Housing and Community Development

  • 1.  RE:Record Houses 2011

    Posted 04-14-2011 07:22 AM
    Mr. Ludwig,
    I have to say, I agree that Record and other Architectural Media seem to be fascinated with housing that defies what most would consider a livable dwelling or the Arch Digests go to the other extreme of not recognizing our own time period, our place in history, as something that's important. After designing hundreds of homes, one recognizes that the "modern" homes the media is selling are wonderful sculptures, but rarely a functional space people would feel comfortable in. Yes, we Architects love to live in such dynamic, cold spaces, but the vast majority of people are more interested in function than a look, regardless of style taste. "Modern" design has often suffered because we forget about function while reinventing the home. Glass houses are cute and they made people like Johnson famous, but would you really live in one? How much land do you have to own to feel comfortable living in a fish bowl? These are wonderful theories, but practical nightmares. 

    Here's an example of bucking traditionalist brain dead ideas we all just accept for the look and replacing them with new, practical, dare I say modern moves. I do much of my work in the inner city areas of Atlanta and the lots tend to be narrow and the homes are old. No one uses a single hung window on the side of their house when less than 10ft away from their neighbor. This thermal hole always stays covered with curtains, the ventilator is at the bottom, and they sit in the middle of the wall making it useless. When I started using clerestory or transom windows on the sides as much as possible, the owners never covered them with curtains which provides more natural light for less window, the ventilator is up high where the heat rises, and you have a full wall for art, furnishings, etc. It's a modern look that still works with traditional styles too, yet improves several functional aspects of the building and it saves money.

    Many seem to be far more concerned with inventing the new design look everyone copies for the next 100 years than we are about how the client really lives in the space. The general public will not embrace modernism as long as it continues to carry the stereotypes of coldness and dysfunction. What we want and what regular people like is getting further apart. It's like we don't care about what the people want, so we innovate solutions for ourselves and a small handful of very wealthy, like minded individuals. We can restore our relevance as home designers and push the design bar if we start designing for the people and not ourselves. This isn't to say we submit to regurgitating the past, this is to say we start listening to and designing for the people. I always try to give them something they never realized they couldn't live without, but it's always about them, not me. Architecture is downgraded to sculpture when it doesn't serve it's function. A dysfunctional building will be renovated or destroyed, so timelessness must include function and not just beauty. It's the total package that matters if your Architecture stands the test of time.

    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Rawlings AIA
    Owner
    Rawlings Design, Inc.
    Decatur GA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message