I'm curious what everyone here thinks about mixing different styles. For example, can you mix primitive cape or saltbox style's with the more ornamental details of a colonial?
so i guess if i answer this, i'm painting myself as a frustrated architect, noc?
sector, noc's right that you're not likely to get positive response here, not because mixing cape cod or saltbox is wrong, but because all of our education tells us that cape cod developed for many reasons associated with its place and time, as did saltbox. use of either of them, stripped from place/time considerations goes against everything we've learned about what is good in architecture. most of our discussions on archinect center around what a 21stC architecture can and should be, making it responsive to contemporary needs, culture, and values.
the saltbox was spare, devoid of details for a reason. it was often a tight, tall planar box centered around a heat source for a reason. by the same token, a colonial residential architecture HAD very specific vocabulary of details for different reasons, and the heat source (and therefore the chimneys) were at the ends for specfic reasons.
use of styles, recreating previous times in a new way for the 21stC, CAN be fine and it happens all the time. it's a way of recalling these former times and indicating that the values of those times somehow inform our own. (witchducks anyone?)
in the 19thC eclecticism was the thing for a while, a free-for-all picking and choosing of a variety of previous stylistic approaches brought together to make something different from its sources. check out 19thC house design books but also check out the work of Robert A. M. Stern. He's not only done a skillful job of keeping historic forms alive and evolving, he's done a pretty good job of mixing sources in convincing ways.
key in your effort is that you understand the styles you reference, however. too many house designers do colonial, cape cod, or saltbox without the first idea what they're doing and end up emptying these forms of any of their reason or meaning. the result is often clunky and awkward. if you care about this, you owe it to yourself to find an architect with a good handle on the morphology of historic styles and how to use them. they're out there.
Typical problem with saltbox houses today is centered around the restrains of the Building Codes.
Egress double hung windows Requiring 5.7 SF from second floor bedrooms do result in an awkard visual effect on saltbox houses.
True salt boxes most often had 12 over 12 lites not 6 over 6.
The issue of stairs also becomes a bit cumbersome. most often stair cases were built with winders and well take a look at the code when it comes to winders. The new winders eat up alot more space in a floor plan.
Oh well guess be just McSalt Box the thing is what most builders do....and I can tell you they look like a saltbox on steroids.
Oh ya those Central Chimneys...they cost a fricking fortune to build today and be careful as to not tie any of your framing into the fireplace masonry cause it is a no...no...All building officials are right up on this one....they will make you reframe around the chimney if you don't have proper clearance.
This was exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I'm glad I asked. There are thing's I like in these different style's but I don't want a home to not make sense historically. Then I started to think, "people could have done improvements over time", bringing in different stylistic details. Then the Eclectic period is a very interesting bit of info. However, you mentioned a potential cosmetic mess of a house becoming a possibility.
Most of the specific details I'm thinking of you actually mentioned. The Cape Cod is structurally what I like, for the style (low roofline 2 story), as well as cost a size (not too large) effectiveness. Then I like the colonial, two exposed chimney's at the ends of the building as well as the ornamental trim at corners and around opening's... Making for a colonial cape??? Perhaps a bad idea... or not?
snook, thank's for the info. Can you point out for me the design inconsistencys in one of these new construction salt box designs that is made to look period correct?
sector111, the house that you are designing for yourself will never be "historically accurate" because it is not 1880. the way architects and builders detail and build have changed significantly since the time these houses were originally built. in light of this, design your house to be pleasing to yourself, if you like details from different styles, go on with your bad self. but as a caveat, very few architects will take what you are doing seriously, but i'm not sure that will really make a difference to you nor perhaps should it.
They dont make them like they used to in the construction but I dont see the difference in the look at all. The link I provided of the new homes look (to me) just like the shaker village houses in the area.
I actually think now that it would bother me if it's not considered correct at all. Or to be a waste of time for an architect. Therefore I do think I want to stick with one style only. But I would still like to know how they look different from the origional 1600's structures.
another link attatched below.
sector111, that stuff looks pretty convincing to me. at the very least the last link seems to be of work by someone who has taken more than a moment to think about what they are making. which is more than usually happens.
eclectic is fine. if you want to be authentic the only way to go is to buy an original, preferably in a protected neighbourhood. amish community would be even better cuz then you can try out the building in its proper non-electric environment.
steven's advice at the top is best. with a good architect any style or mix up can work. there is after all no possibility for authenticity anymore (original homes would not have had toilets for example), so the degree of stray from original intent and style is just a matter of taste and budget. if you have abundance of both then find a good architect and figure out how much of the style you want to see and where you are not willing to let it affect your lifestyle (and it will - i lived for awhile in a house so old it had no running water, just an outhouse and a handpump over a sink - no joke). somewhere in between there will be a perfect solution.
5th, builders build to blue prints specifications so what is the issue with it being period correct? I dont mean no water, electricity, just cosmetically convincing like jump said. Maybe you mean the actual construction details, like wooden peg's of the old days for example, which would be unnecessary.
From pictures online you are not going to be able to tell the difference between an old house and a new - or at least not a significant difference. But architecture is not a visual experience - especially not if the building is your place of residence.
An old building will most likely have more quirks and ad-hoc solutions showing its history and giving it character. Getting a house through one of the sites you showed is going to render you a generic house disconnected from its place and time.
your unsuspecting innocence will test the heck out of architects here as they give you reasons as to why you should not carry on with your endeavor. Reasons that aren’t reasons, that is. The jargon of historical relevance or even “honesty” will be typically cited. In an ironical, and it is also quite a sarcastic world, the underlying vulnerability behind any commitment is in its reverence for its cause, whether saltbox colonial or contemporary minimalist. Build lightly, dismantle lightly. Beauty is in the thoughts of the beminder.
if i can steal a bit of hokum from the accidentally comical mrs palin, come on lets get real there.
those old houses were often trying (and often very badly) to mimic slightly more grander buildings back home in europe and were never intended (at least originally) to be such deep statements of placemaking as some might wish. they emerged naturally from the craftsmen, the people who lived in them, and the experience of time. it was above all a fluid process and there is no requirement that the process be stopped. that's like picking one style from a cathedral (which took centuries to finish and are ecclectic as heck usually) as the correct one.
architecture is fluid. that means there is no such thing as authenticity.
on other hand it is true that finding craftsmen who can do the details as well as can be found in some of the better old houses will be hard. i know a few finish carpenters here in tokyo who could do it, but they are expensive....guess the same is true for the quality folks in the states as well. but that is all moot if sector111 doesn't care about that aspect anyway.
yeah, i'd also stay away from the word 'honesty'. it's too charged.
but there are some things that were unique to young american architecture specifically BECAUSE they didn't have the ability or means to translate what they knew in europe directly into their new environment. the resulting forms and construction methods are, in many ways, uniquely american. (recommended reading for any interested would be tom fisher's 'an american culture of construction' from an old perspecta in the 80s.) there was a pragmatism and a process of hard choices about need, means, and the desire to communicate identity that was much more directly tied to the making of the place than today's selection of styles from a menu.
"architecture is fluid. that means there is no such thing as authenticity."
i wouldn't disagree though i'd add no such present (rather than virtual thing) thing as authenticity. the resulting paradox is this: an absence of authenticity in the presence of origination.
In a way, a non-ironic committed architecture implies a lost authenticity it tries to recapture in pointing back to its origin. so saltbox and colonial combo would satiate the ultimate domestic yearning in your mind, a yearning for a particular origin of domesticity. the nostalgia for this origin is followed up with a desire to realize the lost synonymy (which is the bane of many mythical geneses, the melancholic separation of things) between self and origin. Though all the bridges were burned by the fire we leave behind, we move on forward propelled by the idea of the bridge.
And this is, paradoxically, why we on forwards and create new styles, to regain lost authenticity/lost innocence. The idea of the bridge, contained within the apple of the genesis, necessitates the destruction of all bridges in our quest for them. The architectural paradox has a religious origin: when we know what innocence is, we no longer are innocent; when we are in a position to pursue innocence, innocent can no longer be gained.
Therefore, religiously, we bless the children and the mentally incapacitated. And architecturally, we bless the animal habitats (architecture without architects) and the humble architecturally-unconscious (innocent) heideggarean and bachelardean abodes.
i feel like a church father saying this, but what is the drive to sell the idea of computational parametric design as a progressive mode (yes, style) other than its own worldly self-propelling hurdle of modernist energy. it doesn't even promise a better world which is the usual cover story of utopias. no, its more obvious and honest now. the need to create something new is now only a substitute for the death of something old; modernity killed of something and now is self propelled into filling the void in renewable fashion...modernity as a crack-addict seeking her first high, her origin.
Well this is new to me. Basically what your telling me is the new houses dont LOOK old because the door's dont squeak and things dont fall off. If This is what they lack in authenticity, I'm okay with that.
yes, sector. things squeaking and falling off are part of the experience. a house that can disturb, hurt or even kill you is the ultimate in experiential architecture.
Sector, let's say that architecture is not only a visual experience. One example: when you step onto a front porch next to a Classically-styled column made of wood, it sounds different than one that is made of fiberglass. And I don't mean just when you knock on it - it's almost like a sound you feel instead of hear.
I know, that's getting all artsty-fartsy. But there is a solidity that one feels in a quality house (or column) that has to do with how it resonates and how your body picks up on that movement of air pressure. Architecture is an all-body experience, not only visual, as well as being a cultural (mind) experience - which is why a saltbox that has too-big windows that throw the proper relationship of solid wall/void all out of whack is disturbing both visually AND intellectually.
You're getting some great advice here on why it matters to do something well. Noctilucent is also pointing out why trying something new can be rewarding, and is a drive we humans can't seem to shake, though I don't imagine you'll go that route.
Also, I have to put out there this completely gratuitous opinion: some really stripped-down historic saltboxes are kinda cool, in a Spartan/pioneer way, but overall I think Colonial styles are just prissy. Can't stand them.
and someone needs to get off their high horse or stop playing the role of the warden. (and god, or somethin, forbid we let our friends think we're criticizing them). whats that movie where one girl says to the other : "bring it on bitch" ?and that other movie where one girl says to the other girl "wa'ever"?
i also find those saltboxey things quite cool. i think a clever modernist addict can nicely disembowel this big sigh of a space.
noct, who are you directing at right now? Is Steven the warden, am I? Who's on a high horse? I know I'm confused, but clearing things up for Sector is my concern.
haha. we're all the children of the corn here, noc, me included. not censoring anyone, obviously, just offering my response to some bombastic but sloppy loquaciousness herein.
noctilucent, I'm not embarrassed to admit that I can't follow 3/4 of what you're saying. Call me Sarah Palin (wink).
jafidler, I actually think most of this discussion has been tame, I'm slightly surprised we haven't all skewered poor Sector. S/he's mostly getting decent and respectful commentary.
But honestly: when I lay that "this column sounds cheap" line on most people they roll their eyes. And I know they're going to. Never mind the glazed eyeballs when noctilucent says things like the nostalgia for this origin is followed up with a desire to realize the lost synonymy (which is the bane of many mythical geneses, the melancholic separation of things) between self and origin or the utter confusion of wading into the depths of the quondam pool. (I adore all you guys, just worry about how we monkeys appear to those outside the cage.)
Sector, if you should decide to work with an architect, just interview a few of them until you find one who is aligned with your concerns for style but also understands budget etc. There are architects of all kinds just as there are doctors, lawyers, and car mechanics of all types. Your relationship with an architect for your own home will be fairly intimate, so make sure it's someone you like and trust - and get references.
Oct 6, 08 12:58 pm ·
·
This week I'm designing a pre-quondam and post-quondam mix residence. This is my initial inspiration. The client likes to do this.
Oh thank god, someone else doesn't understand 3/4 of the philosophical jargon! Thank you for putting that out there LB 'cause I was starting... actually no, I was thoroughly glazed! Not that it isn’t all relative and true. I appreciate all the input I’ve received on this topic, even the significant amount I have not understood but I hope and expect to gain a better understanding as I research more. I'm 19 so I have some time to learn more in this area. I have just started to "get into it".
On another topic, LB, I think I understand what your saying with the "artsy fartsy" beam part. I think your speaking figuratively because I don’t think anyone would ever use fiberglass beam's on a primitive style structure. We do still have wood! Also I don't think the reproductions I like use fiberglass and vinyl and I would still love example's of how they are so inauthentic besides the fact that they may not mentaly terrorize me becase I'm really not sure where to go with that. Haunting comes to mind but I can do without that. So in visual sense only, what so bad? From what some have said I would think I posted a picture of an attempt at a primitive home with vinyl siding, white vinyl windows that are huge, open, and modern with metal storms, and fiberglass doors with aluminum handles.
bank loan-I make payments...all of them. apparently everyone thought the same thing because I got like 30 replies in 1 day, then I said my age and poof...
Oct 13, 08 6:21 pm ·
·
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.
Mixing Design Elements of Different Style Homes-Your Opinion
I'm curious what everyone here thinks about mixing different styles. For example, can you mix primitive cape or saltbox style's with the more ornamental details of a colonial?
Thank's for your opinions
isn't the saltbox an american colonial style as well? what is "a colonial"? have no idea what is primitive cape. cape cod?
this is a rather dangerous question you are asking.
the children of the corn (ie frustrated architects) are coming. hide.
so i guess if i answer this, i'm painting myself as a frustrated architect, noc?
sector, noc's right that you're not likely to get positive response here, not because mixing cape cod or saltbox is wrong, but because all of our education tells us that cape cod developed for many reasons associated with its place and time, as did saltbox. use of either of them, stripped from place/time considerations goes against everything we've learned about what is good in architecture. most of our discussions on archinect center around what a 21stC architecture can and should be, making it responsive to contemporary needs, culture, and values.
the saltbox was spare, devoid of details for a reason. it was often a tight, tall planar box centered around a heat source for a reason. by the same token, a colonial residential architecture HAD very specific vocabulary of details for different reasons, and the heat source (and therefore the chimneys) were at the ends for specfic reasons.
use of styles, recreating previous times in a new way for the 21stC, CAN be fine and it happens all the time. it's a way of recalling these former times and indicating that the values of those times somehow inform our own. (witchducks anyone?)
in the 19thC eclecticism was the thing for a while, a free-for-all picking and choosing of a variety of previous stylistic approaches brought together to make something different from its sources. check out 19thC house design books but also check out the work of Robert A. M. Stern. He's not only done a skillful job of keeping historic forms alive and evolving, he's done a pretty good job of mixing sources in convincing ways.
key in your effort is that you understand the styles you reference, however. too many house designers do colonial, cape cod, or saltbox without the first idea what they're doing and end up emptying these forms of any of their reason or meaning. the result is often clunky and awkward. if you care about this, you owe it to yourself to find an architect with a good handle on the morphology of historic styles and how to use them. they're out there.
Typical problem with saltbox houses today is centered around the restrains of the Building Codes.
Egress double hung windows Requiring 5.7 SF from second floor bedrooms do result in an awkard visual effect on saltbox houses.
True salt boxes most often had 12 over 12 lites not 6 over 6.
The issue of stairs also becomes a bit cumbersome. most often stair cases were built with winders and well take a look at the code when it comes to winders. The new winders eat up alot more space in a floor plan.
Oh well guess be just McSalt Box the thing is what most builders do....and I can tell you they look like a saltbox on steroids.
Oh ya those Central Chimneys...they cost a fricking fortune to build today and be careful as to not tie any of your framing into the fireplace masonry cause it is a no...no...All building officials are right up on this one....they will make you reframe around the chimney if you don't have proper clearance.
This was exactly the type of response I was hoping for. I'm glad I asked. There are thing's I like in these different style's but I don't want a home to not make sense historically. Then I started to think, "people could have done improvements over time", bringing in different stylistic details. Then the Eclectic period is a very interesting bit of info. However, you mentioned a potential cosmetic mess of a house becoming a possibility.
Most of the specific details I'm thinking of you actually mentioned. The Cape Cod is structurally what I like, for the style (low roofline 2 story), as well as cost a size (not too large) effectiveness. Then I like the colonial, two exposed chimney's at the ends of the building as well as the ornamental trim at corners and around opening's... Making for a colonial cape??? Perhaps a bad idea... or not?
Thanks for the help,
Dave
The same details I mentioned would also apply to a saltbox instead of the cape.
There's really nothing stopping you from mixing whatever you want. Unless, of course, you wear your education like a Playtex girdle.
I try to go into eclectic shock/therapy at least once a week. Recently 1055 and 1058.
And I've been going into eclectic shock/therapy for 25 years now.
links later
snook, thank's for the info. Can you point out for me the design inconsistencys in one of these new construction salt box designs that is made to look period correct?
http://www.cchonline.com/full_pix_gallery.html
sector111, the house that you are designing for yourself will never be "historically accurate" because it is not 1880. the way architects and builders detail and build have changed significantly since the time these houses were originally built. in light of this, design your house to be pleasing to yourself, if you like details from different styles, go on with your bad self. but as a caveat, very few architects will take what you are doing seriously, but i'm not sure that will really make a difference to you nor perhaps should it.
Yup....it was a post and beam construction without nails jafidler with an oak or chestnut frame. They just don't build them like they used to.
They dont make them like they used to in the construction but I dont see the difference in the look at all. The link I provided of the new homes look (to me) just like the shaker village houses in the area.
I actually think now that it would bother me if it's not considered correct at all. Or to be a waste of time for an architect. Therefore I do think I want to stick with one style only. But I would still like to know how they look different from the origional 1600's structures.
another link attatched below.
http://www.earlynewenglandhomes.com/pages/Home.html
I try to go into eclectic shock/therapy at least once a week. Recently 1055 and 1058.
And I've been going into eclectic shock/therapy for 25 years now.
your education is showing, arch.
sector111, that stuff looks pretty convincing to me. at the very least the last link seems to be of work by someone who has taken more than a moment to think about what they are making. which is more than usually happens.
eclectic is fine. if you want to be authentic the only way to go is to buy an original, preferably in a protected neighbourhood. amish community would be even better cuz then you can try out the building in its proper non-electric environment.
steven's advice at the top is best. with a good architect any style or mix up can work. there is after all no possibility for authenticity anymore (original homes would not have had toilets for example), so the degree of stray from original intent and style is just a matter of taste and budget. if you have abundance of both then find a good architect and figure out how much of the style you want to see and where you are not willing to let it affect your lifestyle (and it will - i lived for awhile in a house so old it had no running water, just an outhouse and a handpump over a sink - no joke). somewhere in between there will be a perfect solution.
good luck in trying to find craftsmen that do quality work that is period correct.
5th, builders build to blue prints specifications so what is the issue with it being period correct? I dont mean no water, electricity, just cosmetically convincing like jump said. Maybe you mean the actual construction details, like wooden peg's of the old days for example, which would be unnecessary.
From pictures online you are not going to be able to tell the difference between an old house and a new - or at least not a significant difference. But architecture is not a visual experience - especially not if the building is your place of residence.
An old building will most likely have more quirks and ad-hoc solutions showing its history and giving it character. Getting a house through one of the sites you showed is going to render you a generic house disconnected from its place and time.
bingo.
some authenticity would be nice.
sector111;
your unsuspecting innocence will test the heck out of architects here as they give you reasons as to why you should not carry on with your endeavor. Reasons that aren’t reasons, that is. The jargon of historical relevance or even “honesty” will be typically cited. In an ironical, and it is also quite a sarcastic world, the underlying vulnerability behind any commitment is in its reverence for its cause, whether saltbox colonial or contemporary minimalist. Build lightly, dismantle lightly. Beauty is in the thoughts of the beminder.
man i don't get that. the argument for honesty.
if i can steal a bit of hokum from the accidentally comical mrs palin, come on lets get real there.
those old houses were often trying (and often very badly) to mimic slightly more grander buildings back home in europe and were never intended (at least originally) to be such deep statements of placemaking as some might wish. they emerged naturally from the craftsmen, the people who lived in them, and the experience of time. it was above all a fluid process and there is no requirement that the process be stopped. that's like picking one style from a cathedral (which took centuries to finish and are ecclectic as heck usually) as the correct one.
architecture is fluid. that means there is no such thing as authenticity.
on other hand it is true that finding craftsmen who can do the details as well as can be found in some of the better old houses will be hard. i know a few finish carpenters here in tokyo who could do it, but they are expensive....guess the same is true for the quality folks in the states as well. but that is all moot if sector111 doesn't care about that aspect anyway.
yeah, i'd also stay away from the word 'honesty'. it's too charged.
but there are some things that were unique to young american architecture specifically BECAUSE they didn't have the ability or means to translate what they knew in europe directly into their new environment. the resulting forms and construction methods are, in many ways, uniquely american. (recommended reading for any interested would be tom fisher's 'an american culture of construction' from an old perspecta in the 80s.) there was a pragmatism and a process of hard choices about need, means, and the desire to communicate identity that was much more directly tied to the making of the place than today's selection of styles from a menu.
"architecture is fluid. that means there is no such thing as authenticity."
i wouldn't disagree though i'd add no such present (rather than virtual thing) thing as authenticity. the resulting paradox is this: an absence of authenticity in the presence of origination.
In a way, a non-ironic committed architecture implies a lost authenticity it tries to recapture in pointing back to its origin. so saltbox and colonial combo would satiate the ultimate domestic yearning in your mind, a yearning for a particular origin of domesticity. the nostalgia for this origin is followed up with a desire to realize the lost synonymy (which is the bane of many mythical geneses, the melancholic separation of things) between self and origin. Though all the bridges were burned by the fire we leave behind, we move on forward propelled by the idea of the bridge.
And this is, paradoxically, why we on forwards and create new styles, to regain lost authenticity/lost innocence. The idea of the bridge, contained within the apple of the genesis, necessitates the destruction of all bridges in our quest for them. The architectural paradox has a religious origin: when we know what innocence is, we no longer are innocent; when we are in a position to pursue innocence, innocent can no longer be gained.
Therefore, religiously, we bless the children and the mentally incapacitated. And architecturally, we bless the animal habitats (architecture without architects) and the humble architecturally-unconscious (innocent) heideggarean and bachelardean abodes.
"And this is, paradoxically, why we move on forward"
i feel like a church father saying this, but what is the drive to sell the idea of computational parametric design as a progressive mode (yes, style) other than its own worldly self-propelling hurdle of modernist energy. it doesn't even promise a better world which is the usual cover story of utopias. no, its more obvious and honest now. the need to create something new is now only a substitute for the death of something old; modernity killed of something and now is self propelled into filling the void in renewable fashion...modernity as a crack-addict seeking her first high, her origin.
"architecture is not a visual experience"
Well this is new to me. Basically what your telling me is the new houses dont LOOK old because the door's dont squeak and things dont fall off. If This is what they lack in authenticity, I'm okay with that.
yes, sector. things squeaking and falling off are part of the experience. a house that can disturb, hurt or even kill you is the ultimate in experiential architecture.
Sector, let's say that architecture is not only a visual experience. One example: when you step onto a front porch next to a Classically-styled column made of wood, it sounds different than one that is made of fiberglass. And I don't mean just when you knock on it - it's almost like a sound you feel instead of hear.
I know, that's getting all artsty-fartsy. But there is a solidity that one feels in a quality house (or column) that has to do with how it resonates and how your body picks up on that movement of air pressure. Architecture is an all-body experience, not only visual, as well as being a cultural (mind) experience - which is why a saltbox that has too-big windows that throw the proper relationship of solid wall/void all out of whack is disturbing both visually AND intellectually.
You're getting some great advice here on why it matters to do something well. Noctilucent is also pointing out why trying something new can be rewarding, and is a drive we humans can't seem to shake, though I don't imagine you'll go that route.
Also, I have to put out there this completely gratuitous opinion: some really stripped-down historic saltboxes are kinda cool, in a Spartan/pioneer way, but overall I think Colonial styles are just prissy. Can't stand them.
no wonder the general public gets a tainted view of architects.
not directed at lb's comment but at the direction of this thread in general.
and someone needs to get off their high horse or stop playing the role of the warden. (and god, or somethin, forbid we let our friends think we're criticizing them). whats that movie where one girl says to the other : "bring it on bitch" ?and that other movie where one girl says to the other girl "wa'ever"?
i also find those saltboxey things quite cool. i think a clever modernist addict can nicely disembowel this big sigh of a space.
noct, who are you directing at right now? Is Steven the warden, am I? Who's on a high horse? I know I'm confused, but clearing things up for Sector is my concern.
haha. we're all the children of the corn here, noc, me included. not censoring anyone, obviously, just offering my response to some bombastic but sloppy loquaciousness herein.
this is predictable and doesn't add anything to the discussion which in general is quite good.
no lb. you ride a cute pony.
noctilucent, I'm not embarrassed to admit that I can't follow 3/4 of what you're saying. Call me Sarah Palin (wink).
jafidler, I actually think most of this discussion has been tame, I'm slightly surprised we haven't all skewered poor Sector. S/he's mostly getting decent and respectful commentary.
But honestly: when I lay that "this column sounds cheap" line on most people they roll their eyes. And I know they're going to. Never mind the glazed eyeballs when noctilucent says things like the nostalgia for this origin is followed up with a desire to realize the lost synonymy (which is the bane of many mythical geneses, the melancholic separation of things) between self and origin or the utter confusion of wading into the depths of the quondam pool. (I adore all you guys, just worry about how we monkeys appear to those outside the cage.)
Sector, if you should decide to work with an architect, just interview a few of them until you find one who is aligned with your concerns for style but also understands budget etc. There are architects of all kinds just as there are doctors, lawyers, and car mechanics of all types. Your relationship with an architect for your own home will be fairly intimate, so make sure it's someone you like and trust - and get references.
This week I'm designing a pre-quondam and post-quondam mix residence. This is my initial inspiration. The client likes to do this.
since most of our diets consist of corn, it is appropriate that our children also consist primarily of corn.
Oh thank god, someone else doesn't understand 3/4 of the philosophical jargon! Thank you for putting that out there LB 'cause I was starting... actually no, I was thoroughly glazed! Not that it isn’t all relative and true. I appreciate all the input I’ve received on this topic, even the significant amount I have not understood but I hope and expect to gain a better understanding as I research more. I'm 19 so I have some time to learn more in this area. I have just started to "get into it".
On another topic, LB, I think I understand what your saying with the "artsy fartsy" beam part. I think your speaking figuratively because I don’t think anyone would ever use fiberglass beam's on a primitive style structure. We do still have wood! Also I don't think the reproductions I like use fiberglass and vinyl and I would still love example's of how they are so inauthentic besides the fact that they may not mentaly terrorize me becase I'm really not sure where to go with that. Haunting comes to mind but I can do without that. So in visual sense only, what so bad? From what some have said I would think I posted a picture of an attempt at a primitive home with vinyl siding, white vinyl windows that are huge, open, and modern with metal storms, and fiberglass doors with aluminum handles.
19. i thought you were building a house.
i have the land... working on it. I like to plan ahead I guess.
was it given to you or did you figure a way on your own to own?
bank loan-I make payments...all of them. apparently everyone thought the same thing because I got like 30 replies in 1 day, then I said my age and poof...
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.