|
|
“If we continue with what is now a scorched earth policy of consumption, we cannot sustain nature’s limited resources. The writing was on the wall in the 1880s, 1960s and 1970s and now again in the 21st century.”
—Eric Stengel, principal, Eric Stengel Architecture, LLC
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
“Some New Urbanists are opposed to Modernist architecture because they do not think it has, to date, contributed reliably to a pedestrian-friendly, human-scaled public realm. But most New Urbanists believe it can contribute, as there are many strains of Modernism.”
—Sandy Sorlien, photographer, code writer and member of the Congress for the New Urbanism
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Bruce says: I don’t think “most New Urbanists” think that Modernism, writ large, can contribute significantly to the development of “human-scaled” architecture. In fact, they think just the opposite.
Sharon says: I think you’re right, Bruce. They don’t give a whit.
“For years, the assembly line was credited with destroying building crafts, although blame for such should probably be more heavily shouldered by architects desiring what they called a ‘machine aesthetic.’ It is ironic that, at this juncture in history, the assembly line is poised to return architectural wisdom to the market on a scale so massive that it cannot even be contemplated by the few pockets of highly trained tradespeople who currently exist. Stay tuned.”
—Stephen A. Mouzon, AIA, CNU, LEED AP, principal, Mouzon Design
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
I believe the older our civilization is the more art and automation there will be.
Janice says: What’s Mr. Mouzon saying exactly?
Bruce says: Bring on the assembly line for building traditional houses! We need the help, and we need the work!
Strelow says: “Art and Automation.” That should be movie or at least a documentary!
“When was the last time you tried to buy good moldings or well-designed building materials at a lumberyard? Why is it so hard to get products with thick and rich details that convey a sense of permanence and strength? A major problem in the building-materials market today is the lack of design expertise of manufacturers. Few manufacturers seek to be the experts and sources of information that manufacturers were in the first half of the last century.”
—Brent Hull, owner, Hull Historical, designer and manufacturer of custom architectural interiors
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Sharon says: Manufacturers may lack the expertise now, but if they do, it’s because there’s no demand in the market for it. Simple as pie.
Danielle says: At the very upper end of the market, where Mr. Hull does his work, nearly all these details are custom designed and custom made, often on site. They’ve got nothing to do with “manufacturers.” The rest of the world can’t afford and probably doesn’t want such luxuries.
Tim says: What you say is probably true, Danielle, but that doesn’t mean manufacturers can’t learn from earlier designs and construction techniques and employ some of what they learn into the making of contemporary products. Some of them are actually doing it, of course. Mr. Hull is exaggerating to make a point.
Lori Dennis, ASID, LEED AP says: Actually, you can find these types of mouldings in many building supply stores, including Lowe’s and Home Depot. It’s just a matter of layering the products they have to accomplish the same look. Be inspired by Robert Denning’s interiors. He did the same thing with wild success.
“Mainstream media has less interest in historic preservation than it did a few decades ago. Back when ‘less is more’ ideology reigned supreme, the idea of reviving richly ornamented historic buildings seemed radical to editors who thrive on all things new and different. Our successes in preservation have ironically caused our undoing with the media: We’re not considered new and exciting any longer. That’s the preservation movement’s own inconvenient truth.”
—–Clem Labine, founder of Old-House Journal magazine and editor emeritus of Clem Labine’s Traditional Building and Clem Labine’s Period Homes magazines
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
David says: The preservation movement, which is more like a club than anything else, has had precious little success over the last 30 years, at least in swaying the hearts and minds of most Americans, the vast majority of whom think “tear down” is the right phrase to place before “build up.”
Ted says: Good point, but let’s not kid ourselves. The preservation “movement’s” successes have always been limited–even when they were supposedly high on the list of important agendas. They’ve never struck a truly resonant chord with political and social elites, let alone the bulk of the American population.
Molly says: What “successes”? There have been far more failures than successes.
Susan says: I beg to differ. Historic preservation is no longer a movement at all; it’s now part of the way Americans think about old buildings and venerable sites. We certainly have a significant road to travel, but we’ve come a long way; and we’re still moving forward.
“We clearly do not have all the answers to the challenge of creating sustainable communities or of adapting traditional building and urbanism to a world of peak oil, global climate change and possible sea-level rise. While traditional urbanism may reduce travel – and it seems to be clear that traditional approaches to making buildings that can respond passively to climate are proving relevant today – tradition must evolve to respond to changed conditions.”
—Hank Dittmar, chief executive, The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Barry says: What’s this guy trying to say?
Simon says: I think he’s trying to say that things change slowly, which is a pretty, British way of looking at it.
“What is new is the current push to save energy, which can threaten the integrity of the historic home and potentially rob it of that which makes it truly historic. It is taking various forms, such as replacement windows with insulated glass, vinyl siding backed with rigid insulation and embossed fiberglass doors with insulated cores. The problem is, if you replace the siding, windows and doors with materials that belong in the 21st century instead of the 19th, can you still honestly call the house historic?”
—John H. Cluver, AIA, LEED AP, partner and director of preservation, Voith & Mactavish Architects, LLP
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Damon says: I’m not sure about vinyl siding, but a lof of the other contemporary building materials can certainly be used and still let a house be considered historic. Anyway, most of the time these conversations center on changes made to a home’s exterior facades. What about the interior? Would a home that’s perfectly restored on the inside not be considered “historic” just because it has replacement windows in some places and a fiberglass entry door?
Clark says: Yes. It WOULDN’T be considered historic. That’s an easy one.
“There is a certain efficiency in the New Urbanist movement—less reliance on the car, sustainability and increased social interaction. It’s so wasteful of these large McMansions, with their use of land and space. Your lot may be very small in New Urbanist developments, but you have a very large public realm that everyone can use collectively. And, certainly, with the current energy crisis, they’ve become more and more attractive.”
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Ben says: Nearly every New Urbanist stumbles over the automobile–what its place is, what to do with it in urban planning. Everybody talks a good game–about drastically reducing the number of cars, about expanding public transportation, about creating “walkable” neighborhoods–yet the fact is most of the plans crash into the reality that nearly everyone’s got a car and wants to use it, park it, and protect it, even the New Urbanists.
Samantha says: Social interaction? New Urbanists are among the least sociable people around.
“Nostalgia is often derided and disdained, yet it is an important concept and a powerful influence on preservation. Rather than dismiss it reflexively, look carefully at what it means: love of home. Now there is a noble goal – striving to create buildings that people will love. Buildings that are loved are embraced by individuals and communities. They become part of the fabric of everyday life. And these are the buildings that are not only worthy of preservation, but they are also the very buildings that the public will embrace and defend, that they will preserve. And shouldn’t that be the goal of good architecture: to create buildings worthy of preservation?”
—Bryan Clark Green, architectural historian, Commonwealth Architects
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Bill says: The “goal” of architecture is to create new buildings, period.
Sam says: No. It’s to create new DESIGNS–the buildings themselves are secondary.
“Unlike architects of the early 20th century. . .today’s architects have largely abdicated market-rate housing to developers and plan-book publishers. . .Yet is there any arena today where the architectural profession ought to be leading more effectively? Our patterns of development and the domestic (not to mention commercial) architecture populating them have failed on all counts–culturally, aesthetically, durably, environmentally and now financially.”
Christine G.H. Franck, designer, author, educator
Yes? No? Maybe? Comment!
Stan says: This isn’t really hard to figure out. There’s no money to be made in residential design–at least not by enough people to matter–so it’s not surprising that architects have left the field to “developers and plan-book publishers.” Architects are paid badly enough as it is to expect them to spend much time putting houses together when the financial structure of the entire industry, even during good times, doesn’t support it. So quasi-philosophers should stop talking about how residential design is some kind of moral imperative architects have to pick up.
Lois says: I think Christine is right, and maybe the architectural profession should take the lead in trying to move past the poor economic returns by helping to introduce pleasing and useful changes to residential design that–who knows?–may also be profitable for all concerned.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
www.period-homes.com
Copyright 2009. Restore Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |
There’s not a lot of consumption going on at the moment, “scored earth” or otherwise.
The writing’s been on the wall for a long time, apparently. When are we going to be able to read what it says?