This makes me think of my ex-boyfriend, who was in school for construction engineering. The engineers HATED architects because they thought they didn't know anything about (or didn't pay attention to) practical issues when designing buildings, and left all the real decisions to the engineers. It always struck me that it was a weird division of labor--why couldn't there be someone halfway between an architect and an engineer who thought about both how something looks and whether it can be built in a structurally sound way?

Jenny — if one is a good architect (or good anything) one addresses all of the issues (or attempts to). I'm always leary of broad generalizations...

Aaron--you're right, I should have clarified, I think my ex-boyfriend and his engineer buddies were totally overgeneralizing (and also de-valuing design).

However, the person who decided to put in a huge door with no weatherstripping, as discussed in that story, was not being a good architect (or good anything)!

agreed!

I read Mr. Dominey's account of his visit to the house. And I can understand his surprise and disappointment. However, my initial reaction is, wake up! Dwell Magazine for all its minimalist, modernist, and design purist fantasies, is nevertheless part of the corporate media and obviously is not above manufacturing something in tune with its editorial direction when it can't or is too lazy to find something on its own.

My (engineer) father always liked to note that he could sign off on architectural drawings, but an architect couldn't sign off on his engineering drawings (for purposes of permitting and similiar I would suppose).

Having worked for both engineering firms and architectural firms (in a marketing capacity), the two professions are more similar in many ways than professionals in either field might like to admit. ;)

Sad to say, the editor who wrote the Fruitbowl Manifesto, Karrie Jacobs, left Dwell years ago because it was becoming too fluffy and shopping catalogueish. The editor who replaced her, Allison Arieff, then left more recently, for the exact same reason, only obviously more so. I let my own subscription lapse a long long time ago, and I don't regret it.

Dwell was a good magazine for about, oh, a year. Now they have "experts" reviewing digital cameras for god's sake. Which is about as useful and welcome as architectural criticism from Popular Photography.

Didn't also a fair amount of time pass between feature and visit? Can some of what he describes also be written off to just bad aging of something not-so-perfected in the first place?

I also think the realtor who shows it in such condition is right up (?) there with the architect on this one...

Hi ATers, this is Sam the current editor of Dwell.

I can't really speak for the house in question, I never saw it in person. I did go back to revisit the article and I can assure you that there wasn't any photoshopping, or "manufacturing", and styling was probably limited to just tidying things up a bit (which the owners usually do before we arrive... wouldn't you if there was a photo shoot at your house?).

The issue in question is from September 2003, so four years that have elapsed in the meantime. It's a little out of line to hold us accountable for how a project ages, or how a real estate agent decides to present it.

As for the other grumblings about Dwell, I invite you to pick up a May 2007 issue, and hope that we'll change your mind. If not, we're always looking for ways to improve, so send us your thoughts at letters@dwell.com

As a an avid and longtime reader of AT, I have to chime in. This post only reminds me of how little fact checking is done by blogs. You see, I'm not only the co-designer (along with M. Scott Ball) of the house in question, but I was also the homeowner and the person standing in the doorway above.

While our friend Todd Dominey has every right to make comments about the house, I would invite him to go back and read the September 2003 issue of Dwell before he makes uninformed assumptions about the designs original intent or casts dispersions at the staff of Dwell (fyi, Jeannette Hodge-Abbink was the creative director at the time, and on site for the entire shoot).

As our GC on the project was the Community Housing Resource Center in Atlanta (chrcatlanta.org), there were limitations on what was to be finished out, and what was to be subcontracted. If Mr. Dominey were to read the article, he would be reminded that the house was designed and built in phases as a case study on sustainable, cost effective design. $32 per square foot doesn't allow for a ton of 'polish'. The plan was to do the bare minimum of construction and finish work, allowing me to secure a certificate of occupancy and move in. Then, the house would be finished as my budget and time allowed. If Mr. Dominey had done his research, he would have realized that the only subcontractors on the entire house were Electrical, Plumbing and Concrete/foundation. Every other OUNCE of work done was done by myself, CHRC staff, or our beloved interns from the Design/Build Studio at Southern Tech.

With regards to the exterior opening wall, after several iterations of front elevations, it didn't fit quite as we had hoped. It is in fact, two SIPs scissored together by hand on site. Structurally Insulated Panels weren't made to do that. Sorry they weren't snug, Todd. So when it came time to actually live in the house, I went to Home Depot and bought off the rack pipe insulation. The "gray, sponge-like, and in long strands" material he saw that "upon inspection, it appeared to be some type of insulation you'd pick up at a place like Home Depot" was truly that. Very astute of Mr. Dominey to recognize it as such.

I personally apologize to Dominey for not being a better at setting tile. I regret that the light fixture I fabricated and he referred to as having "a paper cup for a shade" (it was a plastic cup, thank you very much) wasn't to his liking. But believe it or not, Dwell once -and dare I say they seem to have found their way out of the dark- cared about design on a budget. Handmade light fixtures, "misaligned windows" and railing made from electrical conduit (sorry Todd, city permits didn't require me to remove the barcode) allowed me to close on a 2000 sf house with a 1000 sf basement 5 miles from downtown Atlanta for approx $100k in construction cost.

Am I taking this a bit personally? Sure. I would say Dominey's comments border on careless. Has he spoken to M. Scott Ball or myself? Did he reach out to Dwell? Was Dominey there the day of the shoot? Does he know that in 2003 Dwell went out of their way to use photographers that did not specialize in architecture so they could avoid the 'design mag' look? Does he know that Mark Steinmetz is renowned for black and white fine art portraits? This was by no means over-stylized Architectural Digest tripe.

How about that writer Donovan Finn and I are old friends and we stumbled upon some good luck to get the story in Dwell to begin with? Does he really know what went down the day of the shoot? I was asked to call 2 friends over during the middle of the day to add 'life'. They made me clean the house. Abbink bought a Twister mat. And oh yeah, I had to cut the grass and put the cat upstairs (he made the article of course).

How's that for 'corporate media'?

PS - The house sold today. Thanks, Todd.

I got the impression from the article that he was making a statement about on-paper image and on-site reality, not attacking the general precision or expertise of the construction.

And he *is* entitled to his opinion about how one varied from the other... (and I think your point about "art photographers" supports Todd's points, not really yours.)

And I'm sorry, noble original cause or not, experimental project or not, high budget or low, a front door (or "elevation") that relies on pipe insulation from Home Depot to complete its function, doesn't make a great impression, however you look at it. And I'm not entirely sure why you maintain that detail as some sort of badge of honor or integrity, especially following the phrase "when it came time to live in the house." Again, I think that statement supports Todd's arguments more than you probably intended.

And maybe code didn't require you to remove the barcodes, perhaps, but c'mon, man... leaving them on isn't as much a design statement as it is just plain lazy. Or at least gives that impression.

I got the impression from the article that he was mainly making a statement about on-paper image and on-site reality, not attacking the general precision or expertise of the construction.

And he *is* entitled to his opinion about how one varied from the other... (and I think your point about "art photographers" supports Todd's points, not really yours.)

And I'm sorry, noble original cause or not, experimental project or not, high budget or low, a front door (or "elevation") that relies on pipe insulation from Home Depot to complete its function, doesn't make a great impression, however you look at it. And I'm not entirely sure why you maintain that detail as some sort of badge of honor or integrity, especially following the phrase "when it came time to live in the house." Again, I think that statement supports Todd's arguments more than you probably intended.

And maybe code didn't require you to remove the barcodes, perhaps, but c'mon, man... leaving them on isn't as much a design statement as it is just plain lazy. Or at least gives that impression.

Todd went to the home expecting to see the standard of experience that Dwell packages monthly. And he didn't see it. Then he wondered what accounted for the disconnect.

How is that irresponsible or factually unchecked?

oops, double post. sorry.

Point taken, Patrick. I was highly involved with the project, and even 2 owners removed, as I said, I took it a bit personally.

You're right. Low budget, on-site reality sometimes means amateur work. My issue is with the fact the house was never intended to be a magazine-worthy show place, but rather a project that was intended to be grown into and I believe the accompanying article supported that.

I blew a lot of hot air simply trying to say that the house and the shoot were not styled. If Dwell chose not to print pictures of less than stellar work, I would call that smart editiing.

Apologies for sounding too hot headed.

I would agree it seems more a matter of smart editing than one of deceptive styling.

Interesting dialogue, though. And passion about ANYTHING that one does or loves is ALWAYS good, so thanks for bringing that to the table!

Dwell seemed to jump the shark/derail/lose focus/turn over the fruit bowl when they ran the article about the seemingly normal guy who built a house in (if I recall) L.A. You know the one -- it was a whole city block.

Quickly thereafter it turned into a shopping catalog, and the articles started being less about interesting design and more about multi-million dollar remodels; it always seemed like the editors thought articles would be improved with just! more! exclamation! marks! ("and look at the view!").

Some of the owner's interviews also got to be a little much("well, at our other house in... which one was it... oh... Prague!") -- it started to seem like the only thing left to say was how they were working so hard to improve the environment by buying their fourth Prius.

It seems a little disingenious now to ask readers to have faith and come back again. I just flipped through the latest issue on the newsstand, and I can say unless I was in the market for spiffy new appliance porn, there's nothing in there anymore that's appealing.

Most of the interesting reading has moved online in any event -- apartmenttherapy, LiveModern, etc.

I admit it, I have a weakness for good furniture/design porn. So, I subscribe to Dwell and pour through the even more pornographic interior pubs.

Yes, Dwell evolved off message into slicker, more rarified spaces any number of times and periodically pulls back again. And the expert/editor camera-type review features are oddly misplaced and shallow. But you really can't disparage the publication for the advertising content it attracts and runs.

Dwell presumably has an attractive subscriber base of design junkies like me who probably have more in common with the readers of Veranda and HG than the editoral staff of Dwell would care to acknowledge away from their ad trade demographic sheet.

Dwell is just another commercially-driven publication. It's not another Whole Earth Catalog for a new generation. Give 'em a break. The spiffy appliance porn is just that.

Thanks for the dialogue, everyone. When I posted this, it was a "this is interesting" kind of spur-of-the-moment thing. Imagine my surprise when Dwell's EIC and an architect of the home in question responded!