What's the difference between a property that photographs well and one that lives well?

He refuses the choice

Asked to pick between a property that photographs well and one that lives well, Matthew declines the premise: "Ideally, we have both, right? Why choose one? I wouldn't want to choose one." The two are not opposites, and treating them as a trade-off is already the error.

A photo can mislead

But they do come apart, and in one direction: "A photo can sometimes be misleading because it looks amazing, but when you move into a property, it then does not feel the same." A photograph is a single position, a single moment of light, a single framing chosen because it flatters. Living in a place is every other position, all day, for years.

So the priority is that it lives well

"I would say the priority should be that a property lives well, and that comes from all the psychological and physiological and functional and aesthetic elements being satisfied." Aesthetics are on that list — this is not an argument against beauty. It is an argument that beauty is one of four, and the only one a camera can capture.

And then it photographs well anyway

Which resolves the false choice: "When those are satisfied, usually it's also when they photograph well." Get the home right for the people in it and the photographs follow. Chase the photograph and you may get nothing else. It is the same reason two apartments in the same building feel completely different.

Sources

• Perit Matthew James Mercieca — Yitaku Asks video (Architect Series, Cluster 1) — why choose one; a photo can be misleading; the priority is that it lives well; when those are satisfied they photograph well too