Housing crisis has a silver lining (for traditional architecture)

JITTERY developers in Florida recently dumped the modern architecture of a proposed upscale residential project and chose Spanish Colonial-style bungalows instead. The switch was reported by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Oct. 13 in “Modern no more,” by Harold Bubil. “As the real-estate market founders,” he writes, “the Houses of Indian Beach’s modernist concept has been abandoned in favor of something ‘more marketable.’ ”

Bubil followed up his news story with an online column on Oct. 18 revealing his opinion of the decision he described in the news story. Both pieces, which I obtained through ArchNewsNow.com, include great quotes exposing modern architects not as the pathbreakers they imagine themselves to be but as followers of orthodoxy, who realize but rarely admit that most people dislike their work.

In the narrative created by the two articles, modern architect Guy Peterson plays the role of Howard Roark in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943). In the book, Roark’s modernism is toned down by developers who cater slavishly to public taste.

“Architect Guy Peterson’s dream of a modernist enclave on Bay Shore Road has ended,” begins Bubil’s news story. The headline of his column states, “Not a great day for architecture.” Not for modern architecture, at least, or for the mandarins of the architectural press, but a great day, perhaps, for people who dislike being told what to think.

If Rand were to rewrite The Fountainhead today, she’d make Howard Roark a traditionalist. They are the ones battling the entrenched establishment.

The name of one of Peterson’s partners sounds a lot like that of Rand’s protagonist. “Changing from modern, we hated to do that,” Howard Rooks tells Bubil, and then lets slip a little-known fact: “But for whatever reason, it just costs more money to build a modern house than it does some of the other styles. You have more glass with modern, and that is very expensive, particularly to meet the code now. And then everything has to be just perfectly done with modern, because when it’s clean line, if you have any imperfection at all, it is going to shout at you.”

For decades, people have assumed that traditional design is more expensive because ornamental detail was so costly to produce. And it was hard to find, because artisans were put out to pasture by modernism’s machine aesthetic (“A house is a machine for living,” stated Le Corbusier). For a long time, developers adored modernism because it served as a good excuse for cheap construction. That era may be over, though, since advances in fabricating techniques have cut the cost of traditional ornament.

Both versions of the residential project in Sarasota involve 23 houses. The Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean Revival style is a revival of a revival popularized in the 1920s Florida boom by architect Addison Mizner. A house in the project, which has been renamed Casa Museo, will cost $675,000-$895,000, while one of Peterson’s modernist Houses of Indian Beach would have cost $1 million to $2 million.

In his column, Bubil quotes Michael Halflants, a professor of architecture at the University of South Florida who is angered by Peterson’s surrender to market forces: “I can’t imagine that there’s a larger section of the population who would rather live in a fake 1920s house.” Halflants sent Bubil a sketch of one of his own designs, adding, “I’ll bet that if built side by side, a design like the one below [see above] would sell faster than a . . . caricature of the 1920s. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the public would rather sit in a Mercedes C-class than in a Ford Model T.”

I nominate Halflants for the first Emperor’s New Clothes Award, for modernists who refuse to see the writing on the wall. As if a Spanish Colonial would be built today without modern amenities!

Halflants parrots the modernist dogma that new traditional architecture is “fake” or a “caricature” of past architecture. That would be like calling Rhode Island’s State House a caricature of the U.S. Capitol because it has a dome set above the two wings of a bicameral legislature. What the modernists call an illegitimate “copy” or “fake” is what more reasonable observers refer to as a respect for precedent. Indeed, the audacity of this typical modernist conceit is revealed by Halflants’ derogatory reference to Peterson’s work at Indian Beach. “Modern design does not have to be flat roofs, all glass and exposed CMU [cement] blocks,” he states, acknowledging that modernists copy from the modernist canon.

Bubil’s story and column reflect admirable objectivity. In the latter he gives both sides their say, then writes: “My view: I like modernist design. I like the clean lines and open, bright spaces. I aspire to live in the clutter-free way that modernism demands. But my wife does not share my design aesthetic. And I’m pretty sure she is in the majority on this issue (she certainly is in the ‘majority’ in our house).”

No Emperor’s New Clothes Award, I’m afraid, for Harold Bubil. Or for Guy Peterson. The market has forced them both to see the writing on the wall.

David Brussat is a member of The Journal’s editorial board ( dbrussat@projo.com).

I like the design on top - ranch style, looks roomier. The bi-level house looks like it is designed to be crammed full of loud people, all yelling at each other in a foreign language ....

I like the ranch style better, too!

How about one additional change, namely, NO homeowner association!
THEN I might be interested!

The housing downturn creates an opportunity for truly quality housing.

For example, construction materials can be upgraded for much better quality, but not terribly higher cost.

Examples include a steel instead of wood frame. Putting utilities in separate conduits. Central vacuum service. Advanced insulation. Passive roof seasonal water heating. Roof solar paneling. Basement and attic with elevator. Saltillo tile. Island kitchen. Hot tub, sauna, pool.

Maybe the world of good taste will get lucky and the housing crisis will put Pulte, Toll Brothers, and their ilk out of business, saving neighborhoods everywhere from their ghastly McMansions and cheap cookie-cutter developments.

I prefer the house in the bottom pic. I like the sittable, visitable front porch. A bug zapper at the corner, to the right of the steps, would doubtless help with some of Florida’s native population.

I’d want to put a clock in that medallion upstairs— just because :)

And I’d like that to be a real balcony upstairs on the left...

And some sort of decking on that flat roof, and easy access thereto, for the “cool of the evening”...

Full disclosure: I’m 44, working poor, who deliberately chose to live in a trailer park for the budgetary benefit, so call me “trailer trash with bad taste” if you wish...I won’t mind.

I just checked a book out of the library called “Get Your House Right”, and it shows the details of more traditional architecture, and why the McMansions just don’t look quite right. They try to put traditional elements into the designs, but do them incorrectly, so that the whole thing just looks WRONG. The author, Marianne Cusato, graduated from the School of Architecture at Notre Dame, one of only a few schools that weren’t completely taken over by the ‘Modernists’.

Lower Housing costs is good news.
Means more people who could not afford homes before can now do so.

Homes should not be treated as investments but as a place to sleep at night.

Keep dropping in price!!

My hubby, SirKit, likes it, because it’s just so logical, and much of the design comes from mathematics. I’ve ordered up another book from our library system that deals with mathematics in architecture for him, too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.