Calling all pool designers

Jump to latest Follow Reply
T

tnicholas

0
Mar 5, 2012
12
I'm looking to build a classic rectangular pool. But since most builders price based on perimeter sq ft, a rectangle is not the most economical shape. Furthermore, for a given perimeter, you get more area as you get closer to a square. For example, a 16x32 pool has 96 perimeter feet and 512 sqft of surface area. But a 24x24 square pool also has 96 perimeter feet but 576 sqft surface area ... about 12% more area for roughly the same price.

My question is aesthetics related. I'm told a CLASSIC pool always has length 2x it's width. So 16 x 32 is a good design ... likewise 18 x 36 is pleasing to the eye. Does anyone have experience with squarish designs? Will something like 20x28 will look out of proportion?
 
This is going to be of no help regarding aesthetics of a rectangular pool, but wanted to point out that the optimum surface area per perimeter is a circle ... which a square is more like than a rectangle. For a 96' perimeter, you have a 30.5' diameter pool with 733 sqft area. {Where is the smilie for enginerd? :clown:}

Now hopefully someone will be able to offer you some insight to actual question. The best I can do is suggest searching for pictures online or even drawing up some different shapes to scale with your house and lot to see "what looks right".
 
There are multiple considerations that you should take into account when choosing a size and shape for your pool. Some things to consider:

1) What will best fit the available space?
2) What will the pool be primarily used for?
3) Do you want a diving board?
4) Do you want an infinity edge if it would work for your pool?
5) Do you want an automatic cover?
6) How many people will use the pool at any one time?

I don't think that I would be too concerned about perimeter feet vs. cost. Draw out a map of your yard and try different sizes and shapes in the available space. Part of the aesthetics will be subjective to each observer. I think that I would have the ratio between 1:1.618 to 1:2 for a rectangle pool.
 
Thanks James. I have enough space for just about anything so that's not really a concern. This will not be a diving pool; more of a sports pool. Interesting 1:1.618 ratio. Where is the world does 1.618 come from?
 
tnicholas said:
Whoa ... just googled it ... Phi, 1.618 ... , the Golden Ratio in life and the universe. So for a 32 foot long pool the width should be 20 feet to exhibit the golden ratio?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's about right. I think that anything less would look too square. However, that's mostly a subjective thing. What matters most is what you feel fits your overall design plan the best.
 
tnicholas a pool that is more square will look okay depending on the yard. What is around it or how the landscape is finished. We have built a couple pools for customers that were almost square and looked okay but that is the way the yard was setup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply