A fake is still a fake, no matter how well done. Millbrook is awash in genuine greek revivals, so why not restore one of those?

My guess would be for the ease and efficiency of living in new construction, versus living in a perennial project.

Plus things like wanting more modern room proportions, and modern energy-conserving materials, would make some one want to "go new" even if they respect the vernacular of the region (which they certainly seem to).

And resale.

Plus "genuine Greek revivial" is kinda funny to me, since "Greek revival" was basically a faux-style concept even when new...

djs - the article answers all your questions.

and Patrick is correct...even the original Greek Revival homes are "fakes"...that's kind of the idea...

this reminds me of all the very good reasons to make your decor work with your architecture. Going 100% MCM always strikes me as a little odd in a Victorian, for example.

I did not read the article so perhaps this owner has an excuse.

However, if you want modern room proportions etc then build a modern house, don't bastardize a tradtitional style. One can respect the vernacular tradtions of an area by creating something unique and site-specifi--rather than something that is just a phony.

For the amount of money spent to build a new home, the owner could easily have restored an existing home to be more energy efficient and to have all the modern do-dads. It is grossly wasteful to build a new "old" house rather than to restore an existing one.

Lastly, greek revival is a style that was genuine at the time--greek revival homes are hardly fake copies of ancient greek structures. This however is a fake greek revival.

Sorry for the typos above.

"greek revival homes are hardly fake copies of ancient greek structures"

Um, okay.

I personally don't consider this a bastardization, per se. And once again, I say "resale." People who live here (for the most part) want an idyllic house that fits in, and not necessarily, the statement of an architect who wants to flex his or her creative muscle.

It's all subjective, and I am not arguing, just engaging in a dialogue.

I didn't mean to sound argumentative. My apologies.

There is a very healthy (relatively speaking, that is) market in the Millbrook area for well-maintained and restored older homes. It is primarilly a second home market and city folk tend to want the "real thing" but without the headaches. I am quite certain that a thoughtfully renovated older home would find eager buyers. As for a modern home, that market may indeed be not as strong, but there is demand for interesting and well-done modern homes--especially in the second home market. So I think that "Resale" is an easy out that doesn't explain it.

I once lived in an original Greek revival home. I don't think we ever had more than one bathroom (out of four) working at any one time, the plumbing was so old and unreliable. The electricity went out at random because the wiring was circa 1920. Bricks were crumbling inside the chimney, creating a fire hazard.

I love old houses, but they're a HUGE amount of work. You almost have to gut it to make it function in the way we've come to expect in modern times. I can see why someone might want a new place.

I don't see why new historicism is any more inauthentic than old historicism. I think the issue is whether the architecture succeeds on its own terms. This house probably does, although I don't find the interiors very exciting. Maybe I just need a little Nathanael West to get me going.

And yes, old houses are a big pain in the neck.

100 is old?

Hah!

My GR was built c1839 and came complete with a cat skeleton in the basement. Good times. Good times.

I agree with djs on this.

It's a fake.

Part of what makes it objectionable is that someone without a degree in architectural history will not spot the anomalies, which makes it deceitful -- and let's be honest -- the deception is intentional.

This building *is* a bastardization of the style.

This building also says that current architecture has nothing worth saying; we'll just take the technical innovations, thanks.

The result of (usually) developers designing homes such as these is that our communities are being turned into Disneyland...

I feel strongly about this being a wrongheaded approach -- this was the topic of my Masters Thesis actually.

There are architects that work in contemporary interpretations of vernacular architecture, for example, Deborah Berke amongst others. Building homes such as this though, displaces the work of architects who are developing modern vernacular.

I did a lot of my thesis work in Prague, which is a particularly rich architectural resource, with many different historical styles sitting cheek-by-jowl. There, the revival styles get little respect, and are stylistically the weakest. The reason Prague has so much great architecture is precisely because they largely resisted revivalist styles. Instead of aping the surrounding Neo-Baroque, Art Nouveau and Beaux-Arts buildings surrounding the site, Czechs chose to embrace the present and a design by Frank Gehry, who designed a singularly perfect building -- Fred & Ginger.

The popularity of this house depresses me about the future of design in North America...

I think people should live in what they love...new...old...an amalgamation of the two. It's all good.

That's interesting. After reading the Times story I'm much more sympathetic to Mr. Schafer and his house. He couldn't afford what he wanted so he created it instead. Good for him.

I'm curious...not having a degree in architectural history and all...Schafer's an architect himself and obviously loves the genre. What's bastardized about the design?

Also, I think your interpretation of this kind of house is a bit overdetermined. It sounds like even if Schafer was convinced he should go all Howard Roark and reject his beloved neo-classical on principle, he couldn't afford a name architect like Frank Gehry or develop an innovative design himself. Anyway, Schafer studied architecture at Yale, and Yale is probably responsible for more atrocities than any other institution, so maybe we should feel relieved!

mschatelaine,

I'm totally out of my element so please excuse my ignorance.. but... are you then also saying that any addition or renovation to update an older home is wrong? Isn't any change to the original structure of a home a form of bastardization? We see many updates on this site in which they are updating older structures and attempting to do so in a way that is respectful to the history. I have often read praise to how beautiful it looks. Have they done wrong? Are they attempting to be deceitful?

New construction should be easily identifiable as new; that does not mean it cannot or should not be respectful, it ought to be respectful and considerate. What is wrong however, is to pass off new construction as old, which historicism does.

But if you call it "New-Old" you're putting your cards on the table!

mschatelaine:

Your comment just doesn't make much sense to me. So how can one always stay new? You do realize people still build houses that look like houses these days, right? And what about windows? By that reasoning shouldn't we not use those anymore because they've been done?

The problem is quite the opposite - the need to be different. The need to design something out there, out of context 'as a response to our times' and new because we want it to be different or an object. He couldn't find the home he wanted, so he built one out of the character and style of the region to be sympathetic with the context and style of the time.

You're comment about the Fred & Ginger is what disappoints me the most. To have a beautiful stretch of buildings broken up and then add on an object building right in the middle to scream 'look at me.' Gehry respected the height I'll give you that- though I'm guessing that's more to do with the historical nature.

Gil's not trying to pass off new as old. He's not trying to fool anyone. He's just not the type of person to be different just for the sake of being different. There's a reason why homes use to be built this way.

Same arguments over here in the UK. Many planning departments are now actively encouraging modern designs to avoid pastiche, but there's still lots of opposition to this approach. My local area has beautiful Georgian architecture with a few very contemporary gems in infill spaces and modern conversions of small mews houses. If well designed I personally think the new additions work very well and add to the richness of the built environment.

I would have preferred to see a well designed contemporary house on this site rather than one in this Greek revival style, but at least the architect appears to have put a lot of thought into replicating the local style authentically. So it's better than pretty much all the 'Vicwardian' efforts that developers throw up here in the UK!

Interesting debate.

Matthew W --

It seems that there is a lack of understanding on what is meant by "modern vernacular architecture", and architects who work in that vein, like Deborah Berke, especially in her early stuff.

Basically, architects try to work within the vernacular style and tradition of a particular location or community -- for example, the white clapboard farms of Vermont say, or perhaps Greek Revival in upstate NY -- taking key characteristics, and developing them in an honestly contemporary way. The point is not to copy the historical style while modifying it for contemporary use (as has been done in this case), but rather, taking the contemporary style forward into the present. There is no recipe for how to do it, no hard and fast rules on what works, it is a matter of skill and understanding on the part of the architect.

Rest assured, the product results in "houses that look like houses" as you put it. But even the uneducated eye will likely realize (without being hit over the head with it), that they are looking at a new building, unlike the case with this house. Mr. Schafer's house though, will fool most people who see it into thinking it is authentic, and that is what I maintain is wrong about it. For as hard as we try, we cannot recapture the old, it is a language we translate very imperfectly and in so doing, we transmit errors, which become exaggerated, compounded and repeated over time, simultaneously diminishing both the authentic and the contemporary. How can people learn to appreciate the beauty of say, Second Empire, if it is being constantly rebuilt not-quite-right (in order to allow for modern use and building codes)? How can they tell new from old if they aren't schooled in architectural history?

It is possible to be respectful *and* honest at the same time. I am most definitely NOT advocating for all new construction to be built in Gehry's style -- rather, that new construction just pass as something contemporary.

You also misunderstand my point about Fred and Ginger.

For starters, the site was one of only three tears in the historic fabric of Prague, all the product of an errant American bomber at the tail end of WWII. That "beautiful stretch" had already been broken up for some fifty years before Fred and Ginger.

Former President Havel lived next door most of his life, in a building erected by his developer grandfather. The embankment, while lovely, is not considered Category A1 Heritage designation (forget their exact classifications) by the Office of the Chief Architect of Prague. It is considered less significant than the national monuments, as well as the prime architectural specimens of historical periods -- and in Prague, the examples go all the way back to the Romanesque through to the Bauhaus style (and now beyond). It is lovely, but not very old and composed of relatively new buildings (for Prague), with relatively unremarkable pedigrees.

In short, it was judged an ideal location for architectural risk.

Gehry did more than respect the height -- he respected the materials (the stucco) as well as fenestration (albeit with a bit of a twist). Fred and Ginger may stick out on this portion of the embankment, but from a panorama whole-of-Prague-perspective it does not "scream 'look at me'", but rather, fits in with the whole.

The building is a perfect fit for Prague, a city which gave birth to the Golem -- if mud can come to life, why not a building? It is a city which celebrates the magical (Czechs old and young spend their Christmas and many Sunday mornings watching fairytales), as well as art and design. This is one of the few places on earth where you will find a Cubist villa for example, and a whole subdivision of Bauhaus style homes from the 1920s.

Fred and Ginger may not be the right choice for most cities, but it is perfect for Prague.

You may not appreciate Fred and Ginger, but, by and large, Czechs do. And I would say, that their architectural instincts have been very good thus far.

(and next-door-neighbour Havel, by the way, advocated for Gehry and the design and was heavily involved with the project)

So what if people can't tell old from new? Is that really the endgame here?

I think you're ultimately quibbling more about style than architectural integrity. Sometimes the brick just wants to be neo-classical.

The end-game is to create a living community, one which respects both the path and present, as distinct from the series of false-fronts and fake historical subdivisions that are our current reality.

This is the last posting I'll make on this and I'm done.

1. Henrietta has it right. We shouldn't design houses one way because of an uneducated eye. It doesn't matter if someone uneducated from a distance can tell if the house is old or new. it's completely irrelevant. We shouldn't design one way because there are uneducated people. Second, if you knew Millbrook, the house isn't even visible from the road.

I can respect what you're saying about Fred and Ginger, I understand why the site is there, and I understand a building needed to be placed. But as far as sympathetic (except for the height) i couldn't disagree more. It's a complete object building fighting to distract attention from the row and focus it on that corner. It's what gehry does best - build object buildings. One could argue that Bilbao was contextual, but the other seven or eight exploding pieces of steel were just dropped into an open lot.

And my last point. This isn't some suburban house. This is no 'McMansion.' This isn't a poorly designed house. This home required years of work, countless years of knowledge & research, and is built the right way but the right tradespeople (you should look up a little more information on Gil than the article gives). It involved a level of craft rarely seen at this time and it was done right. It's well proportioned, well thought out and every decision purposeful. It's not a careless attempt to add 1-800-columns (yes, it exists) to your home or add a frivoulos classic architectural mouldings and designs where they don't belong. I will agree with you, that's when a problem comes in - when pieces of classical architecture are used in the wrong way simply for decorative 'effect' with no knowledge of why they are placed - just to add faux character.

This, Mr. Schafer simply has not done.

So much judgement! It sounds almost like bitterness. I think this home is beautiful. The decor makes the rooms look welcoming and comfortable, not decorator-done. Isn't that what a home should be -- user-friendly and welcoming? I'd live there in a heartbeat.

I've renovated two fixer homes and I assure you that it is cheaper and smarter to start from scratch if you can afford to do so.