What architectural mistake ruins the experience of living in a home?

Three ways to get it wrong

Matthew names the mistake three times, and they are the same mistake:

• Designing for the camera — "Thinking of architecture as just something to photograph is a mistake."
• Leaving people out — "Leaving people out of the equation is a mistake."
• Leaving function out — "Leaving the functional aspects out of a design is a mistake."

Each one is the same omission seen from a different angle: the design stopped being about anybody living there.

Good design is not the opposite of attractive design

He is careful to say so: "Good design and aesthetically valid design, attractive design, is going to have things like storage nicely thought out." Storage is the example precisely because it is unglamorous. Nobody photographs storage. Everybody lives with it.

Specific, not generic

And specificity is the whole point: a good design "is going to include the needs of kids, if there are kids. It's going to include the needs of young adults. It's going to include the needs of hobbyists and what they need to make their hobbies come alive."

"The design process should not be generic, but it should be specific to cater for these needs. When it does, it's way more complete." A generic design serves an average nobody lives as. The specific one is built around the actual people who will be in it — which is also why buyers should be asking what is missing for their own life, not admiring the plan as drawn.

Sources

• Perit Matthew James Mercieca — Yitaku Asks video (Architect Series, Cluster 1) — architecture as something to photograph; leaving people out; leaving function out; storage; kids, young adults, hobbyists; specific not generic