There is a new project by my office and as I have been watching it go up, it has made me think about architects + modern houses and if together they have any responsibility to the neighborhood where they get built.
Street Elevation
This project is by award winning local architect Russell Buchanan, who started his firm in 1992 after stints working for HKS and Cunningham Architects. There are a few disclaimers I should get out of the way; I don’t really know Russell, we have met a few times but we have never engaged in a manner where I think he would remember me (although you can’t live in Dallas and not know of me, Yeah!*Air Punch*). I respect his work and I am a fan – usually. I have been through several of his projects and you can’t help but notice and appreciate his meticulous detailing. It is also fair to say that there are aspects of his work that I try to emulate in my own. The plans are extremely well resolved and he typically designs on a building material module (16″, 32″ 48″, etc.), which trust me, isn’t as easy as it sounds. Because of all these things, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage because it’s not complete and I don’t know what’s coming (if anything – this would include possible skins/ screens and landscaping). What I am interested in discussing now is if this house, or architects in general, have a responsibility to the surrounding environment where our projects are located?
Context with Neighbor
This house site on a lot that is 50′ x 247′ within the city of Highland Park. This is a very expensive neighborhood and this particular lot was appraised by the city in 2010 at $617,500 (that’s just for the lot. Click here for Google maps link for additional adjacent context – in the aerial view, the lot shows up scrapped but in the street view, there is a green colored house still shown on the lot). By comparison, the house shown in the above picture just to the left has an appraised value $695,690 ($78,190 for the house and $617,500 for the lot). That neighbor has owned his house since 2001 when the overall appraised value was set at $358,410. It is not uncommon here that as land values go up, the value of the house goes down to keep the overall value within a state law that limits raising the property taxes more than 10% a year.
When you look at this modern style house, what comes to mind? Are you thinking as a designer and critically evaluating it? I know that’s hard to do since I haven’t given you any information other than a front elevation. Just based on that, it looks like a realized form of a parti-diagram or initial concept/ massing model that got built. What you can see and evaluate is it’s scale, the materials it uses, the relationship between public and private, and its perceived scale to the neighborhood. I should point out that the lots on this street have alley access for vehicles – so the owners never have to walk out the front door except to get the newspaper. Right now there are some supports under the “open space” in the bottom left corner of the front mass – those will go away because as I understand it from seeing the construction, that piece is cantilevered out which is part of the reason I am not passing judgement yet. What’s going to happen there?
Street Elevation
Okay – now think about those same items but put yourself in the shoes of the guy who owns the property to the left. How do you think he feels? Is this good for him and his property value? Should you care about that guy? What if he was counting on retiring on the balance between the appraised value in 2001 and 2010 of $337,280 he had hoped to get from the future sale of his home? We know from the appraisal district that his land is worth almost 8x what his house is valued at – is the inevitable irrelevancy and eminent demolition of his home all but assured now? Is it our job as architects to care about that guy? Would this be a different conversation if this modern project was sitting on a piece of land that allowed the house to be as intrinsic as it clearly wants to be? Is this about providing lodging or is it art – can it be both? Personally, I don’t believe that a building can be art – artistic yes, but not art. Art doesn’t have programming and it doesn’t have a required task to accomplish. If these houses could talk, what would they say to one another (hmmmm, another post maybe?) Are these next door neighbors going to get along when everything is completed?
My guess is no. What do you think?
Marlon Blackwell's Home
I have post on another boxy house – Marlon Blackwell’s own residence that I went and saw during my visit to Arkansas. You can see that it is modern and boxy in a manner similar to Russell’s; but I had a specific conversation with Marlon (a courtesy that in all fairness I have not extended to Russell) about the context of his house in relationship to his neighbors. Part of our discussion included some of the steps he took in consideration of his neighbors, some of which included:
- Cladding the forms in wood. In person you can see that the scale of the pieces that make up the screen in front help break the scale down from the overall mass.
- Offset the second level mass over the entryway. Not only did it provide some protection from the weather, it also helped break down the overall scale of the form.
- A site benefit was that there is negative typography to this site where the creek bed flows through the lot.
- And in an effort to make nice, they opened their home up during construction to everyone at all times. Understanding a thing goes a long way in appreciating it.
There are other items that differ between these projects – most notably are the windows. These break down the box forms to human scale and allow the massing to be read as a collection of parts that contribute to a whole. I’m not against boxy residential project by any means, I even said that I would like to live in Marlon’s house (once he moved out of course), but the Russell’s project seems to be more about the message art as building and less about the building as art. In either case, the message the house is sending seems to be f**k you.
Although I tend to be more traditional (I live in a 1920's Victorian cottage) I can appreciate good modern design. From what you have presented above, that is not GOOD design, modern or not.
As architects we should always be aware of context, yet the above house ignores its context to the point of thumbing its nose at its context, and is no more an example of good design than your average McMansion as a result.
I don't care how thoughtful the floorplan or the details of construction are, if it ignores its context it is bad architecture.
Bob: You're dead on, in my opinion. Both are superb designers, but one saluted the setting and one abused it. Blackwell worked his site exquisitely and recognized that his house was part of a community. Plus that bridged stream – whew, lovely, visionary “gentle on the earth” design. Hats off.
Buchanan is obviously skilled, it's a beautiful house if not for the neighborhood. the nearness to the street, coupled with the tall flat wall says: we are bigger, more important. the fortress dominates its neighbors.
Like Blackwell, Bruce Goff was also a master at bringing modern design to ordinary subdivisions, see the stepping back he used on the Hyde Residence in Prairie Village (KC metro). http://bit.ly/aVHVBI (This house also uses green ashtrays in artful patterns – that's another design story.) The issue here is neighborhood, massing, scale, and siting.
the question architects should consider: what is the message? what does my design say and who is it addressing?
I agree w/ L. Brian – but it's not just thumbing its nose, its giving the middle finger to the neighbors. What's the point of building like that in a neighborhood if you have no windows for viewing or choose to completely disregard architectural context? What's the point of living in a house with no windows on one side? Guess they really like looking at that back alley, huh?
This is jarring. Making statements is all well and good; there are a lot of visually shocking displays all around us, expressed in a multitude of media such as music, film, clothing, text, and yes, buildings. Hell, we live in times when shock is, ironically, commonplace. Our sensory tolerances are pushed and prodded daily by more and more attempts to make an impression on an overloaded attention span. I guess it has to be like this to some degree, in our present consumerist hi-tech society and certainly humans have adapted to this state of affairs (not always beneficially of course)…
The difference here, as you are presenting, is that a house, a home is a rather permanent presence – not a flash of video or a snatch of music – it makes a solid, lasting statement and lays a heavy hand on the landscape. It also establishes a relationship with its surroundings and its neighbors, be they human or natural. This can be accomplished gracefully, awkwardly, or downright rudely. Maybe it's too early to tell with this upstart, but I think it may not epitomize appropriate or mannerly… maybe even beyond brash and edging toward a visual outburst.
It was a little shocking to see the house come together to this point but as I said in my piece, I'll give it some additional time to see if anything shows up that will help break down the scale (which is my main issue with the house so far). As a designer of modern homes, it is typical that we are asked to fulfill a clients dreams and design a home for them that does not match the style of the surrounding properties. While we aren't generally asked to provide “architecture” of the extreme nature shown here, we are almost always the black sheep on the block.
That having been said, we always consider the surrounding properties and scale. While they are not my clients, their consideration factors into our process simply because the person who did hire us is going to live in this house and those will be his neighbors.
CF – We have a Bruce Goff house in Dallas http://bit.ly/9j5vZe – NW corner of HillHaven and Baxtershire) and you could drive by it and never realize you were right next to it.
MS and Brian – other than the lack of ornamentation of scale providing devises on the front, the solution isn't that bad. There is only 40' of width to build on and with the cost of these lots being what they are, it is common that the owner wants to put a fairly large amount of square footage on it – that wouldn't be from the architect. But there is definitely attitude to this design. As to the message, it seems fairly clear at this point.
Rich – I think you are walking a slippery slope. A person should be allowed to express or present themselves in whatever manner they wish – but I think only to the point it doesn't damage the surrounding property rights and values of others. But how do you measure a thing like that? It's censorship and I don't want that for any of us. That is why I haven't been able to get this house out of my head since I saw it. They should be allowed to do it, but should they?
I don't take issue with the amount of square footage as there are ways of making big look little, allowing the scale to fit its surroundings. I do take issue with the attitude as you call it.
Although the design may have been created in a void, a tabla rasa if you will, the built product is not. Most owners have a fair bit of say into what a design looks like. With modern design, the architect tends to have more creative freedom, as the owner is not looking for conventional thinking. However this does not absolve the architect from considering the context of the site.
It is the architect's responsibility to inform the client that a design this insensitive to the neighbors will make for a hostile living environment. Insensitivity to the context is what drives neighborhoods to form homeowner associations and institute design guidelines forbidding anything other than the societal norm. Bad, out of context design that says “I don't give a flying flip WHAT the neighbors think!” perpetuates modern design as something to be avoided at all costs.
Although this design is being built, it will make it harder for other modern designs to be commissioned, much less built. That is the travesty of it all.
In my town, here in CA, that sort of architecture in that location would have a very difficult time being built. First we have an ordinance that forces any remodel of a structure more than 50 years old to go through a Historic Preservation Commission before it goes on to Planning Commission or the City Council. As a member of the HPC it is unlikely that a tear down would even be allowed.
That said, this sort of architecture does not fit within the neighborhood and really does say f**k you to the neighbors. Bad, very bad!
Then again, we architects get all excited and publishers only publish this sort of modern architecture and completely ignore the well done, but pedestrian architecture that is represented by the two houses on either side of this beast. What does that say about our profession?
Slippery slopes are OK – flat ground is no challenge. You don't get accolades for taking the easy way out – and I am not just talking about walking around – I mean making judgement calls. There is always a great deal of thought/feeling behind a result that appears effortless at a glance – it is the sign of a consideration of all factors involved in a proposition, a well-rounded approach, a wholistic balance.
Yes, “they” should be allowed to do it. Without that freedom of process from the very beginning, there is no true blank slate to draw upon – it's a hobbled handicap from the start, a fetter on the imagination, a limitation of possibilities. This is the foundation of our democracy, our theoretical mindset . We have our political and personal freedoms and rights guaranteed to us (on paper at least) and artistic expression needs to be approached the same way. But just as all forms of political and individual expression are permitted, they are not always appropriate in a social/civil context. We are humans with boundless abilities but we are creatures of society also. I would argue that a client/architect has a right to build whatever they want, somewhere, sometime… but exactly… should they? I think it all comes down to respect – the golden rule, if you will. Respect takes many forms. Your example of Blackwell seems to denote respect. That is what matters and that is what is apparent. I really like the gut feeling approach – the initial assessment. How does it hit you? This house hits me as “off”… I realize I/we are not looking at a completely realized vision at this point – perhaps it WILL come together. And turn it around another way – examining the bigger picture – maybe this is a sign of things to come and the surroundings (existing neighbors) are the part of the picture that is no longer fitting. Change is good – if it is progressive.
Really great comment Brian. I really like the concept you introduce about the larger implication and ramifications a project like this creates – something that I had thought about but only with regards to the opinion of the public at large.
Every step that creates additional restrictions, covenants and HOA – not to mention the scope creep our local planning department is taking to control the 'aesthetic' is a step backward.
thanks Rich. The aspect of respect is a good one to use in this conversation. I think part of what you are saying will eventually connect with several of the points Brian is also making. Despite the ability of people to wrap themselves up in the flag and claim freedom of speech, the message this house seems to be making at this point is that it's taking one step forward while moving the rest of us who follow two steps back.
Neal,
You bring up a few topics that could spin off into get conversations by themselves but for now, I am going to focus on the part that I find most interesting – that this is the type of architecture that is getting published and what we as architects get all excited about.
That was really part of the point of the post a wrote a little bit ago on Dwell Magazine jumping the shark http://bit.ly/90Erx1 . While it is easy to throw Dwell under the bus despite the fact that they are trying to respond to market conditions, projects are becoming more and more extreme in an effort to stand out. Maybe just like expressionism, naturalism, or art nouveau were reactions to the industrial age and the perception that craftsmanship was unnecessary, we are going to experience a backlash to modernity?
Bob please tell me this was a fabricated image to invoke a response, unfortunately, we are well past April fool’s day. So let’s see who is at fault an owner who did not care what anyone else thinks, “I want this house on this site and that is it” or an architect selling the client based on their vision this what you need and “ I don’t care what an appropriate street presence or scale should be” assuming they realize there is a difference.
This project as designed with an absence of a street presence, IMO other than being overbearing is out of place. Perhaps out in the middle of the woods or a field with a view of the ocean, lake, mountain or even a vista of a city’s skyline but not in an urban setting where visual presence and place are as equally import as the design and functionality of its interior.
So what happened? No neighborhood or city design review committees? No city design guidelines. Looking at the massing does it even meet zoning criteria, if any? Unfortunately it is just one more example that is used to show how out of touch sometimes we as architects can be to the fabric of neighborhoods, the urban environment not to mention and more importantly its neighbors. So if it was a shock factor that they were after then I guess it was a success. It appears to me to be a missed opportunity.
Craig,
The City of Highland Park (surprisingly considering our topic today) has very strict property owner rights but they don't tell you what your house can look like when you are starting from scratch. It is very common that older houses in this area get scrapped in favor of something brand new and extremely large. There are other terrible projects in this area that swing to the other side of taste. There are gorgeous estate properties and roof chaos builder McMansions wallpapered in stone that simply send a different type of message. Today's house seems to be raising the finger while some of these more traditional McMansion houses seem to be dropping their pants.
I'm still hoping there is something planned that will remedy the current situation. Maybe an underslung canopy projecting under and out from the cantelevered entry and across the massive wood-clad wall? Maybe some prefabricated piece that will drastically cut down the front mass and create a modern interpretation of the front porch? I don't know, I think I'm grasping at straws at this point.
Please update the photos if it improves. If not, well, maybe I'd feel better if I don't see the final result, and I can just imagine in my own mind it turned out well.
Bob, I enjoy your blog. This is a brave post and makes a good point regarding context.
I do wish you had waited until the project was finished. At this point I'm not really sure what could be done, but the project is still cooking. By using this house as an example I don't think you're sincerely giving it the benefit of the doubt.
It would be interesting to invite the architect explain/defend the design. Could make for a very interesting guest post.
Keep up the excellent work Bob, I'll be tuning in.
It reminds me of a similar (ok maybe worst) situation called Towering Townhouse (google it
). Can this actually be called architecture, with absolutely no regard for its context? If this was a faculty project of mine I would most definitely fail my architectural project class.
Opinions of this object aside, has anyone considered that it's likely that the client wanted the house to look like this? After all the client is approving the design, no?
Perhaps the architect made all of the arguments as to why not to go “this far” and the client simply said, “I want this no matter what.” Is it the architect's, or the client's bad taste? (which applies to both ends of the aesthetic spectrum). Who among us has told a client that we wouldn't do something because it goes too far?
I don't have anything to add, except that before I read this post, I would have said, “no” to the idea of responsibility to the neighborhood. I had never thought about it in a non-selfish way. I was wrong.
Good post.
I thought for a minute you photo-shopped a home that belongs on some land with some flora and fauna around it into that skinny little urban lot!
I toured this house last week (an AIA SFRT event, I saw you on the distribution list; thought you might come). I like the house – it has a very sophisticated geothermal system and an incredible lighting budget. I was pretty taken back at the lack of the respect of context, but driving around HP you can see examples of this all over the place. Oh, and the module you described on this house was 5' – not great for wood, but according to Russ “it worked out better.” And that cantilever is supported by a concrete column and hammerhead with a pier that penetrates 8' into the bearing strata. Wow.
For some reason, I apparently didn't pay attention to that SFRT email (there are so many). I know that my opinions about the front are a little harsh but make no mistake, I think Russell is a great architect. If it was in Preston Hollow on a 1/2 acre site and you could view it as the intrinsic piece that it is, other than it's current context, I probably wouldn't have paid that much attention to this project.
I think that once the landscaping is in there will be some other cool elements that will compliment the elevation's statement. The majority of the house focuses on the small “back yard” (it is really on the side) with indoor and outdoor spaces and garage. The cantilever is over an entrance that will be nicely lit, and a rubble wall (they have not yet finalized the material) will separate the front from the back. I am not certain if a driveway pulls up to that entrance – it was covered on the tour, but I don't remember. Whatever the case I think the space under the cantilever will shine like a jewel at night. Scott Oldner is the lighting designer and I don't they cut anything out of his scope, so it will be good.
when they gonna attach the climby things?! that's one way they could make it work for the neighborhood. (from the gut and just skimming.) thanks for posting.
Well.
I think your photos don't show all the picture like you write.
There's more to the surroundings then just those two neighbors houses.
The other side of the street. The nearest crossroads. Is there square near by with the cafés, restaurants, are the shops in that street, and so on.
Probably is an only residential place.
Though is not finished the main volume of construction seems to be that, and it collides in size, proportions, materials, with the two neighbors.
Now going and saying it doesn't respect others is a bit of a statement.
How does it look when walking down the road?
And when passing by car is it that much not integrated with the environment?
From the sides is it off the grid?
It looks like a home or not?
It stands out but that's not necessarily desrespectful to others.
And isn't it more like:
“Hello! I'm your new neighbor. Let's have a backyard barbecue? Hoping to get to now you all!”
Not f… U.
Please mind that this are very individualist times, and this house looks to me soft and even respectful in some degree to everyone else.
At the end I hope it gets recognized as one of the fellows and be part of some renovation, in a few years it might become the norm or not. Architecture takes time not moments to stabilize.
Jose,
Within the body of the post is a link to Google maps where you can go an explore the surrounding properties for yourself. The fact that you think this design in it's current state is “soft and even respectful in some degree to everyone else” is one of the more baffling things I've heard someone say about this project.
In the end, when everything comes together, this house will not be as severe as it would appear now. I have faith in this particular architect's ability to, at the very least, produce a finished product that will actually look finished. I will continue to take some photos as things progress and I will come back and update this post.
Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it.
Thanks for filling in some of the holes for us Tyler. I fully anticipate that the house as an object will be great. I didn't provide any additional views or break down the design that will be going on inside the home or in the backyard/ side yard space. The point of this post was simply to get a dialog going on how this building relates to it's neighbors, and does the client and architect have some level of responsibility to the community. Since the interiors and back yard will not figure into the neighborhoods perception, based on the fact you won't perceive or interact with this house in any manner except for the vantage point of my photos, I didn't focus on them.
I might have been inaccurate in saying what I was describing: the rubble wall will be at the back of the cantilever – so that whole area will be visible from the street.
[...] surrounding environment and where one project will have an effect upon its neighbor. The blog post (http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/modern-house-friendly-neighbor/)) discusses a new house within an existing residential neighborhood and raises the great question; [...]
I’m not an architect, but here is my 2 cents.
This should have never been built. But, this is an absolute reflection of our “look at me, I’m better then you are” society. Not only are the owners into this, but the architect is too. Someone made mention of having the need for complete freedom. I guess having a total disregard for everything else besides what you want is freedom. This building overpowers everything around it. It is oppressive and demanding. It lacks anything of human warmth, dignity, and comfort. It is an obstacle to be avoided. But, architects have a long history of serving a client at the expense of everyone else. Once the new wears off this structure, it will become ugly and even more oppressing, and depressing. and the owners will leave it for a more pleasant home.
I used to think an architect was a master of arts of sorts. I’ve learned that most are just salesmen, and the product is ego. The building is just a byproduct.