|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Do you favor the style of "cookie cutter" home communities? |
| yes I do |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| no i don't |
|
80% |
[ 4 ] |
| I really don't care either way |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Alcarinque
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:22 pm Post subject: "cookie cutter" homes |
    |
|
Doing a report on the effect of "cookie cutter" houses in communities. Does anyone have any information or opinions that would be helpful to my research? I would really appreciate it. 
_________________
I believe in the BIG BANG theory. God said "Let there be light and BANG there was light!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| call them 'mcmansions' that is a good term for them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 503
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:21 am Post subject: Re: "cookie cutter" homes |
|
|
| Alcarinque wrote: | | Doing a report on the effect of "cookie cutter" houses in communities. Does anyone have any information or opinions that would be helpful to my research? I would really appreciate it. |
The proper term is production housing. Most people will point at Levitt Town as the first, but this is not necessarily true. Levitt just symoblized the ability of one developer/builder to purchase large tracts of land, which occured after WWII.
Builders have alway driven the housing market in America and you can start your research by looking at the 19th C pattern books. Asher Benjamin and so on. Builders would purchase three or four lots, build the same house, then alter the facade in some manner.
Study why we build in this manner, not necessarily why is it bad. Houses are a commodity not a objec' de art (spelling). Ask how can the production house be effected to make for a community with a level of variety, but still maintain the economics of repetitive production.
You might want to research how architects have approached production housing. Most Modern Architects developed a proto-type house they wanted to replicate over and over. Wright had his Usonian. Neutra has his Diatom Series. Buckminister Fuller had his own design.
Richard Neutra designed and built Channel Height in San Pedro, CA. I don't think anyone here would find his repetitive use of singular designs offensive. No one finds LeCrobusier's Pessac bad. Tony Garnier had "Cookie cutter" (repetitive use of a single design) houses in his Cite Inustrielle.
You might want to look into people like Jack Bloodgood, FAIA. He started a plans service in the early 1960's to provide quality design to the masses. The AIA tired to expel him from the institute and ridiculed his efforts. You will find he and his firm are still here and doing lots of residential work. You may or may not like it, but he was one of the first architects to take on Builders head-on to provide what he felt was qualtiy design.
Architorture - McMansions refer to large "Custom Designed" homes that seem to express that More is More. The designs normally do not repeat themselves, but they all look the same. The counter to this is Sarah Susanka and her Not So Big house theories. I recommend reading the first in the series - "The Not So Big House" - Basically quality over quantity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grogers
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:34 am Post subject: other sources... |
|
|
phansford - you rock.
alcarinque - you should also look at what other modern day "production home" architects are doing such as the following:
Aram Bassenian/Bassenian Lagoni Architects www.bassenianlagoni.com. They have a great book out called "Pure California" available on Amazon;
Barry Berkus www.berkusdesignstudio.com;
Don Jacobs/JBZ Architects www.jbzarchitects.com
There are very evident cultural and socio-economic differences throughout the US. These three architects are based in California where "cookie cutter" doesn't sell well. In the end, it is what sells that gets built. Many buyers around the US, for whatever reason, are satisfied with, or can only afford "cookie cutter" neighborhoods.
My firm designs about 2,000 production homes in a year in the western US. Our typical product ranges from entry level homes to some pretty high end stuff. I know my builder clients are not interested in just blending in. There is so much competition, they must be different. But, they will only build what will set them apart and what they know their buyers can afford and will accept.
Aside from meeting an economic need for basic housing, my belief is that the "cookie cutter" look is ultimately due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the builder or buyer, not necessarily anyone's "fault."
My charge is to start educating those within my circle of influence. But, I also think the AIA should be involved in educating the public. I have thought of a TV commercial campaign that would educate people on the proper use of an arch window, or what 'massing' refers to, or how thick a column should be, etc. The commercial could end with something catchy like, "If you would like to be the smart one on your block, consult an architect." Until the public understands what to look for, they will generally continue to accept whatever is built.
There is also the broader issue of providing basic shelter. When you compare other nations, even our worst "cookie cutter" box shaped houses look pretty rich. There are many thousands of homeless people in the US who would do anything to have daily shelter like that.
A short step up the economic ladder from the homeless are young families who are struggling to stay above the poverty line. Housing must address their needs as well.
Other dual income young families might want a place to call home, but they are still well below the average income for the community. Housing must address their need also.
What most people don't understand is that good design doesn't have to be expensive. That is the message our profession shoud try to SHOUT from the mountain tops! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 503
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| grogers - I think you make some excellant points concerning the econmic levels of different buyers/users. Production housing can be used to help house the less fortunate while giving them a sense of belonging to the community. We cannot start to provide low-cost housing without production methods. Otherwise, we are back to building such monstrosites as the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, which are finally coming down and being replaced with smaller multi-family, community centered housing with options to purchase for low-income families. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
grogers...do you think there should be some kind of form of 'universal housing' almost like universal health care... in which all those who need it could be provided with it?
personally i think the 'cookie cutter' home arises out of the fact that homes come under criticism from designers usually b/c they 'look bad' something that is often brushed off by the public as being a matter of taste instead of a matter of bad design...
people are generally more interested in whether they are going to be replacing the roof in 5 years as opposed to if their house looks like every other house on the street except for the color of siding... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
grogers
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 21
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are those who will disagree with me, but I would never advocate housing for the masses be financially underwritten by ordinary hardworking people who will never live there.
"Excuse me Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but your house payments have been increased so that Mr. Jones can have a place to live down the street."
However I agree, to an extent, with your thoughts on "cookie cutter" homes and the mis-perceptions of the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alcarinque
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:20 am Post subject: Thank you guys |
|
|
Wow guys i had no idea there was so much to the topic. Thank you so much! I'm currently a college freshman but i am plan on getting a major in Architectual design. I've been designing residential homes as a hobby for about three years now. I have really gotten into it and i really enjoy it so i have decided to pursue it as a career. Like i said before i had no idea there was so much more to the "cookie cutter" concept. I'm all for the invidually designed houses. But is it cheaper to build the cookie cutter designs? Just curious.
_________________
I believe in the BIG BANG theory. God said "Let there be light and BANG there was light!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Hamby
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with the 'individually designed" house (for the masses) is two fold: First you won't compete with the price of a 'carbon copy' house because the components are standardized and purchased in large quantities. That could probably be overcome by developing a module system in which the pieces/rooms could be arranged in a custom manner to suit the owner but retain a level of standardization that permits common components.
The larger problem would be in the skill level of the workers involved with the construction. The overall quality of construction in this country is going down for a good reason; competition forces the builder to use less skilled workers because payroll is one of the few costs that can be controlled by the business owner.
I can't think of anyone that imagines a tract home as a "dream house." People live in them because they are most affordable and because that is what the builders have the competence to build. The bottom line is economic reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparq
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is something that I don't ever see mentioned. Take a trip to Orlando Florida and visit Disneys town called Celebration. Its a 10,000 acre "town" designed down to the last brick by Disney. They have a school, college, hospital, their own police force, stores, resteraunts... and of course, housing. They blend everything from the mid-high $100k Bungalow homes upto multi million dollar Estate homes.
http://www.celebrationfl.com/
I've been studying some of the Disney Architecture for quiet some time. I like it because they always seem to find a way to match the outside appearence, with interior useability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 503
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Celebration is old news. Design was overseen by Robert A.M. Stern. I walked the development prior to move-in's and they were shooting promo vidoe for it back in 1996 (?).
You need to also check out the work of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. These folks were the cutting edge in the mid-80's and did Seaside.
Isn't anyone reading the Brothers Kreir, Camillo Sitte, Aldo Rossi's Architecture of the City, O.M Ungers, Jane Jacobs, and Delores Hayden? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
celebration certainly is an old story...and you'll find plenty of people out there that don't necessarily think stern's designs are helping the field of architecture..
also, rarely is there a situation where you have a single corporate entity that controls the design of an entire city... that simply isn't the system we work in, over the years there have been plenty of architects who have proposed such fascist planning ideals, although they themselves may not consider them as such...
in the united states it just isn't possible for a governing body to hold as much control over development as a private corporation can.... if the government did have that much control it would be like the soviet union, and look at all the great variety there is in communist architecture.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 503
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: | rarely is there a situation where you have a single corporate entity that controls the design of an entire city... that simply isn't the system we work in, over the years there have been plenty of architects who have proposed such fascist planning ideals, although they themselves may not consider them as such...
in the united states it just isn't possible for a governing body to hold as much control over development as a private corporation can.... if the government did have that much control it would be like the soviet union, and look at all the great variety there is in communist architecture.... |
Where did this comment come from 
I don't think Celebration is fascist in any meaning of the word. It's development is no different than any other large scale development controlled by one developer. In this case, Disney. Do I want to live in Celebration .....No. But fascist. Let's not sling words around like that. Leave that to the posters in the Fireside area.
The difference with Celebration is that Disney chose to have a mixed use development and in essence create their own town. There is single family, multi-family, and commerical. They chose to create a sense of place, rather than a grouping of houses in a cornfield. They chose to have quality designers rather than have some hack lay-out the individual houses. And you do not have to be an employee of Disney to purchase your home or locate your business in Celebration. In fact, your home in Celebration has to be your primary residence - no investment vacation homes here. Any other developer would have just built a bunch of McMansions.
There is a long history of company towns in this country. Architorture, you need to read the labor history of your home state, particular the mining and steel industry's in and around Pittsburgh. Do some research into Pullman, Illinois. Some were good, some were bad. Some required you to live in company housing, then raised your rent and cut your wages. Nice stuff. Some allowed private security to come into your home and beat the bejesus out of you for wanting to organize. You should also read Delore Hayden's " Redesigning the American Dream."
You have to truly understand how housing development is done in this country. Almost all new housing developments have a Homeowner's Assocation, which is heavily controlled by the developer (until some percentage of the lots/units are sold - which can be as high as 90-100%) That private entity controls the builders and styles of housing that goes in, the landscaping, the number of cars you can park on your drive way, the color of your house, and so on.
I also think you have a gross misunderstanding of zoning and planning laws. Local jurisdications (government) can dicate use, density, building materials, and so on under the disguise of protecting the public safety and welfare. It is pretty generic in most places and very weak. So weak, that the local jurisdication can pretty much screw you if they don't like your proposal. They are driving McMansions as much as builders - it is a tax revenue issue.
There is a lot of talk about how the country and residential architecture would be better if architects were required to do all residential design. I could not disagree more. And the biggest reasons is that most architects have no clue about zoning, residential construciton (wood framing), nor understand the history of housing and residential design in this country. This opinion comes from 18 years experience in residential design and 13 years of servicing on the local Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review.
Concerning Mr. Stern, whether you like him or not, he has made more positive contributions to the residential housing market than probably any architect of the past 20 years. He has chosen to take on the builders at their own game and has not compromised his desire to provide quality design. Should his work be published in Architectural Record - No. Should it be published in Builder magazine. Absolutely. Different types of design. Stern is not avant garde anymore (You should check out his Lang House from the 1970's), but he is not a hack either. Most architects would demand that all new houses be an avant garde design. It will not sell to the masses. Understand your audience. It is driven by popular culture - not high art. Every woman wants her house to look like Tara so that Clark Gable will pick her up and run her up that grand staircase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm not meaning to throw around fascist as being quite FASCIST... more just the idea of some entity entirely controlling the development of a city and town...
disney may act a particular way about their development but they are still disney, and there isn't a disney in every town to be doing the development...disney has many more goals connected to other things than the run of the mill developer or municipality... we can talk about the image of a subdivision or of a city, but i think the effort put into those ventures pale in comparison to the efforts disney puts into the creation and maintainence of its image...
so i think celebration as a model to be applied else where doesn't really work...
i know the company town story... and for the ones in PA most have come to an unhappy end... hershey being the most recent example i think... the company more or less cut jobs, raised rent and eventually sold off the property to fund other ventures [or something along those lines]
and once again you are dealing with a 'company town' which i don't think can be easily applied to the rest of the world of development...and how many of those company towns where anything more than mass produced housing to some extent?
i know about the homeowners association from doing landscape work the past few summers...most of the places the company i worked for did work were in the upper class suburban developments who often times had very strict rules even when it came to plant choices...
i just don't necessarily think that association or the developer is in the position to create the better design that seems to be being called for in this thread... obviously they are profitting quite well from the current situation so any move to change probably wouldn't be favorable for them...
i don't know, maybe we are just saying the same things in different ways...
as for robert stern, i personally have nothing against him...he came to speak here a couple weeks ago b/c he is designing the new business building on campus... i enjoy his work for what his work is... i just know there are alot of people who don't like his work b/c of what his work is...
and you certainly hit the nail on the head in that people don't like living in art...which has been pretty well demonstrated throughout the history of residential design done by high-art driven architects...
...just on a side note, even though i like wright and his homes... i find some of them, particularily fallingwater to be extremely unfriendly to anyone who is taller than 6 feet...which some have said comes from the fact that wright himself was short... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I too enjoy Disney Architecture, and after spending the past weekend there observing from the "magic kingdom" to the cirque du soleille and "celebration", I came away wondering just how much $ / SF they spend on their Projects. The Disney Club (Time Share Housing) Village located adjacent to "Downtown Disney" is a mix of the seaside rosemary beach stacked and multiplied, and at the same time, found it somewhat a mystery to me. Why would one want to buy into a "cookie cutter" vacation housing environment for the sake of being able to say I stayed on Disney Property?
How many reasons I can come up with:
1. Disney Property maintains their environments from fresh landscaping to the brick pavers scrubbed daily.
Not enough for me to lay down 20K for a 50 year vacation with a mouse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
