apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

This is the country that the majority always thinks that they will built smth better. History doesn't matter for the majority. And for them that will oppose to this idea, I have two words Penn Station in New York City. If the owners that have these modern pieces of architecture don't care enough about them to plan for their future, then all it's up for grabs. You get wealthy, nouveau riche, that don't care about anything else other than money, you get the results of macmansions being built on top of modern. So I think it is the responsibility of the owners to protect these treasures.

I grew up about 15 minutes away from the Farnsworth House. Some family friends live within a mile of the house and didn't even know it was there until I mentioned that I went to a book signing for a photo book that came out on the Farnsworth House recently. A glass house that looks cold, and probably is very cold in the winter, just doesn't have much of an appeal to very many people who live out there. People's priorities are different and in the ex-urbs they don't have much to do with minimalist architecture.

However, I believe it's preservation is important. There may be many houses that have copied it and they may be torn down to make room for something else but there is always an original. This house is arguably an original and it has the credentials so it should be looked at as a museum piece. It should also be kept in the same place because it wouldn't be the same if taken out of it's original context. In addition, that property will now be protected and it's one less area that can be developed!

It must be a shame to see some of these structures being torn down but would it be different if they were being rebuilt as similarly modern homes rather than McMansions? I would like to think that the original owners of these modern homes were innovative and forward thinkers who thought that they were pushing the envelope with their architecture. If these homes are giving way to McMansions then the philosophic ideals of the mid-century architect have no place here. The priorities are modern but in a different way. The priorities are on massive size, entertainment, amenities and everything that money can buy. The predecessor may have been very expensive as well but most likely practiced a "less is more" philosophy.

It seems that there should be a trust that can at least purchase these properties and move them, although I do understand that they were designed for the specific sites. Seems like they would cheap to move.

I'd give anything for one of these homes.

I'm a fan of historic buildings.

That said, when it comes to "stark unadorned style", good riddance as far as I'm concerned.

Blasphemy, I know. Oh well.

You're a fan of historic buildings, but you don't care about one *you* don't see the value of.

Figures. Your glass house always seems to be half empty.

Thats really close to being a personal attack, Patrick. Back off.

First off, I think the Farnsworth House is a masterpiece. BUT whether you like the style or not, I believe modern architecture is what's going to deliver us to a sustainable future. The current McMansions are not practical, nor sustainable in a world where gas is dwindling, the climate is changing and we're losing natural resources. Not to mention that the ways that we live and work are different than they were in the post war era, when a lot of historic homes were built. The economical use of space and light in classic modern structures will inform what our now traditional houses will eventually become. Bigger will not always be better, nor will granite countertops and crown molding rule the day. How our homes function and perform will become increasingly important and we need all the brilliant or twisted ideas that have been explored in the past to help boost us into the future.

An observation, boomer, not an attack.

I am greatly saddened by many people dissing modern architecture and at times for good reasons. Not all of them were well built, nor designed, like many homes today aren't. I've heard plenty of stories of homes today being so shoddily built that they are crumbling before our eyes by the year.

Several Condos built in the past 20 years or less have already had to have their siding replaced due to poor quality materials used as an example. Still, take a basic box with basic features, but give it a well thought out floor plan and ingenious design details and it will be functional and liveable. The same basic box and features, but with a poorly thought out and laid out plan will not be that liveable and that is the true essence of design IMO.

That said, The details in most mid century modern homes are not in crown moldings and such, but in the light fixtures, cabinet styles, tongue and groove beamed ceilings, cathedral ceilings, innovative dividers and other "out of the box" ideas/features are what make many of the MCM homes unique.

It's sad that so many people do not understand this and while updating these homes for today's technology and lifestyles, one can do so and retain it's original period charms, but sadly many don't and often turn these homes into a style they were never intended to be.

I've never understood the "Mcmansion" mentality anyhow.

I would love to see more mid century developments on par with Arapahoe Acres in Denver CO be preserved as part of a bygone era like many pre-war neighborhoods exist all over the country.

I would give my hind teeth to live on one cool, well thought out MCM home and preserve, yet update it where it counts for today's active lifestyle and technology.

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to MCM architecture, especially of residential homes is that not all of them will have basic 8Ft sheetrock ceilings, basic windows and cabinets, but many will have tongue and groove ceilings, vaulted or cathedral ceilings, unique cabinets and other unique features (true, often found in mid level and above homes) but even some of the more modest homes will have nice features and a good layout that make them liveable in their own right.

So while it's easy to diss this period of poorly built homes, I will wager that most were way better built than many homes today. I've been through many a newer home built within the past couple of decades and have noticed poor quality finishes and such that make what was considered cheap 50 years ago look like quality stuff in comparison.

There's something more than a touch silly to me to struggle to save a style that was all about letting go of the chains of yester-year to desperately preserve houses that are now considered impractical and unaesthetic.

I'm not so sure I grant their innate sustainability, either. I don't see energy savings or flexible designs for changing families in a lot of modern design. Plate glass is *pretty* - if you like it. If you don't, its not innately better than, oh, faux-Tuscan or whatever the in thing happens to be.

I wouldn't buy a modern home to knock it down. But I wouldn't deride someone else for doing so.

First off, I'd just die if something happened to Farnsworth house. I am planning on visiting someday and I think it's gorgeous and perfect.
That said, if you don't, you should look at it in more of an art way. It's art, just like a Picasso is a Picasso or a Monet is a Monet. You can love Picasso or hate him, but his art should never be destroyed purposely. This goes towards the whole debate on what is art and what is not, but it'd be a shame for people not to consider it worthy of preserving that conversation with the house. Plus I don't think a lot of people know the history it the Farnsworth house has with the famous architect and Edith Farnsworth. It's juicy and intriguing and adds to the house as much as Jefferson's house has its own history.

I think what some of you miss is the idea of proportion. You just look at all the white and the modern materials and think, wow, that's really stark. One of the most interesting things about modern and particularly Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's architecture is proportion. If it's truly well designed, it's about order and proportion. Mies van der Rohe's architecture and the Pantheon aren't that far apart if you look at it in those terms.
As for lesser-known architects and whether or not their houses are being torn down, it's hard to judge. Not every home can be historic or worth saving. And it's not just a matter of quality that should come into play. The Des Moines Art Center's building has serious problems with condensation in the Meier wing, designed by Richard Meier. The curators and other workers there hate it, and it puts the art at risk. But should they tear it down and start over because they have to use so much energy to regulate the conditions?

Boomer...have you been inside the glass house and its surrounding houses?

i was there for the opening gala ( my company was part sponsor) and let me tell you, it was not STARK at all.

it was modernism to a tee. amazing in its element.
definatly not "stark unadorned style"....

im not blasting you on this, but unless you have been there, pictures dont really tell the whole story.

bellaknollie: I have to agree with your sentiment. Many modernist homes must be physically experienced to truly appreciate them, because of their subtle uses of basic geometrics and negative space. It's easier to be won over by more ornate and traditional spaces because the ornamentation is in itself part of the appeal and experience, while a minimal structure's effect is determined by walking through the space itself and how it relates to adjoining walls, the lighting, windows, and the environment upon which the structure sits upon. Like internet dating, photos only capture a small percentage of the actual experience. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to make a date with a modernist home ;)

gregory:
hahahha internet dating..lol your funny.

i rather date a mid century chair than the bevy of photoshopped internet date ads i have seen ..* making goggley eyes are my risom chair*