TreeFrog said:
Am I the only one who thinks the house next to Hilton's (to the east) is way uglier? To my eyes, the one next door is tacky subdivision McMansion.
(No offense to current and past owners, your mileage may vary, no affiliation with architects and builders, etc. - all the standard disclaimers)
I wouldn't have said it first, but now that you have, I completely agree! It's not the house per se, but the not fitting into its landscape is what makes me grimace every time I see it. That house belongs in Mayfair, in London. It's a city house that needs depth and scale around it to make it shine. And tall trees! As it stands now, it's this oversized sore thumb that just juts out of the sand. Pity to do that to such a traditional home as that. It turns a classic design ugly.
That addition to the house down the street from it-- the one Smiling JOe mentioned--it's very ungainly and awkward looking to my eyes.
Count me among those who love the Hilton house even though the guy's an environment jerk. Odd for me, too, because I'm really not so much a fan of modern architecture as all that. I think the house is not well-sited, though. Like its awkward monstrosity of a neighbor, the land fights it, not enhances it.