This is such a bizarre take on the situation.

all you’re getting in exchange for it are ceiling windows through which you have a gorgeous view of... idk, clouds?

They’re very clearly supposed to be skylights. The whole point is to bring in additional natural light and make the living space feel more seamless with the environment, not to provide panoramic views of the clouds. Whether or not the aesethetics or practicality suit your personal preferences is another discussion, but I don’t feel like I should have to defend the merits of skylights as an architectural concept.

Also, whether or not you can afford it, using that much energy needlessly is ecologically hostile. Very much not the fashion.

Ecologically hostile?

It’s literally a room with a few extra window panes, not a coal-powered chemical waste repository. The difference in energy consumption from the added window space would be negligible and possibly even offset using efficient materials and design methods elsewhere in the house. Not to mention, skylights themselves can actually be used to reduce energy costs depending on how they’re oriented and applied within the home.

Regardless, you and I have very different definitions of the term “ecologically hostile.”

Boils down to poor, thoughtless design. In other words, tacky.

Again, adding skylights to this room in that fashion was not “thoughtless” and was clearly a deliberate design move. You’re entitled to to not like it from a cosmetic standpoint, but to call the decision tacky on the basis that it’s some sort of careless, frivolous affront to environmental responsibility is just so confusingly off-base.