Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
jsfox_gw

Architects? Really?

jsfox
10 years ago

I've browsed off and on here for a couple of years as we near building a new house (we begin design in August, plan to break ground in Sep 2014). Two recent threads really got me to thinking about architects.

Both are houses designed by architects, yet are closer in design level to what is often referred to around here as Builder Plop - houses designed by builders who have no design are architectural training (or skill) and plop something down on paper that they can plop down on a lot.

We built our current house 25 years ago and we've talked to and met dozens of architects over the past couple of years. There are certain design elements that they all adhere to regardless of style, size of structure, and budget.

For example, all understand the relationship of shutters to windows and won't utilize shutters that are not proportioned correctly. If necessary, instead of shutters, they'll design other ornamentation that fits more properly with the style and serves the purpose. One told me "if a house is designed and proportioned correctly, you don't need fake shutters."

That last line was from an architect who specializes in affordable houses and believes that people are much happier in a well-designed and aesthetically pleasing 1200 sq ft house than a poorly designed 2000 sq ft house.

They all also decry fake facades, no matter how well done, and strive to make all sides of every house equally appealing. They pay attention to overall proportion and avoid massive congealed surfaces.

BTW, I'm not a huge believer that an architect or AIA architect is critical as there are many non-architect designers and builders who produce exceptional designs, but generally someone being an architect did provide some level of assurance that the end result would likely be a good design. (FWIW, the person we've chosen to design our new house is not an architect, but has designed many exceptional houses.)

Has the McMansion craze drizzled down and so permeated things that even architects are ignoring design and aesthetics? At one time there was a vast difference in an architect designed house (regardless of style, size, or budget) and builder plop. Is that no longer the case?

Comments (101)

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Athens, we regard that home as a sort of inspiration. If Askins' fee is several hundred thousand, he will be eliminated quicker than a snowball on the Fourth of July. We plan to meet with all the usual suspects: Askins, Baker, Harrison, Fuller and more.

    And yes, the price per SF approach holds great appeal to us. First, we have to find suitable land which has not been easy.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I second what Virgil Carter says. There is a difference between a good design not appealing to, or being suitable for everyone vs. good design/bad design.

    I think the biggest problem with current residential design is the tendency to try and make the house look like what it is not. Fairly modest houses are puffed up to look larger and more imposing, and details are tacked on for the sole purpose of adding ornamental complexity to the design, often only the façade. The house rarely responds to its lot or environment--rather it imposes its self-importance on the landscape.

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I posted a few more front elevations. BTW, I have no idea if these represent good design or not. I see this as a learning process and apparently other members do as well.

    Please comment on the following:

    {{gwi:1441732}}

    {{gwi:1441733}}

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    These houses are not perfect. But they have a clear identity.

    This house has more of an interior focus
    {{gwi:1441738}}

  • virgilcarter
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In my opinion, the more varied roof forms, the more forward facing gables (especially the dreaded Stacked Gables), combinations of multiple roof shapes--hip, gable and/or shed roof types--the less resolved and less successful the design.

    Multiple roof types, shapes and pitches often means that the floor plan was not considered with the exteriors and roofing in mind. The result of this common approach is simply a floor plan with a "hat" on it--frequent a bulky, ill-proportioned and unappealing huge hat.

    Look at all the illustrations above. The more complicated the roof the busier and less resolved is the design.

    It also seems as if the busier the roof becomes the greater the addition of decoration and really unnecessary materials palettes and detailing. Worse begats worse.

    Everyone can make their own visual comparisons and evaluations. Likely some will differ from my evaluation.

    Good design isn't always "less is more" (as Mies said), but good architectural design is like a good painting: it contains everything necessary for the artist (or architect) to illustrate the intent for the painting, and not a single thing more!"

    Just a thought about good design. It's a complicated and deep subject, so this is just barely scratching the surface.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    john_wc

    Jonathan Hale would argue that all of the houses you posted have essential problems of proportion.

    There is something off about the pediment and windows of the Georgian Revival, (and the shutters are Much too narrow), but it's essentially its a decent form.

    The first house, a Beaux Arts style, doesn't need the extra applied gables on the facade and such a complex roof.

    The drawn houses are all a bit too upright and have too many materials and ornamental details on the facades, but simplified, they would probably be fine.

  • caymaiden
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    virgilcarter, renovator8 and others, what do you think of this elevation? Is this roofline overly complicated?

    This post was edited by caymaiden on Wed, Jun 5, 13 at 12:26

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    To me, Seagrape House has a lot of architectural purity.

  • patriceny
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I am so enjoying this thread. I appreciate all the time people have put into providing thoughtful responses.

    I'm a design idiot - so much so, that this is one area where I don't even know what I don't know (if that makes any sense at all).

    I really appreciate those of you who DO know, taking the time to explain things. And I'm really enjoying the back and forth discussions around differences of opinion.

    I've learned a lot. Thank you!

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree. I have never really thought about design very much. Typically my concern with a busy roof would be the cost.

    palimpsest, many thanks for your comments. I'm a slow learner when it comes to design but your input and comments have really helped.

    Below is a rendering of a home that appeals to me, except for the front garage. I assume that the dormers are ornamental since they open to the attic. Comments?

  • stinkytiger
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi,

    I did build a house and I did use two architects. My first design was designed by my brother. He is in my mind the better architect, having worked for Foster Associates, and designing the shopping areas in Hong Kong Airport. Also as proof, he did put his own money where is mouth is, and built a hotel in Italy (www.moravola.com) which has been featured in 32 publications including Vogue USA.

    In the end I had to go with another design and a local architect and a "standard", but still very nice house. The main reason being price.

    We had this gorgeous first plan, but when it came to pricing, it was way over budget. The main reason it was over budget because it was "non-standard." Most builders that bid, were scared and hence bid high for the contract. In the world of construction, anything non standard comes in at a cost, and additional execution risk.

    Many homes look the same because that is easiest, most cost effective way of building a home, with the lowest risk. Super nice homes, check out SAOTA $US 20 million and up, are sort of what Architects dream of designing, but you need rich clients to pull one of those designs off.

    In a nutshell economics plays a huge roll in determining the evolution of home designs. What you see is the result of market forces at work for each location.

    Best, Mike.

  • akshars_mom
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    jsfox,
    Sorry I just saw your question to me. The board does offer very helpful insight and suggestions and it has helped me greatly. I only said worried of posting an elevation with out doing some more research after the discussion here, since I am a novice and what I was going to post going to have a lot of issues.

    I am going to post the elevations when I get a them (asked to make some changes).

    I have really enjoyed the whole conversation and learned from it.

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This appears to be a cousin of the most recent home I posted.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The last two houses are Georgians and the second is stronger than the first. I don't think it's likely though that the wings would be clapboard, and a dependency like the cape cod style house (which probably represents a summer kitchen in the fictitious history of how such a house might evolve) might be wood, but it would almost never be attached to the Front of the house, only the back.

  • dadereni
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I second palimpsest's comments.
    Too bad there isn't a second chimney.
    Might be better without the soldier course.

  • galore2112
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    You know that someone went overboard with rooflines, if the result is like this:

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Is the issue with the soldier course that it is not true to the Georgian design or aesthetics?

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't have a problem with the soldier course, they often did something to demarcate between different stories of the house.

  • caymaiden
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    palimpsest --

    Thank you for your comment about Seagrape House. The house was designed by our architect and was our "inspiration" -- though our home will be much smaller with fewer balconies and only two stories as opposed to three. We have asked for as simple a shape as possible and we have that in our preliminary plans, but the architect did note that the only complicated feature was the roof, which, from the look of the sketches he has done, is something similar to this one. I didn't think much of it at the time, but this thread made me look at it again and wonder. I do think it looks very nice, and only hope it's not too expensive to build. We are finalizing our preliminary plans this weekend and moving on to planning documentation and costing next, so I guess we'll find out! Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    caymaiden

    Your house shares a lot with some vernacular tropical forms, and vernacular forms generally follow function or are adapted to their environment, so they work:


  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Your form is very similar to a Florida Cracker house


  • lexma90
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. We are in the beginning stages of building a house that's quite modern, so it doesn't look a lot like many of the houses on this forum. It also doesn't look a lot like many of the houses in the mountain area it will be built in, which is near our current house. The most popular houses there are called "mountain vernacular," which is a bit ridiculous, given that earlier mountain houses (in our area, no older than the mid-1800s) were not huge McMansions with a boatload of "natural" exterior sidings, multiple gables, columns throughout that include stripped logs and rock facing on the bottom of the columns. Our house doesn't have any of those; we were lucky to easily find an architect whose forte and love is modern design (though he's done, and continues to do, those other types too to pay the bills).

    Other factors that we had to deal with in our design, which affected the houseplan and elevations, are an upward sloping lot (we didn't think it sloped that much when we purchased it 15 years ago) and a very conservative design review board in our development (they love mountain vernacular). And, of course, real environmental issues such as need for certain pitches to the roof for snow loads and a cool climate that limits the number of large windows facing north.

    Well-designed houses that don't have (too many) useless elements always appeal to me, even if they aren't the type of house that I would choose to live in.

  • athensmomof3
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    john_wc - Bill Baker designed our house. We are very happy with it.

  • athensmomof3
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Also if you are talking to folks in that crowd, talk to Spitzmiller and Norris and Stan Dixon also - they design beautiful houses!

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Athens, we will definitely talk to Baker. Never heard anything but great things about him. Spitzmiller & Norris, know the name and will add them. Not familiar with Stan Dixon but will look him up.

    Know anything about Harrison or Fuller?

    Thanks..

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    BTW, I assume you are in Athens but did you meet with any Atlanta builders?

  • sochi
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This is a wonderful thread, thanks to everyone who has contributed and shared their comments and perspectives.

    ClioT, good for you for resisting the mtn vernacular, good luck with the project. Have you posted with drawings yet? There aren't many lovers of modern design on GW, but there are a few of us. I'm building a small and modern lakeside home on a fairly steep slope. I've found an architect I'm very comfortable with, thankfully.

    I've been told, and I think I agree, that designing good modern buildings can be more difficult than more traditional homes. I love modern design, but hate most examples of so called "modern" design I see in my area. As I learned here, getting an excellent architect AND builder in tune with your desires is critical. So far so good for us I think.

  • athensmomof3
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Our builder was recommended by Bill and he has worked with him multiple times. He does build in Atlanta (working on something on Pine Valley now I think) but lives in Madison.

    Don't know much about Harrison or Fuller, and I guess I didn't really realize Fuller did much any more other than stock plans. I think of Harrison as building less classical type buildings and more of those turreted castles ;). Tim Adams is good too - he just built a really pretty house down the street from my parents. He is likely more reasonable than any of the "names". Stan Dixon is excellent - used to work with Askins and is now probably the most "famous" of the Atlanta architects in vogue now but quite pricey.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sochi, one of the problems with modernism, is that it is harder to build a house without extraneous trim and detail, because some of the extraneous trim and detail is used to cover joints in material changes if not actual flaws or less than perfect finish work.

    The initial modernists did things like full height doors without even a stop at the ceiling line and no face trim, with the jamb being flush with the finished plaster. The no trim detail requires several extra steps, and when they started having problems with the doors scraping the ceiling if it was unlevel, they lowered the doors.

    If you do a small recessed reveal at the floor instead of a baseboard, not only should the floor be straight and level, but the eye can easily discern differences in gap width when the set width is small.

    These kinds of things are too expensive to do, or at least too expensive to be of enough interest to most people who are building to Pay for it, so they get left out. So, many of the original hallmarks of modernism are not actually put into modernist houses anymore--the budget goes elsewhere.

  • sochi
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    That makes sense Pal. My architect is very, very picky about the builder, as he doesn't feel that most builders in the area are able to do modern. He won't work with anyone who hasn't proven experience doing just what you've described. He has worked directly with one builder with modern build experience he trusts, and indirectly with one other. He really wants to go with the builder he knows and trusts first hand, but I'd like to have at least two builders bidding.

    It wouldn't be such a challenge in the city where I live, but I'm building in a rural area in another province and the builders must be from that province (Quebec). So it makes it a challenge to find people with the right experience. Good times.

  • ontariomom
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sochi,

    You are from Quebec -- what part? I was born and raised in Quebec.

    Carol

  • Suzi AKA DesertDance So CA Zone 9b
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I say make a deal with the best high end tract builder in town, and get the architectural plans for cheap. Then work the magic. Hire the best and get it done!
    Suzi

  • sochi
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Carol,

    I live in Ottawa. We are building in Val-des-Monts, just 30 minutes north of here, but very different regulations apply! Just makes things more fun! ;) Are you from Montreal?

  • ontariomom
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Sochi,

    Yes I grew up in Mtl. I currently live in Guelph ON. I have a sister in Sutton, QC and relatives in Ottawa with cottages on the Quebec side. Good luck with the Quebec building rules.

    Carol

  • Circus Peanut
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I found your comment interesting, zone4:

    "So far all of the homes shown as "good design" are either 100 years old, or are designed to look 100 years old. And none of them are or were inexpensive.
    The way people live has changed substantially in the last 100 years. I'd be interested in seeing examples of "good design" that are intended for a modern family (complete with vehicles, and all the stuff people have now)."

    A house is essentially a box with a lot of divisions inside it. I'm curious, what are the modern needs that you see as breaking the parameters of a nicer older house?

    I can think of:

    Larger garages.
    More "stuff" = more sq ft per occupant, perhaps.
    More bathrooms per bedroom count, and bigger bathrooms with showering space.

    Other needs that might be regarded as having changed are really those I'd ascribe more to lifestyle preferences, like the desire for a kitchen opening into a family room or a two-story vaulted living room, or the elimination of a dining room.

    [Caveat: I say this as someone who vastly prefers older houses because of the great thought that (often, not always) went into their design. Our current house is a 1910 Craftsman that's a dream layout with a bigger kitchen, bigger garage, and much nicer living room than virtually all of the newer builds I've been in. It's has a completely square footprint (=more economical to build). If I were forced at gunpoint to build a new house, I'd immediately head for archives of old house plans.]

  • dadereni
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    What makes for pleasing, well-proportioned interiors and exteriors changes slowly if it changes. Even 100 years ago there were tiny houses and enormous houses. And good and bad examples of both. Understandably there have been shifts in how we live and the relative importance of domestic activities, but there are ways for architecture to accommodate today's lifestyle besides living under one massive roof shared 50-50 with your boat, RV, and cars. Still, a Cape or a Four Square may not flex enough to meet many families' needs. But there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the rich heritage of domestic architecture. Unfortunately, many design professionals neglect this, and it's usually not worthwhile or even feasible for laypeople with a 9 to 5 and building one single home to acquire the knowledge and apply it successfully. There are some resources like A Pattern Language, and the books showing the DOs and DO NOTs that can to some extent help owners screen and proof designs (and architects). The best examples of groundbreaking, innovative architecture tend to come from people who have shown that they absolutely know the rules (even if they go on to bend or break a few).

  • zone4newby
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Things that have changed in the last 100 years:
    Most families have multiple vehicles, none of which are pulled by horses. Few families have live-in help. We have air conditioning and much better heat. Building materials are better in almost every way. We have electricity, television and the internet, which among others things makes our homes bright and loud. We shop less frequently and eat more prepared food. We bathe more often and have more clothes. We have fewer children and invest more in each of them, including often giving each child their own room.

    These changes should be reflected in home design, instead of suggesting people simply live like they did 100 years ago. Also, FWIW, I think that sometimes people prefer older houses because they are old-- they like feeling connected to an earlier time and living among mature trees and other landscaping. My grandmother's house was a foursquare, and while it had its charm, there was plenty wrong with it too.

    New design ideas like the Great Room are in response to changes in the way families live now. New ideas are a good thing, even if few of the new ideas endure.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Most people do not embrace modernist or international style architecture, though. So most people are content to shoehorn modern room configurations and use modern materials in a psuedo-historical context.

    I don't think modern volumes and materials look odd applied to modern architecture, but it can look very odd applied to something that is supposed to look "Victorian" --but that is what most people seem to want.

  • john_wc
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Going back to one of the front elevations I posted, the brick Georgian with clapboard wings...I understand that the clapboard wings are not true to the Georgian style but I really like the contrast. Georgian has always been my favorite if only due to my pathological need for symmetry.

    It seems that classical architecture would be boring if all you are doing is following set rules? Architecture is a blend of art and science. Don't many architects aspire to design a museum or symphony center so they can flex their creative design muscles?

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "So far all of the homes shown as "good design" are either 100 years old, or are designed to look 100 years old. And none of them are or were inexpensive."

    These represent modernist design that actually reflects current lifestyle and the types of volumes people want INSIDE their houses. Some are decent, some are masterpieces.

    But most people would reject most of these houses as "bad design" because they reject modernism as a form of expression in its entirety.

  • athensmomof3
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think each of those modernist designs are gorgeous in their own right - but I love simplicity. We have a very classical house - sort of a new old house that was designed as if it was built 100 years ago and fluffed along the way. A modern house would be my second choice - love the aesthetic and the simplicity and the sleekness . . The hitch for me is the interior design - those modernist chairs and sofas look so uncomfortable ;)

  • virgilcarter
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think the point is that good design for a house in this day and age can be achieved whether the aesthetic is Modern--International School; a new "old house", or whatever. The purpose of design is to fit the function, aesthetic, technology and budget together in a holistic, responsive and creative way. Good design has plenty of room for tastes and budgets of all kinds.

    There's a line of thinking that the aesthetics evolve from the needs and lifestyle of the owner, not the other way 'round. Some folks love modern; some folks love Revolutionary War.

    The problem with stock plans and builder's tracts is that they are selling a pre-built product, not a creative service. Purchasers are left to adjust to the product, whatever it may be.

    There's a world of difference between a pre-built product and a professional design service. With a pre-built product you accept and live with the existing product. Perhaps you can tweek it here or there, or perhaps not.

    With a professional service you shape something uniquely responsive to the needs of the owner, from beginning to end. It's personal and individual!

    Some folks care about these things; other folks don't. That's why we have the housing stock we have.

  • palimpsest
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Going back to one of the front elevations I posted, the brick Georgian with clapboard wings...I understand that the clapboard wings are not true to the Georgian style but I really like the contrast."

    The combination of materials done carefully is not a bad thing.

    "It seems that classical architecture would be boring if all you are doing is following set rules?"

    One would think. But I find that the purely classical houses I posted are neither as boring nor as similar as the neo-eclectic houses that follow no rules. Classical architecture is full of rules and guidelines but they are most specifically about proportion. You can create a lot within the context of the guidelines. I think neo-eclectic bungalows, farmhouses, French whatever, and Georgian/colonials, look Much more similar to each other than the various expressions of classicism. (And more blandly boring despite all their excesses, as well).

  • caymaiden
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    palimpsest -- thanks for posting the photos for me. That particular roof style (Dutch hip??) was once very common here and is becoming more popular once again. Since the early 80's, the trend here has been for the kind of single story ranch style homes you might see anywhere, and regional architectural styles were considered a bit behind the times. I suppose this had to do with the economic boom that occurred at the same time, and people wanting what was modern and customary in other parts of the world. We were hard hit by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and most homes on the island sustained major flooding -- single story ranch style homes in particular. I know, because I own one of those, and we had four and a half feet of water inside! Now people are looking to more traditional methods of building much like the images you posted above, with hip roofs and crawl spaces or wash out floors. There is much more focus on using traditional building practices to mitigate against energy costs as well. It's really nice to see more people building "island" style homes -- aesthetically and also for practical reasons. Thanks for the images -- makes me feel we are on the right track.

    This has been a very interesting thread, everyone. Lots to think about!

  • lexma90
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sochi - It's been a busy week, I'm just now checking back in. I enjoyed, in particular, seeing the modernist styles that palimpsest posted; thanks. I haven't posted anything from our house yet; I guess I'm a bit shy about sharing, have no intention of changing anything and am a bit wary of subjecting our plans (and we love) to critique. But I am enthusiastic about modern design (if not terribly knowledgeable), so perhaps your interest has persuaded me.

    Yes, it does take a builder who's knowledgeable about modern design, and that's why we relied so much on our architect's suggestions in choosing our builder. Concepts such as lack of baseboards and why builders use baseboards, I knew before we started the process, but I've also since learned about things like drywall return - I knew I liked the look, but never thought about the name of how to achieve that.

  • LE
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Clio, I for one, would love to see your house. There is a shortage of modern designs on this forum. I understand your trepidation, though-- I've had the same thoughts myself about what to show. I know our house will not be everyone's cup of tea, but we are getting what we want. And yes, some here will say "drywall return, that looks cheap" which it can, when done sloppily. But yeah, simple isn't cheap, because it can take longer when you don't have trim to hide the multitude of sins.

    But I really would like to see your house!

  • sochi
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I love my drywall returns! I never knew some think it looks cheap, huh. Not only will my build be modern, it will be small, a double negative here!

    I expect I will be trusting my architects advice on the design and layout, but I'm sure there will be aspects of the process I won't understand, so I hope to come here for information, explanations, etc. I have a lot to learn, and this forum can be quite helpful, as evidenced with this thread.

    I'd love to see your modern home too lori..

  • caymaiden
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I just had to google "drywall returns" and found some pics on houzz. I wouldn't have said they look cheap; quite the opposite. I would imagine you'd have to find an extremely careful builder to get that look right...and careful usually means expensive where I come from.

  • LE
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    caymaiden, I don't think drywall returns look cheap, either-- I only know that some people here do, because of a previous thread where that was mentioned. I think a lot of people just like their trim, and the more the better! So true that to get the streamlined look, everything has to be done carefully as there is no place to hide. And careful means expensive no matter where you come from! (Unless you are DIY, I guess.)

    Sochi, we are also building small-- around 1600 sf for the house, plus an almost 400 sf studio, however. It is only a foundation now, but I'll see if I can get up the nerve to post photos this summer. Would love to see yours as well. Maybe we need an ongoing 'modern" thread here for progress pix, as it seems to be the minority taste here. Not knocking traditional, I'm living in an almost 100 year old house now, I'm just not planning to reproduce it!

  • sochi
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Good idea about a modern thread Lori. Once I get some real drawings I will start a thread, hopefully over the next month or so.