Tasteful friends: Who doesn't want a shop/house modelled on a Cracker Barrel?

Article

OP, show us the toilet you live in, at least until someone flushes.

Sorry, R2, but these are ugly houses. (I was about to post this too.)

They're ugly, but functional and the blend into the countryside. Actually seems like a pretty good idea and affordable. Ideal for someone in the trades.

My parents did this. It was kind of like living in a huge rec room at a summer camp in the middle of the humid Texas wilds. I always put on a Friday The 13th marathon to purposely disturb everyone.

Where I live, the county airport has several live-in hangars- the husband gets kicked out of the house by an angry wife for whatever reason, so moves into the office area ( that also has a kitchen and full bathroom) of his private hangar. In case why you are wondering why they would move into something that, it is because: A) They expect to be allowed back home in a couple of weeks, or B) it is discreet enough that getting kicked out won't become public knowledge, or C) both A) and B). FYI, these buildings are on county property and the land lease forbids occupancy of this kind.

They're not "ugly." They're residential-work buildings that present as utilitarian and constructed without a care for their exteriors except in functional terms. You aren't tsking about every box of metal, concrete and styrofoam that serves as a warehouse or utility shed. Your umbrage is set at people not living in buildings where you have determined they should live. It's a shallow differentiation.

The other feature is cost with these choices.

I question much more the clueless youngsters flocking to newly constructed multi-story cage-like faux warehouses with a dormitory vibe and unrented retail and commercial space on the ground floors.

In short, hissing at the rural compromises and declarations of fundamental priorities different from your own is not a matter of aesthetics. It's a matter of your claiming superiority and not respecting how people have always pitched their tents.

On the other hand, people who distort styles, mix unfit designs or materials in an effort to look "classy" or "contemporary," put together uncomfortable living quarters or offend their settings deserve all the opprobrium you want to deliver.

And that's not even mentioning how the complainers themselves are living.

It's perfectly possible to construct functional, utilitarian buildings that aren't ugly. I feel confident these people have the means to do that.

I feel like this is the equivalent of those people who wear sweatpants on planes because "I'm into comfort." Generations of rural folks managed to build homes, often very modest homes, they could take pride in - you see them along every rural road in the US. I admit that I have more respect for that than for people who choose to build an elaborate, barren warehouse to live in because their convenience is all that matters.

It’s okay and it’ll fly away in one piece during a tornado.

But it is about aesthetics. The "Shouse" is not a noble workingman's shop, his livelihood conveniently attached to his house as in some model from the Middle Ages. This is the mutant child of the suburban Snout House and the homespun style ("with urban loft touches") of HGTV designers.

In this architecture turned inside out the front elevation is given over to big doors for giant vehicles, and alludes to the architecture if sheds and farm outbuildings, but with that front and center emphasis of vehicles as the new hearth/heart of the lion's share if the structure, with a sort of tiny house/industrial loft/open-plan-kitchen stuck in one small corner as if an afterthought.

It's a modern day middle American version of Marie Antoinette's Hameau de la Reine, for a country couple who collect cars, trucks, RVs, golf carts, and take up as a retirement hobby making birdhouses at a well tooled workbench. They also like to exercise their creativity and tart up their lawns in the taste of Cracker Barrel gift shops:

[quote]The Jindras are still working on their dream shouse. Ms. Jindra is repurposing an antique bed frame into a garden bed on the lawn. And Mr. Jindra is working on moving his father’s old grain bin from the family farm into his front yard, where he will craft it into a gazebo...part of another new rural real estate mash-up. This one is called a grainzebo.

[QUOTE]In short, hissing at the rural compromises and declarations of fundamental priorities different from your own is not a matter of aesthetics. It's a matter of your claiming superiority and not respecting how people have always pitched their tents.

💯

[QUOTE]It's perfectly possible to construct functional, utilitarian buildings that aren't ugly. I feel confident these people have the means to do that.

Why do you feel people are obligated to behave as you do even at a monetary loss for your unique "considerations?"

[QUOTE]a noble workingman's shop,

Do you not understand this oxymoron? The state of American education? Medieval education fostering the incumbent, expected idiocy and early death, just like the dark ages back in Europe where their overlords dictated their very ugly deaths.

It's workable. Especially if your good and creative at rehabbing.

They can be done better

This is an article run by the NYT so that dopes like OP can sneer at white trash.

When you live and work in rural places, your needs and expectations are different. I have no problem with these buildings. It's their land, their money, their choice. At least there is room for moving around and distance from neighbors. I have lived in high rises, condos, lofts, and now have a big suburban home. I wouldn't go back to living in a more urban set up if you gave it to me. The more distance between us and neighbors, the better. I'd move further out to the country but my husband isn't ready for that yet.