One of the things I noticed over the growing years is that ornateness is a lot less desired over functionality within my life. Don’t get me wrong, I do not care to replace my wife with an ugly housemaid. 🙂
But, when it comes to building with material/technology X, it seems that the interior of a home is a lot more than its exterior elevations and decorations. For instance, I really want to build with SIPs, both the the time it takes to erect them into place (time-to-shell readiness), and the thermal and acoustical benefits. But, SIPs tend to lend themselves to more limited implementations in terms of style.
So, with ornateness not being all that important, the rectangular box seems very applicable. With a large one-story rectangular box on a full daylight basement, the approach seems easy, quick, and of some functional benefit that would come naturally.
But, I am me and not you. What is important to use when comparing function and ornate?
Replies
Well, you could just think about it like modifying a street car for racing. Define the new function, to a high level of specificity. The more concise the description, the better. Then look at every part - does it help perform the function? No? Throw it out.
I think it's tough to make a structure with "simple" lines look good. At that point, it has to become almost like sculpture, in that massing and proportion and textures and siting become important, since there's no applied decoration to hide bad lines. Think about Shaker furniture - would adding to it make it better? And what in the world could be taken away?
I'd say most good craftsmen could build a beautiful Arts and Crafts bungalow, but it takes a good architect to make a "simple box" beautiful.
Look at this guy's work and philosophy - my fave
View Image
Forrest - spouting off
Can you post a website link?Thanks,Julian
The website for the above picture is:
http://www.neutra.org/
You might also want to look at:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Richard_Neutra.htmlMcDesign -I am in the process of trying to design what is basically a rectangular box and make it look half way decent. It will be on a north facing slope with a daylight basement. The design goals are to make it with minimal disturbance to the area, make it somewhat inconspicuous, use a design that allows me to do most of the building, and make it affordable. I like Neutra's design concept of lots of windows. Unfortunately, the structural engineer that I am working with seems to think that large windows in a rectangular box requires lots of shear walls that negate the "glass wall" effect of the Neutra design. (I suppose I should mention that I hope to have my walls supporting a green roof, which I assume is not part of any of Neutra's designs.) I have no idea how that type of building would hold up in an earthquake - or in my case, could be adequately protected from one of the inevitable wild fires. Any suggestions?
Why are you half-stepping the effort? Is it important to you, or where the building lot is located, to have an exterior appearancge that is of some importance?
Honestly, I let my wife pick one of three homes in the community she liked the most. This came down to more exterior than interior, and the floorplan we have contains the most expensive exterior elevation.
How much benefit do we get for it? Boy, that will have to be invisioned in the resale, I suppose, because we seldom get any exterior benefit--and I could care less what others think about it (unless they are buying it).
For me, the rectangular box idea is to focus on the interior spaces, both functionally and aesthetically (ornate) because it is where I spend 99% of the time when I am 'at home'. Of course, the 1% of probably really a little low, but this is only to account for my grilling activities.
And it is because of my grilling activities that I've had to also re-assess the interior spaces for the value or worth, too. For instance, they say the Kitchen is one, if not the most expensive rooms in the home. Yet, I do so little cooking in it thanks to the grill, outside on my deck.
Now, if I focus on the rooms, the functional requirements of the occupants, and then collect them into a rectangular perimeter (the box), its only for the adjust of human passage throiugh the box, the mechanicals, etc. that their arrangement within should be addressed. But for how this should lay on the outward appearance is of a mystery to me.
Heck, anyone ever read Caves of Steel by Asimov? Sometimes I feel that I need to be building underground, in the earth. It would be my best expression for non-conformity. :)
I don't understand. The rectangular box is still the most common form for a house in the US. Yeah, your McMansions and true mansions diverge from there, but only because they want something "different". And, of course, when an addition is built on a house it's likely to not continue the existing rectangle.But I've never lived in anything but a rectangular box, and have never found the form to be especially confining.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
don't understand. The rectangular box is still the most common form for a house in the US
Or not, may be the answer. Only pure rectangle I ever lived in was the maternal grandparent's farm house (and it had full-length porches east & west to break the massing). Hmm, guess the apartment building in Glen Ellen was a rectangle. Every thing else was some form of L-shaped ranch.
So, "most common" may be subject to regional variation.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Well, lessee -- The Chichester house in Louisville where my parents lived when I was born was a duplex 2-story. Had a bay window in front but otherwise was a "rectangular solid". Cardwell Way when I was about 6 -- single story "ranch" (if you can call 1200 sq ft a "ranch") over crawl. About as basic a box as you can get. Wesley Ave when I was about 10 -- single story ranch over full basement. Garage was tacked on the end of the house, continuing the single roofline. Routt Road when I was 15 -- two-story "farmhouse". Did have an enclosed back porch tacked on, but it was definitely "tacked". Several apartments, all obviously boxes. Then our current house. Two-story "split entry", 24x44 rectangle, gable end faces the street. There is a garage stuck on the side, but it's roof peak fits (barely) under the eave of the house, so no complicated rooflines.Most of the other houses in our neighborhood are simple boxes too.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Most of the other houses in our neighborhood are simple boxes too
Yeah, I remember seeing the form in Olean, NY, during my brief stay there (but that was a L-shape with a doomed daylight garage/basement. But, having been domiciled in 12 different houses over my life, only one was rectilinar. And all but two were single-story, too. Probably far too many "L-shaped ranches."
Now, I'd have to stop and drive down my street and pay specific attention, but, in my mind's eye, only 3-4 out of 15-18 might be "rectilinar" by the definition we are using here. (Shoot, best not include needing two stories or a basement <g>--no basements on my street at all, and only a couple, partial upper floor houses at all.)
My own present house is a staggered set of rectilinear forms and roof lines.
Things vary. Now, the scourge I fear is when the most prevalent house style in America is the shoddy tract McHouse, of any sort of polygonal description.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I suppose it may be in part that Midwestern practical streak (until the more recent love afair with McMansions, at least). The basic box is cheap, energy efficient, and makes good use of a small subdivision lot. And with our weather there's no strong desire to have California-style houses with courtyards and the like.Thinking of our block, and discounting a couple of split levels (how would you figure those>), there's only one house (next door) that I can remember for sure is not a box (and that's due to an addition). There may be one or two others up the street, out of 20 or so. Several, like ours, have the box broken by an attached garage, but that's as risque as we tend to get. On the next block (older homes) there's even less variety. Practically all are 50s-60s homes of one story with basement, 800-1000 square feet.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
<that large windows in a rectangular box requires lots of shear walls that negate the "glass wall" effect >
Hmmm. Could you approach it with a structural steel frame? Or, what if there was a structural core, with curtain walls at the outer edges? Like the 3D views we've all seen of the World Trade Centers?
If you did get a red iron package designed and delivered, it shouldn't be too hard for one or two people and a piece of lifting equipment to bolt it together.
What if the structural / shear core was concrete placed in ICF blocks? That's easy enough to do with a couple of people and a pumper truck.
View Image
Forrest - like to hear more about this
Edited 8/27/2007 7:13 am by McDesign
The building that I am having engineered is a simple 20'x30' artist studio and I am hoping to have a 20' end with as much glass as possible. I am planning on a steel frame, but figured I would buid it in place (I was a certified welder until my certification elapsed a couple of months ago - to keep certified, you can't go over 6 months without doing the type of welding specified on your certification - but either hope to regain my certification or get a buddy to do the main part of the welding. However, the size of the rectangular tubing my engineer has indicated that he thinks I am going to need will make the uprights anything but svelt. From what the engineer says, I just don't understanding how these structures in Dwell as well as other modern structures that appear to be all glass with some think columns between them manage to survive even a modest breeze...
I noticed a glass (or curtain wall) in this issue of AD that had an "X" of diagonal tension rods inside the structure - didn't show too much - is that a possibility? I'll track down the picture.
Forrest
I think that a lot of the fashion of the past 20 or so years for complicated roof lines and perimter plans is an attempt to recall old houses which have grown piece by piece over their lifetimes. Everything new becomes old-seeming on some level and therefore more comfortable; you might even say "lived in".
Think about some 100 year old houses you know and, if you can mentally strip away later additions, you will usually be left with a rectangular floor plan, however much decoration and gew-gaws were tacked on the outside.
As you said, with a simpler profile, every line becomes important and proportion and scale paramount. With a simpler profile, there are so many fewer lines to consider that it becomes easier to take in the whole - so it had better be right.
If I may throw in my own experience, I designed this house with the old stone farm houses of Eastern Ontario in mind. If you are building a stone house, you build a rectangle in order to enclose as much volume as you can for the labout you put in. That logic still holds. You get more house for the money with square corners and few of them. And it can still look good.
nuke... the rectangular box is nice as a goal...but to get there i like to use rectangular BOXES... and slide them together until i like their arrangement and flow
the sum of the boxes and their relationship to each other is what defines the exterior for me...
also.. you mentioned a full daylight basement.. this usually means a sloping lot with a one story front and a two story rear.. but the transtition is dificult..
bringing the grade around and leaving only a narrow slot of full basement with flanking windows is usually easier to developMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
That is how I designed and built my house.
I have 2 16x40 rectangles with 9' ceilings seperated by a 28 x40 center rectangle with 10' ceiling.
The outer rectangles are the kids bedrooms and office on one side and the master bedroom and bath and laundryroom on the other.
The cenral rectangle is kitchen, dining ,family and foyer all open in one big area.
I have different ceiling heights for some delineation and bumpouts for overhangs etc.
Rectangles are definately easier for a one man operation and easier to plan for minimum waste.
ANDYSZ2WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT BEING A SOLE PROPRIETOR IS A REAL JOB?
REMODELER/PUNCHOUT SPECIALIST
> you mentioned a full daylight basement.. this usually means a sloping lot with a one story front and a two story rear.. but the transtition is dificult..Actually, the "split entry", common around here, provides plenty of daylight and greatly simplifies having a walkout. (The split entry probably goes by other names elsewhere. You enter at the landing between top and bottom floors, with the bottom floor being 3-4 feet below grade.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
think that a lot of the fashion of the past 20 or so years for complicated roof lines and perimter plans is an attempt
Having, ah, er, "interacted" with the "design staff" at several of the tract builders, the perimeters and roof lines are the product of outside-in, "paper doll" cutout rooms planned only in two dimensions. The poor (literally) drafter has to rely upon the software to "close" roofs in fater having defined the floor perimeter as best as the drafter can (the sales department having decided that the dining room must be 18 x 22, even if 12 x 18 would not "break" the perimeter, and "mass" much better).
Back to OP:
Every thing I have ever learned about design (and being no better than a hack archy, that still stands) insists that designing space from the inside out always is better than outside to in.
Sure a rectangle can make an interesting form. Best to have the rectangle meet Golden sections, to really please the eye, too. But, there's no reason to start with a rectangle, and "force" things within. Much better to "program" (to use the archy term-of-art) the spaces as they ought be, and then see what sort of perimeter then emerges.
After all, some rectangles define themselves by where they are not as much as by where they are.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Here's some really rough sketch(s) of an idea I've been kicking around for a couple of years.
I too want a North view, but I also want clerestories on the south side.
Black is for the basement. Reddish for the first floor. Green for the roof, (of course :). Brownish grey for grade, sorta, ya need to use yer imagining.
The first floor is backset from the basement for a deck and root and wine cellars want a lot of earth on top of them so they would be behind and below the basement and under the first floor.
BT's own VaTom does green roofs and uses Bar-Joists for some incredible spans.
Edit: the short interior wings represent butresses, but they could be outside the footprint with good rebar.
More edit: Forrest, I'm jealous from looking at your "rough sketch."
SamT
Edited 8/27/2007 7:49 am by SamT
Bar-Joists for some incredible spans
They're credible Sam. <G> Whadya want 50', 60'? Just make sure you have tractor-trailer access.
Here's the next one, including 530 tons of roof and an indoor lap pool.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
530 tons of roof is flat out incredible. OK, technically, it is credible, 'cuz you've done it, but...530 tons!?!?!!!!SamT
Yup, don't have enough dirt here with 300 psf. Client house was 40' span, 300 tons. Well, that includes the live load. We get snow, occasionally sleet. Want to reduce our 13º annual temp swing.
So, next one gets the recommended amount of overhead dirt. Bar joists are amazingly inexpensive. Had a guy in LA wanting me to get involved with a 60'x60' clear span, upwards of 600 ton roof. Structurally, no problem. Opens up anything you can dream inside.
Nothing complicated. Simple commercial construction, beefed up for the earth loads. You knew that.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Yup.SamT
When I designed and built my house a few years ago, I was trying to do it as cost efficient as possible. As the design evolved, it became apparent that a fairly narrow, two-story “rectangular box” was going to give me the most bang for the buck. A sloping site allowed for the potential to finish out the majority of the basement level and a 12/12 pitch roof allowed for future living space in the attic. The end result was a house with only a 22’x48’ foundation to have the potential for roughly 3,800 SF of livable area.
Now as an architect, I recognized the aesthetic dilemma of a very tall “rectangular box”. I cantilevered a small section and added porches on opposite corners to downplay the issue. I think it turned out pretty well.
Wasn't that house in FHB?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I wish!!!
I wish!!!
Huh-, Could have sworn I remember that strong red, the shape, and the snowy setting from a previous issue.
They tell me you lose things as you age, but I don't remember what . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yeah, the mind is the second thing to go.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
the mind is the second thing to go
And will e'rybody stop that mumblin'?
T-Shirt reads: "Next Person To Make a Crack About My Age is Getting Beat with my Walker"Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
CapnMac,
That rings a bell. I think the piece on the house you're thinking about was also republished in a book on energy efficient homes. I wonder if I have it here?
Ron
SIPS seem to lend themselves well to a foursquare style/square box home, complete with Mission details. My house is SIPS and I've done a hybrid Shaker/colonial style borrowing elements of both. I don't care for ornateness in either my home or funriture. I'm a big fan of simplicity and function. Probably why I'm an engineer and not an architect. :)