Pet Peeve: Houses with "Big Hair"
Cybergams1
OK, this is perhaps a tad off-topic, but I have to vent. All these new
city-type houses encroaching in our area have "big hair" -- you know --
those great big, tall roof structures that are nothing but air underneath?
I have nothing against a half story tucked under the eaves -- these can
be quite charming spaces -- I used to think as a child that a bedroom in
an attic with sloped ceilings and knee walls would be a wonderfully
romantic space. But the big hair houses seem to be designed for one
thing: conspicuous consumption. They seem to say "I'm rich, look how
much wood I can afford to waste!"
As a parrot owner, the big hair houses also remind me of my birds, which
puff their feathers out and try to look big when a stranger approaches
their cage. They want to look big to impress the stranger with their
great size (and fierceness). Why should a house project this sort of
feeling?
So who the heck is responsible for this stupid fad? Would it be
justifiable homicide to shoot him/her? *grin* OK, I'm not going to take
it that far, but this fad is really stupid looking, and I hope that just
ONE architect refuses to design a house that way and tells the client that
it is an artistic monstrosity -- PLEASE?????
Gloria
Not an Architect, but one who appreciates attractive buildings
Form and Beauty Follow Function
Adam Weiss
Are you refering to cathedral ceilings? I think the idea was coined by
Frank Lloyd Wright. Lets see if I can find the quote -- here it is: "Why
waste good livable space with an attic any more than with a basement? And
never plan to waste space in a house with the idea of eventually
converting it into rooms...... the attic, now, should always come INTO the
house to beautify it." (FL Wright, The Usonian House, p. 161).
But Frank Lloyd Wright's houses generally had low roof pitches, and not
the high ones that, when coupled with cathedral ceilings, give a house
"big hair". Basically I guess you could see the "big hair" phenomenon as
a bastardization of a good example, like the black boxes that proliferated
in office buildings after Mies's Seagram Building.
There go my two cents.
--
Adam Weiss aw...@bard.edu
"God damn my blood, my Lord, is this your Grecian arch? What villany!
What Absurdity? If this be Grecian, give me Chinese, give me Gothick!
Anything is better than this! For shame, my Lord, pull it down and burn it."
Kevin Willmorth
Adam Weiss wrote:
>
> Are you refering to cathedral ceilings? I think the idea was coined by
> Frank Lloyd Wright. Lets see if I can find the quote -- here it is: "Why
> waste good livable space with an attic any more than with a basement? And
> never plan to waste space in a house with the idea of eventually
> converting it into rooms...... the attic, now, should always come INTO the
> house to beautify it." (FL Wright, The Usonian House, p. 161).
> But Frank Lloyd Wright's houses generally had low roof pitches, and not
> the high ones that, when coupled with cathedral ceilings, give a house
> "big hair". Basically I guess you could see the "big hair" phenomenon as
> a bastardization of a good example, like the black boxes that proliferated
> in office buildings after Mies's Seagram Building.
> There go my two cents.
>
> --
So now we have a quote from FLW on houses with big roofs? Get a life.
FLW was but one residential designer of hundreds of his time and
thousands since. Having him brought up every time architectural style is
mentioned is getting VERY LAME.
The big hair houses seldom has cathedral ceilings inside. Generally they
are big stupid looking houses in tight neighborhoods, like a big trailer
park for mansions. The houses under these stupid roofs are generally
around 2500 to 3000 s.f., poorly layed out, include a bunch of stupidly
placed angles all over the place, big impressive entry ways, giant
kitchens open to large great rooms, coupled with puny bedrooms, sloppy
millwork, thin drywall, a lot of oak, plastic laminate and cheap tile
and ugly wood flooring.
These houses are built for one specific group, middle class and upper
middle class persons, around the age of 35 to 45, who see their house as
a giant status symbol, and their neighborhood as a statement of who they
are. They want the house to look bigger than they can afford, and
sacrifice the lot locations and size to pat for the extra crap that gets
put into these messy domiciles. If you look in these neighborhoods, you
will find another interesting anomoly, the cars are not what you would
expect. Most of those big hair houses have Honda's, Toyotas and Mini
Vans in the driveway. This gives the houses away as nothing but
pretentious crap, built by developers, designed by average architects or
contractors.
Interesting enough, cars tell a big story, as do childrens play
equipment. In the upper end areas, cars are BMW, Rover, Mercedes, Volvo,
Lexus, Infiniti, etc. The houses in these areas are large, on bigger
lots and are nicely designed in general, very classically proportioned
and detailed well. You will never see kiddy play stuiff in the yard from
the street.
In the wanna-be pretentious areas, you see big hair houses, Honda,
Toyota, older Volvos, mini-vans, Cadilacs and older big cars. You also
will see the Play School gym set in all its color, prominantly displayed
in the backyard, which is usually visible from the street or a main
thoroughfair. These are noting more than shallow, pretentious people,
who have bo other life, they should be pittied and the big hair house
should be iconized as a symbol of the decadant lengths people will go to
impress their neighbors.
By the way, don;t say a word of any of this to an occupant of a big hair
house, they really do feel that they are very beautiful designs,
professionally done and executed. They will never know any better, as
pretentious zeolots as they are, seldom get any further in life.
Sad.
steven michael rummel
>
> Hey, I'm all ears. I just spent most of Tuesday in City Hall trying to
> get City Council to listen to reason.
>
First mistake - unless you are looking for zoning, or some other such
thing that you cannot work without, avoid politicians at
all costs. They are the last people who should be involved. The phrase
"who runs the asylum" comes to mind.
> >Art does not have to be prohibitively expensive, nor does functionality.
> >Just be smart, frugal, do a lot yourself and stay miles away from union
> >labor.
- snip - my comment followed by his
>
> Exactly. What we need is a whole new approach. I'm working on a
> bare-bones concept myself; the political fight I'm involved in is
> for alternative housing in general. The sad reality is that what we
> need here in Philadelphia ammounts to a lot of really cheap housing,
> and we need it in a hurry. To get to the point that any proposals
> for alternative housing are seriously considered, though, promises
> a nasty fight. Fortunately, after being screwed around with a bit
> by the proper authorities, I am in a nasty mood.
Alternative housing? Political fight? Sounds ugly. Perhaps I was
misunderstood. I'll clarify:
1. Markets are STILL the most efficient way of allocating resources. If
you have such a good idea, people will pay for it.
2. Urban housing is an opportunity. The problem - urban areas are
viewed as high risk. If urban dwellers want to attract builders,
businesses, they must make an environment coducive to building,
commerce. I realize there are a LOT of issues here, but unless there is
an incentive besides legislative fiat for a developer to put up anything
in urban areas, no developer will, and if they do, their buildings will
end up like many that are already up - destroyed and uninhabitable.
3. I want to exploit that opportunity. I am a landlord now. I live in
my building, and I charge rents that my tenants can afford - result, I am
booked 6 months before my leases come due, usually by the same tenants.
How do I do this? I screen my applicants carefully. I know my approach
will work in urban areas - I'm in a medium sized midwestern town - but
only by direct management. City Hall will NEVER directly or by proxy run
any housing I'd be caught dead in. Look at Cabrini Green in Chicago.
There is no reason for the decent people living there to have to put up
with the crime and violence as it is. They would not, except that
Chicago can't run it, because Chicago has no stake in seeing Cabrini
Green work well. I mean, the City of Chicago government, not the people of
Chicago generally. No offense to the city, but they can't have a stake
- how many voters are there in Cabrini Green? America was built by
individuals. The government is an administrative agency. Administrative
agencies cannot by their nature and function create viable schemes for
allocating resources, or anything else for that matter, because
governments are put together by consensus (more or less) and vote.
Everyone in America could vote that XYZ corp. is great and needs a
special subsidy, but unless people really believe it, they will not buy
XYZs stuff, and XYZ will not be viable. Substitute public housing
initiatives, or anything else, for XYZ and you see the problem.
My point - people need a reason to want to see an area develop. It is up
to the stakeholders in the area to give a reason. Otherwise, does it
surprise anyone that most of America looks at the inner cities with
shame, pity and disgust, but wouln't move there or indeed lift a finger
to help? How can one help? If I went there, I'd get shot. If I opened
a business there, I'd get robbed and shot. So why send my taxes there to
support such a place?
"But what do you do with the people then?"
Nothing. I do nothing. They have lives, let them make them or break
them. When one comes to my building to live, If they are creditworthy
and hardworking, they can stay. Otherwise, no. Don't even start with
the "culture of dependency" arguments - people are not dogs and cannot be
conditioned permanently to be dependent drones. Nope. Sorry. The
various culture arguments are weak excuses used by a few to excuse bad
behavior and co-opt the poor. "Society made me what I am." Sorry - I'm
part of society (like it or not) and I have nothing to do with the
creation of these problems. I will propose a solution which will risk
nothing but my own resources, which is more than any city, state or
national government can claim. I will, naturally, expect to be
compensated for my risk.
4. No such thing as the proper authority. If you want lots of
affordable housing, build it. It is that simple. If you have to, take
the people you want to house and convince them to help you build it.
Look at Habitat for Humanity. They do a GREAT job (free plug for a great
group) of matching decent, hardworking people with housing they can live
comfortably with. I would sooner give every penny I have to HFH than
approve one cent of my tax money for some "public housing project" that
will enrich contractors and unions and provide criminals with good sales and
recruiting grounds.
If you can't get people to help you, see if they like living on the
street. Cold and hunger can turn even the thickest person into a willing
worker. Trust me on that one - I've seen it in action.
I just had an awful thought - you aren't looking for subsidized or free
housing are you? That could be your problem. If you want to get what
you pay for, you have to pay for what you get. Like health care - free,
universal health care is worth exactly what you pay for it. Ask the
Canadians, Britons and Hungarians. The same applies to housing. No free
lunches, although I'll sell you one on credit if you show me you are
creditworthy.
Finally, ceditworthiness is very easy to get in America, so no BS about
"the poor have no credit." They do - how do you think the "Rent to Own"
industry keeps going?
The abbreviated version - you can't help people who won't help
themselves. You ought to fight tooth and nail people who would take what
you worked for and call it social justice or fair share, or whatever.
You can't vote to make my property yours, unless I woke up in China today.
Good luck with what you are doing. As my idea develops, only the
philosophical underpinings of which
were covered in this post - sorry, architecture discussion seekers -
I'll post it and solicit thoughts.
Steve R.
P.S. - Those of you who read "Ayn Rand" in most of the above would kill
me if I did not credit my inspiration, so there it is. FYI -
I'm trying to do the "Cortlandt Homes" notion from "The Fountainhead" as
a busines plan.
Cybergams1
Adam Weiss aw...@bard.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>
Are you refering to cathedral ceilings? I think the idea was coined by
Frank Lloyd Wright. Lets see if I can find the quote -- here it is: "Why
waste good livable space with an attic any more than with a basement? And
never plan to waste space in a house with the idea of eventually
converting it into rooms...... the attic, now, should always come INTO the
house to beautify it." (FL Wright, The Usonian House, p. 161).
But Frank Lloyd Wright's houses generally had low roof pitches, and not
the high ones that, when coupled with cathedral ceilings, give a house
"big hair". Basically I guess you could see the "big hair" phenomenon as
a bastardization of a good example, like the black boxes that proliferated
in office buildings after Mies's Seagram Building.
There go my two cents.
<<<<<<<
No, I'm not referring to cathedral ceilings -- those were around long
before the current "Big Hair" fad. Many of these monstrosity houses do
not have cathedral ceilings, btw. As for FLW, I used to live in Oak Park,
and I never saw a FLW design with Big Hair -- I've read a good deal about
Usonians too, and I've never seen a photo or drawing of FLW's with Big
Hair -- enlighten me with the name of his Big Hair design?
I know that I mentioned usable, livable attics in my original post, but I
specifically distinguished such useful spaces (useful for living or
storage) from the pretentious waste of the Big Hair houses, which are all
trusses and air.
Gloria
Who loves having a basement to run to when the twisters are airborne and
thinks the basement bashers, including FLW, have never spent an evening
hiding in a bathtub of a house sitting on a @#%*!! slab in Tornado Alley.
At least in a basement you can play pingpong while the tornadoes trash
your town! :>
Cybergams1
From: Kevin Willmorth <flash~@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
Interesting enough, cars tell a big story, as do childrens play
equipment. In the upper end areas, cars are BMW, Rover, Mercedes, Volvo,
Lexus, Infiniti, etc. The houses in these areas are large, on bigger
lots and are nicely designed in general, very classically proportioned
and detailed well. You will never see kiddy play stuiff in the yard from
the street.
In the wanna-be pretentious areas, you see big hair houses, Honda,
Toyota, older Volvos, mini-vans, Cadilacs and older big cars. You also
will see the Play School gym set in all its color, prominantly displayed
in the backyard, which is usually visible from the street or a main
thoroughfair.
<<<<<<<
Goddess forbid any of us should have the poor taste to show the world that
we have children!!!! Another bit of city pretention I can do without as
much as I can do without big hair houses. *snicker* I may not have
Fisher Price in my yard, but I've got a swing set that is still used by
the young children of visiting neighbors and friends that is in my back
yard and probably visible from the road from some angle. I'd much rather
see a house that looks like people really live there rather than looking
like a mausoleum. But then, I'm not offended by laundry drying in the sun
or a pickup truck or tractor parked near a house, I'm not offended by
outbuildings or cattle (though hogs stink if the wind shifts!), chickens,
or any of the other things that my country "neighborhood" has to offer.
If a house looks like a home (what a concept, huh?) I think it looks more
inviting than the sterility and uniformity of design so common today.
Signs of life don't offend me. Indeed, when I drive through the new golf
course development nearby, and I see no signs of life, I think the Big
Hair houses look not only pretentious but sadly sterile. You never see
anyone outside working on their flower gardens (you don't see any flower
gardens, or vegetable gardens or orchard trees either, just a sterile
looking expanse of fescue grass). You never see children playing. You
never see people jogging, walking, throwing a frisbee for the dog, etc.
My son picked up on this by commenting that he feels sorry for the
children that live there as they have no place in the neighborhood to
play.
By the way, since you assume that the true wealthy don't live in these Big
Hair houses (and that the wealthy have better taste than the rest of us --
especially the good sense not to have happy kids playing in the yard), the
Big Hair houses closest to my home have all of the yuppie status cars that
you reverently listed in their driveways -- it is a community for the
wealthy, complete with a golf course designed by a major golf course
designer and an extremely exclusive country club. Many of these homes
have indoor swimming pools and are 5000-6000 square feet or more in size.
So, atop already massive and ungainly looking structures (there is nothing
classically proportioned about these houses), the huge, empty, hipped
rooftops tower over the golf course -- very odd looking, and unrelieved by
any trees or other softening surroundings.
It is hard for me to imagine spending so much money and getting THAT as
all you have to show for it -- but then, if I had that much money I'd
definitely sink a good amount of it into more land, build a sensible but
attractive home with a nice set of outbuildings, and stick the balance in
investments. So I obviously have a different set of priorities.
YMMV,
Gloria
Thai Ton
In article <337482...@sprynet.com>, flash~@sprynet.com says...
>
>
>So now we have a quote from FLW on houses with big roofs? Get a life.
>
>FLW was but one residential designer of hundreds of his time and
>thousands since. Having him brought up every time architectural style is
>mentioned is getting VERY LAME.
>
>The big hair houses seldom has cathedral ceilings inside. Generally they
>are big stupid looking houses in tight neighborhoods, like a big trailer
>park for mansions. The houses under these stupid roofs are generally
>around 2500 to 3000 s.f., poorly layed out, include a bunch of stupidly
>placed angles all over the place, big impressive entry ways, giant
>kitchens open to large great rooms, coupled with puny bedrooms, sloppy
>millwork, thin drywall, a lot of oak, plastic laminate and cheap tile
>and ugly wood flooring.
Sounds like my house.
>
>These houses are built for one specific group, middle class and upper
>middle class persons, around the age of 35 to 45, who see their house as
>a giant status symbol, and their neighborhood as a statement of who they
>are. They want the house to look bigger than they can afford, and
>sacrifice the lot locations and size to pat for the extra crap that gets
>put into these messy domiciles. If you look in these neighborhoods, you
>will find another interesting anomoly, the cars are not what you would
>expect. Most of those big hair houses have Honda's, Toyotas and Mini
>Vans in the driveway. This gives the houses away as nothing but
>pretentious crap, built by developers, designed by average architects or
>contractors.
That's because they last longer than Beemers, Rovers, well not Benz and
Volvos.
>
>Interesting enough, cars tell a big story, as do childrens play
>equipment. In the upper end areas, cars are BMW, Rover, Mercedes, Volvo,
>Lexus, Infiniti, etc. The houses in these areas are large, on bigger
>lots and are nicely designed in general, very classically proportioned
>and detailed well. You will never see kiddy play stuiff in the yard from
>the street.
That's because it's in the BACKYARD. Bull about the cars again. I know
people living in $500 apartments with Legends, BMWs, etc. It's YOUR personal
choice - do you want to spend the money on the cars or the home?
>
>In the wanna-be pretentious areas, you see big hair houses, Honda,
>Toyota, older Volvos, mini-vans, Cadilacs and older big cars. You also
>will see the Play School gym set in all its color, prominantly displayed
>in the backyard, which is usually visible from the street or a main
>thoroughfair. These are noting more than shallow, pretentious people,
>who have bo other life, they should be pittied and the big hair house
>should be iconized as a symbol of the decadant lengths people will go to
>impress their neighbors.
Because the damn road is right off the porch and you can't put a damn
play school gym in the damn house! Where are the kids going to play?
Well Buffy, we'll take them to the country club.
>
>By the way, don;t say a word of any of this to an occupant of a big hair
>house, they really do feel that they are very beautiful designs,
>professionally done and executed. They will never know any better, as
>pretentious zeolots as they are, seldom get any further in life.
>
>Sad.
Boy, you really don't get around, do you. These people are NOT satisfied
with their "big hair" homes. They don't have much of a choice. Go to Dallas
and find out yourself. If you can buy a 1/2 acre to 1 acre lot within the
city limits of Dallas' suburban cities, then you are either lucky or very
rich. Before you lambast us, you should realize that the real estate market
in cities such as Dallas is run by the almighty construction company and the
land is sold in large tracks, not individual lots. These companies buy these
tracks of land and cut them up into teeny tiny lots - the more houses you
can fit in the least amount of space means the more money you make. Now let
me ask you this, if you have a teeny tiny lot, how do you provide a large
living space for the occupant?
I came from the east coast where houses are still being sold and built
lot by lot. It was a shock but as I go west, the construction companies have
grabbed the market share. If you want a new house, then you have to buy a
house in a predetermined neighborhood built by various construction companies
with little uniqueness to the houses. The people have got to live somewhere
and convenience is the key. Why don't you ask these same people whether they
like their next door neighbor so close to each other? Ask them wouldn't they
want a 1/2 acre lot instead of zero lot homes?
And as for your assumption that these people are between 35-45, you are
totally wrong. Unless you are willing to live outside of convenience and
buy your own land, the people here are all ages, from recent college
graduates to retirees.
Damn it. I can't believe people can be so ignorant and narrow-minded, and
then have the nerve to open their big mouth.
--
* Do not send advertising material to this address. I don't have any money. *
John G. Morse
Gosh, he started off so brilliantly - cutting to everyman's Barnes and
Nobles version of architecture and housing - and then all of a sudden
it turned into "Real people drive BMW's and middle-class empty-headed
saps buy Honda's" Good Grief.
Well, of course the real estate market is to blame. Spec builders
don't have any incentive to build with any qualities other than
first-impression "Curb-value" - and the cliches of that value
(voluminous and over-complex rooves, two-story entrances, EIFS quoins,
illogically placed bay windows, etc, etc.) are part of the
home-buyers' conditioning. It's a self-perpetuating black hole into
which firmitas and utilitas dwindle in the shadow of their aging, but
heavily made-up stepsister.
The variety of institutions that have appeared to safeguard
mediocrity is astounding - from economic trends to social pressure.
The neighborhood covenants that put every design decision up before a
board of landowner's whose feeble design-vocabulary is tinged with
fears of "property devaluation." We're almost to the point where I'm
happy to have these aesthetically destitute "slums" locked behind
their security gates and out of my view.
And while it may seem that the leisure class of Mercedes-Benzites are
the only ones preserving the charms of serious design of single-family
housing - it is certainly not that their riches have given them
discretion, but that such treats are reserved for the well-off. Until
some means is found for design to become accessible to a larger
market, that market cannot be held accountable for not demanding what
it cannot afford.
Hell, not even we architects can afford architects,
John
Larry Arsenault
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Say, have you ever seen South San Fransisco - all those little boxes
strung along the hilly skyline with nary a tree or deviation in sight?
Every other one is painted pink or mediteraitian blue. A sad comment.
Now, have you priced a little, itty, bitty piece of oak molding? Or found
a finish man able and sober enough to make it look good from 10" away?
(For 30' away, there are plenty, but even they charge more than anybody
can afford) And say, what is the magic word in design today?
( ( ( ( ((FLOOR SPACE )) ) ) ) )
We all need acres of floor space, no matter if it's synthetic, to house
all our necessarry accumulated junk. And, of course, House Beautiful, &
Sunset and the various 10,572,932 home designs YOU CAN BUILD FOR UNDER
$35! doesn't help matters. Used to be people were glad to have a house.
Today they want an investment. No. 2 rule in investment housing - DON'T
DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT TURN OFF A POTENTIOAL BUYER. In other words,
country kitchen (big n' gooky with lots of hanging stuff or shiney plastic
with lots of pointy stuff fer you sophisticated son of a guns) subway
sized bathrooms (3 min. 4 is better) and a master bedroom the 49ers could
scrimmage in, complete with walk in closet complete with roller blades to
traverse it. The nook, the GREAT room (about half the size of the master
bath) Santa Fe styling, (adobe hip roof?) And paint it all in neutral
pastels. Make it at least 2,000 sq. ft, but 3,000 is worth the debt and
4,000 and you can join the executive dumbo class.
Do you realize that Frank LLoyd Wright's houses were usually under 2,000
sq. ft. and that he designed lots of middle class housing and even a dog
house?! True!
Do we designers realise that he had to become famous in two other
countries before he could even get a notice here? Do you know that his
beloved Miester (Mr. Sullivan) died in poverty? Do we DARE offend a
client byu telling them that the cut-up roof is a travisty and we won't
deal with it? Do we have any new ideas? If not do we understand the
basics of making an environment that fits the site, the client and our
vision? Do WE have the vision? The courage, the stamina, the heart to
create our vision and not sell out?
Yeah, I blame alot of OTHER eliments, but if I ever want to be more than a
grouser, I need to look at my own short comings AND strengths first.
we shall see...Larry Arsenault
Kevin Willmorth
Anthony Talltree wrote:
>
> >>Do you realize that Frank LLoyd Wright's houses were usually under 2,000
> >>sq. ft. and that he designed lots of middle class housing and even a dog
> >>house?! True!
>
> for limited tours and was able to go through. Quite a different scene from
> the mob at Fallingwater.
>
> >Too many of today's Architects simply through down "four walls and a
> >pitched roof" and call it a design.
>
> Part of that is no doubt due to the changes in construction tradeoffs over
> the decades. Sixty years ago labor was relatively cheaper and the clearcutters
> had even freer license to plunder the remaining forests, so materials were
> cheaper, too.
Where do you think we get wood? From virgin cut timber?
There hasn'r been virgin wood cut in this country for over 60 years.
Today, wood is cut from 2nd and 3rd growth forests. Upstate Michigan and
Wisconsin are on 3rd growth in a lot of areas, 2nd everywhere else.
The big consumer of wood isn't for homes, but for pulpwood (paper), and
it's been that way for 50 years.
As far as lobor is concerned, releative to other indicators, from 1929
to today, labor is actually cheaper, so is food. Housing has gotten out
of pace (much higher than ever) because of the real estate scam of the
least 3 decades. Building a house on the property is also effected by
codes, taxation, convenience items (like 3 baths, hot water and
airconditioning). We've added more garbage to homes to add costs, not
that the materials issue is so expensive, or labor.
>Building and electrical codes were more lenient.
How about non existant. The codes used today did not even exist a few
decades ago, neither did the taxes now paid on everything from energy to
lumber.
> Fancy designs take time & labor to build. The changing costs of doing so
> no doubt have influenced what's feasible for the middle class.
This is just crap. Good design does not cost more. Good design is simply
about putting the walls, doors and windows in the right place. Often
removing walls, doors and windows that do not make sence. Good design is
about making what you have to spend work harder for you. Mistaking good
design with the trash that most people call "custom" homes, is a HUGE
mistake. Architects that demand that good design costs more and requires
larger spaces, should have their license revoked and be banished from
the trade.
I've owned a house designed by a leading 1950's residential designer in
California, it was only 800 s.f. and was very comfortable, I'm working
on a house in Pheonix Az now that is very nice, but is only 1300 s.f.
and will cost less than $45 a square foot. I've seen, worked on, owned
and helped build a lot of very comfortable homes, under 2000 s.f.
(inlcuding the one I now live in, built in 1958) that are focused on
providing great useful space and are less concerned with some fancy B.S.
features.
Good design is about knowing how to make things work, knowing proportion
and use of space and knowing how to cut out the frivolous trash most
people associate with "fancy". Stop trying to build a monument to your
ego and build a great house to live in. Too amny people are so concerned
with wanting a big "street" presence, they forget to make the house
usable. As soon as your freinds help with paying the mortgage, you can
worry about impressing them with your opulance, untill then focus on the
houses livability, utility and comfort, screw the Jonses!
As far as Wright is concerned, he spent thousands on fancy crap
everywhere, from crown moldings to leaded glass and stone masonary. No
the stuff wasn't cheaper then, that's a wives tail. The industrial
revolution, coupled with a war that killed off several million skilled
laborers and mechanization, plus the need to erect buidlings faster to
keep up with post war growth all conspired to kill off some of the finer
"craftsman" based trades. Cost was hardly a major component of the issue
at all. Another change was to steel framed construction to make
buildings taller at first, then faster to build, coupled with the
emergence of contemporary architecture, created an environment where the
old design ideals were simply no longer valued.
FLW was the last of an old icon, not the first of a new icon. Meese and
others led the new era of design, Phillipe Johnson and Levit were others
that lead the new design icons that we still live today.
Just because FLW's name is easy to recognize, doesn't mean he was the
father of modern architecture. He certainly was a player, in the 1920's
and 1930's, but the world changed dramatically in the 1940's and 1950's,
all without Franks guding hand I'm afraid.
Living in the midwest and being in design can really bite. All you here
around here if Frank, Frank, Frank... like without Mr.Wright we'd all be
living in grass huts or something. If Frank had his way today, homes
would cost $400,000 and have leaky roofs we'd all be told wer just part
of the romance. I've seen his supposed "normal" homes, we've got hundred
here. They are all out dated, devidied up by walls and have hundreds of
doors in them. Each room a specific function, each room a pair of doors.
They did not leave me with an impression except they were very old
homes, with very old ideals used to design them, I didn't see any guding
principles with which to guide my life, or come away healed of any
ailments. I was impressed with the fact that most of them built in 1930
sold new for about 3 times the price of homes in the same area built by
regular contractors (we checked building department records, FLW homes
were registered at costs as high as 5 times normal homes of similar
size), that are also still standing, also obsolete, also leaking and
rotting away. A local contractor we interviewed, who's founders had once
hired Wright to design homes, confirmed they went on to other
architects, as Franks homes were just too darned expensive to build at
the time and didn't sell any faster for the extra effort (He was a
bigger Icon after his demise than he often was alive).
Sorry about the rant, must of got up from a mad dream or something. Just
sick of hearing Frank L Wright every time home designs come up. He was
not that big an influence on todays designs, nor would he be interested
in anyones little cheap projects if he were alive today.
Later
Anthony Talltree
>There hasn'r been virgin wood cut in this country for over 60 years.
There's quite a battle in California over old-growth redwood forests, and
old-growth is being cut today on Washington's Olympic peninsula. If one
goes a little north, the Queen Charlotte islands in BC are getting raped,
which sure won't do the blond grizzlies much good.
>The big consumer of wood isn't for homes, but for pulpwood (paper), and
>it's been that way for 50 years.
And yet timber interests claim that only trimmings get used for paper.
Sigh.
>people associate with "fancy". Stop trying to build a monument to your
>ego and build a great house to live in.
Right now my wife are kinda conflicting over the ideas that she's dreamed
about for years and the financial and regulatory limites that we have today.
Many ideas are fine ones, like using phtovoltaics, but doing things right
seems difficult and expensive. Composting toilet? Great idea, but not code-
legal. Heating via $10k masonry stove, okay, but where's the wood come from?
And so forth.
>Too amny people are so concerned
>with wanting a big "street" presence
Heck, my personal ideal house would be entirely underground. Street presence
of about 20 ft^2 for a door.
>Just because FLW's name is easy to recognize, doesn't mean he was the
>father of modern architecture.
I was suprised to learn that he was known outside of western PA, actually.
I grew up there, where everyone knows about Fallingwater, but little else
was widely known there.
>of the romance. I've seen his supposed "normal" homes, we've got hundred
>here.
There's one in western WA that was recently featured in a newspaper magazine
story. Much of the construction involved custom concrete "modules" that
apparently were a real nightmare to cast and wrangle.
Kevin Willmorth
Anthony Talltree wrote:
>
> >There hasn'r been virgin wood cut in this country for over 60 years.
>
> old-growth is being cut today on Washington's Olympic peninsula. If one
> goes a little north, the Queen Charlotte islands in BC are getting raped,
> which sure won't do the blond grizzlies much good.
Let's separate the tree hugger hype and reality here. Old growth and
virgin timber are two issues not one. Virgin wood will range from 48 to
100 inches in diameter and is no longer that desirable for processing.
Wood that is suited for cutting and processing runs between 24 and 36
inches in diameter. This is between 45 and 75 years old and could be
considered old growth. This "old growth" is wood that was planted after
clear cutting was accomplished a long time ago. It was also intended to
be recut when it reached it's current age, that's how forect management
works and has worked for almost 100 years. Old growth is seldom virgin
growth. Virgin forests in North America are protected well and are not
in that much danger, regardless what the howling activists want everyone
to believe.
As far as cutting wood, those same tree hugging idiots that go off on a
tangent every time they think of wood being cut are the same ones
publishing newsletters on paper, writing for magazines and keeping hard
copy files of everything they blather on about on paper. Want to slow
cutting of wood? STOP USING PAPER! Look at how much paper you use every
day, throw into the trash and flush down the toilet. Whole cuttings of
trees are used regularly for pulp, that's life. Couple this with our
"need" for perfect white paper, which introduces tons of bleeching
polutants into water everywhere and you have the real problem.
Environmentalists are always back-asswards. They attack the suppliers,
like they are doing the wrong. What the real problem with the
environment is, is we USE to much fuel, we USE too much paper, we DRIVE
our cars to much, we BURN coal to make electricity, we CUT trees to make
paper. Stop the dumb behavior and the supply chain slows down. Attack
the consumers, not the suppliers, who are simply making a living filling
a demand.
Finally, don't assume what you hear on the news from activists and
bleeding heart news corporations is even based ont he truth, it isn't.
The facts are, we in the USA consume more natural resources per person
than any other country on the face of this earth. We CONSUME resources,
we don't have to, we aren't forced to by timber producers or oil
companies, we just do it because we are generally ignorant of the
implications and the impact we have.
Somehow, the consumer today is protected from attack, while the
activists go after suppliers, who really have little or no impact on how
we use what they produce. They raise prices, we go somewhere else. They
stop cutting wood in the USA and we go to Canada. They stop cutting in
Canada, we cut down South America. Consumers in this country are pigs,
me included, I'm afraid. Untill we learn to conserve, recycle and keep
our environment clean, we can't gripe about a few trees getting cut down
to wrap up our Big Mac Value Meals.
As far as using a few boards to build a house? Why not renovate an older
home? This countries population has been stable at around 235 MM for
several decades, why are we constantly building? We've gotten into the
habit of moving to new areas, building them up and then moving on and
repeating the activity. Cities like Detroit are like ghost towns, while
we cover more farmland with tract houses in Kentucky. We abandon the
inner cities all over to moive into new suburban homes. We burn more
fuel to get to work, more electricity in our bigger homes, consume more
fast food, wrapped in paper, then wonder why we have such traffic
problems and environmental issues to deal with.
The human race in the USA, me included, is about as stupid as it can
get. We live in the suburbs and work in town, cause the city isn't safe.
Right, cute concept, but ignors that the odds of being killed or injured
on the highway to work is far greater than being attacked in town by
crime.
Real Estate jerks play a game in this country. They tell home shoppers
the city isn't safe, untill the suburbs are full and the roads are so
crouded you can't move around. Then they say you should move to the city
to get away from the comute and traffic, etc. Then back, then forth,
then back. They play home consumers like a bunch of saps and we just
keep moving around.
Conservation and ALTERNATIVE Arhcitecture also includes restoring and
maintaining what has already been built, creating a stable system that
does not require rebuilding every 10 years and recognizing the real
sources of consumption (behavior of consumers), not myopically focusing
on a few suppliers.
We also will one day have to face that our economy, our very wealth, is
based on eating this planet alive and filling its water ways and air
full of crap. That's the underlying sickness of a capitalist system, one
that allows us the wealth to play on this Internet thing and own our
neat single family homes on one acre of grass covered soil...
J. Alexandre Airosa Alves
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C21.C058D8E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Please let us to introduce our company:
JOTA 96, has as principal activity, the Mechanical Projects of Special
Thermal Installations (ventilation, air conditioning and heating systems).
The JOTA 96, is formed by a technical Staff with largest experience in
Projects and Operations in buildings.
This Section is in charge of Engineers Joaquim Airosa Alves and José Pires
da Costa, graduated by Minho University in Energetic System.
We are very interest in work with other companies that need our services.
Please, if you want to know better our servive please contact.
Airosa Alves
jot...@mail.telepac.pt
http://www.jota96.pt
Andy Lepisto <fst...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3381bf57...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >Do you realize that Frank LLoyd Wright's houses were usually under 2,000
> >sq. ft. and that he designed lots of middle class housing and even a dog
> >house?! True!
> >
> >Do we designers realise that he had to become famous in two other
> >countries before he could even get a notice here? Do you know that his
> >beloved Miester (Mr. Sullivan) died in poverty? Do we DARE offend a
> >client byu telling them that the cut-up roof is a travisty and we won't
> >deal with it? Do we have any new ideas? If not do we understand the
> >basics of making an environment that fits the site, the client and our
> >vision? Do WE have the vision? The courage, the stamina, the heart to
> >create our vision and not sell out?
> >
> >Yeah, I blame alot of OTHER eliments, but if I ever want to be more than
a
> >grouser, I need to look at my own short comings AND strengths first.
> >
> >we shall see...Larry Arsenault
> >
> A few comments, and I'll keep them short due to my being new to the
> group. One - Mr. Arsenault I believe is on the right track. From his
> post I believe that he still holds the spirit that is Architecture.
> Too many of today's Architects simply through down "four walls and a
> pitched roof" and call it a design. I could go on, but I won't for
> now. Maybe that will spur some discussion. Two - Although, I agree
> with the previous post that Wright is over discussed, I believe that
> this is due to the fact that Wright is what 99.9% of Americans believe
> is architecture. How many Americans have ever seen a Le Corbusier or
> Gaudi' project? When was the last time you did and did you still
> understand it like you did when you were in school?
>
> I really didn't plan on being negative. I guess I'm just saddened by
> the fact that someone people consider tract housing "Architecture".
>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C21.C058D8E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">Please let us to introduce our =
company:<br><br>JOTA 96, has as principal activity, the Mechanical =
Projects of Special Thermal Installations (ventilation, air conditioning =
and heating systems).<br>The JOTA 96, is formed by a technical Staff =
with largest experience in Projects and Operations in buildings.<br>This =
Section is in charge of Engineers Joaquim Airosa Alves and Jos=E9 Pires =
da Costa, graduated by Minho University in Energetic System.<br>We are =
very interest in work with other companies that need our =
services.<br>Please, if you want to know better our servive please =
contact.<br><br>Airosa Alves<br><font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>jot...@mail.telepac.pt</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>http://www.jota96.pt<font =
size=3D2><br><br><br><br>Andy Lepisto <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>fst...@mindspring.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">> wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>3381bf57...@news.mindspring.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> >Do you realize that Frank LLoyd =
Wright's houses were usually under 2,000<br>> >sq. ft. and that he =
designed lots of middle class housing and even a dog<br>> >house?! =
True!<br>> ><br>> >Do we designers realise that he had =
to become famous in two other<br>> >countries before he could even =
get a notice here? Do you know that his<br>> >beloved =
Miester (Mr. Sullivan) died in poverty? Do we DARE offend =
a<br>> >client byu telling them that the cut-up roof is a travisty =
and we won't<br>> >deal with it? Do we have any new ideas? =
If not do we understand the<br>> >basics of making an =
environment that fits the site, the client and our<br>> >vision? =
Do WE have the vision? The courage, the stamina, the heart =
to<br>> >create our vision and not sell out?<br>> ><br>> =
>Yeah, I blame alot of OTHER eliments, but if I ever want to be more =
than a<br>> >grouser, I need to look at my own short comings AND =
strengths first.<br>> ><br>> >we shall see...Larry =
Arsenault<br>> ><br>> A few comments, and I'll keep them short =
due to my being new to the<br>> group. One - Mr. Arsenault I =
believe is on the right track. From his<br>> post I believe =
that he still holds the spirit that is Architecture.<br>> Too many of =
today's Architects simply through down "four walls and a<br>> =
pitched roof" and call it a design. I could go on, but I =
won't for<br>> now. Maybe that will spur some discussion. =
Two - Although, I agree<br>> with the previous post that Wright =
is over discussed, I believe that<br>> this is due to the fact that =
Wright is what 99.9% of Americans believe<br>> is architecture. =
How many Americans have ever seen a Le Corbusier or<br>> Gaudi' =
project? When was the last time you did and did you still<br>> =
understand it like you did when you were in school?<br>> <br>> I =
really didn't plan on being negative. I guess I'm just saddened =
by<br>> the fact that someone people consider tract housing =
"Architecture".<br>> </p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C21.C058D8E0--
steven michael rummel
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Kevin Willmorth wrote:
> Anthony Talltree wrote:
> >
> > >There hasn'r been virgin wood cut in this country for over 60 years.
> >
>
> Somehow, the consumer today is protected from attack, while the
> activists go after suppliers, who really have little or no impact on how
> we use what they produce.
>
> As far as using a few boards to build a house? Why not renovate an older
> home? This countries population has been stable at around 235 MM for
> several decades, why are we constantly building?
Check your facts. We are closer to 270 million.
>
> The human race in the USA, me included, is about as stupid as it can
> get. We live in the suburbs and work in town, cause the city isn't safe.
> Right, cute concept, but ignors that the odds of being killed or injured
> on the highway to work is far greater than being attacked in town by
> crime.
>
Also, city is more expensive due to over-regulation of urban housing
market vis-a-vis rent controls, taxes, etc.
> Real Estate jerks play a game in this country. They tell home shoppers
> the city isn't safe, untill the suburbs are full and the roads are so
> crouded you can't move around. Then they say you should move to the city
> to get away from the comute and traffic, etc. Then back, then forth,
> then back. They play home consumers like a bunch of saps and we just
> keep moving around.
True, but as you put it - that is the consumers fault for taking it.
> We also will one day have to face that our economy, our very wealth, is
> based on eating this planet alive and filling its water ways and air
> full of crap. That's the underlying sickness of a capitalist system, one
> that allows us the wealth to play on this Internet thing and own our
> neat single family homes on one acre of grass covered soil...
>
This one really stickes to me -
1. The planet is here. Use it or not. We have made the decision that
we are willing to pay an environmental price for certain lifestyle
choices. We will pay that price, plus whatever unforeseen prices come
along as the long term consequences of our actions come to light.
2. Capitalism is merely the most efficient way to allocate resources.
You can own property. You can trade that property, or work to acquire
property. You choose. What is your alternative?
3. The benefits of capitalism/the Internet/using environmental resources
are manifest. Human beings live longer and achieve more (on our own,
self-determined terms) than other species. If our actions kill us off,
oh well. We made our bed, we'll sleep in it. If you are going to
propose agrarian society, or some Marxist economy, or whatever, I suggest
that evidence indicates capitalism is the best way to ensure property and
human rights, and to allow humanity to make the best decisions reflecting
the most information about how to allocate resources. It might be clumsy
and not always efficient, but it beats the alternatives.
I'm off my soapbox now. :)
Steve R.
John G. Morse
<snippity snip snip>
>As far as using a few boards to build a house? Why not renovate an older
>home? This countries population has been stable at around 235 MM for
>several decades, why are we constantly building? We've gotten into the
>habit of moving to new areas, building them up and then moving on and
>repeating the activity. Cities like Detroit are like ghost towns, while
>we cover more farmland with tract houses in Kentucky. We abandon the
>inner cities all over to moive into new suburban homes. We burn more
>fuel to get to work, more electricity in our bigger homes, consume more
>fast food, wrapped in paper, then wonder why we have such traffic
>problems and environmental issues to deal with.
While I basically agree with this, there are a few things that need
pointing out. 1) The popoulation, according to the census bureau
(www.fedstats.gov) estimates the 1994 population at 260.3 million
persons, up from 226.5 million in 1980. Whether or not this range is
within your definition of a steady trend, I couldn't say.
2) Renovation is costly and difficult, it requires expertise and
involvement that developers naturally shun. While you have insisted
that the consumer is entirely at fault think about how the much the
production end of the market structures the choices that consumers
confront. Demand is manufactured as surely as any product - the
science of marketing is proof of that. Producers only give consumers
the products that will earn them the highest returns. If I have
$150,000 to spend on a new residence, I would gladly move into a
refurbished bungalow rather than a spec-builders pressboard castle -
but the real estate market has structured home-buying around a rather
fanciful set of quantitative values that don't speak well for the
older home - so a naive consumer (and we must all be rather naive in
this enormous world market) is convinced that the new house is a
better investment. (Alas, so little of home buying has to do with
residing, rather than reselling)
3. There is also the deep-rooted (but not entirely inflexible) notion
in this country that newness has it's own value - not just fashion
mind you, but the glourious newness of undiscovered frontier, of that
new car smell, freshly brewed budweiser, and the newest franchised
casual-dining emporium.
Well, I have neither come to a conclusion, nor responded
comprehensively, perhaps someone can take over for me.
Here's hoping that our resources can be more sensitivally apportioned,
and that our legacy can be less wasteful.
remove tilde from address to respond
Kevin Willmorth
This makes some sence, but I am not proposing anything as severe as
Marxisism, Socialism or any of that at all.
> This one really stickes to me -
> 1. The planet is here. Use it or not. We have made the decision that
> we are willing to pay an environmental price for certain lifestyle
> choices. We will pay that price, plus whatever unforeseen prices come
> along as the long term consequences of our actions come to light.
Decisions are based on weighing known information and making a call
based on the advantages/disadvantages of the components of the decision.
We do not make decisions this way. We can't. We're bombarded with B.S.
from activists on two sides of center and are never really given a
chance to "choose". Activist environmentalists would have us believe we
are all going to die from our actions and the race is facing extinction.
On the other side, capitalists would have us believe we are free to
consume at will, that the earth is a big monster entity that can absorb
anything us little ant humans can throw at it. Both are wrong, both are
defending stupid logical games.
> 2. Capitalism is merely the most efficient way to allocate resources.
> You can own property. You can trade that property, or work to acquire
> property. You choose. What is your alternative?
Capitalism works great with an INFORMED population, it sucks big with an
ignorant mass, who don't care what the consequences are of their own
activities. Capitalism and democracy require educated, informed and
enlightened people, or it's just B.S. that eventually consumes itself in
stupidity.
> 3. The benefits of capitalism/the Internet/using environmental resources
> are manifest. Human beings live longer and achieve more (on our own,
> self-determined terms) than other species. If our actions kill us off,
> oh well. We made our bed, we'll sleep in it. If you are going to
> propose agrarian society, or some Marxist economy, or whatever, I suggest
> that evidence indicates capitalism is the best way to ensure property and
> human rights, and to allow humanity to make the best decisions reflecting
> the most information about how to allocate resources.
Capitalism is the greatest oppressor of human rights in many ways. Only
the wealthy or those with the income to satisfy their needs and desires
are able to make these kind of statements. Oppression is huge in the
inner city, based on the lack of capital. Capitalism creates classism,
can't help it, and that is less than optimal for humanity.
This is really the core of my point. We can;t make capitalism work, as
long as we establish a consumptive, materialistic cultural environment.
This is oppressive at its core and ignors the future for the benefit of
the present. On the other hand, without materialistic behavior, you
can't have capitalism.
The answer? Education, Enlightenment, Responsible capitalism. By looking
carefully at what we each do as individuals, at home, and applying good
conservative use of natural resources and being responsible for our own
actions, capitalism and democratic behavior would last for thousands of
years. Focus on hammering at the product providers, while wasting energy
and materials on trivial objects, and forcing others, through law
making, to comply with regulated activities, is how democracies crash
into socialistic behaviors and eventually crushes capitalistic activity.
Conservation isn't about saving a forest or making sure we have oil
forever. Conservation is simply about responsibility, about recognizing
that there is something robust, intrinsically beautiful and healthy
about using as little as possible to gain the greatest effect.
Efficiency starts with behavior, culture, consumers. The actions of the
providers, run by responsible consumer culture, would reflect the
greatest efficiency ever.
Defending what we do today and offering nothing more than another
"communist" anectode for a solution is a irresponsible as the waste we
now embrace as part of our uniquely American culture. This is something
we need to address seriously, before we are forced to it by foriegn
powers that are getting sick and tired of us consuming considerably more
than our fare share.
I also hold no hope that any of this will ever happen. Dreaming is also
part of being human, and I like that.
Oh well is right, we're probably toast in the future, but why not have a
party now?