apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

everyone who commented on the article was a pretentious dick. architecture does not exist to remain static, or remain untouched or unaltered forever. architecture (especially residential) should have a life of its own, as its inhabitants see fit. the commenters are placing their own values (and name-recognition) above the needs of a family who need more space in their home.

I agree, it's her home, and she has the right to do whatever she wants. Form follows function.

I disagree.

These are rare and historic homes which are incidentally in high demand - if she wanted to have a McMansion, she could have easily sold the house to someone who would have appreciated it more and moved elsewhere.

she bought the home, right? she owns it? well then...she can do whatever she wants with it. if other people want these homes to remain untouched then THEY can purchase them and keep them that way.

I think it is entirely within her right to modify the home that she owns. If the neighbors are outraged at the approved plans, then they should take active steps and work with the town to make it very difficult to add onto these historic homes, and only allow additions that are in keeping with the style of the house.

But since none of those hurdles were in place, she is free to do what she wants.

I know that in my neighborhood, if I want to add a simple garage, I would need the approval of every neighbor in a certain radius. A rule as simple as that would help prevent this from happening again.

As for selling the house and buying a McMansion- it isnt that simple. The first rule in real estate is location, location, location so a lot of times the dirt a house rests on is more valuable/more important than the building on top.

With that said I had a chance to look at the photos and those houses look amazing! I love all of the glass!

would you feel that a Frank Lloyd Wright house should be added on to? I think that historic homes should remaim as intact as possible. There are plenty of homes out there with no pedigree that you can add on to change any way you see fit. The problem I see is that a lot of modern historic homes are not held in the same esteem as older homes.
There are a lot of rules and regulations out there to prevent home owners and land owners building or doing things to their property or land that will negatively impact future generations, sometimes people CAN'T just do what they want to what they own.

remaim= remain- when are we going to get an edit button?

If the neighbors don't want something like this to happen again, then they need to get a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone enacted. Till that gets done, then tough tacos.

I grew up literally a few blocks away from these homes, and it's very disappointing to me that the home will be changed. There are only so many Eichler homes period, and the architecture is distinctive of mid-century modern design. Yes, in general I think people should be able to do as they want with their homes. However, in a case in which the buyer is buying something with historical value, you would hope they were going to respect it - laws in place or not.

Count me among those who find historic preservationists annoying beyond all belief. It's fundamental premise that something older/original is somehow better than new is really baffling to me. DC was going to tear down a Mies vanderRohe Library this year, and I love me some Mies, but please, YAWN, I wa sinterested in what would replace it. (I know the issue is more complicated for public buildings). When one person tries to dictate how someone else uses THREIR OWN property, especially for the sole, subjective reason of aesthetics, I get uncomfortable (and mad!). Let the guy put up a tract home or a McMansion for all I care. There's no inherent protections against tackiness (however one person or group of people might define that).

All the "private property rights" people forget that the people surrounding the private property have rights, too. A poorly-conceived addition or a stucco McMansion in the middle of an Eichler tract or a Craftsman neighborhood, for example, destroys the surrounding property values. I use this argument because you "It's mine, mine, mine and screw everyone else" folks would rather be boiled alive than consider issues like history, culture, aesthetics or community values.

So let's just talk money. What if she wanted to open a pizza joint in her living room? Or a beauty parlor? Or a cocktail lounge? (Don't scoff, I've seen all of them.) It IS her property, after all. She may be legally entitled to do so, but it's still not a great idea for her neighbors, especially when they want to sell their house (hopefully before the "Grand Opening" of the new cocktail lounge).

There's a way to do these things that balances everyone's rights and but it involves some compromise on all sides. It also involves recognizing that when one buys a home, one buys a place to live but also a location and a community.

"If the neighbors don't want something like this to happen again, then they need to get a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone enacted."

If you'd read the article, you'd see that many of the Eichler-owning neighbors are in the process of exactly just.

Agreed, and the best way for neighbors or a neighborhood to impose their beliefs on a given area is to impose rules that force communication between neighbors before they start adding on. Such guidelines put desires the neighborhood ahead of any single owner, which would make the neighbors perfectly happy.

You have to be careful not to slide down the slipperly slope that begins with historic preservation and ends with a sort of cultural fascism.

If you recognize that architecture, language, fashion -- i.e. culture -- is temporally dynamic, then you should accept the inevitability of change.

For example, our language is growing/ changing/ evolving... we don't use "thee and thou" anymore, or "dame"... or "gay" to mean happiness -- regardless of whether some like it or not.
- same goes for architecture.

The trick is to make the changes in an intelligent and thoughtful way.

Look at I.M. Pei's Pyramide du Louvre -- remember the old fogies didn't want anyone to add anything to the Louvre? Now they love it. In a hundred years it will be as integral to our notion of the Louvre as the old section is, if not already.

I agree and disagree. First, it looks at least from the outside, that the addition was designed to "fit" with the original. I think at least the owner deserves some credit for that.

Second, (however) I think she probably should have looked for another place rather than messed with her Eichler. One of the amazing things about Eichlers is their economy of space. If you enlarge it you are kind of missing the point.

Thirdly, I agree with the owner that going to the city is an inappropriate response, and that the neighbors should have discussed it with her first. We have neighbors that did something similar, and it cost us thousands of dollars. And we are still doing just what we want to our house. And now I hate them, and they're my neighbors! What did they have to gain from that?

It's unforunate, but it is her house and she is obviously in compliance with all of the local ordinances and regulations regarding the construction of this addition. I personally would not do this, but then again, what good is any house if it does not satisfy the needs of the owner? It's definitely a piece of history, but it's also a vessel for living as well. Besides, if/when she sells the house, the new owner always reserves the right to restore the house to its original state.

Take a chill pill, y'all.

mcquaidLA, actually it would not be legal for a homeowner to open up a cocktail lounge on her property - zoning provisions and all that.

I think a local architect should volunteer their services to add an architecturally compatible addition for this lady so everyone will be happy.

I think it's fine to add an edition to an historical home, as long as the architecture remains true to the original style of the home. If the next owner doesn't like it because it's not the original design, they can always demolish the addition.

^ There are 2 schools of thought on this -- one is to remain true to the original style, but the other is to (intelligently and thoughtfully) compliment the original style but not try to emulate it.

The problem when you try to emulate the original style is that you are trying to second guess what the original designer might have done, and this is a bit presumptuous and also (can be, sometimes) a bit disingenuous design-wise.

Like the analogy I made earlier with I.M. Pei's Pyramide du Louvre, you can make a successful addition by doing something original that thoughtfully compliments the original, without merely trying to copy it.

First of all, I read the article and in a way am very appalled as so many people it seems have no respect for anything in the MCM veign. Non whatsoever so they buy a great old modern home, do an extensive remodel to the point that the original house is no longer recognizable is just plain wrong.

I also agree that when one buys a piece of property, one has to consider the rest of the neighborhood and if one buys a historical home, such as an Eichler, at least do your homework before deciding on doing anything drastic like an addition. There is a house next to some friends of ours that was built in I think the late 60's and it recently sold, about a year ago or so and now it's got a second story added to it, totally obliterating the original single story house, however, it's in a cul-de-sac, but right on the corner where you enter and there are other 2 story homes in there too, now, I don't know how grand it'll end up being but to me, it never has made any sense to buy a small house and then promptly expand it into something it originally wasn't. In the end, if you do something too drastic in a neighborhood of similar type homes, you will not fit in and it will negatively affect the values of the surrounding property, which is why there are zoning boards for such reasons - to take into account other people's property values (hopefully) when someone decides to remodel or do an addition.

I am concerned that MCM homes and general architecture of the period may become an endangered species if we don't do something to preserve them in some manner.

But to say, it's my house, I can do with it I want, doesn't fly because what you do affects those around you.

'nuff said.

In addition to good form, shouldn't a structure have good function also? It should be the combination of these two qualities that lead to a great structure. It seems to me that this lady believes that a home should also be functional (and perhaps a home should be functional first, with form following second) and not just pretty (or "architecturally-correct") I think that she shouldn't be prohibited from adding on to her house, whether or not it's an Eichler, as long as she is within zoning & building codes and whatnot. I like the idea that someone should volunteer their services of designing an addition that is more in keeping with the Eichler aesthetic, since that's what everyone seems to be the most worried about (that she's turning it into a "not-Eichler"). If she needs an add-on, she needs an add-on, and obviously she's going to proceed with her plans. If you don't like the design of her add-on but can't keep her from doing it, be proactive and help her with the design instead of being reactive haters.

First of all...
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Is the Philistines Mantra!

The bottom line, is the Lady breaking any codes , laws, or anything of that nature. If not, Tell Mrs. Kravitz mind her own business. All this talk about chatting with your neighbors is just Silly.

If the house is not under some sort of Protection, it should be fair game to be remodeled. If a board exists and the people didn't attend the meetings, and so it goes.

I say be glad she is not wrapping it in vinyl siding.

The Guggenheim in NYC put a beautiful addition on a FLW building and it has Nothing to do with the original. That is why it works. (the inside interface is bad)

http://www.gwathmey-siegel.com/portfolio/proj_detail.php?job_id=198202

Since there was no historical designation in place before the renovation, then I think he/she should have the right to do whatever to her property, so long as it's approved by the City (ie, work is permitted, etc).

I do support the historical designation of houses and buildings to preserve these type of homes.

At the same time, I think it would be common courtesy to ask neighbors what they think before starting a major exterior reno, and take into consideration their thoughts/opinions. I live in a rowhouse community in Alexandria, VA that was built in 1954. Each person has does done some cute things to make his/her 950 square feet house his/her own, e.g., painted the brick exterior, landscaping. But this one guy recently moved in, added an addition, and changed the roofline of his house and replaced the existing shingles with those spanish clay tiles. Then he added greek/roman pillars, along with colonial window shutters. It was sooo ugly. I felt so sorry for the people who lived adjacent to this guy.

I think all of this talk about meeting with the neighbors is hogwash. What do you think is going to happen? Sure, they'll totally be cool with that Spanish stucco addition to the Eichler house since you gave them the common courtesy of getting their buy-in beforehand. Yeah, right!

Try flipping the tables... what if you found a nice buildable lot in a community full of tacky 1990's McMansions, and you wanted to build a flat-roof modern house in the Eichler style. Do you think your McMansion neighbors have the right to tell you that your house has to blend in with the neighborhood? Does this mean your neighbors should be able to force you to build a house with a pitched roof, stone facade, vinyl siding and plastic shutters and columns? It's your lot and your plans are in conformance with the local town and building codes. My response to the neighbors would be to simply "shove off."

It's his porperty but he has a responsability to maintain its artistic integrity. You might own a Picasso but you just can't modify it without some social repercussions. The Louvre analogy is not appropriate, it's not like this guy is making a case for the artistic value of his addition, he just wants an addition.

First a paintings primary function is aesthetic.

The primary function of the house is a living space.

Museums Modify paintings all the time.

People may get upset but if you own a picasso you may do what you want to it! If the right person messes with it, it may someday be worth even more money.

The ladies architect may be the worlds most famous architect in 20 years. That would make her house the Gem of the project!

if you want to see what happens when people try and update an eichler i can send you pictures of my granada hills neighborhood. from roman columns to rock being stuck on the exterior, it's right to be worried.

the eyesores i pass by everyday because someone decided to do something "different" are horrifying. and in the end, all our home values suffer until we pray a new owner will come in and restore it to it's original design and integrity.

until you live in a neighborhood that is "historic" in some way, you can't begin to know what the purists are talking about.