|
RE: container homes and modernism
|
Eric Meinert
|
Jan 13, 2007 20:15 PST
|
Eric,
It is interesting to note that one 1950s developer who did build modern, and very successfully, was catering to a high tech clientele. Joseph Eichler basicially defined mid- century modern residential architecture. His architecture borrowed heavily from Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian ideals, combined them with the clean lines and economy of Bahaus modernism, added a Japanese influence, and made what today has an almost cult following in many parts of California. Many of his early buyers were from the post war technology driven defence industries, and academics centered around Stanford University. This was a period in American history where there was an optimism about the future based on both technology and the dissemination of democratic ideals. Eichler homes today fetch very high prices. I think that many of the technology
cognoscenti, in Silicon Valley North and South, are largely unaware of the the existence, let alone the investment value, of these Eichler style homes. I suspect that a small group, perhaps a little nostalgic, are the price drivers for these homes. I strongly admire the idealism and the look of many of the Eichler homes(not all), and would be happy to live in one. There are a couple in my neighboorhood which have managed to stand the test of time, one very well.
It is interesting that the buyers of the original Eichler homes did not refrain due to concerns about future market liquidity. I think that the 1950s buyer had a fundamentally different mindset. Aside from the above mentioned idealism, there was a belief that your home was not a commodity, but a lifelong abode. This allowed buyers to purchase based on more personal criteria, and less on commercial ones. I am not sure why this is no longer the case. Perhaps it is due to insecurity about employment and family durability.
The sheer number of developer houses now built has almost redefined what a home is expected to look like. In a suburban world of nearly identical homes, there is less tolerance for the introduction of something completely unique. The places where I see modern homes being built are in older neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles. I think that developers have managed to control the bylaws governing housing esthetics (the Beige Laws, I call them), to ensure that nothing can ever be built in the suburbs which fundamentally challenges or deviates from the surrounding cookie cutter context. I would love to buy a plot of land in bleakest suburbia, and put up a container based home that, through positive example, draws attention to all is wrong with tract housing. I doubt that the Beige Laws would even let me.
patr-@undp.org>Reply-To: Dymaxi-@topica.comTo: Dymaxi-@topica.comSubject: container homes and modernismDate: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:07:02 +0300
..shape
{;}
...shape
{;}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}
pre
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Courier New';}
span.emailstyle18
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
Hi Eric
Some interesting thoughts and I think basically valid, though I think the last paragraph is overly optimistic. One thing that stuck me in Ottawa during the high tech boom was that, contrary to general expectations, this young, technophile, possibly eccentric dotcom millionaire market did not go for the loft look downtown but overwhelmingly bought large, traditional houses in the old, established prestigious neighbourhoods. What does this indicate? That they see their home as an investment and feel these areas are a safer bet? That as a status symbol one has to buy in these neighbourhoods, where its too expensive to tear down and build? I suspect its mainly psychological; unlike a car, which is an ‘accessory’ and a public one, and
something which is ultimately disposable, that people strongly internalize an aesthetic they associate with a home (as opposed to a house), ie nostalgic, secure, private; basically something they grew up in. Of course in many big cities one has a downtown market for modernism with YUPPIE purchasers, but I wonder if this is not due to physical constraints; ie conversion of industrial buildings etc, which could never be made to look like the suburbs. Basically, the North American home owner has a very conservative, traditional aesthetic. This, in my opinion, is why we don’t see more use of containers for modern, funky developments, though of course could also be by-law issues or, in some places, weather
Eric
From: eric meinert [mailto:ericme-@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 1:22 AMTo: Dymaxi-@topica.comSubject: RE: Testing, please ignore
I imagine that a high cube container will not be affected by insulation enought to reduce the ceiling below eight feet, even with an insulated floor. The walls may be another matter.
The way I envisage a container habitat being efficient and livable is through the ability to extend the width by modular add ons, bringing the total width to about twelve, or at least ten feet. Expansive glass will also go a long way towards eliminating the claustrophobic limits of an eight foot width module.
I think that the real benefits of container habitation are in the cost savings of factory installation of all mechanical systems, including fit up options like flooring materials.
Visualise automobile or bus assembly lines. The scale and repetition allows for economical subassemblies and precision installation. Ironically, the most suitable people for designing the ecologically sustainable container home are people with experience in the assembly of automobiles. If people think that the results of this level of standardization will produce sterile, unexciting, and monotonous housing, they are mistaken. Look at the choice of automobiles on the market today. There is a car to express the personality of every driver, from Hummers to Smart Cars. And within each brand and model there are color and finish options as well. Imagine a home designed by the people at Mercedes Benz.
This approach is the solution to the planet's housing needs, not more 'Modern' custom homes as seen in DWELL magazine and other such sources of 'inspiration'. Modernism was inspired by the efficiencies of mass production, to benefit the masses. Unfortunately, it became a vehicle of an elite need to separate itself from the 'tasteless' masses. The result was an architecture which I call Potempkin Modernism. Modern only on the surface, with an intention to impress. The furnishings are similarly elitist, with simple designer 'functional' pieces fetching outrageous prices that leave the ordinarly shopper with no recourse but IKEA for anything modern and affordable. Part of the problem with the lack of acceptance by the public for Modernist architecture (including Container
dwellings) is this ironic lack of affordability of modern design offerings. The second major obstacle is the inchoate quality of many modern designs. Again the comparision with automobiles is instructive. The public has no issue whatsoever with the modern and forward looking products of the automobile industry. Even the most ordinarly car features sleek aerodynamic lines, machine esthetic colors, and complex instrument panels. You do not find people demanding that cars look like horse drawn buggies. Yet in architecture, people want houses that look like they are from the horse and buggy age, with ornamental flourishes and traditional materials. Why? Because the alternative offerings are so often sterile or eccentric. Compare a forward looking automobile design, such as a Mercedes Benz, with a modern home, such as a DWELL home.
The Mercedes is symmetrical in design, and its overall esthetic expresses what it is, a machine designed to move. Now look at a 'modern' home. Typically there is a deliberate lack of symmetry, and the choice of materials is mixed, such as currogated metal combined with natural wood. Can you imagine a Mercedes with three doors on one side, and one on the other? With a flat roof and wooden door panels? The inconsistency and asymmetry is unattractive.
Container homes offer the benefit that they tightly constrain the designer, due to their strict modular availability. This, ironically, can result in an architecture with the ageless appeal of vernacular architecture. That is, an architecture where the houses are fundamentally similar, with minor variations constrained, and all designs expressing with honesty and charm their fundmental contruction and material.
From: Eric Patrick <eric.p-@undp.org>Reply-To: Dymaxi-@topica.comTo: Dymaxi-@topica.comSubject: RE: Testing, please ignoreDate: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:42:14 +0300
Hi Deb
Good point; but does this not significantly reduce the living space? Also, are they not considerably more expensive
Eric
From: deborah drew [mailto:dtd-@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:13 PMTo: Dymaxi-@topica.comSubject: Re: Testing, please ignore
Eric,
Regarding heat. Refrigerated containers are well insulated, works both ways. A fellow Canadian.
Deb Drew________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/read<FONT
face="Courier New" color=black size=2>List admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/readList admin questions:
dyma-@nextage.net
Your opinion matters. Please tell us what you think and be entered into a draw for a grand prize of $500 or one of 20 $50 cash prizes.________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: <A
href="http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/read">http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/readList admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net________________________________________________
To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.com
To unsubscribe: Dymaxion2000-@topica.com
To view list archives on the Web: http://www.topica.com/lists/Dymaxion2000/read
List admin questions: dyma-@nextage.net
Your opinion matters. Please tell us what you think and be entered into a draw for a grand prize of $500 or one of 20 $50 cash prizes.
|
|
 |
|
