As any fule kno, one of my frequent irritations is architecture that is foul and ugly (especially of the Bauhaus / Le Corbusier / Post-Modern ilk). Reader Alex S. sends me an interesting take on the whole “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) syndrome; and while it’s a long read, it’s definitely worth the time:
Western countries used to let landowners build almost anything anywhere. Now, strict rules freeze the character of most neighborhoods, banning change and densification. Why? One theory is that modern buildings tend to be ugly, leading residents to support rules that exclude them from their neighborhoods. If this is true, then designing beautiful buildings could lead to more development.
One could only hope. Let me clear on this: I’m absolutely not against redevelopment, especially in urban locations. The more the merrier, say I, as long as the new buildings don’t look like factories, warehouses and concrete/glass building blocks. In cities, by definition, where people are squashed together, there needs to be some kind of harmonious architecture — and not just for aesthetic reasons, either. It’s actually jarring to find, in an area that has a certain architectural feel or style to it, a new construction that belongs to the Fuck You School.
I’m less concerned with suburban architecture, by the way, especially if the houses are not standing cheek-by-jowl with each other. When it comes to personal property, I’m kinda-libertarian about the whole thing. While I may cluck my tongue and (occasionally) shake my fist at some modern concrete block house standing on the same street as some gracious older homes (and there’s a lot of that in Dallas), the way I see it is that if someone’s just dropped a couple mil on a piece of land, he should be allowed to build whatever he likes on it.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Along the occasionally-posh Inwood Road in north Dallas, one generally sees what I refer to as the “Dallas Mansion” style:


But on that very same road, one occasionally runs into an ugly Modernist edifice:

…and while I think that the above is a piece of shit and doesn’t fit into the overall tone of the neighborhood, I just shrug and say “No accounting for taste, is there?” and continue on my way to the DFW Gun Range.
My tolerance, however, stops very short when I see something like this:

…when it’s perched in a neighborhood that looks like this:

At that point, I start calling for the C4, and an investigation of the bank accounts of the people sitting on the local planning commission.
Never mind “not in my back yard”: it should be “not in anyone’s back yard”.
agreed
But even worse than ugly is stupid. We live in NW Wyoming, and there are enormous amounts of basically useless sagebrush desert basin acreage. People build houses in some pretty crazy places. The most expensive are usually in the mountains instead, with water access (creeks or rivers) adding multiples to the cost of the property. But this has got to be one of the dumbest houses I’ve ever seen out here:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/62-Skull-Creek-Dr-Cody-WY-82414/448435931_zpid/
This is to the north of the city of Cody, WY near the top of Skull Creek Hill. The highway that runs near it goes through a pass right next to Heart Mountain. This place is perched on the top of a hill just west of the highway in an area noted for Wyoming’s “gentle wafting breezes”, otherwise known as 50 to 60 MPH sustained winds that topple over trucks and RV’s on that highway.
Note that this place is mostly windows with a majority of them oriented to the north (for the view). I’m guessing that the reason it’s for sale is that the owner and family actually tried living there for their first year, and discovered that when a winter storm comes through, it’s accompanied by a couple of feet of snow (even more up at their altitude) and gentle, wafting, northerly breezes that find every minute crack and gap in the windows…not to mention that even with low-E coatings and double- or triple-pane windows it’s gonna feel freezing cold due to radiation heat loss for the entire winter.
And the sunlight around here makes any room with extensive west-facing windows basically unlivable. They’ve gotta have a huge A/C unit to handle the loads in that kind of place.
Yeah, great, it’s got 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, and 5,500 square feet. All of which need to be either heated or cooled (sometimes both on the same day). But I’m guessing that it’s the almost continuous wind up there that drove the original owners/designers of that house out of there. And all for the low, low bargain price of only $11 million.
And a black exterior? The person who specified that for Wyoming heat, sun and cold must be a total asshole, an egocentric moron. Was it the architect, the owner or both?
I vote for both. I’ll be surprised if the ask doesn’t drop considerably before that sterile POS sells.
Who stood up a big camshaft in the front of that building? And how big does the engine have to be to take it?
If I owned the last mansion in the pictures, I’d have my chauffeur throw rocks and paintball gun the next to last “house” every night.
On second thought, if I had the money that last house infers, I’d make the crankshaft house an offer they couldn’t refuse and bulldoze it.
I’ve had some dealings with two office building architects, and their arrogance was beyond anyone else I’ve ever met, including the “if not invented here, it’s no good” Germans I’ve worked with.
We need more flogging of preening, asshole architects who ruin the view for their egos.
Just remember that behind every architect’s fugly monstrosity… is a client’s signature.
Apparently Budapest is removing Soviet-style stuff with older classical-looking facades to beautify the place — https://x.com/the_culturist_/status/2084998754835259697