The architect will probably also get a little heartache when he hears that he is not allowed to wildly plan a flat-roof designer villa into the slope.
Architects should damn well buy their own plots of land for their dreams.
I just don’t understand why hip roof builders are always criticized. If you put budgets aside, it’s primarily a matter of taste. For example, I would always prefer any run-of-the-mill city villa in terms of appearance over an architect’s flat-roof Bauhaus house,
Hip roofs are so widespread and built everywhere, even the last idiot now builds a townhouse with a hip roof. Many (including me) can’t stand it anymore and there are already entire residential areas that look like a block toy playground because of it.
An architect with culture will not want to reproduce knockoffs of the era "Bauhaus meets late seventies"; and I personally would in any case prefer a city villa over an “instead-of” villa. This is probably one of the oldest aesthetic disputes, whether having no taste should be considered a matter of taste (or allowed to be).
What is built inflationarily by “the last idiots” may be technically correctly called "hip roof"—nevertheless, it borders on mislabeling to use the term beautiful stone-oven hip roofs for the “modern” microwave hip roofs. These are actually not roofs, these are lids.
A roof “belongs” to a roof frame, but “modern” the frame becomes a beanbag. The compressed pyramids made from trusses bear the same names mathematically, but the grace of “original” hip or tent roofs has been lost.
The fact that instant design leaves a bland aftertaste upon exit is probably inherent to the factory-produced nature.
In contrast, I find a rather rectangular city villa with a bay window that somewhat loosens up the appearance to be timelessly beautiful.
Good proportions need no platform soles or Wonderbras. Unfortunately, bay windows are often used as Disney style elements. But I am already glad if they are only linked with “or,” and not additionally with “and” with smoky eyes or rhombus cladding. The carmine red “contrast areas” have thankfully already moved into the fashion archive.
Take a look here for example:
That is individual and I really find it great.
That is indeed a house that appeals to me quite well within the framework of the “current offerings.” Unfortunately, here too the realization falls short of the original potential (of the “industrial look”), because steel frame windows would have belonged to it. Plastic profiles—and I say this exceptionally not as an aluminum fan—unfortunately dilute this concept towards “plastic.”
I myself have a hip roof—I wouldn’t build it like that again today.
Why? – tell me...
By the way, hip roof and “city villa” do not have to look tasteless—even without the architect heavily redesigning it. We have a successful example in the forum from .
Why exactly? Is a hip roof that much more expensive compared to a gable roof? Are we talking about 1.5 times or 2 times as expensive?
A hip roof has four ridges where a gable has gables on which purlins can be laid. With a “real” hip (with ridge, so not a tent), another dimension of complexity is added, but on a rectangular floor plan it is still rather about factor 1.3. The factor 2 can be reached (or even exceeded) if recesses and projections in the floor plan fold the roof surface and give it additional ridges. With a “truss lid” instead of an honorable roof, the extra cost from tent to gable is still almost marginal.