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
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2012 10:39
From: Edward Shannon
Subject: Modern verses Traditional - arguing this for over 100 years!
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
-------------------------------------------