Trying to answer with the author of the mcmansion hell's viewpoint, the digrams on this post are helpful: http://mcmansionhell.tumblr.com/post/148605513816/mcmansions...

In the one you pointed out, the question arises: "Which part is the actual house?" It has a feeling of "someone stuck on this extra part here, this stairwell here, ..." particularly with the mix of the stone and stucco'd/painted exterior, the multiple incoherent roof angles, and the inconsistent Z-depth of the front of the house.

With some architecture, the more you look at it, the more it grows on you. With the picture you posted, at first glance, I had the same reaction you did -- but after I really looked at it for a while, it started to bug the heck out of me. Kind of the same thing that happens after listening to too much auto-tuned music. The effect is cool the first time you hear it, but after a while, ...

> It has a feeling of "someone stuck on this extra part here, this stairwell here, ..."

Isn't that practically one of the defining characteristics of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses?

I wouldn't really say so:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb...

http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb32...

http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/El...

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Pe...

http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-L...

Concur. The FLW houses I've seen have all been quite consistent. I like Kentuck Knob as an example more than Fallingwater, because it doesn't have the super-obvious "cantilevered over the water" thing as a focus point, so you have to look at the whole a little more:

http://kentuckknob.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kentuck_Sp...

Consistent roofline, consistently repeated window motif, re-use of the horizontal stonework for the house, the exterior wall, and the chimneys.

The drawback of his Usonian houses is that the ceiling height is ridiculous by 2017 standards. At 6'3", I have to duck in several of the rooms, much less the doorways. Oof.

Ah fair enough. I was thinking stuff like this: http://doclibrary.com/MSC146/IMG/ban-home4.jpg

https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/07115505/f...

http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/57571c84e8428148...

It's the other way round. The people who are living in these houses don't have to look at them. It's the people who don't live in those houses that have to look at them.

It's an insult to society when somebody builds an ugly house and everybody else has to look at it.

Settled neighborhoods are more expensive than new ones because you can avoid living next to an ugly house.

So, I tend to agree that this house does not immediately jump out as ugly, and the suggestion that it is obviously flawed does come over as snobbish.

I'm not sure I mind the mixed stone and stucco that another comment mentions. It seems like a valid aesthetic style, especially with the chosen colours.

However, there are a few weird things I do notice. The double roof gable on the right seems unnecessary and unbalanced. And there are also many random windows in different styles, and in strange places. The ones below the double roof seem particularly obviously mismatched, and the window on the diagonal portion above the main door really looks out of position.