Years ago we worked on a house in a neighborhood full of homes designed in multiple styles; there were craftsman homes, Tudors, Victorians, Cape Cods, colonials, Queen Anne homes, the list goes on. Each of these is a respectable style in its own geographical origin, its own time and in its own method of construction. But here’s the deal-breaker, all of the homes in this neighborhood were built in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Not a single one of them was authentic.
We were hounded on our design which employed materials and methods of our current time. We dodged some tomatoes and caught others squarely in the face. Throughout all the presentations, discussions, negotiations, and scathing criticism, very few people in the community seemed to grasp the idea that, like it or not, modernism is authentic. Modernism is true to the way in which most people live their lives.
Individuals trained in architecture realize that not everyone will approve of a design; it simply comes with the territory. Praise, approval, or mere acceptance is not the point here. Rather, the concern is the alarming inconsistencies of how people make choices in the physically designed world. Like most communities, the neighbor’s homes were filled with modern amenities. Stainless steel six-burner gas ranges in their kitchens were supported by engineered framing (not cast iron coal burning stoves supported by old growth Doug-fir). 48” flat-screens hung on walls made of gypsum wall board (not phonographs sitting next to walls of lathe and plaster). Garages were filled with beautiful, modern automobiles (not carriages); one neighbor even had a Porsche Carrera – the pinnacle of sophisticated modern design.
When these individuals go to acquire the objects that surround them in life they seek up-to-date technology and modern design, be it audio/visual equipment, appliances, vehicles or sporting goods. Even the most mundane of household objects are incredibly advanced, from 800 thread count sheets to the lazy boy recliner. And yet, when it comes to architecture, all that logic is thrown out the double-hung window and a person’s preference harkens to times past. Architecture has become the black hole of the design world.
Can you imagine if other professions allowed such carelessness? Perhaps your doctor has a preference for tools and techniques from the late 1800’s? Maybe your accountant fancies using an abacus for your year end taxes? How about if the local fire department thought it was more fashionable to arrive at the scene in a horse and buggy? Such latitude would be reckless, and yet when it comes to architecture this charade is being played everyday. At a disturbing frequency, architects and homeowners alike are guilty of designing funny little stage sets.
We’re not suggesting that the cross section of society immediately become modern architecture fans. We admire and enjoy the pluralism and diversity in the world – when it’s authentic. However we didn’t do all this ranting for nothing. What we are proposing is that people become more conscious of their design decisions and recognize the patterns and blind spots in their lives. We’re proposing that smart thinking people who drive Porsches and watch the super bowl on flat screen televisions be able to distinguish between authentic design and a stage set. And with any luck, at the very least develop a respect for authentic architecture.
what percentage of these homes had thomas kinkade paintings? i’m willing to bet more than a handful.
As a regular BUILDblog reader I’m familiar with the work you guys do. And while the work has a nice Scandinavian, warm-modernism look to it, it doesn’t strike me as being on the cutting edge of global modernism. I don’t mean any criticism by this, I like the work, but it isn’t OMA, , Hadid, or Grimshaw . In comparison Build’s work is quite tame. If you can follow my logic here… if the neighbors you refer to are scared by northwest “modernism” my sense is that they don’t even know what modernism really is. They’re afraid of anything unfamiliar.
If you’re not already familiar with him, Howard Kunstler is king of the psychology and illusion of the American suburbs. His TED speech proposes that the traditional “stage set” facades of suburban homes are actually just advertisements stating “we’re normal”
Keiser: Being on the cutting edge of global modernism — as you put it — is something most clients a) won’t pay for and b) are justifiably averse to. The links you included are beautiful and sophisticated and all that good stuff, but at what cost to the client? $500 a square foot? More? If you’re lucky enough to be in a position where tycoons with daring taste beat down your door every week wanting a house built, then yeah, you can concentrate on that stuff. But at least here in the Northwest, you’re more likely to get clients of a slightly different persuasion: those who are looking for a modern — but not trendy — house, at a reasonable price. That is what Build optimizes for.
One of the reasons it’s ok to buy a car with an incredibly futuristic design is that you probably won’t drive the car long enough for it to go out of style. But with some of those “cutting edge” modern houses you mention, who knows how they will hold up in 10 or 20 years? The lucky few will become instant classics… shrines in an otherwise boring landscape. But many will become eyesores… the sorts of houses that people will drive by and go “what were they thinking”. With a car, it’s a small financial risk. With a house, it’s potential disaster scenario.
This is a very interesting article – I was surprised when I moved to the US from Australia and saw how old fashioned most of the homes were.
I think that this is a reflection of successful marketing by the tract home builders. They have fixed in people’s minds what houses look like. I actually think that we are lucky here – I see pictures of tract homes in other places in the US and I shudder. Mind you, we still suffer from stuff like fake window shutters around here and that drives me nuts. Form not following function distresses me.
But I would not say that architecture is the only design school suffering from this. Look at men wearing ties with their shirts. Look at mission style furniture. You see old style stuff all over the place because people find it comforting, and they want their house to be the most comforting thing of all.
Hear hear, hear hear…
How do you break down preconceived or the developer’s ideas of “home”?
But how and what can be done to change it? Here in SLC, I’ve been discussing this with the AIA YAF…talking about this with a bunch of architects and designers is like talking in circles, we all see these issues. So how do you get the client and larger community as a whole involved in design? How do you educate them so show them there error of their ways?
Great post guys. Mike D. makes a good point that a lot of modern design is seen as expendable and that when it goes out of style it can just be replaced.
While architecture may seem to be the black hole of the design world I don’t think that it is alone. The difference is in the outward appearance. Take the Porsche Carrera, I doubt that it was the only car in the garage and that it was purchased out of necessity. The automobile culture of America is simply another form of a black hole in design. Designers are designing new modern looks for the automobile and even changing the way it works to fit the more contemporary needs of society (hybrid cars for example), yet we still aren’t challenging the fact that nearly everyone in the U.S. thinks that they need to own their own automobile…or two or three. Why are designers busy designing new Porsches rather than designing new methods of transportation that will address the issues that face a modern society? One reason is because people are buying what they are designing so why should the stop, but another is because since the 50′s we’ve been caught in a black hole of the “American Dream” stating that every family will own their own home, drive their own car and commute to work everyday.
This is a very relevant discussion in the design world and I’m glad someone is talking about the elephant in room. I get the impression that architects are so focused on a tiny segment of the market (high-end custom homes) that the remaining 95% of the market is left to the sheisters – namely the cookie cutter developers that have found a lucrative formula in selling an illusion of the past. I think it’s the architecture profession that should be leading the charge on curing this social disease.
Richter-I have my opinions about Kunstler and New Urbanism generally–some good, some kinda not so much–but I do get a grin out of how the tone in which he speaks (not the words) totally captures the frustration we all feel.
Tristan-One house at a time. One person at a time, the best you can. What else can you do?
People don’t “want” sucky tract homes. People want beauty. The thing is what’s offered is what people take (see Chomsky and manufacturing consent, and mythmakers). As soon as concerned builders can beat thoughtless developers at their own game, the better our communities will be.
I do think not trying to see ourselves (designers) as apart from, in some way in a position to ‘educate’ a client is a good start. Maybe helping them discover what they want that might actually be found outside the “norm” they are used.
Just thinking out loud.
Thanks for another thoughtful post.
I don’t agree that Architecture is the black hole of design. But perhaps residential architecture is more so than other building types. Generally I think Architecture, (particularly institutional and public work) is modern and progressive, adopting new technologies and reacting to cultural changes. Design can always be critiqued and improved, but I think we’re moving forward in the right direction.
For residential architecture, particularly in America, I think architects often do the public a disservice by discussing design as either traditional or modern. Instead, I think we should emphasize important design qualities such as light, space, function, site, etc… good architects do this of course. However, if modern design is just about exterior aesthetics then I can hardly blame the public for erring on the side of tradition and psychological comfort.
In order for progressive and modern residential design to become more established, it should produce a quantifiable benefit to the owner, not merely a style or the preferred taste of the architect. In Seattle, it seems that all too often modern design means simply putting a shed roof on an otherwise very traditional house. With this there are no benefits over a builder’s home and it doesn’t possess the perceived economical and psychological safety of a “traditional” design.
To use Build’s work as an example of designing for value, it seems to me that the design they offer their clients is spatially economical, well crafted, carefully detailed, and full of light. This is typically the opposite of many tract and builder homes. People who value these qualities will seek them out, creating more demand. Unfortunately for every well designed house, there is a developer building hundreds of not so thoughtful homes on a few acres at the edge of town.
Just listening to the TED lecture now, it’s very entertaining.
Great topic. The two places I see the most daring architecture in the Northwest are in the city or out in the middle of nowhere but nothing in-between. Either you have in-city risk-takers or you have those that have enough land and privacy (and money) to do whatever they want without risking the chance of pissing off others. Although I do think people who take on the financial risk of doing projects that are more modern often do so because they are sick of the available “beige” choices on the market and simply don’t care what other people think. Now ultimately that is fine and why it is great to have choices and freedom but the homes I think that become classics do not do so instantly they do so over time and because that owner, that architect and that builder all come together to create something the compliments the site, the landscape and setting in such as way that no “style” can ever do. Good design lasts. Design that lasts is sustainable. And that is a formula that benefits everyone.
as a perspective homebuyer I see the problem in a somewhat more straightforward light. I don’t make a lot of money, I can’t afford a custom designed house. “Modern” homes are financially out of reach for me. So I have two options: hold out on buying a home, or settle for a tract home. Honestly I want a yard and thicker then paper walls seperating me from neighbors. I’m just wondering, where are the affordable, modern style, conciously(sp? designed suburbs?
What a thought-provoking article. Thanks, Build.
I’m not entirely sure I fully agree with the argument that new construction can’t borrow from – or even completely imitate – the past. I worry when I hear terms like “authentic architecture” or “honest design.” More often than not, these are code words for something that I don’t fully understand, but that is usually associated with copious sums of money.
At the same time, I do appreciate Mike’s perspective on the “neighborhood as theater set.” It strikes me that these subdivisions are indeed a sort of fabricated reality, designed to provide the buyer with a (false) sense of stability and security. As a culture, we’ve built an economy predicated on neverending consumption. Fashion (trends) help ensure that what was cool last year gets thrown away next summer. To some degree, these “timeless” home designs reassure us that our massive investment won’t go out of “style.”
Lastly, I’d like to agree with Ben’s comment: “I think architects often do the public a disservice by discussing design as either traditional or modern. Instead, I think we should emphasize important design qualities such as light, space, function, site, etc…” Build’s projects seem to meet this criteria, though I wouldn’t fault them or any other designer for building a great craftsman that met Ben’s core criteria.
Thanks for a great conversation.
Shawn Busse
Portlandbuilt.com
The adherence to a particular architectural style is limiting individual expression and creativity (processes required to come up with the established architectural styles in the first place), preserving status quo thus ultimately becoming an obstacle in a quest to advance the design of an attractive, functional house with integrity – authentic qualities.
Olda
In 1918, in response to the classicism of the “White City”, Louis Sullivan said, “I am going to insist that the banker wear a toga, sandals, and conducts his business . . . in Latin. The Roman temple was part of Roman Life – not of American life. It beat with a Roman pulse . . . and waned with Roman glory – it died a Roman death. The Roman temple can no more exist in fact on Monroe Street, Chicago, U.S.A, then can Roman civilization exist there.” Same goes for the Tudors, Victorians, etc.
As an architect I love doing modern additions and renovations of older buildings that create a dialogue between the new and old. The fear and distrust in the future is sad and may have more to do with Modernism being hijacked by American business interests as their official corporate style.
There are great points raised here – some of which have us re-calibrating the way we’re thinking. Thank you for that and another worthwhile discussion.
Engaging post and discussion. I believe you’ve succinctly captured the ire of many architects and designers. I agree with the idea that we should be looking at design as a reflection of our current times and culture, and that modernist design principles, along with modern materials and building systems, can (or should) heavily influence the design choices of both architects and inhabitants. But having worked as both architect and builder in suburbia, I know how challenging it can be to convince a client, or worse, a developer, to embrace a modern approach to design.
On factor that separates the design choices involving a home versus the objects that go in the home, is the difference between an investment and a commodity. Sure people will eagerly purchase well-designed modern devices and gadgets, but generally those are never as valuable as the day they are brand new. And they are designed and made to be disposable when the technology or design becomes out-dated.
With a home, though, the expense is typically perceived as an investment – one that is probably the largest and individual of family will ever undertake. I think this factor has a great deal to do with the choices of aesthetics for many home owners. They want something that is individual, but conforming to traditional styles so that it can be more easily sold when it’s time for something bigger, or newer.
I don’t completely buy the argument that modern homes are more expensive – well designed and carefully crafted homes in general will cost more, but they don’t have to be modern. This opens the door for the discussion of what exactly do we mean today by modernism, or modern home. To many, modernism is the style of white boxes from the first half of the 20th century that were bare, boxy and rarely humanistic. In many senses, the homes built in the last twenty years of suburban development do embody some modernist design principles – namely, the open floor plan – they are just clad in a more ‘theater-like’ skin.
I think Ben is on to something…
“I think we should emphasize important design qualities such as light, space, function, site, etc… good architects do this of course.”
Style and aesthetics are subject to change and an emphasis on the ‘elements’ of spatial design, rather than style, will go a long way to engendering a great sense of trust between clients and architects. The design professional should indeed be leading the way to stop the proliferation of stage-set, inauthentic, tract homes.
As someone who works in existing urban neighborhoods and first ring suburban communities, the discussion regarding old vs. old looking vs. modern is never far beneath the surface. Especially with regard to infill projects – big or small – or demo of existing buildings. Personally, I believe historicist homes cheapen the real thing. Why bother with the challenge or cost of maintaining/adapting the originals if I can get a copy fitted out with all the modern amenities you discuss above? Even if the copy is not as durable, well crafted, etc. as the real thing. At the same time, I think dropping some wholly alien or generic modern box into a unique neighborhood is equally problematic. I’m referring here to what many people, unfairly, call a “Dwell” home – something that could be dropped just about anywhere without respect to place. I think Ben is right in emphasizing light, space, function, and site as starting points for new home design. However, to that, at least for existing communities, I would add context. Let’s design modern homes that have a dialogue with their surroundings rather than ones that ignore it completely or wear it as a veneer.
Amen.
Good post.
Perhaps the problem with the lack of modernism housing stock in the United States lies within the psyche of most Americans. Depending on what part of the country you reside the local vernacular has an influence on your decision in the home buying process. I believe some people grew up and saw what styles the affluent and successful people lived in their communities and longed for a similar style once they were able to afford their own home. Others long for the characteristic style of the house they grew up in whether it is Victorian, Federal or other more traditional style.
Regardless of the circumstance, recent history has shown that developers are not doing us many favors. Tract houses, McMansions, et al. are the bane of Modernism. Unless you were fortunate enough to have grown up in California, Arizona or Nevada and had the opportunity to see and experience Neutra, Lautner and Schindler first hand your frame of reference towards Modernism would be pretty limited. Not to mention many of us in the profession have had the privilege of either studying or visiting Europe where these styles are more the norm than the exception.
So as aficionados of this style we have a couple of options in regard to turning the world on to our visions. One is to attract the client who has our tastes, experiences, values and wants us to develop a residence with Modern influences. Or we must educate our clients, our communities and future generations that there is a viable alternative to the giant Tudor house on the hill.
@Bradley -well said.