Tackiness expands its domains.

[v0rtex]

Originally Posted by odoreater

What exactly is so special about the architecture of that house? It looks like one of those little offices you see right next to the strip mall.
All of those little offices are based on the design philosophies laid down by the modernist movement in the post-war decades, which in their day were quite ground breaking. This house is a first-generation example of that style by one of it's original innovators, so it's got historical and cultural value. Just like how you can buy a Photoshopped pop-art print of your own face at the flea market for $10, but it isn't ever going to be equivalent to a $5m Warhol. I really like modernist architecture, the structures are designed for living in rather than showing off to the neighbours - although a lot of the buildings can look like fortresses from the outside, inside they feel spacious and airy thanks to all the glass and clever use of materials. Unfortunately efficient spaces designed on a human scale are rather untrendy in the US at the moment (and why not - energy, drywall and subprime jumbo mortgages are so cheap...) Wonder if the seller would be willing to sell the structure to be moved elsewhere so she can build her huge, ugly McMansion? Or even if a structure with so much glass could be moved intact?

 

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by v0rtex

All of those little offices are based on the design philosophies laid down by the modernist movement in the post-war decades, which in their day were quite ground breaking. This house is a first-generation example of that style by one of it's original innovators, so it's got historical and cultural value. Just like how you can buy a Photoshopped pop-art print of your own face at the flea market for $10, but it isn't ever going to be equivalent to a $5m Warhol. I really like modernist architecture, the structures are designed for living in rather than showing off to the neighbours[\\b] - although a lot of the buildings can look like fortresses from the outside, inside they feel spacious and airy thanks to all the glass and clever use of materials. Unfortunately efficient spaces designed on a human scale are rather untrendy in the US at the moment (and why not - energy, drywall and subprime jumbo mortgages are so cheap...) Wonder if the seller would be willing to sell the structure to be moved elsewhere so she can build her huge, ugly McMansion? Or even if a structure with so much glass could be moved intact?
I think in a different way a lot of modern houses try to SHOW OFF too, and many do not look livable. A house made of glass on virtually all 4 walls looks cool in the mags, but I don`t think they are really livable. When the balance is right, and not just meant for showing off, they look really nice though. Oh and yes, the furniture in the OP is terrible.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by Dragon

I think in a different way a lot of modern houses try to SHOW OFF too, and many do not look livable. A house made of glass on virtually all 4 walls looks cool in the mags, but I don`t think they are really livable. When the balance is right, and not just meant for showing off, they look really nice though. Oh and yes, the furniture in the OP is terrible.
I don't understand this. I couldn't live in this. But I do respect it and like it very, very much.

 

[MCsommerreid]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

I don't understand this. I couldn't live in this. But I do respect it and like it very, very much.

It would probably be livable if the glass was double/triple paned (insulation), could have blinds drawn across all of it (block out the sun for sleeping in), and/or was on a huge plot of land with good vegetation screening (privacy).

 

[robin]

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

It would probably be livable if the glass was double/triple paned (insulation), could have blinds drawn across all of it (block out the sun for sleeping in), and/or was on a huge plot of land with good vegetation screening (privacy).
I love that building, but I would need all of those if I were to live in it.

 

[bkk]

I thought the entire fireplace area was the worst offender of the interior. TV should be hung on the wall and have a center in line with the fireplace. Even if you have it sitting on the fireplace, center it. The cable box and things that look like frogs were just thrown up there for convenience.

 

[johnapril]

There was someone, and I can't recall the name, who built a glass structure around an already existing house. That was pretty cool. On second thought, it may have only been a structure, with curtains.

 

[Nico Samuel Pleninsek]

I quite like it.

I didn't read the article, but are they building a mcmansion in its place?

 

[Toiletduck]

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

It would probably be livable if the glass was double/triple paned (insulation), could have blinds drawn across all of it (block out the sun for sleeping in), and/or was on a huge plot of land with good vegetation screening (privacy).

OR they could install those electronic "smart" glass where they can change the transparency at the press of a button. Now that would be bloody awesome.

 

[Britalian]

I find the exterior less offensive than the mish mash of furniture.

 

[MCsommerreid]

Originally Posted by Toiletduck

OR they could install those electronic "smart" glass where they can change the transparency at the press of a button. Now that would be bloody awesome.

With something like that, living in an abode of glass would be most excellent.