The alt.architecture newsgroup (which can be found through Google Groups, if you really want to) is an interesting bunch. There are a few regulars who do their best to scare new posters away. For the most part, they mean well…it’s just that many of those who come along aren’t prepared for what they get.

Many of those who post in the alt.arch group are seeking answers to questions. 75% of the time, the answers can be found with a little bit of Googling (and I know that Google doesn’t like it’s name being used as a verb). Many of the other questions are related to design. But people don’t really want advice. They want confirmation. They want somebody to tell them that their design is great.

George (I think that’s his name) posted a plan. It’s not a good plan. You can see it here. Many of the regulars offered initially polite advice (but there were some pretty funny comments that weren’t that polite). George proceeded to get huffy. I’ll leave it to you to read the thread. I want to analyze the plan, not the conversation.

1) Entry. This plan has no entry. It provides no place for the things that are needed for coming and going from the house. There is no coat closet, no place for shoes. No place to dump the load of stuff. There is no “front door”. Unless you want to have everyone come through your kitchen, you need to provide a public entry. Of course something could probably be added to the south wall at the living/dining space, but we still don’t have an “entry.”

2) Sizes. It’s all just a little too small. Everything. I’m certainly a fan of efficient design. The carport will only fit a small car. The dining room limits the type and size of table, etc. Granted, the design is meant to be compact, but it’s clear that the designer didn’t really study efficient plans (a great place is looking at motor homes and boats).

3) Fireplace. The fireplace, in the middle, is a great idea, but the scale of what is drawn isn’t realistic. If its a wood stove, then safety would be a concern. Looking at the floor finishes, a hearth of some sort would be required. A Finnish Tulikivi would work here, but I don’t think they’re willing to spend the money. It’s also in the way. The designer claimed it was a room divider. Maybe. It would depend upon the execution. God is in the details…

4) “Generic Plan”: There is nothing site specific about this plan. Plans work best when designed with a context in mind. We have no context. Which way is plan north? It’ll make a difference. What are you looking at? There’s a lot of glass shown. Better have a view…

There are a few good things…it’s compact. The bedroom/bathroom/living space does have a decent flow. Circulation patterns were thought about a little bit. For the same area, there are better designs and plans…but most importantly, the plan needs to respond to the site. A C- effort for the amateur.