Brian,
You're right; "traditional" architecture is every bit as difficult to do well
as anything else---that's one reason there are relatively few notable
Classicists left.
But you gotta admit---isn't English Palladian kind of clunky? :)
I know you didn't ask me, but here you go:
For a 2.2A site in the country? Probably the best thing would be to plant
a couple hundred trees and leave the damned thing alone! But if the guy
MUST have a house there, it must be more in accord with its setting---
12,000sf is just too freakin' big for 2A, hell, it's too big PERIOD!
I'm so sick of our arrogance toward housing. Most folks my age (36)
or older grew up in 1200sf ranchers or bilevels with one bathroom and
an eat-in kitchen---and families were LARGER then!
What has changed in our lives so much that we feel we must EACH have
1200sf? It's not like we bring our extended families in to live with
us---many other cultures still do, and in a bunch less space, to boot!
Making single-family houses this large, just like having large numbers
of children, is no longer tenable and is purely irresponsible. It is a
waste of land and of resources.
If the owner sees this as an investment, he should take his money and
expand his business and at least create some jobs. We already have
enough vulgar displays of personal wealth.
I sincerely hope the owner reads this message.
Mark
You're right; "traditional" architecture is every bit as difficult to do well
as anything else---that's one reason there are relatively few notable
Classicists left.
But you gotta admit---isn't English Palladian kind of clunky? :)
I know you didn't ask me, but here you go:
For a 2.2A site in the country? Probably the best thing would be to plant
a couple hundred trees and leave the damned thing alone! But if the guy
MUST have a house there, it must be more in accord with its setting---
12,000sf is just too freakin' big for 2A, hell, it's too big PERIOD!
I'm so sick of our arrogance toward housing. Most folks my age (36)
or older grew up in 1200sf ranchers or bilevels with one bathroom and
an eat-in kitchen---and families were LARGER then!
What has changed in our lives so much that we feel we must EACH have
1200sf? It's not like we bring our extended families in to live with
us---many other cultures still do, and in a bunch less space, to boot!
Making single-family houses this large, just like having large numbers
of children, is no longer tenable and is purely irresponsible. It is a
waste of land and of resources.
If the owner sees this as an investment, he should take his money and
expand his business and at least create some jobs. We already have
enough vulgar displays of personal wealth.
I sincerely hope the owner reads this message.
Mark