Modernist housing developments

[franjayo]

It is interesting to note that modernism has been highly unsuccessful as a choice for large housing developments, except in low cost or highly subsidized housing. Even in those developments, home owners almost immediately start to transform their homes adding traditional elements.

Large successful housing developments that many times regulate traditional old styles have proven highly successful and profitable. I pose the question why?

I am attaching reference links to a developer who was able to build large scale housing projects designed by modernist architects:

http://www.totheweb.com/eichler/

http://www.eichlerarchives.com/home.swf

http://www.cityoforange.org/localhistory/eichler/index.htm

[cobberman]

Thanks very much for the post franjayo I'm a big fan of Eichler / A. Quincy Jones designs.

[jake]

Love Eichler. Have several Eichler books. Wondered the same myself. We had a similar thread on pp1.

I've talked to several developers in our area and asked why they don't try something a bit more modern. Both said the same thing-"Customers won't buy it". It's true, I live in the Midwest, an area of the world dominated by conservative dolts and rednecks. The only thing they know is what the lazy-ass developers show them in the "Giant Developer's Book of Multi-Gabled Atrocities". These are formula homes that they can build cheaply and quickly because they have done it a thousand-million-zillion times before.

Also, realtors tell these same dolts that, before you even move in, you need to consider resale, and modern won't sell. Don't even think about being different or using something other than baby-shit brown vinyl siding. You want to appeal to the largest audience possible.

Back when Eichler was building things Space and technolgy was the rage. He could sell his homes because they were buying into the zoomy optimism of the future. Today, people are hunking down, afraid of being blown up at bus stations. They need acres of garage space and twenty-gabled McMansions to hide in with room to store all their goodies and giant, gas-guzzling SUVS.

It's a entire different mindset than in Eichler's days. When gas hits 5 dollars in the States and the economy goes to hell because products can't be shipped or long commutes to work become cost prohibitive, then I expect things might change. But now, people are getting 40-50 percent returns on the shitboxes you see in every blazing subdivision. These people are not about to take a chance on modernism.

[lavardera]

The Eichlers are quite well known to fans of modern houses in the US. However there were other concentrations of modern houses all over the country, perhaps none as successful as the Eichler tracts, but worth noting none the less:

http://www.arapahoeacres.org/
http://www.memorialbendarchitecture.com/
http://www.mkurtz.com/trendhouse/ (Canada)
http://www.lortondale.com/
http://www.hollinhills.org/
http://www.glenbrookvalley.com/index.php?pageId=181786
http://www.psmodcom.com/
http://www.modernsandiego.com/
http://www.northcrestmodern.com/
http://www.cosmicool.com/index.html
http://www.modernphoenix.net/
http://www.portlandmodern.com/

As well we have some contemporary examples of developers who are being successful with modern, although they tend to be small, there are many of them around:

http://www.optimaweb.com/
http://www.housesatsagaponac.com/
http://www.alloyhomes.com/ (Canada)
http://www.vetterdenk.com/prop/index.html
http://www.lividpencil.com/krdb.html
http://www.mome.org/bsn/index.html
http://wieler.com/communities/
http://www.tryonfarm.com/main.html
http://www.rivercamps.com/
http://www.onionflats.com/
http://www.urbanedgeusa.com/
http://www.urbanreserve.net/
http://www.kesslerwoodscourt.com/
http://www.jacksonmeadow.com/
http://www.mayowoodlands.com/index.html
http://www.campbellcliffs.com/main.html
http://www.metrohouseaustin.com/
http://www.modernlivingspaces.com/
http://www.forjlofts.com/tour.php
http://www.elementalarchitecture.com/
http://www.stonecanyonlv.com/

Some of those are less modern than others but I keep the bookmarks together because they all definitely depart from the status quo of traditional home building.

[lavardera]

I also keep links of realtors who focus on modern houses. I'm not going to bore you with those, but there are many around the nation that "get it" and realize the additional value of a modern home and can assist owners in finding appreciative buyers.

And then there are the people who want to buy a modern house now, and simply can not find one - yes there are thousands and thousands. Why would not a developer latch onto this unanswered demand? Many of these people have banded together through a web site to make their demand known - www.livemodern.com

So, either the winds are shifting, or its just another puff in the breeze!

[franjayo]

I agree that times are changing and many more developments that can be considered quality modern. I think that there are various reasons:

-People are more comfortable with modern, it takes decedes to absorb.
-Modern has developed and produced more options, steel, concrete, wood and stone in different ways. Original plain modern has evolved.
-Time has allowed us to start thinking of modern as part of the good things in the past, not just the future. This helps evoke in modern the home instead of house feelings.

[jake]

Greg,

I think that the people who get it now are an educated few. You obviously have had great success with your work, but I don't think you are selling 200 acres of them.

I do think the only hope is the modular movement. But I also believe it will take a crisis situation to make it an acceptable option to the majority of Americans. The green movement will eventually catch on because of dwindling resources and efficiency of building homes in a controlled environment will hopefully override the cost of shipping it to site or the mess of stick building on site.

These things have one common thread-John Q's wallet. Until he take's a major hit in the wallet then I'm afraid the great stuff Greg does will only exist in isolated pockets of folks who are willing to buck the current trend.

[WilsonMetry]

"Giant Developer's Book of Multi-Gabled Atrocities".

:D
Now that is funny.

[jake]

I've got all those links too Greg. I love what you do. I love the Flatpack house, I love the Dwell House etc. etc.

I've spoken to one of the women realtors who sells Eichler's exclusively and the prices for Eichlers have gone through the roof. Ten years ago you couldn't give them away. Just try to find one under a million now. But this interest in modern is a drop in the bucket compared to what is really driving the economy now, the developer crud. I come from a family filled with realtors and developers and I know the current mindset-at least in the Midwest. To them Modern sucks and looks cheap. I hear it every day and have the same fights with them every time. To them I'm an elitist snob. I don't care.

I just don't think it will catch on till the costs of heating a mcmansion gets prohibitive or the economy sours and modular is the only viable ECONOMIC option for these folks.

Hopefully the stuff Greg and the others are doing is the groundwork for a large scale movement. I keep hoping everyday I pass another new biege-sided subdivision named for the natural elements that were bulldozed to make room

[lavardera]

I don't think it will ever supplant the McMansion. But we are coming from a point where you can't even choose to buy a modern house - nobody is building them (almost). I think that much will change - it will at least be an option. From there who cares what they do - if energy becomes outrageously expensive then the value of those cows will dive and serves them right. If not, who cares, let them go on in their mediocrity!

[jake]

I can't help it. I don't agree with everything Kunstler says, but these are pretty funny.

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200112.html

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200105.htm

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200101.html

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_199908.html

[cobberman]

For my summer job here I've had the "opportunity" to drive around and take pictures of houses in the area. Its sad that almost every house is the same. Developers often dont even vary designs from one neighbor to the next. There should be rules agains building a duplicate house right next to another one.

As for why modern isnt as popular in the midwest. Generally we're content with what we have, and a little scared of change. Thats why alot of mom and pop places are still around. We know the people and trust them. Additionally, modern homes arent built as often. I know of a few modern homes in Fargo which were built after 2000, but they are so spread out. If a subdivision were made with rules for only building modern instead of "McRanches" i think that sales wouldn't suffer. I belive that there are enough people my age to purchase houses which are more modern. But people dont really like to stick out like a sore thumb, if modern homes were built next to each other, it would ease that jump into the modern.

I dont think that the public has that much knowledge about modern homes. All that they see in their decorating magazines are McRanches. If we give them enough coverage and examples, they would warm up to the idea of a modern design.

What about developers? Often architects are involved with modern homes, its the developer who reaches the multitudes who want a home built. What I would like to see is a developer who feels strongly about modern design as everyone here does, this way it will begin to be recognized.

[primocordara]

Reading this thread i come to conclude that "Modernism" has become a "Style", so this would prove the Postmodernist and semantics right!

I do reject traditional developments, but wonder if transforming the 50s modern into a style and reproducing it may lead to something other than a new consumer trend!

We should dig into the "Spirit" of this "Modern" architecture, wich was to reject the idea of a "style", of a preconceived way to produce architecture, and to introduce the idea of innovative design for new uses, materials and personal / social needs.

Society has a complex way of adapting these ideas and transforming them, accepting them and transforming them into a "trend", "syle" ¿?.

It is interesting to see the thread of "architecture in cinema", why Hitchcock mocked a Wright house in North by Northwest (called "the Vandam house") so the general public of the 60s got the idea this house was "different", for a seleced special user.

Selling a whole development of "Vandam" houses might be profitable, but is it any better or just a new market niche?

[franjayo]

I will say that the no-style style is a style. Architecture is a product of it's time, technology and socio economic reality. What we are looking at today is a transformation in style. Although I agree with many basic principles of what in conjunction came to be considered modernist, the socio economic reality of our time as well as the technology is making it evolve into another style that I think will will be cohesive enough in the next 20 years. It's not so plain anymore.

In essence people may be able in the future to select between a series of interpretations of modernism that produce a variety of modern styles.

[jparchitectus]

The houses of sagaponic are located within minutes of me. I posted images of them in last PPB version. Maybe I will go thru the neighborhood again and take some more images. The difference with that one is - it is a composition of many different styles designed by different architects, as opposed to one particular plan or style. Every architect got a chance to design something of their own. Richard Meier organized the group of architects with the financial support of the developer Coco Brown.

[primocordara]

I will say that the no-style style is a style. Architecture is a product of it's time, technology and socio economic reality. What we are looking at today is a transformation in style. Although I agree with many basic principles of what in conjunction came to be considered modernist, the socio economic reality of our time as well as the technology is making it evolve into another style that I think will will be cohesive enough in the next 20 years. It's not so plain anymore.

In essence people may be able in the future to select between a series of interpretations of modernism that produce a variety of modern styles.

By style I mean a group of aestetic rules, repalcing creativity by the confort of these rules. If architecture is a product of its time, then what are we doing looking back to the 50s? Have we ran out of ideas? Are we following a new market trend? (kids who grew up in these houses are now in their 40's?)

[franjayo]

Style is real and it is important, it is the difference. Modern or contemporary is really just a term to define an on going experimental phase that is the reality of architecture for all time to come. Style are define when you can look back from a comfortable distance.

I will always look back to quality, not only decades but centuries. Architecture is a product of it's time. Historians go back 50 years later to try to define a style by recollecting the elements which have been most successful in an epoch. I am sure several styles are being defined within our time, some I do not like. Many have not been named yet.

Ghery, for example, is considered by many one of the great architects of our time. I consider he has clearly established a style, one which I do not like. I find that it has a total disregard for function, giving the sculptural aspects of architecture all the importance over function and cost.

Frank Lloyd Wright started his carrer with the "Prairie Style", I do not know when this term was coined. He ended it with a futuristic style in which he seemed to try to reach beyond his existence to predict the future of architecture.

[cobberman]

The Ladies Home Journal was the first magazine to feature Wright in its February 1901 issue, in an article entitled "A Home in a Prairie Town." This is where the term was coined.

[primocordara]

I understand your point Franjayo, but I think we are speaking of different things:

by "Modern" I mean the Modern period in architecure, not contemporary.
(Postmodernism was defined as "after" the modern period, the period I meant, where the idea of "style" was supposed to be erradicated from architecture).

The Ghery "Style" is not a style per se, because it is not intended to be pursued by the rest of us, but rather a personal design of his creator.
Gaudi could be another example, rejected for decades by the "Moderns".

The Priarie houses I would put in this category also.

It is of course fundamental to look back in order to create the new, I just wonder how much should we validate, and what influences our decisions.

[Mikael]

It just feels a bit simplistic and perhaps dangerous to speak about styles of architecture (Btw, the idea of categorising things into different groups, in this case styles, is a modernist/scientific idea). What are we talking about, just vision? Are we ment to stand 50 m away and look at buildings and give it a clasification accordingly? So, how many styles are there? Lets see, there is Frank, Libeskind, Graves, Frank again...

Dunno why people are so obsessed with the idea. Is a building not unique?

[franjayo]

Mikael,

When Vitruvius and Palladio talked about the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian coulmns, does this not refer to style? The Gothic, Byzantine, Rococo and Baroque? Bauhaus, Art Noveau and Minimalism are more recent but the others are centuries old.

It's in the nature of people to organize and give sense to the past. These are opinions, but I think you need to look back to place yourself as part of the whole. Time will tell.

Francisco

[lavardera]

Don't get yourselves into a debate about this - this topic is about housing first. One of these moderators will split the thread otherwise. Just look at it this way - style is the language of the consumer, and in this context it is used as a tool to market and sell. We can't expect the consumer to look at it like an academic. For consumers its ok to talk style, for architecture its is better to ignore it.

[franjayo]

Maybe it's worth splitting, sometimes discussion digress naturally.

[primocordara]

Well Lavardera, from your point of view I guess there is no discussion, just meet the demands of the consumer.

I find this debate interesting though!

[Richard]

It is a funny senario here is Australia.

Most project homes resemble the McMansions of the US but custom homes and medium density housing is much the opposite, hovever interiors to those medium density developments are kept rather neutral to keep this consideration in mind.

[lavardera]

Well Lavardera, from your point of view I guess there is no discussion, just meet the demands of the consumer.

I find this debate interesting though!

I'm sorry - by all means go on then!

I think the value of bringing the consumer into a style they call "modern" is that it opens the doors to all kinds of variations represented in current design themes. The image in their mind for modern is much less rigid than it is for various historic styles.

[primocordara]

I'm sorry - by all means go on then!

I think the value of bringing the consumer into a style they call "modern" is that it opens the doors to all kinds of variations represented in current design themes. The image in their mind for modern is much less rigid than it is for various historic styles.
I might not be seeing this the way it works in the US, where as far as I know 80% of the population buys "developer" houses with little inervention by an Architect! This is not the case in my country at all.

Check out this development in chile, with 8 architects as designers for individual projects.

http://www.ochoalcubo.cl/es/index2.html

I think it was posted in PPB1

[jake]

Primocordara,

What percentage of the population in Chile would you say live in homes like these examples.

[primocordara]

Primocordara,

What percentage of the population in Chile would you say live in homes like these examples.

I guess 0,001% ! I see now my prevous post didnt came out clear, I wasnt relating this example to what hapens in my country, wich is not even Chile BTW.

There are very few developments like the american ones, for high class people.

I understand high class in USA are the ones whoi ca afford an Architect.

[franjayo]

Out of the 1 million new buildings constructed in the US in the 1980's, 900,000 were housing, the majority single family residences. Only 50% of residential structures are designed by architects.

Data source: Robert Gutman, "Architectural Practice". He references the Dept. of Commerce and the Census Bureau.

Gutman quote of Corbusier:

"Business! What a dilemma! If you try to please people, you become corrupt and sell yourself; if you do what you feel you must do, you cause displeasure and create a void around yourself."

Le Corbusier

[jake]

I understand high class in USA are the ones whoi ca afford an Architect.

High-class in the US, doesn't necessarily translate into high-taste. Most the people I know that have money, I know several millionaires plus, have the crappiest homes. In fact, lots of money usually makes bad architecture a given in the US. My friends with modest incomes have the better designed homes.

[primocordara]

ja ja, I din`t say a GOOD architect! Its the same story here I guess, only the "American" houses "like those in the movies" are an aspiration for many.

[primocordara]

Check this article in an Argentinian Magazine SUMMA+ Nº 69

It is becoming a trend in the suburbs

[lavardera]

High-class in the US, doesn't necessarily translate into high-taste. Most the people I know that have money, I know several millionaires plus, have the crappiest homes. In fact, lots of money usually makes bad architecture a given in the US. My friends with modest incomes have the better designed homes.


Yes - people with more money like to spend it on more crap rather than on an architect. So they get the biggest house they can for their money so they can fill it with crap. What the house looks like, well they will let anybody dictate that to them so whatever is available is fine so long as it looks like everybody elses.

:puke:

[franjayo]

Marcelo,

The issue you bring about gated communities merits another discussion, i am not sure others now the scope of the problem you are talking about. This modality has not proliferated yet in mainland US as in other countries.
In the US, typically you only have gated access for condominums. There are some exceptions in high class developments such as Doral in Miami.

They are worse here than in Buenos Aires, I've seen both. In San Juan old sections of the city are being closed down section by section. Democratically, the vast majority want to close. Real estate prices rise after closing the areas. It is a tide that hopefully one day people will reconsider. But it is here to stay. People are losing access to parts of their city and crime continues inside these gated communities. All kinds of service personnel need to go in and out, making the access control more symbolic than real. Each community needs to create their own "Berlin Wall" to avoid someone trying to get in without control, but they always get in. We have hundreds of cities within the city.

The new modality includes all economic neighborhood types in San Juan. Even government low rent housing has gated controls paid by the government to help establish better security.

[jake]

Yes - people with more money like to spend it on more crap rather than on an architect. So they get the biggest house they can for their money so they can fill it with crap. What the house looks like, well they will let anybody dictate that to them so whatever is available is fine so long as it looks like everybody elses.

:puke:

They spend it on crap, they fill it with crap and it looks like...crap. The suburban "Trilogy of Terror"!

[wegofaster]

great list thanks!!! ;)

[cacapis]

I think taste doesn't have a close relation to money but to cultural background and education.
I see it all the time when my friends say that they like this or that house and I instantly say to myself "of course look at who you are, what your work or career is, what your parents do or where you were raised, etc. etc." This happens with both nice and hedious houses and it comes from people with different wealth.
As Greg said traditional styles are the ones people are more used to and can get a hold of. Modern buildings provide a larger variety of images and therefore it's harder for people to get identified with them and imagine themselves living in one of "those things". Traditional is where people have been living for ages and they won't change that easily.
Here in Argentina building works slightly different than in the states. This closed communities called "Countries" would be an equivalent to the developments. These places are mostly built by architects, except for some of the houses that are catalog picked. Anyways this architects manage to design some of the ugliest and more complex houses in the world (and probably without feeling like hookers).
And of course the people who get this kind of houses follow the background pattern.

Some day modern will be traditional and people will love those styles and everybody will want to live in a neutra house. Of course architects will hate that style in that time.

[ryo]

Some day modern will be traditional and people will love those styles and everybody will want to live in a neutra house. Of course architects will hate that style in that time.
Nicely said... :cheers: and Ando will become a dinosaur... :D

[klinger]

This is slightly off-topic, as it does portrait a low-cost housing project scenario.

Many of the housing projects that popped up here in Sweden between 1965-1974 as part of 'Miljonprogrammet' (a government initiative that would result in a million new homes being built in Sweden, a country of roughly 7.5 million at the time) were based on Le Corbusier's ideas of the open green city (as expressed in projects such as "A contemporary City for three million"), but the Swedish architects, who were quite well respected for their modernist/functionalist skills were sort of new to projects of this scale and in addition to that held back by very tight budgets and time schedules.

Interestingly enough they (the govt) didn't think of this as low cost housing projects, but a fast and effective way to create, well, paradise. They didn't really look around at how other large scale housing projects in other countries had turned out but identified a disease (shortage of homes) and prescribed a medicine (build more homes fast). Simple as that.

Although it actually did solve the housing shortage in Sweden many of these new areas are now of course "problem areas", often a bit cut off from the rest of the city geographicly, and the buildings have in many cases deteriorated to a level where they have to be renovated inside and out.
With alot of these big residential buildings now being concidererd rather ugly (is even L'Unite de Habitation that pretty if one thinks about it?) and the problems that inevitably comes with cheaper buildings the architects, as a profession, have taken unproportionally much of the blame for these areas. The profession is held in significantly lower regards now, compared to before 1964.
But although people hate these housing project-buildings modernism as a style seems to have come out of this stronger than ever (definately still one of the most popular architectural styles in the eyes of the average Swede). Really odd. It should logically be the other way around, but instead I think this has all resulted in that Sweden may actually be one of the countries in "western" Europe where architects have the least influence. Sad...

[Mikael]

Yes, klinger, you are right on the point. What we sadly see being built in Sweden today is the nostalgia of modernism or functionalism, it is pure aesthetics, and does not encompass any of the ideas that modernism was based upon. It is in a sense no different from copying a historic building. Regarding the "old" buildings of "miljonprogramet" it also had a lot to do with location. As you pointed out, these were often built as satellite towns around the larger cities. At first, people moved out of crowded city centres to these blocks in their often very green environment. When these people improved their positions in the world, they either moved to single houses or moved back into the city (which had now become less crowded...), the result being that eventually these areas became less attractive to live in. It became a place for low-income owners and immigrants and in that way rather segregated. The standard of these places plummeted often with increased criminality as part of a downward spiral. However, there are areas that were constructed under or shortly before this era that are working. These tend to be very close to the city or even in the city. A reflection on this may be that no matter the "style" of the architecture, it is very important to make developments part of a larger wholeness, of a city and of mixed use. The only way that these places can ever be saved is to make them part of a larger city structure. To link them to the rest in terms of built structure, transport and function.

[primocordara]

check out this thread. The house at the end shows what is going on in Buenos Aires (I mean this house is an exception, look at the surroundings!)

http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=979

[klinger]

Mikael: Yeah, I totally agree. If I'm not misstaken there's an example of a successful, though smaller, such housing project in Gothenburg... Nordostpassagen.

(for you who aren't familiar with the city of Gothenburg, Sweden it's your everyday sort of early 70's housing project but rather than being build outside of Gothenburg, it has been wedged in between two older parts of the city)

It ofcourse never had to be self-sufficient as an area (no need for new town centers and communications) in the same sense as many of the places we now think of as "problem areas" but it has the same type of buildings as many of them.
So as far as just the building goes, connecting them to the actuall city does work and I dont think that it's concidered low-cost housing even though it was probably built with the same economical means as the other places that for the most part have turned out significantly worse.

[PeterE]

From Chicago Sun Time via archinect

Seems relevant to this thread:

Martha Stewart designs new homes


October 13, 2005

BY ANNE D'INNOCENZIO

NEW YORK -- Fans of Martha Stewart who snapped up her towels and sheets will soon be able to live in a house designed by the domestic maven.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and KB Home, one of the nation's largest home builders, announced on Wednesday that they are teaming up to build a line of new houses that are inspired by the domestic queen's three homes in New York and Maine.

The first jointly designed development -- to be named KB Home Twin Lakes: Homes Created With Martha Stewart -- will feature about 650 homes in Cary, N.C., a suburb of Raleigh, the companies said. Model homes, which will come in eight variations, are scheduled to be completed in early 2006.

Bruce Karatz, KB Home's chairman and CEO, said his company and Stewart also plan to build similar developments in Houston and Atlanta. KB Home is active in the Chicago area, but did not announce any plans for Martha Stewart homes here.

The deal, whose financial terms were not disclosed, allows both Stewart and KB to expand into new areas. ''This will not only extend our brand, but broaden our scope,'' Stewart said.

She added, ''My homes are wonderfully constructed, beautifully designed and useful for the modern-day homeowner.''

Stewart is also aiming to use the partnership to further market her collection of home furnishings and other products. The model homes will be furnished with her furniture collection and other products, and customers will be able to buy flooring, faucets, light fixtures, cabinetry and countertops.

For KB, the deal allows the home builder to expand into the higher-end market. The average size for a typical KB home is about 2,000 square feet, according to Karatz. In comparison, the Stewart-inspired dwellings will range from 1,500 square feet to 4,100 square feet and will be priced from the low-$200,000 to mid-$400,000 range.

While resembling Stewart's homes in Seal Harbor, Maine; Katonah, N.Y., and East Hampton, N.Y., these dwellings will also carry such design features as she deems important -- large columns that define the rooms, large laundry rooms and breakfast nooks.

The agreement with KB is the latest in an avalanche of new projects that the New York-based multimedia company is pursuing to put the spotlight back on Stewart, who was released from prison in March after serving a sentence for lying about a stock sale. But whether Stewart -- who stars in two TV shows and is reaching out to new customers with a new radio show -- is spreading herself too thin remains to be seen.

Seth Siegel, co-founder of the Beanstalk Group, a trademark licensing agency, believes the deal with KB Home is a ''brilliant'' move.

''Martha means home the way Donald Trump means luxury condo,'' Siegel said. ''Her name will be a great lure to consumers interested in getting a beautifully designed home. This is a wonderful brand extension.''

Investors didn't seem so pleased, pushing down shares 85 cents to $20.65. Since Stewart's two TV shows -- a live syndicated talk show called ''Martha'' and ''The Apprentice: Martha Stewart,'' made their debut last month, the stock has fallen close to 40 percent amid lukewarm ratings.

[lavardera]

Martha's House in the East Hamptons! Thats a great one. I doubt anything she rubber stamps in this deal will look like the Bunshaft designed house she bought, raped, and then left to deteriorate when she went to jail.

Martha Stewart is perhaps not the first person one would associate with architect Gordon Bunshaft, the principal of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Responsible for such masterworks as the the Lever House (1952) and the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University (1960), Bunshaft may seem at odds with the Colonial revival coziness popularized by Stewart's magazines and television programs.

Yet when the architect's own home, Travertine House, was up for sale in 1994, Stewart was evidently smitten. "I'd never seen the house," she told Brendan Gill of The New Yorker upon buying the structure in 1995, adding that the minute she had heard of it, "I wanted it—just like that!"

This unlikely love-at-first-sight scenario ended last summer with the sale and demolition of the house, a rare domestic project of the architect that had been described as one of the country's most beautiful International-style structures.

Built in 1962 as Bunshaft's home, Travertine House was a symmetrical, single-story structure 26 feet wide by 100 feet long that balanced stone-walled pavilions on either side of a central glass-walled core. Incorporating double-T pre-stressed concrete roof panels also employed in Bunshaft's Hirshhorn Museum in Washington D.C. (1974), the house was designed to display his significant collection of modern art, which included works by Giacometti, Dubuffet, and Miro, situated throughout the house's interior and 2.4-acre grounds.

Travertine was "an important Modernist house, unique in Bunshaft's career," says architecture critic Paul Goldberger, who points out that it was a notable design even by the standards of the architecturally distinguished Georgica Pond area of the Hamptons, on Long Island.

Willed to the Museum of Modern Art along with the architect's art collection after Bunshaft's death in 1990, the house was sold to Stewart for $3.2 million in 1995 without any protective covenants beyond what a MoMA spokeswoman, quoted by the East Hampton Star in 2002 referred to as an offer "to maintain the integrity" of the building.

Despite these seemingly exemplary intentions, Stewart hired London architect John Pawson to redo the two-bedroom house. Interior partitions and detailing were removed and windows boarded up; a portion of the house's signature travertine floor was reportedly removed and installed in the kitchen of Stewart's new Bedford, N.Y., home—a perhaps more typically "Martha" complex of New England saltbox-inspired architecture.

The renovation was halted, however, when Stewart began feuding with neighbor Harry Macklowe, a real-estate developer who contested Stewart's plans to build several outbuildings, claiming they would block his view of the pond. The property was soon entangled in lawsuits and rumors. Meanwhile, piles of dirt and rubble from excavations on the site were left on the lawn of Travertine House for so long that, according to visitors, they sprouted weeds.

The two-year-long dispute was finally settled in 2003. Macklowe's appeals were dismissed, and Stewart was granted permission to renovate the studio and add three outbuildings to the property. However, these projects were never restarted, and the house, which Stewart had reportedly never spent a night in, fell into further decay. (Stewart's publicist did not return requests for information; MoMA confirmed the dates of the sale but declined to comment.)

Soon after the ImClone insider-trading scandal broke, Stewart transferred the property to her daughter, Alexis, who then put the deteriorated house on the market for $10.5 million. Last spring, Donald Maharam, a textiles magnate noted for reissues of classic mid-century designs, purchased the waterfront house for approximately $9.5 million.

Despite his interest in modernism, Maharam announced that he was going to demolish the house. In a statement released in June, Maharam described the structure as "decrepit and largely beyond repair," claiming that Stewart's attempts at renovation had ended with "substantial demolition of all but the existing roof." Travertine House was demolished on the last weekend of July.

In a neighborhood where new houses are normally up to five times the size of Travertine House, Maharam's plans for a new house are restrained by zoning ordinances that prevent new construction from exceeding the Bunshaft building's original footprint unless they are set back an additional 150 feet from nearby protected wetlands—an impossibility given the shape of the property. Maharam has decided to construct a modern building "in the spirit of the former house."

Local preservationists, who had been optimistic about the house given Stewart's apparent commitment, are still asking how such a significant structure could have been allowed to deteriorate. Krinsky says that the house was more important as an ensemble work when considered with the art collection and landscape: "There wasn't much left to preserve."

But Michael Gotkin, director of the Modern Architecture Working Group, doubts Maharam's assessment of the building as unsalvageable. "Donald Maharam has made a small fortune by reviving mid-century modern designers like Alexander Girard and Irving Harper … it's too bad that he did not have the same regard for Gordon Bunshaft."

Tom Killian, who worked with Bunshaft, criticizes MoMA for not attempting to protect the house as part of its sale to Stewart, pointing out that the house was left to MoMA. "Whatever the Maharams and Ms. Stewart may have done, I feel that the museum is the real culprit."

Whoever is to blame, it's clear that the house's loss is "another blow against Modernism's sense of modesty and direction and focus," Goldberger says. "I hope the new design will not be another situation where this tradition is sacrificed."

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0176_01x.jpg
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0176_04x.jpg

[franjayo]

The future has incredible urban challenges in order to to keep cities liveable. It's happening all around the world today at a fierce rate. It is not only the gated communities, it's the suburban extremities of the cities swallowing everything in it's path.

The countries of the world desperately need the kind of vision Frederick Law Olmsted brought to New York at a larger but proportional scale. It's a question of time when city vs. country will disappear and we need to salvage accessible green areas that will keep us human and sane.

We know that satellite cities will be swallowed eventually. This vision of satellite cities with green areas around them becomes the opposite in reality. At a minimum one would hope to create satellite green areas as safe heavens among total development.

A second model has fewer real practical examples, the city within the city, the high rise castles with green areas below that Corbu promoted. Their biggest problem is the lack of civic and social coherence and interaction with the city, failing to become a piece of the city.

[jake]

Martha's House in the East Hamptons! Thats a great one. I doubt anything she rubber stamps in this deal will look like the Bunshaft designed house she bought, raped, and then left to deteriorate when she went to jail.

They ought to put Martha back in jail for that mess.

I gave a Historic Bike Ride Tour through our town last Sunday. I got to pick the properties, so I went out of my way to pick non-victorians. One home I put on the list was a 50's home designed by a local architect who cited Ray and Charles Eames as an inspiration. I tried to buy the house a couple years ago, made a full price offer. Because of some shenanigans between the realtor and the owner I didn't get the house, but a close friend of there's did. A local contractor-the nuvo colonial type. He was stopped several times by locals when he made it clear he was going to wall up the carport in front of the house and gussy it up in general. Well, he ended up getting a divorce and sold the damn thing to another contractor friend even though he knows me and knew I wanted the house. Didn't even give me a shot or put it on the market.

I talked to the new owners the other day before the tour. The husband was bitching that the 10-foot high 20-foot wide sliding door that opened up to the beautiful flagstone patio was not energy efficient and that he had plans to wall it in and put in a more energy efficient slider from Home Depot.

I just about crapped a brick right there I was so mad. This house has radiant heating and 8 foot wide central hall with skylights so you can use it as an art gallery. Sunken living room, spider legs, large double lot with giant oak trees–a really cool mid-century inspired home. This guy is going to do a Martha on it and he seemed pretty pleased to tell me he was going to screw it up.

I saw a big pile of treated lumber sitting in front of it today. I hate him and everyone like him.

[ryo]

It's a question of time when city vs. country will disappear and we need to salvage accessible green areas that will keep us human and sane.

This is already happening. Lots of games, like Simcity, are exploiting this theme... but green areas will not suffice to convey a sense of humanity and sanity to the next generations (my thoughts)... This is all about social interaction and organization... architects and 'urban decision makers' (I finally don't like the word 'designer' because it has a 'beautiful object maker' connotation which disturb me) can provide nice 'backgrounds' (as built environments, 'interactive shells'), but if people's mentality remain individualistic, then I don't know where we are going... :wondering

[klinger]

The example Ryu uses with SimCity is actually very interesting. I believe that in alot of cities they have exactly that SimCity mentality towards the planning of green areas. "Aw, man! I wanted to build a high-rise, but the stupid citizens of Whereverton don't see the value of this and demand more parks!" As a result these anticipated green areas become little more than grassclad landfills. (thank god there are the obvious exceptions)
The green area should (of course) be concidered as much part of the city as anything constructed out of concrete and stone - both in the planning phase and a hundred years from now. So in order to make them feel like more than building-free zones I want to see parks that aren't just mere pauses from the city, but also part of it. Yes, I see the value of a green grassy field where the kids can play soccer or throw around a frisbee while college students try to read books on 17th century architecture nearby, annoyed to death with these screaming kids, but it would be interesting to see parks that didn't just contrast to the city but acted as an extention of it. Really dense parks in really dense cities etc etc.

In the, by Franjayo, previously mentioned satelite cities the connection city-greenery is probably a far more natural one than in the city it's located outside of. The problem is that since it's a green area that surrounds the satelite town, it has no far side border, and is in a sense thereby not fixed in its possition.
So when this satelite town is eventually integrated in the major city the green areas can be built upon without disappearing. In a sense it is "just" nudged aside, which is actually just as bad, since this deprives the satelite town's urban areas of one of its major qualities. So in the aspects of planning for future expansion of cities a green areas surrounded by buildings is to prefer to buildings surrounded by green areas. In my humble opinion atleast...

[jake]

So in order to make them feel like more than building-free zones I want to see parks that aren't just mere pauses from the city, but also part of it. Yes, I see the value of a green grassy field where the kids can play soccer or throw around a frisbee while college students try to read books on 17th century architecture nearby, annoyed to death with these screaming kids, but it would be interesting to see parks that didn't just contrast to the city but acted as an extention of it. Really dense parks in really dense cities etc etc.

That sounds like the High Line proposal. The park is integrated into the city and not just a place put aside as a way satistfy the need for a certain area that's 'green'. Nice reuse.

I think this was posted on pp1

http://www.thehighline.org/

[klinger]

That sounds like the High Line proposal. The park is integrated into the city and not just a place put aside as a way satistfy the need for a certain area that's 'green'. Nice reuse.

I think this was posted on pp1

http://www.thehighline.org/

Exactly! That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. There's something similar in concept in Paris' 12th arrondissement - la Coulee Verte (the stretch of greenery). I think the idea there was that one should be able to walk from outside the city all the way to the centermost parts without having to cross a single street, so they made use of the old railway tracks, which ofcourse 1) led from the city center and out, and 2) were planned so that the trains wouldn't have to interact with other forms of trafic.
I haven't walked the entire path, but I found the mile or so that i did walk to be quite nice, although possibly a bit too hmm, romantic at times.

[WilsonMetry]

The best way to educate the "buyers"...show 'em on the boob tube. :o

http://www.pbs.org/hometime/tv/ps/05/midcentmod.htm

http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/shows_drh

The architects for the denver dream home

http://www.studioht.com/

Both houses are a modern take, one a renovation of a 1950's ranch and the other a new light-filled series of interlocking volumes. :rock on:

[WilsonMetry]

Wow, another one, the venerable "This Old House"

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tvprograms/houseproject/overview/0,16542,1062246,00.html

[primocordara]

Check out this development
A paradise caribean island with houses by various "Starchitects", SHigeru Ban, David Chipperfield, Zaha Hadid, Carl Etlensperger, Kengo Kuma
I guess the "All Architects" beach is for the rest of us...

http://www.delliscay.com