> Note that you have changed your complaint from "OP didn't present any evidence" to that you "didn't find them convincing". (I note that you don't provide any evidence for that claim. Shocking! What, are we supposed to just take you at you word?)
Houshalter didn't change the complaint. Their original complaint was that the author did not provide evidence for why breaking the rules is inherently bad, not that the author did not provide evidence for why the pictured McMansions were bad. The comment you are replying to restated this:
> I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case [this refers to the houses themselves, not the rules]. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are wrong or his are right [this is the original complaint].
The rules aren't convincing because there is no evidence that they are anything other than semi-arbitrary preferences that the architecture world, or at least a subset of it, as coalesced around. I agree with Houshalter, which is why I am responding.
The article's author did not claim that the rules were anything inherent about the universe, or anything other than "semi-arbitrary preferences" of a particular set of humans. I also note that the author didn't claim that they were rules, but rather principles, which is an important difference. And there's even an explicit disclaimer saying that they only apply to a particular style of architecture. If Houshalter is complaining that the article didn't prove something it didn't claim to prove, I have no idea why that's relevant to anybody.
But assuming instead that he is asking for something actually related to the scope of the article, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For those with an eye for architecture who have spent time puzzling over McMansions, that is sufficient to demonstrate the principles.
You're welcome to complain that you didn't understand the evidence, didn't find it convincing. But I reject the assumption that is a problem with the article. This was clearly written for people with an interest in and some knowledge of residential architecture. There's no reason an article has to explain everything to everybody.
>, then yes, evidence was provided. For each principle, there are photos showing exactly how the principle is violated in typical McMansion architecture. For those with an eye for architecture who have spent time puzzling over McMansions, that is sufficient to demonstrate the principles.
No, it was insufficient evidence. The author didn't show photos (or is unaware) of non-McMansion-non-modern counterexamples to his "mass/voids/asymmetry" principles and explain why his guidelines are inconsistent. Therefore, his theory is incoherent.
The magazines including Architectural Digest and Veranda are the most anti-McMansion publications you can get and they feature homes that violate his principles. Secondary mass all over the place. Abundant voids and asymmetry too.
Yes, the distaste for McMansions is a real phenomenon but the author's explanations about what it _is_ by measuring geometries is incorrect.
Houshalter didn't change the complaint. Their original complaint was that the author did not provide evidence for why breaking the rules is inherently bad, not that the author did not provide evidence for why the pictured McMansions were bad. The comment you are replying to restated this:
> I looked at the pictures and didn't find them convincing I preferred the "McMansions" in every case [this refers to the houses themselves, not the rules]. The author provided no argument for why my preferences are wrong or his are right [this is the original complaint].
The rules aren't convincing because there is no evidence that they are anything other than semi-arbitrary preferences that the architecture world, or at least a subset of it, as coalesced around. I agree with Houshalter, which is why I am responding.