ᐅ Asymmetric Facades as the Preferred Option?

I put this together using copy & paste and probably didn't get the symmetry quite right 😀
I actually like it in gray with a white border. With a facade width of 8m (26 feet) and three windows, the options are limited, right?
Of course, it’s not my dream house, but I can live with it. What would you change?

In der Ruine schrieb:

What would you still change?

Make the ground floor windows floor-to-ceiling 😉

ypg schrieb:

Make the ground floor windows floor-to-ceiling 😉

Is it for the appearance? More natural light inside? Better view?

In der Ruine schrieb:

Because of the appearance? More light inside? Better view?

Operation of the windows from the inside.
Spaciousness in the interior (no lower barrier to the garden). Option to go outside.

ypg schrieb:

Operation of the windows from the inside.
Spaciousness inside (no low barrier to the garden). Option to go outside.

I think we won't agree on this point anymore ;-)
The option to go outside is off the table. In extreme cases, with Ytong, the opening can be quickly enlarged and a new window installed.
I will look into the window operation again.
Spaciousness is not a big priority. If anything, I prefer a cozy atmosphere. After all, with about 7 x 4.30 meters (23 x 14 feet), it’s a rather small living room. Not comparable to the mansions that are often built around here.

In der Ruine schrieb:

I have already read several times that symmetrical facades are not so popular among the experts.

That is an oversimplified conclusion. Often, the interior usability suffers under the constraint of external symmetry. Many people — myself included — consider that to be poor design.

In der Ruine schrieb:

What is the right degree of asymmetry? The golden ratio? Fibonacci sequence?
What makes a building interesting, and do you have examples?

You seem to have the idea of an idealized, schematic approach to the aesthetics of asymmetry. I would be interested in that as well, but I tend to believe more that the Earth is flat...
There are many completely different ways to make a building "interesting." They all involve “think first, then act.”
Examples:

• A consistent "form follows function" principle. This requires a thorough examination of the goals the building is supposed to fulfill. Technology is not the focus, but it is not disguised either. You can see the purpose of every detail. Anything without a function is simply not there. (Look into Bauhaus — after Gropius and his peers, not in sales brochures...)
• The exact opposite: a coherent playfulness in details (examples can be found from many influential styles — Gothic, Baroque, Renaissance, Victorian, Art Nouveau...)
• Expression of a personal style by the client
• The building’s dialogue with its surroundings
• An emphasized signature feature can create a special aesthetic appeal
• Recurring design themes in shape, material, and color can form an exciting narrative
• A combination of straightforward symmetry and a pronounced break at a prominent spot
• ...

In der Ruine schrieb:

Of course, I planned my extension to be perfectly symmetrical.

I don’t quite understand the word “of course” in that sentence. Symmetry changes its perception depending on the context and on the viewpoint. If you succeed in integrating these aspects into a symmetrical arrangement, the house will certainly have a fascinating effect. However, merely vertical axis-symmetrical frontal views are not enough for that.

If that is exactly what you enjoy, that’s fine. But if you want your house to be something special also for others’ eyes, that alone won’t suffice — and an architect can only help if their creativity has space and is not restricted by many fixed rules from the client.