Committee on Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Residential Knowledge Community .
-------------------------------------------
Thanks to everyone on the Forum for the thoughtful and supportive responses to my comments on Record Houses 2011.  I love to see the discussion carried forward and evolve into a sense of shared values and ideas in this community.  One comment that I read mentioned that we architects tend to prefer a style of home that often does not represent the styles our clients request.  In response, I wanted to share the story of my own personal home as an example of and contrast to the homes I design for my clients. 

So AR feels compelled to respond:
http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2011/1104.asp (in case you haven't already read it)

I take issue with the justification that the houses push the limits and boundaries of imagination and creativity--the very bounds of what is the concept of "house." I stand by my earlier comment that I see little imagination in the Record Houses--they seem to offer little improvement over houses shown on AR pages 30 years ago.

Where the true challenge of designing any building is to do so in the context of reality--gravity, weatherability, longevity, livibility. These are the challenges that test the architect. Do this AND make it beautiful, memorable, and exciting to the senses, and you have achieved greatness.

-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc.
President-Elect, AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter
Las Cruces NM
-------------------------------------------

The writer's point is well taken that sustainability issues should be taken appropriately into account, as a matter of course, along with all the other issues with which architecture is concerned. I would offer that AR Houses, while entertaining, are generally expensive stunts that offer little to advance a mature and informed balance of what architecture should be. The same, by and large, can also often be said of the contents of other issues of the picture-book professional press.

-------------------------------------------
Kenneth Moffett AIA
Bullock Smith & Partners
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2011 13:43
From: David Clarke
Subject: Record Houses 2011 - Reprise

So AR feels compelled to respond:
http://archrecord.construction.com/community/editorial/2011/1104.asp (in case you haven't already read it)

I take issue with the justification that the houses push the limits and boundaries of imagination and creativity--the very bounds of what is the concept of "house." I stand by my earlier comment that I see little imagination in the Record Houses--they seem to offer little improvement over houses shown on AR pages 30 years ago.

Where the true challenge of designing any building is to do so in the context of reality--gravity, weatherability, longevity, livibility. These are the challenges that test the architect. Do this AND make it beautiful, memorable, and exciting to the senses, and you have achieved greatness.

-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc.
President-Elect, AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter
Las Cruces NM
-------------------------------------------

I have to agree with the comment of "Stunts".  The Record House 2011  was so worthless I did the proper thing and recycled it.
-------------------------------------------
David DeFilippo AIA
Tsoi/Kobus Associates
Milton MA
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2011 08:26
From: Kenneth Moffett
Subject: Record Houses 2011 - Reprise

The writer's point is well taken that sustainability issues should be taken appropriately into account, as a matter of course, along with all the other issues with which architecture is concerned. I would offer that AR Houses, while entertaining, are generally expensive stunts that offer little to advance a mature and informed balance of what architecture should be. The same, by and large, can also often be said of the contents of other issues of the picture-book professional press.

-------------------------------------------
Kenneth Moffett AIA
Bullock Smith & Partners
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------

I personally believe that the Record Houses issue provides worthy aspirations for domestic architecture.    Many might 'violate' US building codes but that isn't the point.  They provide exciting, unconventional approaches to the concept of dwelling.  As a profession, we need these projects to challenge our sensibilities and preconceptions.  True, most are for the wealthy, but the design approach is what should be taken--there is light, delight, variety, interest and no end of material and formal invention.  These projects are all intricately bound with their sites and the design interventions are exceedlingly successful as a result.

I also don't think that the Record Houses issue is ever intended to be the 'last word' in domestic architecture.  One can easily peruse local bookstores and find no end in how publishers will print the quaint and cozy--which equally has its own merits and audience.  But architects should be at the front of the debate and that's why a series of evocative and challenging houses should make us take note and prepare for what clients might very well want in the future.

-------------------------------------------
David Saul AIA
Associate
Stantec, Inc.
Red Deer AB
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2011 10:21
From: David DeFilippo
Subject: Record Houses 2011 - Reprise

I have to agree with the comment of "Stunts".  The Record House 2011  was so worthless I did the proper thing and recycled it.
-------------------------------------------
David DeFilippo AIA
Tsoi/Kobus Associates
Milton MA
-------------------------------------------

David, Completely agree.

The clamor for mediocrity on the Committee on Design Forum is far more alarming that the work featured on the pages of Record.

The worn out argument that stylistic trends or neo historicism is somehow more appropriate or responsive to the client's needs is ridiculous. This is not the architects hedonistic will shoved down the throats of unwitting clientele, each of these project were commissioned by willing participants in the process, and obviously they all appreciate and enjoy the results.

There are some beautifully resolved and detailed houses in the article, why the hate? I will argue for the issues of safety in public buildings but to use that as a metric for the merits of design for a home is misplaced particularly when the issue was specifically addressed in the article and surely don't merit the outcry. Something else is afoot.

With all the issues that we as a profession face there more important issues that should be discussed rather than divisive irrelevent issues of style. Perhaps tearing down the Libeskin retreat on its 5o acres of isolation, and erecting a Victorian cottage would solve the issue of looming death and dismemberment and restore the public perception and value of architects...

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard+Bauer
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2011 11:05
From: David Saul
Subject: Record Houses 2011 - Reprise

I personally believe that the Record Houses issue provides worthy aspirations for domestic architecture.    Many might 'violate' US building codes but that isn't the point.  They provide exciting, unconventional approaches to the concept of dwelling.  As a profession, we need these projects to challenge our sensibilities and preconceptions.  True, most are for the wealthy, but the design approach is what should be taken--there is light, delight, variety, interest and no end of material and formal invention.  These projects are all intricately bound with their sites and the design interventions are exceedlingly successful as a result.

I also don't think that the Record Houses issue is ever intended to be the 'last word' in domestic architecture.  One can easily peruse local bookstores and find no end in how publishers will print the quaint and cozy--which equally has its own merits and audience.  But architects should be at the front of the debate and that's why a series of evocative and challenging houses should make us take note and prepare for what clients might very well want in the future.

-------------------------------------------
David Saul AIA
Associate
Stantec, Inc.
Red Deer AB
-------------------------------------------

Check out  AR page 24: "Taliesen celebrates 100 years'. Look at the 3 houses that were published the same year as Taliesen. I guarantee that Taliesen did not meet code (if there was one). How would this dialog have gone in 1911? 

-------------------------------------------
Alan Rudy AIA
Sole Proprietor
Alan Michael Rudy & Associates
Oakland CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2011 11:05
From: David Saul
Subject: Record Houses 2011 - Reprise

I personally believe that the Record Houses issue provides worthy aspirations for domestic architecture.    Many might 'violate' US building codes but that isn't the point.  They provide exciting, unconventional approaches to the concept of dwelling.  As a profession, we need these projects to challenge our sensibilities and preconceptions.  True, most are for the wealthy, but the design approach is what should be taken--there is light, delight, variety, interest and no end of material and formal invention.  These projects are all intricately bound with their sites and the design interventions are exceedlingly successful as a result.

I also don't think that the Record Houses issue is ever intended to be the 'last word' in domestic architecture.  One can easily peruse local bookstores and find no end in how publishers will print the quaint and cozy--which equally has its own merits and audience.  But architects should be at the front of the debate and that's why a series of evocative and challenging houses should make us take note and prepare for what clients might very well want in the future.

-------------------------------------------
David Saul AIA
Associate
Stantec, Inc.
Red Deer AB
-------------------------------------------