Topica Email List Directory

Welcome Guest!

Container Homes

	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

Re: container homes and modernism	Eric Meinert
	Jan 15, 2007 20:05 PST

I hope I did not give the impression that I am anti modernism. I agree with David's general assessment that the more extreme elements of modernism leave many people cold. Asymmetric, idiosyncratic, and self idulgent designs such as those by Frank Gehry, Bruce Goff, and the early 80's post modernists with their historical allusions have never been exciting to me. That being said, there are many examples of successful modernism where elements are balanced, color and texture are not forgotten, and restraint rather than indulgence are the order of the day. I like modern when it is economical, functional, and integrates itself into the surrounding context, rather than trying desparately to gain attention with overt gestures.
As I said earlier, some of the products of Joseph Eichler's firm, especially in a neighborhood context of similar designs, are very successful, especially now that they are complemented by mature trees. I would not be interested in shipping container architecture if I felt that there was no room for modern architecture in the future. Container architecture takes the machine esthetic to its logical conclusion. Wes Jones has shown where this can lead, and his results are very satisfying, in general. The promise of modernism for me is in its ability to balance warmth and simplicity, without getting too minimalist. Japanese traditional architecture has done this, by and large, especially with regards to exteriors. The interiors are still a little spare for my tastes.
The rejection of embellishment was the intention of modernism. Unfortunately, that anti embellishment dogma resulted in designs that were almost Puritan in their simplicity. Recent revisionist trends have led to a new type of embellishment, with odd angles, elaborate curves, and other indulgences that are, in a sense, embellisments just like the classical architecture that the modernist abandonned.
David is right that many people equate modernism with work. One of the areas where modernism failed, is that it gave building owners an esthetic of economy. This quickly resulted in buildings that not only were cheap, but were devoid of livable qualities. Boxes full of cubicles. If more work environments were examples of livable modernism, perhaps more people would be responsive to the possibilities that it offered for habitation as well a work.

From: David Cramton <dcra-@hotmail.com>Reply-To: Dymaxi-@topica.comTo: Dymaxi-@topica.comSubject: Re: container homes and modernismDate: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:58:25 -0800Hello everyone.

From a purely layman's take on modernism vs. conservatism in design regarding housing: I think that many modern designs simply are not comfortable looking. From the outside, I think, many people (this is largely me pasting my own feelings onto "They") want their homes to look inviting and warm. And to reiterate Eric's point, that aesthetic is culturally driven, so here in North America, and any rate, we are drawn to things that look vaguely Victorian, Colonial or Federal, since that is what the continent first saw, what we are used to. And anywhere you look, I don't think many people equate huge planes of glass, corrugated metal sheets, strange angles, and concrete with "comfort". Many people work in establishments built of those very elements, and want to leave them when they come home. I think those elements lend themselves to an emotional
distance that I don't associate with "home". Then again, I grew up in NE Pennsylvania mining country, where most of the original homes in the area are miners homes, tall, thin two story jobs designed to be convection heated by the coal stove in the basement. But the point I'm trying to make is that modernist homes generally don't look welcoming, enveloping and sheltering like I want a house to look and feel. They look great, really interesting, etc., but I'm not sure I would want to live in one. Besides, I could never afford any of the Eames and Le Corbusier furniture. . . . .

--Dave

On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Eric Patrick wrote:

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 Ottawaduring 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/readList 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/read<PRE style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Courier New;
WHITE-SPACE: pre">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.________________________________________________To subscribe: Dymaxion200-@topica.comTo unsubscribe: <A
href="mailto:Dymaxion2000-@topica.com">Dymaxion2000-@topica.comTo view list archives on the Web: 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________________________________________________
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.


	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.