|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
kotok
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:05 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Much of what you say is very true.
Architecture is a profession quite remote to most people, simply because they have never had reason to utilize the services of an architect, and have never had the advantage of knowing or working with an architect. There are no "family architects", like there are "family doctors"-- hence no familiarity and no understanding.
Since the late '50s architect have for the most part abdicated from single family housing [low fees; much effort and "hand holding"], except for the very high-end people who sought very unique solutions. Home builders, home desigers [non-registered] and local lumber yards took up the slack, and in large token took over SFR and the "cookie cutter style". The designers were the lesser of the "offenders" as they simply provided reduced services for reduced fees.
Mass production causes both lower costs and cookie sutter projects. Look at the number of house plan books in grocery stores, peddling plans re-used time and time again. Generally people just do not know what the architect can do for them in utilizing space, reducing size, increasing efficiency, adding quality and dollar value, etc.-- they only see the fee involved as an "added and unnecessary" cost. They do not see the advantiage.
So as long as people are willing to turn over their life-style, and live in houses that force them to live and work in specific ways different from what they desire, and take out 30-year mortgages for projects they are not wholly satisfied with, built by people who do not represent the best interests of th owners, this will continue.
So the real problem for both sides is-- how do we educate the pulbic on the value of the architect [who, incidentally, touches many facets of their lives each and every day? They just don't know what architects can, and are doing for them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotok
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for replying I agree with you all the way. Do you ever feel like some of the developers out there are sort of reckless in a way? Maybe I just feel that way with my architectural background but some of these developments going up are just plain eyesores. I know looks aren't everything but I almost see some of these developments as litter to farmland. I am not even talking about Mcmansions but rather these designs if you call them that were they are literally large boxes with a gable roof and half a facade of garage. And the developer all builds them in a straight row. I don't know much about community meetings and laws and I know that maybe it is an unfair to tell people when it is their money but I wish some of this building was governed more. Besides, other people have to live around it and see it everyday. Its funny cause last night on Family Ties Evelyn who is an architect finds out that the first building she ever designed is going to get ripped down for a mini mall. And michael j. fox's character comforts his mom by telling her the beauty of capitalism and the fact that owners of buildings and land can do what ever they want. Not to switch bandwagons but do you or anyone out there like the idea of a clean air type act on houses. I rent and am young so I really don't fully understand terms like equity and mortgage and what people are paying these days but I do like the idea that people who put "X" much money into building have to put "y" much into say solar panels ect. I just feel that maybe some new trends need to get started and it would be nice if the laymen was more aware of one of his more hefty investments. Any ideas out there for the best way to educate the masses? I think tv in terms of media may reach out to more people. Perhaps finding a way for the media to bite on the hook so to speak. Maybe with gasoline and energy prices going up people would be more interested. Then again looking at the amount of people that want SUV's or that are driving them in places like the city where there is no need the masses don't really care and are more persuaded by commercials and image. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveA
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 28
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:43 am Post subject: cookie cutters |
|
|
This is a big issue , and definitely not black and white. Firstly, I think your relative may be in the minority. Most folk's dream house is exactly what you are criticizing (I'm with you, but thats besides the point). Many such people, when confronted with an architect designed house, at least one on a cookie cutter budget, say "I couldn't live in that". Secondly, on the quantatative side, it is very difficult to beat the value (defined in this case as square footage and maintainability) of a contractor designed/built 2 story "colonial". Yes, it costs more to do a custom house!
Now here's a question for you: The 100+year old European urban houses that we would want to own and/or live in are also cookie cutter houses of a sort. They are all the same, built by builders with an eye for pragmatics. Also if you look at the Levittown houses today, they are simple, modest , fairly attractive, and all the same. So what is the difference? Is it planning? Materials? Or simply age? Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotok
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Now here's a question for you: The 100+year old European urban houses that we would want to own and/or live in are also cookie cutter houses of a sort. They are all the same, built by builders with an eye for pragmatics. Also if you look at the Levittown houses today, they are simple, modest , fairly attractive, and all the same. So what is the difference? Is it planning? Materials? Or simply age? "Steve
well I don't think it is age, at least for me. Maybe some people have a sentimental affection for those designs. And materials on houses haven't really changed to much. So I would have to go with planning. I think there are rather subtle decisions that were at play with some residential planning. One of the developments I conjure up when I think of this problem has a completely straight road that has a t intersection at the highway. Perhaps I am not fairly critiquing it because it is not finished nor landscaped yet. But a road that winds through a development is a nice touch rather than one that is completely straight. I think that there are other factors at play, perhaps the scale of the house. When I am at my relative's house the houses are way bigger than the levittown house but the road does wind at least and although the houses have a variety of facades the development to me is still ugly. I don't know you got me on this one. I am starting to reconsider the age factor as I look at a black and white photograph of a levittown house. Now these european houses, that is different. They may be very pragmatic but the houses do have some nice features and decor that give it a nicer look. I no modernist shunned decoration but crown molding does give a nice touch. Perhaps modernism helped people realise that you don't need decoration. I personally do find the decoration on many old houses eye pleasing but I tend to stay away from it when designing. Well I guess age and planning and money are mostly the factors at play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grogers
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am an architect that designs production homes in the western US. I sit on four architectural committees. I read with interest this thread as it deals with my livlihood.
The production builders are forced to comply with rigid community design guidelines. Lot size, street configurations, building height, massing, architectural style, lot coverage and garage locations are now decided (in many communities) by City Hall. It takes a creative spirit to convince, coerce, and negotiate with public officials in order to try something different. The fire departments have all but taken over in California. Everything is seemingly driven by fire access.
All that said, some projects can be set apart from others. I can definitely notice the projects where architects have been commissioned. Some of these projects are enjoyable for me to see because they provide a refreshing breeze in otherwise stagnant air.
What amazes me most is the "custom home" projects where I provide design review services. Some people just lack an understanding of massing, order, theme, and character all together. People are willing to spend over a million dollars for a confused mess of details that add up to nothing less than architectural diarrhea. When challenged, they often reply something like, "I think this is going to be the most beautiful house in the neighborhood."
I have enjoyed hearing the AIA radio spots recently. Perhaps we should start a campaign to educate the public on the proper use of architectural elements and maybe show the police issuing a citation for "illegal use of a contemporary design element". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bös
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with both grogers and RWL. I would also add that people's selections of homes is greatly influenced by perception and availability. Availability is a difficult factor to control, obviously. One is at the mercy of the market in a particular area of interest; price weighed against a set of preferences. One has little individual control over this without engaging the design process.
But for most, the perception of 'home' is a product of experience and knowledge. One has a difficult time conceiving of something that they have never seen. In their world, they know what they like. But, alternative models are lacking or look to darned expensive to try. There is little infomation in the televised realm. And until the advent of Dwell, the publication realm offered little for the neophyte not interested in purchasing books at random.
Models are the most important aspect of the built environment in this regard: models and the accessibility for their publication. Dwell offers amazing potential for the residential realm as it presents the alternative housing types to the public with a message that says, 'your lifestyle here... reflected in your home.' (And 'No' I have no affiliating with the magazine). This is revolutionary to the traditional idea of: '...take this and cram your life into it.' In many cities, increasingly restrictive built environments are forcing the development of new models. Seattle for instance is a very restrictive residential environment (for too many reasons to discuss here) where design must conform to new parameters of form, material, lifestyle, technology and economy in order to be realized at all. The models are developing quickly and just as quickly gaining favor with a new generation, increasingly detached from both conservative tradition and neo-radical absurdity.
What we, as designers offer is our continuous attempts to probe at the edge of chaos every chance that we get and as it is appropriate - building new models and informing our communities. But ultimately, with housing, the market will determine direction as it always does. We must be careful not to stray away from its fundamental principles into the realm of coercive dictation of 'choice' and preference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel there is yet another factor involved with housing-- home buillders. In my area, every year, the local builders association creates a show of homes, which they build on lots in an emerging subdivision. This, they claim, is to show off the new products, designs and their construction skills.
For the most part the houses are trendy, faddish, glitzy, highly overpriced, and well outside the range of the poor suckers who pay $10-$15 to tour the houses. There is no attempt made to provide a connection to the current housing scenario of the average family. These houses have given us the two-story "great room", ceiling fans to help heat the useless volume, grossly oversized baths, overburdening interior "decoration' [really they are shells in hwihc the designers go "nuts" designing rooms with no realtionship to each other-- museums in which living is optional!]houses in the 4,000-5,000 sq.ft. range and about $500,000+ in cost.
The bulders try to push this as the "latest in housing" which is so ridiculous-- the average Joe and Jane can never come close to one of these monsters and indeed many of the models stand, unsold, for some long periods, and then sell at far less than the original asking price.
Oh, yes, in addition, they are built using the very same techniques and technology [except for the newer products] as in houses just after WWII. Go figure-- there is NO "NEW" construction, just ill-advised glitz, and unfulfilled dreams. No reality--- shameful!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boingo82
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 1
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting thread. The distinct advantage of cookie-cutter housing is affordability, which is tied into the repetition when building. The downside is lack of personalization, and a house that is not suited to the lot. At 22, I own a cookie-cutter house - well, actually a manufactured home, but the nice kind with real 5/8" drywall, not a trailer house. I was able to buy it as a detached condo with a small yard, 2 bd 1 ba for under $65k. I think that's fantastic as it enables us to start building equity young, so we can have a beautiful custom home when we're older.
RE grogers with the "architechtural diarrhea"...there's a house (I use the term loosely) which was recently constructed in my area. It appears to be around 6-7000 sq. ft. and words cannot describe the ugliness. Here, maybe a picture will explain what words cannot.
There is an entire subdivision in a neighboring city where every house is "off" in some manner or another. There'll be a nice colonial sitting there, perfect in every way, except they forgot to add any overhang on the eaves. Then, a nice little farmhouse with a cute gabled wall, and NO windows on it. Then a house with windows that are within inches of lining up, but they're off. Then a gigantic mansion of a house, victorian style, with a porch all the way around...and a 4-car garage tacked onto the back with NO architechtural detail whatsoever. All these houses are new construction within the last 8 years, and all are expensive for the area - ranging from $250,000 to $2.5 million.
Obviously bad taste and cheap construction is not confined to small budgets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gus_webb
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
this is a topic i've spent some time thinking about...good to see how many others have as well...
in my opinion, a fair amount of blame needs to rest on the profession itself. architecture as a profession has taken itself out of the realm of accessibility by the masses. we have become, for the most part, sole property of the rich. the profession has enabled this by fighting the wrong battles. they fight to make education requirements higher for licensure, resulting in a requirement of a 6-7 year education before interning for 3 years, then having to take 7 tests. this is based, in my opinion, on envy and jealousy of other "professions" such as medicine and law. if architects want to be taken as serious professionals, then the requirements to achieve that status should be on par.
this is flawed logic. instead of working towards more restrictive requirements, architecture professionals should be fighting to lower those standards while at the same time fighting for legislation requiring any new building to be signed by a licensed architect. "cookie cutter" (and purely bad design in general) is the product of people without the education, skill or desire to make good design choices having the ability to build unchecked.
essentially, if you can't beat them, join them. if architecture could become a required yet accessible part of the building equation, i believe results overall would improve. i'm not saying that every licensed architect is a good designer, or that every builder can't design. but builders generally aren't trained to do what architects do, and vice versa. by focusing less on making architecture an elite club and more on an integral part of the building process, the profession could become what most, i believe, really wants it to be: an accepted and appreciated part of society.
but that's just my opinion, and i could be wrong.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
