, "overgrown generic" comes to mind. However, some of the mtn stuff is really atrocious (as UG points out, just strange "hey, I want a modern, uh, no, lodge, uh, no, a Spanish, uh, well, make it a little of all".
Some gorgeous modern homes too, but rare. Such a shame, both in the restrictions the cities place on the architecture (for lodges, basically dictating they all look identical) and the bizarre mtn taste and style (you go to the Ritz in Aspen and it is like "I think this is nice, but I can't tell because it is made to look like it is worn 100 yr old lodge".
Those interiors remind me of the sets from "The Wild, Wild West."
That house is hideously awful and at 13,000+sf obscene as well. Everything about it is sloppy and overwrought.
But on 44 acres of spectacular land it seems well worth 31 million. Just knock the house down and pitch a tent.
The only thing thats missing is a room full of dead animal heads on the walls. Rich people don't have any personal taste, they just buy whatever costs more, even it is a pile of shit.
I'd personally like to see more of this.
But I have worse-than-bad taste.
But by my rough calculations, that house ended up costing 487,627,253 pounds (2008) or $950,873,143 (2008). Which is a bit more than $31.5 million.
Only by a bit.
I found a figure of the total square footage to be around 350,000... so that puts the budget at around $2,700 per square foot.
Not bad for a house that used several dozen tons of turquoise and lapis lazuli for paint, 100 kilograms of pure gold, roughly 10 metric tons of silver, tons upon tons of gemstones, has over 680 chandeliers and something like 2,000 windows.
They did this without Revit in less than 20 years!
It was even rumored that during the middle of construction, the roof was originally gold-foiled. But Catherine had all of the gold foil painted over because she didn't want to come off as ostentatious!
There is little architecture I enjoy more than a well done mountain home. Unfortunately, most of them turn out looking like the architoddler dumped out the barrel of lincoln logs again, especially since the Californians began invading Colorado the past couple decades.
Don't make fun of Spanish/ Native American. I dig adobe. Get it?
(But seriously, I do.)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.