I lived at Taliesin and Taliesin West for three years including Hillside and Tan-y-deri. I've also had the opportunity to stay at the Seth Peterson Cottage and the Price Tower.

Well, I know someone that worked in one, and that person doesn't even know anything about architecture, if any.

I haven't lived in any - but I've worked in a few.

My partner was one of the last great modernist and of course lived in a design of his own; my other partner lived in a Mies townhouse. I visited both quite often and was a bit skeptical of their compact size but both were families of 2 so they seemed sufficient. What I was struck by most was not the architecture so much as the expanse of glass used, I found myself just melting in my chair - being influenced by feeling I was sitting outside.

I lived in 3 different Eichlers - Not sure if Quincy Jones, William Wurster , Anshen + Allen would count - they are mostly Bay Area Mid Century Modernists

So what are the everyday impressions of living in these designs? Carrera's glass impression is spot on. Do the designs work? Is there enough privacy? Is there enough closet and storage space. Is it a pain in the nether regions to bring in the groceries? While working in the kitchen is the noise to much for others in the living room? 

That kind of stuff.

This is not a particularly well thought out question. Much is changed since the pre-Eisenman era defined in the original question. Technology, culture, lifestyle, marketing, etc. What was appropriate for one era is most likely not for another.

Most if not all of the high-end development here including custom is highly dysfunctional: featurized rather than functional, stylized rather than sustainable.

Man is unique among all of the creatures on the planet in that he is the only one that alters environment to his purpose rather than adapting himself to it. It's pretty clear that this is not working out too well.

Go do it, both my partners loved living in modernist design and neither would dream of moving. As I said both homes were tight but as architects they absorbed the defect. The one common thing in both was/is the car parking. The Mies townhouse was a condo and only had a lot to park in, while close to the unit it was still a walk to bring things in. My modernist partner’s house had a carport in Michigan no less. He drove a Corvette and I had a jaundice eye when I saw that. Following Miles’s thoughts I can’t wait to go back there to see if it was enclosed with Masonite garage doors, it probably was. The house was widely published and in a Toney section of town so I hope someone bought it that respects what it is. The town home was a part of a huge complex near the CBD that had zero occupancy and included two Mies high rises that are rentals but very popular.

I empathize with Miles’s assessment of the way things are. I don’t think that these things can be replicated today with success, but that is not what you asked. There are tons of high rise solutions today by post-modernist architects that are sought after and even fought over by buyers; it’s the suburban market that is of no use to attempt by architects today.

I think it’s the walls of glass that we architects can learn from whether CBD or suburban.

Learn me, CDB?

Sorry, CBD= Central Business District, Downwntown.

I currently live in one of the Mies townhouses Carrera describes. I've lived here 8 eight years. I moved in before my wife and I were married. We now have two kids. It is 1,300SF and feels very tight with a family of four. We are currently looking at turning our basement into a playroom which would add another 650SF or so. It was built over 50 years ago and standards have changed a lot. It has only 1.5 baths and that can be difficult. The bathrooms are also fairly humdrum boxes. The galley kitchen is fine, utilitarian, but also feels tight and is hard to keep track of the kids (there is something to the idea of a family room off the kitchen). There are a few pretty cool details (like the recessed current track and the 2" thick walls), but then there were some flat out failures (like the amount of plaster damage caused by the detailing at the intersection of the walls and the curtain wall). The amount of glass is amazing and architecturally the main reason for being there. In every room in the house, it is like living outside. It would be very hard to go back to living in a house with puny punched openings. The first night I was painting at night with the blinds open and felt very exposed, but you get over that fast, and we now live with the blinds open almost all the time. The gray tinting on the glass makes it very difficult to see into during the day. Aside from the almost daily architecture student tours, you quickly forget that you live in an "architectural masterpiece." There are almost 200 townhouse units and many people who live here are not design aficionados, many are. If people are interested there was a very good book written about living in the Mies townhouses called "Thanks for the View, Mr. Mies." It is a good read, written by people who live here.

Archanonymous,

   It still surprises me that the younger generations, are inquiring about the ''the old guys".  As a younger person in college I recall a strong "anti- (any old school architect)"  are you starting in college or are you a practicing architect?  Either way with regard to technology in relation to drafting yes it has come a long way.  I wont get into the office politics about that. I will say that no matter how advanced I can still see it in their drawings if someone knows how a building goes together, so it is still very much like it was over a hundred years ago. Still have a similar organization designer, a project manager,  PA and the the draftsmen.

As an aside, I would say "Computer aided design" has absolutely nothing to do with whether an architecturally significant building is well detailed or not. Construction technology on the contractor side has more to do with overall improved performance, but even then, it still takes a competent architect and high quality construction. When Mies and company were detailing there were very few construction systems in place like there are today. Buildings were made of discrete components (steel, glass, tar paper, etc.) and not systems like they are now (curtain wall, waterproofing, etc.). Also many of the early/mid-century technologies like curtains walls were relatively new, so there was not a huge body of work or research to understand how they work. You couldn't just pick one out of the Kawneer catalog that has passed ASTM testing.

I didn’t catch the detailing comment in the original post - all I can say is that they leaked then and they leak now regardless of how they detail.

won- how's your heating bill?
 

Not bad, I guess, it is all relative. We have an end unit and the insulation is poor between the brick end wall and the interior plaster. Our coop replaced the original single pane glass with double pane glass about 15 years ago. We also purchased insulated honeycomb shades a year ago. All said and done, we pay an average monthly bill of $130 for gas and electricity. I'd say we're 15-20% higher than our neighbors who do not have an end unit.

When I was a kid growing up in Chicago, a good friend lived in FLLW's Avery-Coonley House and I used to spend a lot of time there after school and on weekends. It was a spectacular playground, and had a lasting impression on me and my aesthetic preferences for complexity with order. The original house has been subdivided into four dwellings, and I hear it's in a state of disrepair now (like many of Wright's works). My own parents' tastes ran more to the conventional, so we never lived in any kind of architecturally-significant home, let alone a modern one.

In 2006, after living in older craftsman houses for years ("the least house for the most money!") I bought a 1950 mid-century rambler in Seattle, gutted it out, and rebuilt it. In real estate jargon, it would probably qualify as "contemporary" and certainly "mid-century modern," but not modern in the sense of International Style or anything like that. At 1,950 sf, it fits a family of four comfortably, and the one-level living arrangement with indoor-outdoor spaces is very comfortable and attractive. I extended the dining room with a large glass wall to take advantage of the view of the lake, and reclad the only part of the exterior that wasn't brick with corrugated metal (more as part of a strategy of very-low-maintenance for house and grounds, but it also contributes well to the aesthetic). It's been a good solution for us so far.

I lived at a Neutra building off the UCLA campus - a true gem, but not maintained well. The quality of light in that building was one of the best I have experienced.

Won - I am a practicing architect, not yet licensed.

Miles, Carrera - I would say that is true to some extent. Buildings do still leak, but that is because design has progressed and continues to attempt things that were impossible to even conceive of in a pre-CAD/ pre-BIM era. If you are doing a straight curtain-wall, though, there is no excuse to have leaky detailing. There is Computational Fluid Dynamics software, full-scale mockups, and many systems in place at quality firms and facade-design consultancies to ensure that detailing works before it is implemented. 

--

I made the pre/ post Eisenmann distinction because it seems to be a bit of an inflection point where the academy especially stopped caring about practicality and launched us into the current era where certain firms and "starchitects" can get away with leaky buildings and poorly-draining glass bridges without too much blowback. It is only in the last 10-15 years as BIM has really matured, detailing has gotten much better, easier to implement, etc, that makes these possible to live in - basically what I was saying above.

I definitely understand how my lack of thorough explanation in the original post would make it seem like CAD is the solution for leaky detailing - it definitely is not.

I was looking at my copy of Architectural Graphic Standards, 4th edition (my Grandfather's originally) and it is amazing how little standard detailing has changed. Nomenclature changes, materials improve, but good detailing in orthogonal walls is timeless.

---

If you have any doubts as to the effect of technology on practice, you should check out the work of Enclos or Front - their methodology and melding of technology and traditional building practices is inspiring, at least from a detailing perspective.

I ask because I just rented a unit in a Mies-designed building. I am excited.

Archanonymous, my reference to leaks was not storefront/curtain-wall, mostly general statement that it’s a matter of who is doing/checking the details that prevents leaks, not computers. I owned a glass business with an old friend who ran it. Learned a ton. I did a lot of nighttime takeoffs on jobs to get things started and did projects all over my region finding so many architects choosing the wrong systems….using curtain-wall where storefront would perform and visa versa. All the details in the world won’t keep a 3 story storefront system from leaking.

I find it fascinating when I’m in my car in a downpour or car wash…with all the doors and moon-roof - not a single drop gets in. Cars use soft rubber to gasket and buildings use rigid intersections (excepting caulk), seems there is something we could learn from their technology.

Being preservation architects we chased an RFP at Ohio State on the literal re-build of Eisenman’s Wexner Center. Didn’t get the job, went to Aurp, but the RFP contained a book on what was wrong with the building – that building has to hold the record for bad detailing and leaks. The corrections (not just the leaks) cost $15.8 Million, 37% of the original cost of the building and Ol’ Peter walked away without a scratch. Something to be said for the value of a Silver Tongue….if it was either you or I that did that we’d be in a Penal Colony right now.

Detailing often fails because the detailer has little or no experience to draw on. When a detail is "invented" it is simply an experiment to see how well it works or if it even works at all. Some details are simply impossible to construct because the designer hasn't any idea about material properties, construction sequence, etc. Detailing can also fail because it is too difficult or expensive to construct, leading to the implementation of cheaper / easier solutions that may not work either. Details fail because the building design or even the detail itself creates conditions that cause it to fail.

It all looks great when it's published, but how does it work 5-10  years down the road? Most architects don't get to go back and see - it's the contractor who does the repairs or maybe the architect hired to renovate that gets the benefit of this education.

The reason the AGS details haven't changed is because they are proven over time, repeatedly tested in the real world and reliable.