Tag Archives: modernist

Would homeowners prefer a McMansion or a home with quirky angles?

Posted on by

A New York City architecture firm recently designed a home intended to be “a rejoinder to the McMansion.” However, the new home is itself unusual:

Instead of building today’s typical “McMansion” of several thousand square feet, a single house of 918 ft2 is placed in the center of the site. A compressed form intersected by three spherical voids, the house has a kitchen at its center and is realized as one large room on three levels.

Instead of fossil fuel, the house is heated geothermally.

Instead of grid power, the house has electricity from the sun.

Two pictures help provide a sense of the home’s uniqueness:

I still contend that more Americans would choose the McMansion over the modernist design. Even with the McMansion’s complicated to garish architecture, it reminds more people of home. In contrast, the modernist designs seem clean but foreign, interesting but unwelcoming.

Interestingly, even the architecture firm seems to think this design is a ways from reaching the masses:

To gradually form an architecture / sculpture landscape as a nonprofit extension of “T” Space art gallery in Rhinebeck

At this point, it has a different purpose.

Building beautiful American sports stadiums

Posted on by

One writer asks whether Americans can build beautiful sports stadiums:

So why don’t any of them look like the Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux? For a country with such a deep and abiding love for professional sports and lighting money on fire, the U.S. really isn’t in the business of building iconic sports arenas. Museums: Fine. Libraries: We’re golden. Those things are built to make the case for themselves and their cities. It’s different with stadiums…France’s latest soccer stadium, which opened to great fanfare in September, is the work of Herzog & de Meuron. It was designed with an eye toward Bordeaux’s landscape, according to the firm’s website, with heavy emphasis on elegance and “geometrical clarity.” At a glance, it looks like a juiced-up John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Herzog & de Meuron are what you would call elite architects. The firm is best known for projects such as the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg and 56 Leonard Street in New York. Not that they’re not known for sports architecture: The firm designed the unforgettable Bird’s Nest Stadium, a collaboration with Ai Weiwei that served as the centerpiece for the Beijing 2008 Summer Games. Herzog & de Meuron has also produced jewel-box arenas for Munich (Allianz Arena) and Basel (St. Jakob Park).

But Europe is home to lots of ballparks and arenas by smaller firms that, for better or worse, push the boundaries of what stadium architecture can be. In the U.S., most sports venues are designed by one of a handful of giant specialty firms, namely Populous, HKS, HOK, AECOM, NBBJ, and a few others. While these are fine firms—great firms, even—stadium designs for American clients trend toward the conservative.

The argument seems a bit convoluted: local leaders, taxpayers, and teams are going to build more of these stupid things anyway so why not make them better looking? This could go a few different directions instead:

  1. Iconic buildings – those with unique architecture and often designed by starchitects – can become draws on their own. Both status and tourist dollars are at stake here. Of course, there are issues with promoting such iconic structures as they can often have little connection to existing styles in the community.
  2. Any sort of major public building, from museums to libraries to parking garages to stadiums, should be pleasing to look at and contribute to the community. For example, New Urbanists argue civic structures should occupy prominent locations and be landmarks for the community. In other words, you could have a beautiful structure but if it is located next to a highway junction to best serve those trying to get to the park or in order to take advantage of cheap land, what’s the point?
  3. What counts as a beautiful or well-designed building is difficult to define. Who gets to decide if stadiums are ugly? The fans who regularly go there? A survey of local residents? Team owners? Could utilitarian structures be considered beautiful in their own way? The example discussed from Bordeaux appears to be the sort of modernist structure that never really caught on in the United States. (For example, it never really gathered much steam for houses.)

Still, I imagine there are some American stadiums that the general public would consider more beautiful than others. Whether Americans want daring stadiums, ones that don’t look like the typical American stadium, may be a tough sell…

“The Underappreciated Architecture of Waffle House”

Posted on by

Waffle House recently announced plans for a fancier new building in New Orleans. One journalist suggests this undervalues the chain’s existing architecture:

Waffle House is not Chartres Cathedral, admittedly, but it has a certain architectural je ne sais quoi. The classic Waffle House is minimalist in design, with a lemon-yellow strip running around the top, above a wide band of windows and, often, a red or red-striped awning. The interior is outfitted with retro globe lights and red-and-chrome stools. Unlike most fast-food joints, Waffle House has an open kitchen, so you can watch the cooks as they scatter and smother your hash browns…

New Orleanians will be excited to get a Waffle House in Mid-City, and I would never begrudge them that. But this new design is all wrong for Waffle House as a brand, and falls short of its status as a Southern icon.

The company owes that status to an architect you’ve never heard of, Clifford A. Nahser. A World War II veteran and Georgia Tech graduate, Nahser was still a fledgling architect when Waffle House co-founder Joe Rogers Sr. approached him for help designing his prototype diner in Avondale Estates, near Atlanta. As the chain grew, Nahser went on to design hundreds more restaurants, drawing up the plans in his basement after his day job at Atlanta Public Schools…

What bothers me is not that Waffle House feels it’s time for a change (maybe it is) so much as the direction they’ve chosen. As the “loft” aesthetic has permeated American culture, we’re seeing watered-down faux-warehouse details in outposts of Chipotle and Starbucks, and that is the style we see here. It’s as generic as the classic Waffle House look is distinctive. Couldn’t the company have hired an architect known for his or her use of bold color to bring more of a pop sensibility?

There seem to be two main issues at play here:

1. How much should restaurant chains (and for that matter, retail chains as well) look alike or different? Waffle House has a very recognizable logo as well as a common design aesthetic. How much does this help the brand in terms of sales, nostalgia, recognition? Does a chain benefit from looking significantly different than other chains or should there be some similarity so people feel they can comfortably cross over?

2. How much do architectural movements – here, a more minimalistic and modernist design – get translated into fast food restaurants? I’ve argued before that Americans don’t particularly like modernist homes but perhaps this kind of modernist architecture is associated with a particular industry (fast food) that arose in the post-World War II era of prosperity and highways. The architecture and landscape of interstates and suburban sprawl is often criticized so how many people would defend the look of Waffle House?

Fight McMansions with Modernist homes

Posted on by

You don’t need a tiny house to fight McMansions – Modernist homes can also fit the bill.

The reaction is much the same as the humdrum McMansions along Mr. Farrow’s Oakville street tick past the car window in a blur of beige.

Halfway down the long avenue, a first-time visitor to the Farrow Residence gasps at the sight of the sleek, low-slung Modernist abode.

Designed in 1962 and completed in September 1963, the Breuer-esque home hasn’t changed much since Mr. Farrow completed the last addition in 1973, when a summer porch and pool were added to the back. Before that, in 1970, when the couple’s two young boys were closing in on their teen years and needed more space, the original carport morphed into a bedroom wing, and a garage was tacked onto the other side. Not that you can tell: An architect rarely uses a heavy hand when rejigging his own vision and, in this case, it’s the same “old Dutch” bricks, same window configurations, same massing…

Peppered throughout the 3,000-square-foot home are Mr. Farrow’s intricate and amazing carved birds, a hobby that has kept the 1958 University of Toronto graduate “out of trouble” and “away from the television” (and perhaps out of wife Diane’s hair?) – when he wasn’t designing hundreds of hospitals, schools and churches.

There are numerous lines of attacks on McMansions but this one is a good example of solely criticizing the architecture. This Modernist home is not small (3,000 square feet) and not necessarily cheap (though the construction cost or the current value are not noted). Its key advantage over the McMansion is that is was carefully designed by an architect. Because of this, it is not like the “humdrum McMansions” and it has remained stylistically consistent even with additions and modifications over the years. Whether the architecture is enticing to many is not the issue – the article mentions one women who wondered why the home had no windows on the front – but rather than it is architecturally coherent.

That McMansions are dull and repetitive is a continuation of the long-running critique of suburbs that suggested similar houses (see the limited Levittown models) leads to boring people and neighborhoods. I haven’t seen any study that confirms this but rows of similar-looking houses can present quite a contrast to vibrant urban neighborhoods with a mix of buildings. Of course, you can also find repetitive urban neighborhoods like the new rows of apartments going up in Chinese cities or modernist housing projects built in the mid-1900s that didn’t turn out too well…

Mid-century modern ranches as the anti-McMansion

Posted on by

If you don’t want a McMansion, one Pinterest user suggests looking into a mid-century modern ranch:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t buy this argument about modern ranch homes winning out against McMansions. Here are a few reasons:

1. I don’t think most Americans would choose a modernist home over a McMansion.

2. These ranch homes look they still have a decent amount of space. How much smaller than a typical McMansion does an anti-McMansion have to be? Others have argued a better opposite end of the spectrum is a micro-apartment: significantly smaller and located in a much denser context.

3. McMansions get criticized for poor architecture but ranches are fairly limited in this arena as well. Of course, there are degrees of modernist homes and a “normal” ranch may not have many of these features such as stark lines and simple designs. Or, ranches may go all in regarding their modern design while McMansions dabble in various styles. But, authentically undesirable architecture may not be that different from inauthentic undesirable architecture.

4. The interiors of these ranches look tastefully decorated. Can’t the same be done for McMansions? I would also guess ranch homes can be made to look bad and those are the ones that don’t make it anywhere near Pinterest.

It may be a really ugly house but is there such a thing as a 1956 McMansion?

Posted on by

I’ve seen pictures of this large Indianapolis house before but here the suggestion is that it may be the ugliest house in America. It is quite unconventional, but I’m more interested in another suggestion: that this is a 1956 McMansion.

Designers with delicate sensibilities, look away. This may be the most hideous McMansion in America. Built in 1956, this is “almost-famous pimp-turned-construction mini-magnate” Jerry A. Hostetler’s Indianapolis Hearst Castle. Minus the architectural prowess. Plus more balconies.

Although the term McMansion didn’t really emerge until the late 1990s, it is sometimes applied to past eras. I usually think this doesn’t work that well because it involves applying modern standards to past styles. In the 1950s, I think this house would have simply been considered a mansion because of its size. The average new house size in the 1950s was roughly 1,000 feet so a home like this would have been quite large. Additionally, the home was built by a successful businessman, someone who would have the means to construct what he wanted, and was not built for the mass market.

The more unusual homes of the 1950s might have been some of the new modern glass and steel homes that some architects built. The mass produced, large, poor quality McMansions of the late 20th century didn’t really exist yet as mass market housing still tended to be quite small.

Transforming a Bell Labs complex into a mixed-use development

Posted on by

The famous Bell Labs complex in Holmdel, New Jersey is due for a makeover into a mixed-used development:

Developer Somerset Development has tapped Alexander Gorlin Architects to convert the 1.9 million-square-foot facility into a contained island of retail, dining, residential, hotel, performance, and office space—providing new amenities, from a town library to an outdoor sports complex, for the sprawling suburban community. Two New Jersey–based firms, NK Architects and Joshua Zinder Architecture + Design, will also collaborate on the design of the interior tenant space.

“It is almost like the Romans have left the arena. How do you re-inhabit the coliseum? How do you inject new life in a space that is waiting for something to happen?” said Gorlin. “It symbolized America at its post-war peek in 1962.”

The colossal, quarter-mile-long atrium will be the cornerstone of the renovation. Gorlin imagines that this vast, open space will serve a similar function to that of the Armory, and host a variety of events such as large and small-scale performances, a farmer’s market, and pop-up shops…

So far the development has one tenant, Community Healthcare Associates, which plans to take over 400,000 square feet of the building. The developer envisions the complex will house a variety of tenants that meet the needs of the rather affluent surrounding community. “Everything has to mesh and come together: the clientele, the target market. There is room for many different levels,” said Zucker.

A fascinating building where much technological progress took place will be converted into another sort of lifestyle center for wealthy suburban residents. On one hand, it is a good idea to use the building for something the community can utilize now rather than let it fall into disrepair. On the other hand, the building could be treated like any other big box facility. There is potential here to market the new offices and uses as part of technological history – but this may not fit the theme of farmers markets, pop-up shops, and boutiques.

As the article notes, this building may just symbolize America at its post-war peak: big business, modern architecture, technology, all in a bucolic suburban (median household income over $140k) office campus setting. Perhaps after its redesign it will symbolize America of the 2010s: consumption, entrepreneurship, mixed-income developments, still in a bucolic suburban setting.

LA’s modernist homes threatened by hot housing market and McMansions

Posted on by

The modernist homes Los Angeles are in danger of being replaced by McMansions and other big homes:

The Backus House still hovers on the same Bel Air hillside where Grossman built it. But because of the sprawling megamansions that have sprung up around the property, and because of the increasingly overheated state of the Southern California real estate market, Grossman’s elegant modernist creation—one of the few surviving examples of residential architecture by a groundbreaking woman now ranked among the finest designers of her era—may not survive much longer.

There’s an irony here. Starting in the 1920s, the combination of climate, terrain, and a young, progressive community of (largely European) architects and clients triggered an efflorescence of modern residential design in Los Angeles that culminated in the famous Case Study House Program (1945–66)—a series of experimental model homes sponsored by the local magazine Arts & Architecture and designed by some of the period’s greatest architects. The modern single-family dwelling may have been invented in Europe, at the Bauhaus and elsewhere, but many believe it was perfected in Southern California…

But a certain kind of modernist property—namely, a lesser-known house situated on a prime lot in an expensive neighborhood—is still at risk, and may be especially imperiled in Los Angeles’s current residential market, which has posted the nation’s largest increase in average sale price (20.7 percent) over the last year. “An economic downturn is always a good thing for preservation,” says Regina O’Brien, chairperson of the Modern Committee of the Los Angeles Conservancy. “A lot fewer developers are making a lot less money, and therefore they have a lot less motivation to pursue these profit-oriented flips. But the problem is that the opposite is true when the market picks back up.”…

“Most modernist homes are considered very modest by the standards of these neighborhoods, where people want far more house than they need,” says Nate Cole of Unique California Property, a Long Beach brokerage specializing in modernist architecture. “Buyers see anything that they deem a compromise, and out come the bulldozers.”

There are several issues at work:

1. It sounds like there are questions about individual property rights versus community-wide preservation efforts. Should property owners be able to cash in during a good housing market? This is a common issue across all sorts of communities debating teardowns and historic preservation.

2. These modernist homes are part of southern California’s image. Elsewhere, modernist homes might elicit more negative reactions but they are part of LA’s coming of age narrative. Part of the argument here is that the replacement homes don’t really add much to LA’s character.

3. Who exactly is supposed to pay to preserve these houses? As if often the case with preserving homes, supporters of the modernist homes are hoping for buyers who want to preserve and fix-up the homes. But, if those people don’t come, it is less clear what might be done.

4. The irony: a down real estate market is good for historic preservation. Not only might the old buildings survive, it might be easier for those interested in preservation to purchase the homes. But, who would wish for leaner economic times simply in order to preserve buildings? All of this suggests historic preservation might be partly about timing and having the opportunity to purchase property that might not be as marketable.

Comparing teardown McMansions to “heirloom” homes

Posted on by

One way to argue against teardown McMansions is to compare them to “heirloom” or “heritage” homes:

THE North Shore Heritage Preservation Society says the North Shore’s municipalities need to tighten their rules around heritage homes or risk losing them to developers’ wrecking balls.

This, after the group has learned a heritage designated home in Edgemont Village has been demolished, only to have the lot listed for sale with plans for a five-bedroom, seven bathroom “McMansion” to occupy it…

Designed by noted local architect Fred Hollingsworth in 1950, the home at 2895 Newmarket Dr. was razed after the District of North Vancouver issued a demolition permit on July 3. Buildings that date back to the North Shore’s formative history or homes once lived in by important people have an intrinsic value worth protecting, the group argues, comparing the homes to family heirlooms.

“The heritage buildings we see around us are our link to our past and sweeping them away means we sweep away all evidence of where we come from,” said Peter Miller, society president. “In this particular case, we regret very much that the system permitted this to happen. It’s very sad.”…

“There is an emotional attachment that an old building has to the past. If you go up to a front door, which was there almost 100 years ago, and touch it, you can feel that people have been going in and out of that door for 100 years,” he said. “When you go up to a door that looks essentially the same but came from Rona, there’s none of that emotional connection to the past.”

This argument makes some sense: buildings and homes and the styles in which they were constructed help provide a sense of tradition and continuity with the past. Buildings are functional structures – humans need shelter – but they are also social by virtue of the social interactions and meanings attached to them. Using the term “heirloom” helps make this point by suggesting the houses are something emotionally laden that a community bequeaths to future generations.

But, at the same time, the article mentions more details about several of the older homes that have demolished. One home was a “post-modern home.” I assume this means something like a modernist home, more about straight lines and newer materials (steel, glass, concrete, etc.). Another one of the demolished homes was a 1910 home. Are a modernist home and a 1910 home of the same ilk? Other communities are facing issues of what to do with modernist homes as they may be old and automatically historic (just like McMansions might be in several decades) but they haven’t never really quite fit with more “normal” architectural styles. More broadly, what homes should count as historic?

Is this Beverly Grove (LA) home a McMansion?

Posted on by

As debates continue over McMansions in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Beverly Grove, Curbed LA takes a look at one home for sale in the neighborhood and a brief yet lively discussion ensues in the comments on whether the home is a McMansion. Here is the description of the home (and plenty of pictures to help you arrive at your own conclusion):

Just in time for the City Planning Commission’s vote on an anti-mansionization ordinance for the Beverly Grove neighborhood, this fine specimen hits the market. It looks like just the thing neighborhood activists are trying to prevent, though since no square footage is given, we can’t be absolutely sure. Taking the place of an (admittedly unlovely) 1927 house, this typically boxy number–or “modern, cutting edge and rearranged design with retro reclaimed wood accents,” depending on your perspective–has four bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms. Like so many of the new houses in this area, there’s an openish floor plan, loggia, small pool and spa, a nice array of balconies, and name-brand kitchen. It also seems to have kinda low ceilings upstairs, but maybe that’s just the pictures playing tricks. It’s on the market for $2.799 million.

Not having the square footage means an important piece of information is missing. Here are a few of the comments on whether the home is a McMansion (each new paragraph is a new commenter:

Normally I’d be banging the drum for keeping the neighborhoods original in style and scale, but I don’t think this one is too bad — it at least has some visual interest and doesn’t seem too overbuilt for the lot — wouldn’t object if this were my neighborhood…

Let’s not go crazy with calling anything larger than average a McMansion. It may be out of scale, but it doesn’t use mismatched home depot pre-fabbed design elements…

This house is at the high end of the lot to improvement ratio for Beverly Grove – its not over improved. But, this type of concrete and glass, shoe box design is just not appealing! Just look at the house across the street in the view photo. It has all kinds of architectural finishings that appeal to the eye, clay tile roof line, arched carports, corner rotunda, custom picture window etc…. This house looks like the lego house my son built when he was 4. Maybe that’s why its appealing to some, it resembles the lego structures built during childhood! I don’t blame the neighbors for being pissed!

The discussion primarily focuses on the design of the home. Since it doesn’t seem unnecessarily large or take up all of the lot, a number of people commented for or against its unique modern style. On one hand, it seems cohesively modern, not a mish-mash of styles for which McMansions are often criticized. On the other hand, it does appear different from the other homes of the neighborhood (of which we have one picture).

One takeaway: the term McMansion can be used as a pejorative term for a home one doesn’t like even if it doesn’t fit the “classic” definition of a McMansion.