Custom Residential Architects Network

In response to Modern verses Traditional, I have written exhaustively on this topic (I will spare you the long windedness, but soon I will have a blog that talks more about this).  What I conclude is that it all comes down to personal preference.  In other words, there is no moral imperative to deliver traditional (as they teach at University of Notre Dame) or the current Neo-Modernism  being postulated in many of the architecture schools.  What matters most is whether it is "good" or not, and "good" can be a bit subjective. 

 I will go on to say that the modernism verses traditionalism is not new.  We were having this debate over a hundred years ago when Beaux Arts Classicism was chosen to be the "unifying Style" at 1893 the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago.  Louis Sullivan, a progressive (they didn't call themselves modernists back then) kicked and screamed claiming the course of architecture has been set back 150 years!  Yet today we look fondly on stylish, but imitative works such as New York's Flat Iron Building and Chicago' Wrigley Building. 

 Modernism had a second chance to prevail after World War II.  While it caught on a bit in progressive California (where it was appropriate) , the masses still wanted something that "looked like a house".  So, instead we got homes with ranch styled proportions and roof lines, yet with punched windows and shudders and others stylistic motifs applied to them.

 Post-Modernism (which I feel is another phase of modernism) ushered in a new respect for traditional/stylistic architecture, as can be seen by the likes of architects like Robert A.M. Stern.  But Modernism came back, and now it's Neo-Modernism - more dynamic, less static and predictable.  And we have people justifying their stylistic preference for neo-modernism, saying it is the true expression of the age, using current technologies and such.  In reality most of these homes are stick built (late 1800's construction technology) and, from a stylistic standpoint, could have been built in the 20's (Schindler) or 30's-50's (Usonian)

 My point is....architects need to quit justifying modernism or traditionalism as a moral imperative, but realize it comes down to personal preference and taste.  It's kind of like trying to argue which is better, Classical music or Jazz (forget Rock and Country)

 You design moderns houses because you (and your clients) like modernism.  You design traditional houses because you (and your clients) like traditional styles.  OR, you can relax and go in between (transitional) as Mr. Dickenson has pointed out because there is a preference for something that looks like house, yet has an open plan.  There is nothing wrong or morally right about which stylistic vein you choose, so long as it is good.

 

Which gets me to the current issue of the latest RA issue, which I will write about tomorrow. 

-------------------------------------------


Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------

Ed,

I'll have to disagree. Perhaps your argument stands up for the narrow market of "Custom Residential", but I'd say no when considered for the wider housing market. The vast majority of houses offered in the market are traditional, they are not "good", at best they are "phony", and I'd say there are great moral implications to their artifice. Good traditional Custom design may not be moral, but pervasive bad traditional design certainly is amoral.

Beyond the superficial trappings of Modern Style, my experience with customers seeking a modern house is that to them it represents a lifestyle, one of simplicity, cleanness, about living in the present, the here and now. People seek out a modern house because it represents there values, not because it is their favorite style. This is a much different crowd than the clients of custom architects who build elaborate modern houses, the kind that get published in magazines and win awards to the chagrin of traditional designers. Rather these are people frustrated by the impossibility of the average consumer finding a modern house offered on the market, the consumer who will spend a few thousand on house plans. There is a moral clarity to their desire here.

Contrast that to the vast majority of consumers who buy schlocky traditional houses in the wider housing market. They have no discretion over what their house "means" architecturally. They may be concerned about how big it is, about what that says about how successful they are, etc. But they have little concern about what it means that their house is a blatant artificial construct, that its wood siding is plastic, that its traditional trim is foam, that the adornment of the front facade ends at each corner leaving the other 3 sides unadorned and completely void of detail. The fact that these same people strive to own the latest and greatest cell phone, or laptop, the most highly featured technologically driven automobile, yet these same consumers have been conditioned to seek out none of this in their homes. Instead they've been conditioned to accept a schlocky surface treatment of traditional trappings that makes some weak allusion to grand manors of wealth from history. They've been conditioned to accept a lie.

So I say that this pervasive conditioning has greatly contributed to a wide breakdown in moral discretion among American people. They are completely trained to accept this "Lie", to not even see this as a lie - in fact I'd gladly wager that many of you architects reading this right now are probably rationalizing "well, that's not really a lie...". Some of you will probably post to that affect right here (don't expect me to bother to respond). As a people we have been widely desensitized to this lie, to this artifice, and it creates a murky moral playing ground where other moral questions become easier and easier to rationalize away from the truth, and from what is right. Maybe these houses, these lousy Lies, did not cause our murky morals, perhaps they are just a symptom. Its hard to say.

After all, if that house I live in, that big vinyl sided box with foam trim and wood grained plastic siding, if that is something "good" and "desirable", then by george, anything might be true - whatever you tell me so, or whatever the crowd seems to think. Maybe there is no global warming. And oil will continue to flow like milk and honey. And sure, those bad guys must have been making WMDs. And those invasive searches at our airports are making travel safer. And you, no, you don't need an income check for this jumbo mortgage. And maybe I'll package those lousy mortgages and sell them off to investors at AAA. And gee, the Fed just bailed out my industry - good, well done, cut the checks for those bonus's. Honey, get the architect on the phone, we're ready to pour the footings on my craftsman shore house.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Greg,

(my cyber friend), when I first scanned your post first I almost threw up on my shoes... but then, I decided to read it a third time and have to admit it made allot of sense. When one excludes "the narrow market of Custom Residential" (btw, that is what this CRAN board is representing! :^), you have some strong arguments, truly.  I do think that some of the same commercial "follow me" arguments could be made about some aspects of modernity. But as some level we are simply buying art; some can afford and desire a Norman Rockwell, others desire it and can only afford to to use magnets to attach a cover The Saturday Evening Post with a Norman Rockwell on their fridge. Most of our families were in the latter camp! The key is that in some ways the same message is conveyed through that art.  Modernity shares in the experience, and it used for better and worse, like my FLW tie, Graves teapot, Corbu glasses, etc.... I think this piggy backs on Eds comments that I also agree with.

That said, I would suggest you delete or amend the final paragraph, before it is edited by the moderators for entering the realm of politics. To me it is offensive, not based on fact, and some of the same whack job arguments can be made of the far left and far right. Either way, tying stupid followers to a particular political party seems to water down the essence of your argument.

Peace,

Dave the Dinosaur.

 

-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2012 08:07
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Ed,

I'll have to disagree. Perhaps your argument stands up for the narrow market of "Custom Residential", but I'd say no when considered for the wider housing market. The vast majority of houses offered in the market are traditional, they are not "good", at best they are "phony", and I'd say there are great moral implications to their artifice. Good traditional Custom design may not be moral, but pervasive bad traditional design certainly is amoral.

Beyond the superficial trappings of Modern Style, my experience with customers seeking a modern house is that to them it represents a lifestyle, one of simplicity, cleanness, about living in the present, the here and now. People seek out a modern house because it represents there values, not because it is their favorite style. This is a much different crowd than the clients of custom architects who build elaborate modern houses, the kind that get published in magazines and win awards to the chagrin of traditional designers. Rather these are people frustrated by the impossibility of the average consumer finding a modern house offered on the market, the consumer who will spend a few thousand on house plans. There is a moral clarity to their desire here.

Contrast that to the vast majority of consumers who buy schlocky traditional houses in the wider housing market. They have no discretion over what their house "means" architecturally. They may be concerned about how big it is, about what that says about how successful they are, etc. But they have little concern about what it means that their house is a blatant artificial construct, that its wood siding is plastic, that its traditional trim is foam, that the adornment of the front facade ends at each corner leaving the other 3 sides unadorned and completely void of detail. The fact that these same people strive to own the latest and greatest cell phone, or laptop, the most highly featured technologically driven automobile, yet these same consumers have been conditioned to seek out none of this in their homes. Instead they've been conditioned to accept a schlocky surface treatment of traditional trappings that makes some weak allusion to grand manors of wealth from history. They've been conditioned to accept a lie.

So I say that this pervasive conditioning has greatly contributed to a wide breakdown in moral discretion among American people. They are completely trained to accept this "Lie", to not even see this as a lie - in fact I'd gladly wager that many of you architects reading this right now are probably rationalizing "well, that's not really a lie...". Some of you will probably post to that affect right here (don't expect me to bother to respond). As a people we have been widely desensitized to this lie, to this artifice, and it creates a murky moral playing ground where other moral questions become easier and easier to rationalize away from the truth, and from what is right. Maybe these houses, these lousy Lies, did not cause our murky morals, perhaps they are just a symptom. Its hard to say.

After all, if that house I live in, that big vinyl sided box with foam trim and wood grained plastic siding, if that is something "good" and "desirable", then by george, anything might be true - whatever you tell me so, or whatever the crowd seems to think. Maybe there is no global warming. And oil will continue to flow like milk and honey. And sure, those bad guys must have been making WMDs. And those invasive searches at our airports are making travel safer. And you, no, you don't need an income check for this jumbo mortgage. And maybe I'll package those lousy mortgages and sell them off to investors at AAA. And gee, the Fed just bailed out my industry - good, well done, cut the checks for those bonus's. Honey, get the architect on the phone, we're ready to pour the footings on my craftsman shore house.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Greg - I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.  Please re-read the last sentence in my first paragraph.  I am not advocating phony, Pseudo-traditionalism in favor of good ol' "authentic" modernism.  I am simply saying that style is a preference, not a moral imperative (as many architecture schools are training their students to believe).  Good is what is what matters, not whether it is traditional or modern, "authentic" or revivalist.

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2012 09:20
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Greg,

(my cyber friend), when I first scanned your post first I almost threw up on my shoes... but then, I decided to read it a third time and have to admit it made allot of sense. When one excludes "the narrow market of Custom Residential" (btw, that is what this CRAN board is representing! :^), you have some strong arguments, truly.  I do think that some of the same commercial "follow me" arguments could be made about some aspects of modernity. But as some level we are simply buying art; some can afford and desire a Norman Rockwell, others desire it and can only afford to to use magnets to attach a cover The Saturday Evening Post with a Norman Rockwell on their fridge. Most of our families were in the latter camp! The key is that in some ways the same message is conveyed through that art.  Modernity shares in the experience, and it used for better and worse, like my FLW tie, Graves teapot, Corbu glasses, etc.... I think this piggy backs on Eds comments that I also agree with.

That said, I would suggest you delete or amend the final paragraph, before it is edited by the moderators for entering the realm of politics. To me it is offensive, not based on fact, and some of the same whack job arguments can be made of the far left and far right. Either way, tying stupid followers to a particular political party seems to water down the essence of your argument.

Peace,

Dave the Dinosaur.

 

-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------

Ed,


I don't think you are advocating Phony Pseudo-traditionalism. I'm just saying that is the reality of residential design.


However I do disagree with your assertion that style is not a moral imperative. I think style is clearly a moral imperative. I don't think you can broadly say traditional bad, modern good. But I do think that I can say with strong confidence that in the full spectrum of the housing market the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects.


That said though even though some of the best traditional design work avoids the worst fallacies of the examples I cited, there is still a basic premise of working in a historic style today that is founded on artifice. And just to keep the criticism level, there is an equal vein of artifice in custom modern design as well, it just happens to be centered on other concepts.


I don't fault either of those situations - artifice and imagination become a fuzzy line when you have the latitude to design in that arena. But this in no way negates the fact that style choices in the larger residential market have a strong moral imperative. For most homebuyers, if you are buying a status quo traditional house, you've not thought very hard about what your house looks like, or why, or whether or not there are any implications to your buy-in to the thinking that produced it. Its a moral vacuum.


David, 


My apologies to your shoes. I have to stand by my last paragraph however, as it is not taking politcal parties into account - only well known current events where we as a people have clearly desensitized ourselves to truth and lying.


I know that CRAN is about Custom, and I've expressed my dissatisfaction with that self imposed limit before. Frankly I don't think architects can make much difference in housing by concentrating on the tiny percentage of the market that is custom design. You have to open your eyes, and see that the very problems you are complaining about are caused by architect's retreat from the other 97% of the houses that are built. So if you CRANers just want to twiddle your thumbs over the tiny percent of lucky people that get to hire you and build an expensive house, by all means, twiddle away in your irrelevance. Go nash your teeth over who is winning magazine awards and who is picked for juries - knock yourself out. Claiming style doesn't matter is just another side of the style war coin, and its a dead end that gets us nowhere.


But if you want to tackle questions and issues that are meaningful, and evidence to the country that architects should be designing more of these houses, then you can start by acknowledging that there is in fact something morally wrong with what is going on now, and nobody knows better than us how to turn it around.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

Greg,

I am thoroughly enjoying the discourse here on this topic and appreciate your posts. We need to continue this dialogue as it is very important and as you can see with David, Stuart and other contributors, a passionate agenda.

However, your recent comment "I don't really care if CRAN wants to stay shuttered away like this." is a bit of a hasty generalization. The dialogue you are having in this thread is with individuals and not a group, most importantly CRAN. Please understand that CRAN as a group is not engaging with you and you are assuming that all the members in CRAN are in alignment with the argument / comments you currently speaking against. CRAN's members all come from wide-ranging philosophical backgrounds and have practices that are rooted in many ideologies regarding design. Let's not assume that everyone in CRAN has the same viewpoint as that would be opinion-blind and exclusive in thought rather inclusive to the discourse that we are all enjoying in this thread. What I thoroughly revel in the most about being a part of CRAN is the inclusivity of all styles and of all residential practice models.

Looking forward to more discourse, thanks very much for you participation Greg.

Regards,

James





-------------------------------------------
James Walbridge AIA
Principal
Tekton Architecture
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 07:57
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

James,


Your point is well taken - I don't mean to generalize about the mindset of CRAN members. Rather, in David's response to me he generalized - CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. 


So I apologize for coming off as stereotyping you. My intention was to counter David's generalization with a similar generalization. 

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 09:39
From: James Walbridge
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Greg,

I am thoroughly enjoying the discourse here on this topic and appreciate your posts. We need to continue this dialogue as it is very important and as you can see with David, Stuart and other contributors, a passionate agenda.

However, your recent comment "I don't really care if CRAN wants to stay shuttered away like this." is a bit of a hasty generalization. The dialogue you are having in this thread is with individuals and not a group, most importantly CRAN. Please understand that CRAN as a group is not engaging with you and you are assuming that all the members in CRAN are in alignment with the argument / comments you currently speaking against. CRAN's members all come from wide-ranging philosophical backgrounds and have practices that are rooted in many ideologies regarding design. Let's not assume that everyone in CRAN has the same viewpoint as that would be opinion-blind and exclusive in thought rather inclusive to the discourse that we are all enjoying in this thread. What I thoroughly revel in the most about being a part of CRAN is the inclusivity of all styles and of all residential practice models.

Looking forward to more discourse, thanks very much for you participation Greg.

Regards,

James





-------------------------------------------
James Walbridge AIA
Principal
Tekton Architecture
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 07:57
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

Greg - Help me understand where you are coming from.

 

When I speak of having a moral imperative (which I once believed all architects did), I had a certain rational that was taught to me in graduate school.  I went to undergraduate school in the early eighties where we were taught that modernism had failed, for a number of reasons I won't go into.  But  when I got to graduate school in 1989, architects had woken up from the PoMo stupor and I was taught that architecture had to be an expression of its age, devoid of all historic/stylistic references, etc.  One professor even claimed:  "Style should not even be in your vocabulary!"

 

So, we were taught that the only appropriate architecture was that which was "modern" and expressed its age.  In other words, modernism is good, post-modernism is bad, Stylistic architecture is bad.

 

This is what I was taught and it's not something I beleive in.  What do you mean?  Are you saying something similar to what I was taught in graduate school?  Or do you mean something else?

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 07:57
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

Ed,


To answer you briefly - yes. The sentiment you express is an element of the way I am thinking about it, but not strictly.


To follow the thinking you cite strictly takes you to a place modern/contemporary design is the only design suitable for any given age/era. This is thinking about it prescriptively. This would seem to preclude working in any historic or traditional style, but that is not what I am advocating.


Rather I am thinking about it experientially. As I said in my prior post, this is not a comment about what could be, but about what IS. We experience what IS, and we all take away various things from it.


Building any historic or traditional style today will always have an element of artifice. I excuse modern works from this in as much as if they successfully deal with working in the hear and now, then they won't have these elements of artiface that is present in any traditional work built today. The key to my observations here is that artifice is not always equal to a lie - a moral failing. It certainly can be, but is not by default.


So in that context of observation, a well executed traditional design, one that shows understanding, and even mastery of the particular traditional language, will feel very "authentic", even overcoming the superficial artifice - the fact that it looks like an old house but was built today, the fact that components may look like old craftsmanship but are of contemporary materials. The design always involves discipline and competence.


But when it lacks this stature, when phony materials are used willfully, when the rules and order of traditional design are ignored, when there is no effort at all to suppress the superficiality of the application of style, then there is no authenticity, and the artifice is blatant and, yes, immoral. This is when it becomes a lie - Not because it is artificial, but when you treat it as the truth when you know it is not.


And as the public becomes conditioned to this kind contradiction, and accepts this kind of lie as truth and treats it as if it has value, then we find ourselves in a murky moral swamp where nobody knows what is good or bad, one that I think is contagious to other areas of our lives.

But I am not saying that there is anything inherently moral about one style and immoral about another. I am not prescribing, I am observing. I am saying that 1, there is much much more traditional housing than modern, especially outside of custom. And 2. that artifice is inherently a part of working in a traditional style, and so when done poorly is much more likely to stray into this moral abyss.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 14:16
From: Edward Shannon
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Greg - Help me understand where you are coming from.

 

When I speak of having a moral imperative (which I once believed all architects did), I had a certain rational that was taught to me in graduate school.  I went to undergraduate school in the early eighties where we were taught that modernism had failed, for a number of reasons I won't go into.  But  when I got to graduate school in 1989, architects had woken up from the PoMo stupor and I was taught that architecture had to be an expression of its age, devoid of all historic/stylistic references, etc.  One professor even claimed:  "Style should not even be in your vocabulary!"

 

So, we were taught that the only appropriate architecture was that which was "modern" and expressed its age.  In other words, modernism is good, post-modernism is bad, Stylistic architecture is bad.

 

This is what I was taught and it's not something I beleive in.  What do you mean?  Are you saying something similar to what I was taught in graduate school?  Or do you mean something else?

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 07:57
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

In 1980, a modern steel and glass box was added to Louis Sullivan's Farmer's and Merchant's Bank in Columbus, Wisconsin.  It could be said the the addition was a "non-building" , not meant to compete with Sullivan's jewel box.  Indeed, the addition could really be seen as a seperate building in itself.

In 2006 the addition was torn down and a more historic addition (building) put in its place. 

Follow the link below to see the photos.  Which building is more "authentic"?  Which building is does not mock or copy the historic buildings on the street?  Which seems more apporpriate in the historic downtown?  which building helps reinforce the fabric of the downtown?

http://tasphoto.blogspot.com/2011/02/historic-downtown-columbus-wi.html

Even though Mies van der Rohe is one of my heroes, I will take the new historic looking building over the old modernd one any day.

But,  more importantly, I like to ask what is apporpriate?  And, What is good?  Even Mies said he would rather be good than original.  I think it sometimes has to be a case-by-case basis.  which means there is no doctrine or moral imperative to build modern or declair the time in which something is built.

Now, that's not to say that a more modern looking infill could not fit appropriately in the town's fabric.  But, in this case, there is a consensus among both architects and residents that the "traditional " solution is a better fit.

Finally, I will add that most of the modern homes published, such as the ones in April RA magazine, are not modern, but Neo-modern.  Do they express the "current age" or the 1950's?   What makes them more "valid" than neo-traditional? - or an up-to-date baungalow or arts & crafts home? - or the "transitional" homes of the likes of Sarah Susanka and other architects?

Again, I search for what is good and what is apporpriate.  I value what is well crafted, humane, and quiet.  These qualites often transcend style.

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2012 09:47
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Ed,


To answer you briefly - yes. The sentiment you express is an element of the way I am thinking about it, but not strictly.


To follow the thinking you cite strictly takes you to a place modern/contemporary design is the only design suitable for any given age/era. This is thinking about it prescriptively. This would seem to preclude working in any historic or traditional style, but that is not what I am advocating.


Rather I am thinking about it experientially. As I said in my prior post, this is not a comment about what could be, but about what IS. We experience what IS, and we all take away various things from it.


Building any historic or traditional style today will always have an element of artifice. I excuse modern works from this in as much as if they successfully deal with working in the hear and now, then they won't have these elements of artiface that is present in any traditional work built today. The key to my observations here is that artifice is not always equal to a lie - a moral failing. It certainly can be, but is not by default.


So in that context of observation, a well executed traditional design, one that shows understanding, and even mastery of the particular traditional language, will feel very "authentic", even overcoming the superficial artifice - the fact that it looks like an old house but was built today, the fact that components may look like old craftsmanship but are of contemporary materials. The design always involves discipline and competence.


But when it lacks this stature, when phony materials are used willfully, when the rules and order of traditional design are ignored, when there is no effort at all to suppress the superficiality of the application of style, then there is no authenticity, and the artifice is blatant and, yes, immoral. This is when it becomes a lie - Not because it is artificial, but when you treat it as the truth when you know it is not.


And as the public becomes conditioned to this kind contradiction, and accepts this kind of lie as truth and treats it as if it has value, then we find ourselves in a murky moral swamp where nobody knows what is good or bad, one that I think is contagious to other areas of our lives.

But I am not saying that there is anything inherently moral about one style and immoral about another. I am not prescribing, I am observing. I am saying that 1, there is much much more traditional housing than modern, especially outside of custom. And 2. that artifice is inherently a part of working in a traditional style, and so when done poorly is much more likely to stray into this moral abyss.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 14:16
From: Edward Shannon
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Greg - Help me understand where you are coming from.

 

When I speak of having a moral imperative (which I once believed all architects did), I had a certain rational that was taught to me in graduate school.  I went to undergraduate school in the early eighties where we were taught that modernism had failed, for a number of reasons I won't go into.  But  when I got to graduate school in 1989, architects had woken up from the PoMo stupor and I was taught that architecture had to be an expression of its age, devoid of all historic/stylistic references, etc.  One professor even claimed:  "Style should not even be in your vocabulary!"

 

So, we were taught that the only appropriate architecture was that which was "modern" and expressed its age.  In other words, modernism is good, post-modernism is bad, Stylistic architecture is bad.

 

This is what I was taught and it's not something I beleive in.  What do you mean?  Are you saying something similar to what I was taught in graduate school?  Or do you mean something else?

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2012 07:57
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

David,

I'm not keep score on one style vs another. You claim you are not, and you counter my post with "Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional"?

The statement I responded to was Eds claim that style does not have a moral imperative. I'm just saying it does.

You can claim that modern and traditional in the lofty world of custom design shares some flaws, perhaps moral ones at that. But the situation is that there is very little modern to speak of in the wider housing industry, and traditional is simply pervasive. The moral failings of this rests squarely with traditional style. 

And you can blame demand instead of supply - another argument for another time. And you roll out one more time the futile argument of educating the public. Sure, when the public does not want what architects want to give, the public must be wrong - we need to educate them... A recipe for the marginalization of architects - Done. All I can say is relative to this discussion, its not about what should be, our could be - its about what IS. And what IS is lots of crappy traditional design on thin moral ground.

And you may feel, so what - that's not us - our custom design is not like that. Well good for you. This does not make the problem go away. And sheltering yourself away within the concerns of a custom practice certainly does not change anything happening in housing as a whole.

I don't really care if CRAN want's to stay shuttered away like this. But that's a different situation than speaking about issues as if what is true in your tiny little slice of the pie is true for the entire world. Ed's proposition that style does not engage with morals is simply not true. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend it is, well that's just another symptom of the condition I described. We are so willing to believe a fabrication, to live a lie, it barely bothers us when confronted with contrary facts. So long as we can build a world around us that jives with our own beliefs, the truth be damned.


(tough) Love, Greg

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 10:31
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


Greg,

Modern architecture has just as many flaws as traditional, perhaps you just don't see them. (I preface this be saying that I love most all variants of well designed architecture in the right content, no style bashing here!) That said, the experimentation in unproven technologies over the last 40 years since I have been following this, the self celebration of leed approved masterpieces that meet the phony criteria, but are a sustainable joke, and the amount of experimentation in style that becomes irrelevant to the broader market and loses resale value are true negatives to some modernism.  Again, most archetypes beyond an adobe hut are going to have positives and negatives. Your generalization that "the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects," is simply not totally true, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for my shoes, but we CRANers are exactly that, a small group us custom residential architects within the AIA. Why do you think we should change to be something more inclusive, the existing

AIA Housing Knowledge Community is exactly that, link here, http://network.aia.org/hkc/home/ 

Finally, whats morally wrong is in the demand side as much as the supply side. People want crap.  People haven't been taught to care about quality, longevity/resale, and sustainablity. These concept have nothing to do with style.  Arguing whether I should be listening to Beethoven or David Glass is irrelevant in my opinion,

Peace,

Dave

Gregory, when you count up the residences designed using a "traditional design style" do you count those not designed by architects? Do you count cookie-cutter builder-burgers? If we were to count only architect-designed custom homes, would you stand by the assertion that the majority of those designed in a traditional style are poorly designed in comparison to those designed in a modernist style?

What makes one style artificial and another "genuine"? If a majority of modernist-style design is done poorly next year, will it change from being genuine to artificial? How does the average or collective skill level of all designers using a given style have any bearing on a "moral imperative" when that skill level could change tomorrow?

In my experience, homebuyers think a great deal about the style of the house they choose and the style of the neighboring houses as well. That they don't make the same choice as design award juries doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on them nor on the styles they tend to choose.

I think a reasonable person can believe both assertions: that architects should be designing more of the homes that get built and that architectural style is morally neutral.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2012 09:25
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Ed,


I don't think you are advocating Phony Pseudo-traditionalism. I'm just saying that is the reality of residential design.


However I do disagree with your assertion that style is not a moral imperative. I think style is clearly a moral imperative. I don't think you can broadly say traditional bad, modern good. But I do think that I can say with strong confidence that in the full spectrum of the housing market the majority of traditional design is very bad, and the majority of modern design is at least decent, largely because there is so little of it, and its primarily done by thoughtful architects.


That said though even though some of the best traditional design work avoids the worst fallacies of the examples I cited, there is still a basic premise of working in a historic style today that is founded on artifice. And just to keep the criticism level, there is an equal vein of artifice in custom modern design as well, it just happens to be centered on other concepts.


I don't fault either of those situations - artifice and imagination become a fuzzy line when you have the latitude to design in that arena. But this in no way negates the fact that style choices in the larger residential market have a strong moral imperative. For most homebuyers, if you are buying a status quo traditional house, you've not thought very hard about what your house looks like, or why, or whether or not there are any implications to your buy-in to the thinking that produced it. Its a moral vacuum.


David, 


My apologies to your shoes. I have to stand by my last paragraph however, as it is not taking politcal parties into account - only well known current events where we as a people have clearly desensitized ourselves to truth and lying.


I know that CRAN is about Custom, and I've expressed my dissatisfaction with that self imposed limit before. Frankly I don't think architects can make much difference in housing by concentrating on the tiny percentage of the market that is custom design. You have to open your eyes, and see that the very problems you are complaining about are caused by architect's retreat from the other 97% of the houses that are built. So if you CRANers just want to twiddle your thumbs over the tiny percent of lucky people that get to hire you and build an expensive house, by all means, twiddle away in your irrelevance. Go nash your teeth over who is winning magazine awards and who is picked for juries - knock yourself out. Claiming style doesn't matter is just another side of the style war coin, and its a dead end that gets us nowhere.


But if you want to tackle questions and issues that are meaningful, and evidence to the country that architects should be designing more of these houses, then you can start by acknowledging that there is in fact something morally wrong with what is going on now, and nobody knows better than us how to turn it around.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Ok guys I guess I will throw myself into the fire.  On Monday when I read David's comments about Res Arch Mag and the current awards, Vitruvius (read DaVinci he corrected the "Man"), and Duo's CORA post, I was going to write that I miss the days of heated debates : the controversial Architectural Record Houses (2011); David's fire and passion, and the traditional vs. modern issue. I said to myself: "geeze", things have mellowed a bit , and Duo loosing a commission for being too modern?, whats this world coming to.  I was even going to complain about Duo's : "tweener's", and just simply say give us "aesthetic moderates" a better name.  I believe he certainly hit on it, It's neither "Mod"  nor "Trad" but about context, clients, budgets, and throw in a bit of innovation and exploration.

Of course I got side tracked for a few days and nights and never wrote down these thoughts, and then today I caught up on the continued dialog and as I sit here sketching a proposed addition to a 1920's traditional house,
(yes I get them once in a while), I thought, well this is a pleasure, the existing home ( though not perfect ) has a simple wonderful scale, minimal trim, a frankly is quite sophisticated. So with my clients program in hand, I clearly understand  my goals, my limits, and my responsibilities.  Will I push it  a bit, for sure, the existing home lacks natural light and I would like to improve upon that for the new addition(s), (after all, Lou Kahn's books are sitting right behind me), but I will be very respectful of conditions this beautiful house imposes on me.

Why am I  mentioning this, ( when I should be drawing, the presentation is due Saturday ), well its just that when designing a new home I dwell for days, weeks, sleepless nights, searching for a direction, an idea, a spark, the thread that will weave together all that stuff,( you know: context, client, budget, innovation, throw in sustainability,and OK David, delight!).  Whenever I start a new home I take a deep breath, here we go again, another 2 years years married to my clients, I will nurture them, be their shrink, their accountant, their marriage councilor, maybe even watch their dog.  I will fight with the local ARB,DOB, DEC, and I so look forward to working with the contractors: crying, complaining, charging and charging.  We as architects take on a huge responsibility and liability, all with modest ( at best ) compensation. What do I ultimately get when the dust settles and the cork pops?, well usually new friends, and incredible satisfaction.  Satisfaction, not of getting published, but that I persevered, I held on, and my clients appreciated that I did and then thank me (us) ( I shouldn't forget about my wife and design partner ) for creating a wonderful home that enriches their life.

My wish is that regardless of stylistic preference, that we as a profession ( at least residential designers), do not give up the ship, take on that responsibility, be considerate of our environment, don't let the business and process wear us down, and endeavor to create " a home, the best home".  Lets leave the theory's, the debates to the Frampton's and Kriers' of this world, and I guess go back to sketching, thats what I am going to do.

A good evening to all.
SN





-------------------------------------------
Stuart Narofsky AIA
Principal/Architect
Narofsky Architecture
New York NY
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-02-2012 08:07
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!

Ed,

I'll have to disagree. Perhaps your argument stands up for the narrow market of "Custom Residential", but I'd say no when considered for the wider housing market. The vast majority of houses offered in the market are traditional, they are not "good", at best they are "phony", and I'd say there are great moral implications to their artifice. Good traditional Custom design may not be moral, but pervasive bad traditional design certainly is amoral.

Beyond the superficial trappings of Modern Style, my experience with customers seeking a modern house is that to them it represents a lifestyle, one of simplicity, cleanness, about living in the present, the here and now. People seek out a modern house because it represents there values, not because it is their favorite style. This is a much different crowd than the clients of custom architects who build elaborate modern houses, the kind that get published in magazines and win awards to the chagrin of traditional designers. Rather these are people frustrated by the impossibility of the average consumer finding a modern house offered on the market, the consumer who will spend a few thousand on house plans. There is a moral clarity to their desire here.

Contrast that to the vast majority of consumers who buy schlocky traditional houses in the wider housing market. They have no discretion over what their house "means" architecturally. They may be concerned about how big it is, about what that says about how successful they are, etc. But they have little concern about what it means that their house is a blatant artificial construct, that its wood siding is plastic, that its traditional trim is foam, that the adornment of the front facade ends at each corner leaving the other 3 sides unadorned and completely void of detail. The fact that these same people strive to own the latest and greatest cell phone, or laptop, the most highly featured technologically driven automobile, yet these same consumers have been conditioned to seek out none of this in their homes. Instead they've been conditioned to accept a schlocky surface treatment of traditional trappings that makes some weak allusion to grand manors of wealth from history. They've been conditioned to accept a lie.

So I say that this pervasive conditioning has greatly contributed to a wide breakdown in moral discretion among American people. They are completely trained to accept this "Lie", to not even see this as a lie - in fact I'd gladly wager that many of you architects reading this right now are probably rationalizing "well, that's not really a lie...". Some of you will probably post to that affect right here (don't expect me to bother to respond). As a people we have been widely desensitized to this lie, to this artifice, and it creates a murky moral playing ground where other moral questions become easier and easier to rationalize away from the truth, and from what is right. Maybe these houses, these lousy Lies, did not cause our murky morals, perhaps they are just a symptom. Its hard to say.

After all, if that house I live in, that big vinyl sided box with foam trim and wood grained plastic siding, if that is something "good" and "desirable", then by george, anything might be true - whatever you tell me so, or whatever the crowd seems to think. Maybe there is no global warming. And oil will continue to flow like milk and honey. And sure, those bad guys must have been making WMDs. And those invasive searches at our airports are making travel safer. And you, no, you don't need an income check for this jumbo mortgage. And maybe I'll package those lousy mortgages and sell them off to investors at AAA. And gee, the Fed just bailed out my industry - good, well done, cut the checks for those bonus's. Honey, get the architect on the phone, we're ready to pour the footings on my craftsman shore house.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

I agree with your perspective Edward; style preferences are just that; and architects can contribute value to the creative process, no matter what the customer's style preference is.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------

A provocative modern sculpture with endless hours of craftsmanship...

Beauty aside, the resale value is pretty poignant.
 
Link HERE


-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------

That house was just disturbing. ------------------------------------------- Ricardo Ramos LEED® AP, CSI Alpha Analysis, Inc. Arcadia CA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 05-10-2012 11:53 From: David Andreozzi Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years! A provocative modern sculpture with endless hours of craftsmanship... Beauty aside, the resale value is pretty poignant. http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-985-4388781/3331-erie-ave-cincinnati-oh-45208?campaign=listhub&refcode=SIRzillow ------------------------------------------- David Andreozzi AIA Andreozzi Architects Barrington RI -------------------------------------------

As a local resident I would like to provide some context for this project. I am not defending it but thought it would be of interest to have some background on the project. The Architect,Terry Brown, was a past Venturi Rauch employee/architecture professor/Bruce Goff fan and was known for his idiosyncratic 'Goffian' like constructions around town. Terry designed the building which served as his personal residence/office and used much University of Cincinnati students for the labor to accomplish his goals. Regrettably Terry Brown, the architect, passed away about five years ago at a rather young age (in his 40's) and the house/office has acquired infamous mythical status around town and has gone through numerous efforts to sell. Some people love it many hate it. Anyway just a little piece of Cincinnati history.


-------------------------------------------
John Isch AIA
RWA Architects, Inc.
Cincinnati OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-11-2012 02:05
From: Ricardo Ramos
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


That house was just disturbing.
-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------

Not my cup of tea, but I guess if someone else wanted to live in a Dr. Seuss type of house...

-------------------------------------------
Rand Soellner AIA
Architect/Owner/Principal
Rand Soellner Architect
Cashiers NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-11-2012 02:05
From: Ricardo Ramos
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!


That house was just disturbing.
-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------

I ran across this link today: http://www.andersenwindows.com/A-Series/style-library/index.html and slapped my forehead with the lack of "style" in this "style library". If this were reflective of how most architects treat residential "styles" (and I don't think it is), then I could understand the desire to leave all of them behind and start over. However, every architectural vocabulary or unifying aesthetic will resonate in some part of human memory for good or for ill. Even a sterile environment evokes some emotion. So I think the issue is inescapable.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------

Another link on this subject that caught my attention: The George Mastumoto Prize - Recognizing Excellence in North Carolina Modernist Residential Design (http://www.trianglemodernisthouses.com/prize.htm). I have to give them many points for being direct; there's no pretense of being style-blind here.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------