Donna, headed to the Auburn Indiana Auto Auction next week, swore I wouldn’t step foot in that state, going with a disguise…this time not staying overnight though – In-N -Out:)
What is it about architects? Beating the crap out of each other all the time, hating not just their work, but worse the person... making fun of a young person's questions. Worse, not answering their questions... is this just a place for experts? The all knowing? Is a person with a question not welcome here? Some on here feel they are so super accomplished, so all knowing not to be bothered with a question, albeit, sometimes, naïve. Well believe me, I've checked (best I could) and "super accomplished" and "all knowing" isn't even close, sorry, try nice.
Curt, nothing specific or personal intended, its general, see it all the time. Just have a problem with short answers; it sets me off, kind of like looking down on a guy who’s fallen in a well, and saying “oops”. I believe that the primary problem with our profession is that - “we are our own worst enemies”.
did you read R Balkin's response to daer's thread? i got to 'exempt' and had to stop because i couldn't take it any more. he certainly isn't trying to provide a short answer, but all of that couldn't have been condensed into one paragraph. sometimes there's not point in writing a book when 'oops' pretty much sums up what happened.
Curt, Richard’s first post was exactly 343 words; my local paper allows up to 350 in Letters to the Editor, while the NYT allows 175. Think these guys know something about writing & communication and being in that range should be acceptable. Remember that he’s writing to the OP (generally), and as a spectator your reading it is optional, same as a newspaper. There is a craft to good writing, but it shouldn’t be a prerequisite here, correct spelling, capitalization & punctuation would be helpful.
Miles, do you think that the AIA would make an architect that actually built something an FAIA? Good way to get blacklisted. Wasn’t, but my two partners were.
My father was FAIA, and he built a few things. Took a fair amount of politicking for that to happen - he pretty much ignored them AIA - and meant absolutely nothing. Except for the black tie affair in DC, of course, with all the posturing and ass-kissing.
Miles, your dad was near a big place, but practiced in a small place (I think) and I bet nobody knew he built anything…..they gave an FAIA to Portman; grudgingly…..what I did was frowned upon, as was Portman. You would think that a profession with its roots in building things would applaud the comeback. My partners wanted to nominate me, but I stopped it, because I knew the outcome would hurt me. I’m not disappointed, but I’ll go to my grave believing that it was jealousy; jealousy drove me into the shadows.
^Titles – Snook, the best part of owning the place was I could put any title I wanted on my business card, I strongly considered “Emperor”, but decided against it, because all the employees already knew that I was “The Emperor”, which leads to “No friends”.
(Last part is not true, many of my “best friends” are former employees, just having fun, but I did consider it…love Mel Brooks in History of the World when he kept saying “It’s good to be King”….a lot of problems owning a firm, but being “The King” beats the hell out of being “The Piss Boy”.)
Yeah, I figured you would know it already, Steven! Mimi Zeiger posted it asking where it was filmed, not sure if anyone knows yet. I am fairly certain the shoes are Palladium's monocolors, boots I've been lusting after for awhile. I love their little dwarfy-looking outfits!
Does the microhouse movement in the US bother anyone else? Sitting down to a Before/After (Japanese home renovation show) marathon I couldn't help but to become irked with the microhouse "movement" in the US. Homes in Japan are tiny because of the density in which they HAVE to build, and the fact that land prices are astronomical. Whereas in the US it's become a thing only because of the dysfunctional economic system in which we have created. Not to mention, the Japanese have it down to an art form, while we can only figure out how to package it as a sell-able gimmick while the sprawl of mcmansions only continues unabated...
Mr Wiggins, what I like about the micro house philosophy is the idea of not having so many THINGS, stripping down to only essential items. (I own three pair of kitchen tongs. Are three really necessary?!)
What bothers me about it is so many micro houses are placed on remote land with spectacular views. That aspect of it seems to relate more to sprawl than to simplicity.
Donna, Big fan of “Smaller”, but the “Tiny” is killing the movement.
Mr. Wiggins, McMansions are now a product of rising lot costs, the lot costs are so high (today) that the only people who can buy them are people who can afford and want big houses, predict an end to middle class sprawl, smell victory in the air.
McMansions are like a cross between Canal Street shops where tiny storefronts are crammed to overflowing with crap and 57th Street luxury stores where a single handbag is displayed on a pedestal in 20' window.
The idea that because the lot costs more you have to put a ginormous house on it is inane. If the lot really is so valuable shouldn't the house celebrate it by being a tiny jewel of perfection?
I like the Tiny House movement; with it extending to small (1000sf). I like it for the reasons some others have noted, reduction of things.
Some other thoughts; It doesn't mean this is the only building on a given lot- why not a workshop/studio for tools and art? An outdoor space for entertaining, etc.
Who cares if its the result of "dysfunctional economic system" Sometime people need help making the better decisions. Economics does this all the time- see gas prices and car size.
As to Donna's comment about rural/remote locations and sprawl. Seems to me these locations (spectacular view) are already subject to development. At least the tiny house has a smaller impact...
I guess my biggest problem is the foundation on which the entire idea, in the states, is based. It's no more than a gimmick in its current state. The conditions on which to make tiny houses actually relevant don't yet exist, and no one is talking about them in a meaningful way. Density is needed so we're not wasting land. A tiny house on a regular sized lot is just as much of a waste as a mcmansion that can fit in the same place. So zoning laws need to change that would allow lots to be further subdivided, and then we're just talking about town houses, not tiny houses. If land prices were the real factor behind tiny houses then we'd see the tiny lots to go along with them, but that's not happening. Our collective stock of existing homes isn't getting any smaller, we're not tearing them down, but they're not getting any cheaper as they degrade either. Apartment living in many US cities costs nearly as much as having a mortgage on a home, so that's not it either. Shit is too expensive, but tiny houses seem like a distraction more than a real change, the real estate market is a sham. That de Graaf article from The Architectural Review last week comes to mind, I will continue to be leary of any new trend in the residential industry after reading that through...
Miles, just got a call last week from a young/fiend/builder who works with the “insane”. Guy bought two $97,000 70’ lots, got some kid to design his McMansion, wall-to-wall on the lots (3,600 SF ranch with a 1,200 SF garage), kid did the CD’s, then Mr. Insane sits down with my friend to sign the building contract….at that very moment the guy pushes back from the table and says “Naw, this is crazy, redo do it on just one lot, but make sure it’s the same house”. Friend went back to the kid, couldn’t figure it out, calls me in a panic….told him I would if he didn’t reveal my name…I figured it out alright.…but there ain’t a blade of grass left on that lot and Mr. Insane just loves it….don’t think people like that want to waste anything.
Mr Wiggin, I'd love to see some tiny houses dropped as second units onto LA lots. My neighbors have a giant backyard that they never use (which I know since my bedroom window from my 30 unit complex overlooks their enormous backyard). They could easily fit two tiny houses on it and add to the local housing stock in an area that's out of control. We already have an ordinance that allows a second unit on any single-family zoned property in the city, so I could see them being useful for infill here.
Hi TC! Been busy with work, settling into married life and planning this series of events.
Personally, I am a big fan of Tiny houses... i also agree with rationalist that one area where they really hold some promise is in combining then with changes in zoning/ordinances to allow higher density/infill by adding on to existing lots.
Obviously, they are blocked because of the desire to protect property values. That's what zoning is all about. On the flip side, zoning often blocks densification, which a lot of people could make money off too.
I don't think zoning is bad, but in my area it has locked in what we have - almost impossible to crack the code even to the point of maintaining what we have. That's bad.
Cities should be more progressive and allow tiny homes, perhaps in certain zones. A few years back Seattle started allowing backyard cottages - I think as rentals or as MIL apartments. These are an awesome solution - the main single family home keeps the character of the neighborhood, but the tiny backyard cottage can allow densificaiton and allow owners to make a bit of money off their properties.
Recently a client asked me to take a look at a city lot - 13,000 SF - with an existing 2 family home on it (converted 1 family). Client wanted to convert the 2 fam back to 1 fam and add another similar sized home - townhouse style. I personally think 13,000 sf is enough space for this - but zoning wouldn't allow it (single fam zone PLUS required something like 15,000 sf PER UNIT). That's just wasteful, esp in a urban area. So, what happens? The existing 2 fam stays, and no one bothers to maintain it because it's just not worth it. Conversely, the property value stays high, but not high enough for good maintenance. And we wonder why the properties keep looking cruddy and there aren't enough jobs(?)
gruen, my husband and I are looking for a small multi-family place, and have seen a lot of what you're talking about. It's been a real challenge to evaluate what properties are worth (to us) and what their potentials are, and downright shocking how much deferred maintenance there is on so many places. In the case of income properties, the situation seems to be pretty much that if it's on the market, it's because it's not working financially in its current condition. Between the zoning code and the rent control, there are a lot of properties getting squeezed into a crevice where the money and will to maintain them just isn't there. Just to be clear, I think rent control (much like zoning) is based on a goodhearted premise, but it's created some unintended consequences that it's time to address.
And a bunch of the places I've seen in LA, the tenants are relatives or friends of the owner, who will never raise their rent for personal reasons, not even by the allowed 3% per year. For that reason, they're paying rents that have not kept pace with inflation, never mind the market, and the property owners choose to sell rather than doing what they need to do to stay solvent. However, they're selling the problems along with it, because those rents are now so far behind that the property has very little value, and the mechanisms for addressing this sort of situation are so strict as to be nigh unnavigable. So people with properties in nice areas expect to be able to cash out for $$$$, while ignoring the fact that their property is only producing $. So the only people that can actually work for are the ruthless developers who will tear the place down and evict everyone—the people like us who don't want to be heartless bastards pass on it because there's no way to make it work without becoming the people we hate.
Just finished a full day of SUPERJURY! thesis reviews at Syracuse. Wow. I was blown away by the quality of the work and the students presenting it. Every project (I reviewed six and had brief exposure to an additional 8) was top notch, very well-researched, gorgeously presented....damn. They are doing incredible work there. Met many fun people and had several conversations with folks who know me from Archinect!
In my high school drafting class in the mid 1980s I designed a loft apartment where one could park their car - Ferrari, of course - inside. Now I realize that even though I have a deep love of my own car - Miata - I would never want it occupying the same space where I sleep. Cars smell! That gasoline and oil is *not* safe to have too close.
rationalist - I'm on the east coast, and it really depends on location (of course) and sometimes it's not completely logical - for example, many neighborhoods in Boston are extremely expensive, even though horridly run down. Yes, many properties on the market are on the market for a reason - I'm seeing mostly properties with extreme deferred maintenance, foreclosed properties in rough conditions. Most priced above their value, once you factor in the cost of renovation and the amount of rent it can produce.
Some people with deep pockets are making good money off these - getting the right properties and "fixing" them up and either re-selling or renting.
Some of these people aren't doing much more than doing a basic clean up of the property, fixing the worst of it and moving in renters. In some neighborhoods they can get away with this. I suppose you call this slumlording. My discussions with these people is that section 8 can be very profitable.
Anyway, we have a 2 family - which has been much cheaper than a 1 family for us and we have more square footage than the old single fam.
I've got my eye out for a 3 fam for an investment property, but I don't have the funds right now for it unless I do something wacky like refi my home and take some $$ out. Not sure I'm up for that "real estate bubble" thinking.
@gruen - prices out near 495 still haven't gone back to pre-recession levels, though. If you're concerned about a bubble - I'd watch prices out that direction.
I'm in Atlanta. Had a bizarre walk through a two-block stretch of dystopian urban brutalism to land in a John Portman lobby and take a vertiginous ride up a 72-floor exterior elevator to a rotating restaurant and good cocktails with good conversation. AIA National starts with a bang!
Thread Central
Donna, headed to the Auburn Indiana Auto Auction next week, swore I wouldn’t step foot in that state, going with a disguise…this time not staying overnight though – In-N -Out:)
What is it about architects? Beating the crap out of each other all the time, hating not just their work, but worse the person... making fun of a young person's questions. Worse, not answering their questions... is this just a place for experts? The all knowing? Is a person with a question not welcome here? Some on here feel they are so super accomplished, so all knowing not to be bothered with a question, albeit, sometimes, naïve. Well believe me, I've checked (best I could) and "super accomplished" and "all knowing" isn't even close, sorry, try nice.
What are you talking about Carrera? Daer`s thread that started with a post containing nothing but "discuss"
seems one needs to be FAIA to ask a question here
What is it about architects?
Are you FAIA?
Curt, nothing specific or personal intended, its general, see it all the time. Just have a problem with short answers; it sets me off, kind of like looking down on a guy who’s fallen in a well, and saying “oops”. I believe that the primary problem with our profession is that - “we are our own worst enemies”.
My point of view.
we eat our young, and that's not right
did you read R Balkin's response to daer's thread? i got to 'exempt' and had to stop because i couldn't take it any more. he certainly isn't trying to provide a short answer, but all of that couldn't have been condensed into one paragraph. sometimes there's not point in writing a book when 'oops' pretty much sums up what happened.
Curt, Richard’s first post was exactly 343 words; my local paper allows up to 350 in Letters to the Editor, while the NYT allows 175. Think these guys know something about writing & communication and being in that range should be acceptable. Remember that he’s writing to the OP (generally), and as a spectator your reading it is optional, same as a newspaper. There is a craft to good writing, but it shouldn’t be a prerequisite here, correct spelling, capitalization & punctuation would be helpful.
Miles, do you think that the AIA would make an architect that actually built something an FAIA? Good way to get blacklisted. Wasn’t, but my two partners were.
My father was FAIA, and he built a few things. Took a fair amount of politicking for that to happen - he pretty much ignored them AIA - and meant absolutely nothing. Except for the black tie affair in DC, of course, with all the posturing and ass-kissing.
Miles, your dad was near a big place, but practiced in a small place (I think) and I bet nobody knew he built anything…..they gave an FAIA to Portman; grudgingly…..what I did was frowned upon, as was Portman. You would think that a profession with its roots in building things would applaud the comeback. My partners wanted to nominate me, but I stopped it, because I knew the outcome would hurt me. I’m not disappointed, but I’ll go to my grave believing that it was jealousy; jealousy drove me into the shadows.
Carrera,
The measure of a man is not all the titles he has in the closet...it is, does he have real friends in life.
^Titles – Snook, the best part of owning the place was I could put any title I wanted on my business card, I strongly considered “Emperor”, but decided against it, because all the employees already knew that I was “The Emperor”, which leads to “No friends”.
(Last part is not true, many of my “best friends” are former employees, just having fun, but I did consider it…love Mel Brooks in History of the World when he kept saying “It’s good to be King”….a lot of problems owning a firm, but being “The King” beats the hell out of being “The Piss Boy”.)
Point well taken.
can we all agree to let This thread, slide off the first page, without comment, please?
I started TWO threads today. I don't think I've ever done two in one day before.
Man, am I tired.
Wow, this is a really fun architecture/music video.
Man, am I tired.
newborn tired, tons of work tired, or hyperbolically "tired."
Tired of Steven Lauf pissing on everything anyone says here on Archinect.
Where is the love?
Yeah, I figured you would know it already, Steven! Mimi Zeiger posted it asking where it was filmed, not sure if anyone knows yet. I am fairly certain the shoes are Palladium's monocolors, boots I've been lusting after for awhile. I love their little dwarfy-looking outfits!
The name's Steven Lauf, and I'm a chronic public masturbator. I have lots of experience.
And now for something completely different:
My son(5year old) acting Bruce Lee's nunchaku scene
(not mine personally)
Does the microhouse movement in the US bother anyone else? Sitting down to a Before/After (Japanese home renovation show) marathon I couldn't help but to become irked with the microhouse "movement" in the US. Homes in Japan are tiny because of the density in which they HAVE to build, and the fact that land prices are astronomical. Whereas in the US it's become a thing only because of the dysfunctional economic system in which we have created. Not to mention, the Japanese have it down to an art form, while we can only figure out how to package it as a sell-able gimmick while the sprawl of mcmansions only continues unabated...
The second an idea seems to have value a whole bunch of people will try to cash in on it, even if that idea is a reaction to the values of profit.
What bothers me about it is so many micro houses are placed on remote land with spectacular views. That aspect of it seems to relate more to sprawl than to simplicity.
Donna, Big fan of “Smaller”, but the “Tiny” is killing the movement.
Mr. Wiggins, McMansions are now a product of rising lot costs, the lot costs are so high (today) that the only people who can buy them are people who can afford and want big houses, predict an end to middle class sprawl, smell victory in the air.
McMansions are like a cross between Canal Street shops where tiny storefronts are crammed to overflowing with crap and 57th Street luxury stores where a single handbag is displayed on a pedestal in 20' window.
The idea that because the lot costs more you have to put a ginormous house on it is inane. If the lot really is so valuable shouldn't the house celebrate it by being a tiny jewel of perfection?
I like the Tiny House movement; with it extending to small (1000sf). I like it for the reasons some others have noted, reduction of things.
Some other thoughts; It doesn't mean this is the only building on a given lot- why not a workshop/studio for tools and art? An outdoor space for entertaining, etc.
Who cares if its the result of "dysfunctional economic system" Sometime people need help making the better decisions. Economics does this all the time- see gas prices and car size.
As to Donna's comment about rural/remote locations and sprawl. Seems to me these locations (spectacular view) are already subject to development. At least the tiny house has a smaller impact...
I guess my biggest problem is the foundation on which the entire idea, in the states, is based. It's no more than a gimmick in its current state. The conditions on which to make tiny houses actually relevant don't yet exist, and no one is talking about them in a meaningful way. Density is needed so we're not wasting land. A tiny house on a regular sized lot is just as much of a waste as a mcmansion that can fit in the same place. So zoning laws need to change that would allow lots to be further subdivided, and then we're just talking about town houses, not tiny houses. If land prices were the real factor behind tiny houses then we'd see the tiny lots to go along with them, but that's not happening. Our collective stock of existing homes isn't getting any smaller, we're not tearing them down, but they're not getting any cheaper as they degrade either. Apartment living in many US cities costs nearly as much as having a mortgage on a home, so that's not it either. Shit is too expensive, but tiny houses seem like a distraction more than a real change, the real estate market is a sham. That de Graaf article from The Architectural Review last week comes to mind, I will continue to be leary of any new trend in the residential industry after reading that through...
Miles, just got a call last week from a young/fiend/builder who works with the “insane”. Guy bought two $97,000 70’ lots, got some kid to design his McMansion, wall-to-wall on the lots (3,600 SF ranch with a 1,200 SF garage), kid did the CD’s, then Mr. Insane sits down with my friend to sign the building contract….at that very moment the guy pushes back from the table and says “Naw, this is crazy, redo do it on just one lot, but make sure it’s the same house”. Friend went back to the kid, couldn’t figure it out, calls me in a panic….told him I would if he didn’t reveal my name…I figured it out alright.…but there ain’t a blade of grass left on that lot and Mr. Insane just loves it….don’t think people like that want to waste anything.
Mr Wiggin, I'd love to see some tiny houses dropped as second units onto LA lots. My neighbors have a giant backyard that they never use (which I know since my bedroom window from my 30 unit complex overlooks their enormous backyard). They could easily fit two tiny houses on it and add to the local housing stock in an area that's out of control. We already have an ordinance that allows a second unit on any single-family zoned property in the city, so I could see them being useful for infill here.
Hi TC! Been busy with work, settling into married life and planning this series of events.
Personally, I am a big fan of Tiny houses... i also agree with rationalist that one area where they really hold some promise is in combining then with changes in zoning/ordinances to allow higher density/infill by adding on to existing lots.
re: the tiny houses (is it a movement?)
Obviously, they are blocked because of the desire to protect property values. That's what zoning is all about. On the flip side, zoning often blocks densification, which a lot of people could make money off too.
I don't think zoning is bad, but in my area it has locked in what we have - almost impossible to crack the code even to the point of maintaining what we have. That's bad.
Cities should be more progressive and allow tiny homes, perhaps in certain zones. A few years back Seattle started allowing backyard cottages - I think as rentals or as MIL apartments. These are an awesome solution - the main single family home keeps the character of the neighborhood, but the tiny backyard cottage can allow densificaiton and allow owners to make a bit of money off their properties.
Recently a client asked me to take a look at a city lot - 13,000 SF - with an existing 2 family home on it (converted 1 family). Client wanted to convert the 2 fam back to 1 fam and add another similar sized home - townhouse style. I personally think 13,000 sf is enough space for this - but zoning wouldn't allow it (single fam zone PLUS required something like 15,000 sf PER UNIT). That's just wasteful, esp in a urban area. So, what happens? The existing 2 fam stays, and no one bothers to maintain it because it's just not worth it. Conversely, the property value stays high, but not high enough for good maintenance. And we wonder why the properties keep looking cruddy and there aren't enough jobs(?)
gruen, my husband and I are looking for a small multi-family place, and have seen a lot of what you're talking about. It's been a real challenge to evaluate what properties are worth (to us) and what their potentials are, and downright shocking how much deferred maintenance there is on so many places. In the case of income properties, the situation seems to be pretty much that if it's on the market, it's because it's not working financially in its current condition. Between the zoning code and the rent control, there are a lot of properties getting squeezed into a crevice where the money and will to maintain them just isn't there. Just to be clear, I think rent control (much like zoning) is based on a goodhearted premise, but it's created some unintended consequences that it's time to address.
A disturbing number of people who have rent controlled apartments in Manhattan also own vacation homes in the Hamptons.
And a bunch of the places I've seen in LA, the tenants are relatives or friends of the owner, who will never raise their rent for personal reasons, not even by the allowed 3% per year. For that reason, they're paying rents that have not kept pace with inflation, never mind the market, and the property owners choose to sell rather than doing what they need to do to stay solvent. However, they're selling the problems along with it, because those rents are now so far behind that the property has very little value, and the mechanisms for addressing this sort of situation are so strict as to be nigh unnavigable. So people with properties in nice areas expect to be able to cash out for $$$$, while ignoring the fact that their property is only producing $. So the only people that can actually work for are the ruthless developers who will tear the place down and evict everyone—the people like us who don't want to be heartless bastards pass on it because there's no way to make it work without becoming the people we hate.
WTF:
anyone else find this image highly disturbing?
In my high school drafting class in the mid 1980s I designed a loft apartment where one could park their car - Ferrari, of course - inside. Now I realize that even though I have a deep love of my own car - Miata - I would never want it occupying the same space where I sleep. Cars smell! That gasoline and oil is *not* safe to have too close.
Toast, not sure exactly what the problem is, so long as you have one of these to get it in & out and to change out the art.
http://youtu.be/uNXpgT285ps
hamilton scotts apartment tower, singapore
donna - yes, and then also having a small child in that space...
oh yeah... then there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1Yj-fhiTA
For anyone with $240,000, there's a Bruce Goff house on eBay.
OMG I'd love to live in that Goff house! But Missouri is not for me.
rationalist - I'm on the east coast, and it really depends on location (of course) and sometimes it's not completely logical - for example, many neighborhoods in Boston are extremely expensive, even though horridly run down. Yes, many properties on the market are on the market for a reason - I'm seeing mostly properties with extreme deferred maintenance, foreclosed properties in rough conditions. Most priced above their value, once you factor in the cost of renovation and the amount of rent it can produce.
Some people with deep pockets are making good money off these - getting the right properties and "fixing" them up and either re-selling or renting.
Some of these people aren't doing much more than doing a basic clean up of the property, fixing the worst of it and moving in renters. In some neighborhoods they can get away with this. I suppose you call this slumlording. My discussions with these people is that section 8 can be very profitable.
Anyway, we have a 2 family - which has been much cheaper than a 1 family for us and we have more square footage than the old single fam.
I've got my eye out for a 3 fam for an investment property, but I don't have the funds right now for it unless I do something wacky like refi my home and take some $$ out. Not sure I'm up for that "real estate bubble" thinking.
@gruen - prices out near 495 still haven't gone back to pre-recession levels, though. If you're concerned about a bubble - I'd watch prices out that direction.
I'm in Atlanta. Had a bizarre walk through a two-block stretch of dystopian urban brutalism to land in a John Portman lobby and take a vertiginous ride up a 72-floor exterior elevator to a rotating restaurant and good cocktails with good conversation. AIA National starts with a bang!
@Donna, I had a great stay in that hotel a couple of years back. I actually like the Portman interior/lobby.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.