apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Re: "Pb Elemental doesn't appear to have been quite so directly provocative in their intentions"

They don't? Hmmm.

Not a big fan of the "architectural statement house" in a neighborhood like this. Seems like the same kind of overcompensation usually displayed by driving a Hummer...

But it's not the real fault of the architects, or even the clients. It's really a symptom of local code and review boards, no?

I'd be pissed, though, if I were the neighbor losing all my sun and getting, in return, a lovely expanse of white stucco glaring down on me.

But you can't tell me there could have been better, more intriguing and intelligent ways to "honor the bungalow of our time" and not have it be so heavy handed and "look at me." This is just hubris and bravado.

The architects I went to school with spent a lot of time talking about, and considering, context. But, apparently, so they can ultimately ignore it.

While I agree with the reason the AIA jury gave this house the award (Seattle, despite its self-professed progressive nature, is producing little in the way of progressive architecture) I don't think this house is worthy of the award. It is not a good example of the modernist movement. Furthermore, it shuns its context and becomes an insulated bunker. There's no reason to build another bungalow, but something that responds to the realities of its site, engaging the neighborhood, would have been nice, and would have been a true exercise in design. Besides, all that white is already looking pretty dingy and has become a target for graffiti.

Nice house, wrong spot for it. If I lived on this street I would not be happy. I read the article and am was convinced that this house, on this block, was a good idea. Maybe the owners can paint an interesting mural on that blank wall to add some visual excitement.

Sorry - I should have read my post before posting - Nice
house, wrong spot for it. If I lived on this street I would not be happy. I read the article and was not convinced that this house, on this block, was a good idea.

sheesh, tough crowd. i've been down the street and have seen the house. I quite like it. I am not sure that it is award-worthy, but, I agree with others in the article, who feel like the house is a breath of fresh air on otherwise very stale street. I would argue that the architects considered context very carefully; they simply reacted to context differently than previous posters may have liked.

I even like the white and I love how the house turns it's back to the street. I am not sure that is necessary or virtous for a private home to engage the community. I would much rather have privacy and sanctuary.

I quite like the house. Why does anyone care if it matches the neighborhood. It's in good taste- their taste. Others should mind to themselves.

I wouldn't mind living a few doors down, but I agree with p(too) about the light-blocking qualities and wouldn't choose to be a next-door neighbor.

Also, it is pretty from the outside, but the inside seems uninspired.

House shouts "me...me...me...and the heck with you!"

Um, what's all this talk about light-blocking about? These are super-narrow lots. Anything you build on these lots would logically block out the natural light of its neighbor.

Although I like the design of this house, I can see why neighbors would be offended- it is just too dang big, and it has that monolithic fortress wall so close to the sidewalk. Modern or not, it is simply a monster house in an area scaled for smaller homes.

fascinating.

I actually did my Master's Thesis on contextual fit... according to the criteria I developed, the Fred & Ginger building in Prague (by Frank Gehry), is a supreme example of sublimely successful (elegant, intelligent and beautiful) contextual fit.

While I personally like this house, it is a house that thumbs it's nose at its context -- thus, not a successful fit, deliberately so. I would actually say that it is quite rude. That it was given an award by such a major and prestigious architectural association goes a long way to explaining the unfortunate state of urban design and architecture in our cities...

I actually grew up in a neighbourhood that featured architect-designed homes of contrasting styles sitting cheek-by-jowl, and it worked, because there were certain inviolable principles (like not turning your back to the neighborhood for a start)...

With the exception of a blank white wall facing the street I think the house is just fine.

I live in a fairly historic area (Boston, Cambridge, MA) and I get so very tired of people trying to remain in a single point in time and place. It is 2008 and we should be creating buildings that reflect that - not creating hollow approximations of what we think a 1919 bungalow would have looked like. Would I be pissed if that building loomed over my house?...probably. Would I be more upset if a McMansion style 'bungalow' had been popped into the same lot? probably not so much upset as sad.

right angle--

Good taste is highly subjective. And you must be a WONDERFUL neighbor with an attitude like that!!

heijiranyc--
Um, if that roof were sloped, it would block less light. Not opinion, fact.

Modfan--
I'm all for modern attempts, but there are soooooo many places to experiment and flex one's architectural "muscle", other than semi-historic neighborhoods whose character comes from their reserved scale and a consistency of style.

As a past Florida resident, I watched this kind of "new idea" (albeit bad Pirate of the Caribbean architecture) slowly but surely completely ruin the charm of neighborhoods like Victoria Park.

"Um, if that roof were sloped, it would block less light. Not opinion, fact."

Um, Nope - not fact.
Notice that the roof is at the same level as the ceiling of the second floor - to enclose the same space, a pitched roof would be even higher and have to enclose empty attic space above that ceiling plane.

The naysayer-neighbors sound like the folks in Oak Park, Illinois who didn't like Frank Lloyd Wright houses - but look who's houses have been preserved for the past century...

I'm so tired of folks building Phony-Colonials and Neo-Victorians - We live in the 21st Century, we should be building 21st Century homes rather than 18th and 19th Century knockoffs.

The scale really is very similar to the homes near it when you see it in person. The one photo of the exterior of the home posted here on AT does not really tell the whole story.

I don't know who's idea it was to build this house in this neighborhood. I think that person had the bad taste. Not that I don't like the house... But, just as you'd respect the integrity of a home you were designing, why would you not offer that same respect to the neighborhood.

You can integrate different styles of homes nicely. Evanston, Illinois does a nice job of this. (in my opinion)

Um, a pitched roof and a boxed version roof of the same height does indeed present more opportunity for sun to get by it. I'm not making that up, honest.

But we're talking about different things. Yes, if you ADDED a pitch to the roof of the new house, yes, of course it would block more light (because it would have more mass).

I'm talking about building a box to max zoning height (which looks to be the case here), versus building a pitched roof house of roughly the same footprint to max zoning height.

And as far as the house itself, I'd don't find "do everything opposite of the houses next door" to be a terribly interesting or intellectual exercise in architectural context.

Whoops, let me do that intro again...

"Um, a pitched roof and a boxed version roof of the same height do indeed present different opportunities for the sun to get by them. I'm not making that up, honest."

I wish there was a shot of it from straight on. From the angle of the exterior photo is appears much larger than the houses around it, but I wonder how true that is.