|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
damien.cole
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: From a non-architect's perspective. |
    |
|
I'm not an architect, but I'm definately one who appreciates good architecture.
I live in Pomona, on the edge of LA County, and near the city of Rancho Cucamonga where there is a huge surge of development happening.
Cookie-cutter houses galore. A few dozen at a time, all crammed up tight, with windows overlooking neighbor's windows not more than 10 feet away, it seems. Two stories, usually an ugly light-tan with brown roofs, stucco (or something similiar), tall, angled roofs, and the only variation between each house, it seems, is the rotation of the houses so it fools the eye for a few seconds that what you're seeing is a true home.
I've often said to my friend who also agrees with me, that if they're going to make these things the way they are, they should just be practical and stick them all together. If the state is worried about high costs of energy, stick the homes underground where the ambient temperature is always constant. Windows? Who needs windows when all they do is stare at the house next to you? It's gotten to the point where I feel that cynical about the entire issue.
One thing that I think contributes to this type of diminishment of quality vs. quantity is, well, of course, money. The land these houses are being built on is at a premium right now. The land owner sells off their land (that for the last 100 years had remained pristine and natural fields and grape vineyards) to the developer, all belonging to the same company rather than individual lots, and they quickly churn out hundreds of sh**ty homes, sell them for way more than their worth because the lack of housing availability (and what I believe is a true manipulation of the price index), and voila, you get these large, soon-to-be-ghetto housing projects that purport to give the essence of a true way of American living.
The entire thing disgusts me.
As I said before, I live in Pomona, whose land had been developed since the turn of the century. I live in a two-story victorian home (Sears Craftsman) "cookie-cutter" home from 1908 or so, and it just doesn't compare to what I'm seeing out there, these days. The neighborhood might not be all that glamorous, but I feel very lucky to have been born in the place I live. Recently, we had our house appraised and I do believe it was somewhere in the $750,000 range. Back in the late 70's when my family moved to where we're at now, it was $72,000. Something's definately up with the markets. (No pun intended.)
Incidentally, as a result of all this overpricing and horrible quality of homes, my aforementioned friend is considering moving to Washington. I have a feeling there's going to be a huge population surge in the NW of the US within the next 5 years as people just get fed up with the current happenings here in SoCal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What exactly to you damien.cole is architecture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Kull
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 13
Location: Fresno, Calif
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Architects and many others are complaining that the American building landscape is becoming increasingly cluttered and despoiled by poorly conceived planning efforts and insufferably bad residential and commercial development, proliferated by builder/developers who, for the most part, seem to know or care little about Architectural propriety and quality. While Architects themselves are usually the group best equipped to improve upon this situation, they have been largely frozen out of the process by builders who do not see good design as an important and marketable commodity, and by the building public who do not seem to understand the role of the Architect in residential and commercial design."
"Building or remodeling with an Architect should be fun. It can be one of life's most creative, exciting and rewarding experiences. But it can only be so if the client and the Architect can achieve that special rapport that comes from each understanding and appreciating the other's respective role in the process. It is very important for clients to realize that this is, indeed, a process. Many seem to look upon the Architect simply as someone who "draws plans" and then charges high fees for them. Architects must share a large part of the blame for this unfortunate misunderstanding because we have not done enough to educate the public as to who we are, what we do, and how we do it."
"It is time for the American public to begin taking a closer, more critical look at all those overblown, huge, impractical, impersonal, ticky-tacky "starter castles" that are being thrown up in our new suburban developments and to start asking, "Why can we not have houses that are better and not just bigger?" By diverting money spent on superfluous space and applying it to better, more efficient space and higher quality materials and details, one can achieve a more livable and attractive building. This is an idea which has been unfortunately too long in coming."
*******************************************************
Not my quote, but a philosophy to live by
_________________
Kull Architecture
www.kullarchitecture.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recently contributed to a discussion of this issue, on the LA design/preservation site LottaLiving (and was accused of "politicking" for my trouble -- they can be a little uptight, over there!).
After hearing a discussion about the current trends in home-building, as described above, I wondered if the age-old atrium model might be appropriate, for the Southern Californian climate, at least. The common theme in American residential architecture has been the fetish for "four walls and a roof" -- even if the remainder of the building lot is rendered useless by the placement of the detached dwelling upon it. This is already a very old problem, and it seems to be getting worse, with the "big-box" or "McMansion" homes being stuffed into neighborhoods that formerly had more modest houses on its lots.
If the residents have no interest in venturing out of their air-conditioned cocoons, or of redirecting their gaze from the 50-inch TV screen to the lovely environment outside, then why not spread the house out to the lot lines and back it up to the neighbor's house, lowering it from 2 1/2 stories to 1 1/2 (more in keeping with the prevailing scale) and providing a central open-air space that is truly private -- apparently the prime requirement of today's homeowner?
The advantages of semi-underground construction (as suggested above) could be incorporated into this scheme; the main floor with its central courtyard could be a half-flight above grade, and the safe-and-secluded private quarters could be semi-submerged below.
Even if the exterior were decorated in the unfortunate derivative stylings presently in vogue, the re-arranged packaging and improved scale might be a considerable improvement. All that is necessary is for the buyer to give up his nonsensical attachment to "four walls and a roof". . .
SDR
_________________
"I'm the commander . . . see, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." GWB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
