

It is an interesting concept but why are efficient houses ugly as sin? - bmaier
http://www.rocioromero.com/

======
far33d
I actually really love the rocio romero designs. I find them modern but not
cold and impersonal. They aren't even that unusual on the continuum of modern
architecture. Great big windows, efficient layouts, and reasonably
inexpensive.

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

------
bootload
_"... why are efficient houses ugly as sin? ..."_

I can think of a number of reasons

\- kit form means (some) pre-construction

\- simpler shapes and consistency means easier and faster construction

\- form follows function

Would I buy one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, exact. Its own kind of beauty.

------
pg
Looks way better to me than the average McMansion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
rms
so all it needs is some rounded corners?

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

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

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

------
brk
People think ugly == trendy?

~~~
rms
different == trendy

~~~
brk
So then different == ugly?

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

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

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

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

