Big Bad House
Built in 2007, I simply ask the question, why? Unfortunately, this is my generation’s legacy, to surely be looked back upon in disgust. Imagine if at the turn of the century the beautiful neighborhoods that populate Capitol Hill or Queen Anne, as examples, were filled with the abortion of style this house represents. What’s happened? The homeowners obviously had enough money to build anything they wanted — why is there such an utter lack of understanding of form, material, and proportion in today’s residential design community?
Doogie, the answer to your question, in short, is the Mumford quote at the top of this blog.
The excuse that good design had to be value-engineered out can’t be used here, because the owners of a house like this can afford good design, only they don’t know what it is, and apparently neither does their architect. And by extension, neither does the community.
Of course it’s all subjective. Your saying that the owners don’t know what good design is…a bit snooty and presumptuous don’t ya think?
I would argue that in fact the people living in Issaquah Highlands in general have been exposed to some good design…a great mix of small lot SF, townhouse, stacked flats with functional and pleasant open spaces and pedestrian pathways integrated throughout.
It really comes down to mass consumption - these people wanted a ’supersize’ house, and it is quite a bit more expensive to build a big house with good design and quality materials, just as it is expensive to have a large quantity of gourmet food.
OK michael, I’m busted — I should have said the owners don’t _care_ about design, if, as you say, they sacrificed design and quality for size.
So which behavior represents a more balanced and sensitive person and/or community:
1. eating a modest amount of high-quality food, or
2. eating too much mediocre food?
Not that there needs to be a law against number 2, but do you not agree that more of number 1 would tend to indicate a healthier culture? Same goes for the house.