Well, this is my first plan review post. Let me just say that I think this is going to be fun.
While it would be easy to just say, “Everything is crap unless it looks like it belongs on the cover of Architectural Record,” and gain the appreciation of the stereotypical AIA architect who is the product of this countries architecture schools, that would not be my honest opinion. Most of what ends up on the cover of AR is equally crapola, just of a different consistency. This, I think, makes me less than the ideal AIA member, but AIA member I am, nonetheless. Seems they will take money from just about anyone nowadays.
So, I have googled floor plans and this was the first house on the first site that came up. All in all, this is a relatively attractive home for what it is. If you step away from style for a minute, the elevation has a nice variety of single and 2-story facades, window sizes and materials. The garage doors are nicely tucked away to the side, and the patios add some interesting relief.
Unfortunately, this house won’t let you escape its attempt at style. Rule of thumb: either do it or don’t.You’re either sky diving or your not. If you just go half way, they call it falling. Middle of the road is just that and things that play in the middle of the road usually get run over. You have to either adopt a style and go with it, or don’t try at all. This house would fit very nicely in my parent’s suburban neighborhood. Now, before you get the wrong idea, I’m not an urban core at all costs, high density, minimal footprint and resource guy. In fact, I’m quite the opposite. I grew up in the suburbs, and get this, I LIKED IT! But that’s not my point. Society has somehow decided that attainable residential architecture is a mish mash of historical styles and details that are so disjointed as to make classification near impossible leaving only the appropriately descriptive neo-eclectic. The end result is a suburban fabric that is neither homogenous or eclectic and definitely NOT interesting. This is the reason for the term McMansion (a term that I did not create, but that I think is appropriate).
So what’s wrong with a large house on a green grass carpet that is close to its neighbor with clean sidewalks? Well, in my opinion, nothing. It’s the execution of the design that I don’t like. I want to see something that is a reflection of the owner who lives inside and the designer they (hopefully) hired. Something that is actually interesting, not only in it’s massing, but in it’s details. Something that doesn’t feel like it has to look like its neighbors. I have an architect friend who took his suburban house and remodeled it to look like something you would expect from an architect, and while it’s not my cup of tea, it is his and it makes his entire neighborhood more interesting by saying something about everyone ELSE who lives there. I love that neighborhood.
All of this has lead me to have a scary thought. That perhaps this kind of house actually does reflect the owner and the designer and that people aren’t really as interesting as I always thought they were. That perhaps those aren’t people living in there, they are actually McPeople! (disclaimer: I like McDonald’s (not a google ad but if it were, I’d bet it get clicked the most)
Loading ...
| design »
As a residential designer (not a registered architect), I appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, your last comment may be all too true - perhaps some of the bland designs do reflect the owner’s personality! However, I still believe there’s an incredible opportunity to create a series of sensible and unpretentious designs. I’m in the final stages of writing a book (to be published Dec 07) regarding the process individuals face when selecting and creating a home design. By the way, this is an interesting web site - keep up the good work!
I don’t necessarily think that the subdivision or tract homes reflect the people living in them. I just think, no, I know that Toll Brothers, Ryan Homes, Pulte, etc. spend more money and do a better job (obviously) at marketing their services and products to the mass public than the AIA does or any architect or architectural association. (More) Architects need to step up to the plate and become more engaged with the general public and typical homeowner (and not just the ultra wealthy) and educate them as to what good design is and that their house doesn’t nor should it look like everyone else’s. I believe if more people were given the option to live in a reasonably priced, better designed and better looking house in a sustainable community they would choose that over the rest of the junk that is being constructed today.
Glad to see more architects blogging.
Best!
Erinn,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, my professional experience has shown that “educating” clients doesn’t work. The come with their ideas of what they want. To try and sway them from that usually leads to lost clients (speaking from personal experience).
Engaging the general public also doesn’t do very much. We have a different cultural mindset in the US. For some proof, go to a furniture store and see what sells. The “average” person in the US has terrible taste. It’s just not culturally breed into us.
The AIA’s campaign has been absolutely laughable (and I’m a dues paying member–one that’s quite humiliated by their radio ads). Too much of it makes architects seem even more pretentious and snooty, which is the opposite of what we want .
I used to have the same hope that people would pick better if given the option. I no longer think that. Wal*Mart, McDonalds and the like are still far to popular. When people pick better than those, we might have hope again.
Yeah, the line about “take a 2×4″ to your problem was pretty good, but the ads generally did make me cringe every time I heard them.
And yes, blandness rules, but we do our best to de-blandify our client’s lives with thougthful design that doesn’t cost (too much) more.
Wish I had more time to think up and post something profound, but just give me some time, it’ll come.
Why ‘De-blandify’. Architecture is a service industry and residential clients come to architects believing that they have a certian expertise in the field of residential design. I do not think this is entirely untrue, as many clients have lived in houses their entire life. My question to you is why is this so upsetting? My house has a living room, your house probably has a living room. Nobody uses a living room, but because it is a traditional roomtype, the living room is still seen in new construction. The bottom line is: This is what people want, and call it bad taste, bad design, bad style, whatever; the architect’s job is to satisfy the client. Through out history, designers have tried tried not to be limited by this fact by writing theory books, paper architecture, theoritical architecture, competitions, etc, but the fact remains none the less.