I have recently received the latest March issue of Dwell to much disappointment. Slowly but surely, over the past few months, that magazine has slowly changed. What started as a great magazine whose goal was "a minor revolution" that could democratise a modern design vocabulary "within a budget" "with the occasional aesthetic lapse" and also be about "real life" has quickly descended into an opportunistically self-serving commercialised "design" rag.
I remember the days of past issues where people imaginatively made their own coffee tables and stenciled their walls in unique patterns. Now it serves a niche community of those, who though tasteless, can afford to outlandishly outfit a living room seating arrangement with $20,000 plus worth of iconic Mies furnishings. It is now meant for those who locally wheel around town in mid 1950's Mercedes Benzes (p114) and jet set about the globe (p124) with their $1,000+ luggage, staff inspected and tested by Dwell in a recent issues.
Where they once documented honest, affordable projects that did not strain to be trendy, they are now profiling unfinished projects (or was that a proposition for a new temporal plywood design) (p96) just so they can stuff crass advertising down peoples throat (back cover and 123), sell branded shoes (see p127), sell not very accessible or ecologically friendly cars (p 27 and they have had H2 ads before)...sadly the list goes on. I wont even touch the out of control and exponentially growing ad section in the back that is busting at the seams.
Where once they were about creative solutions, now they are unfortunately about providing a trite recipe for hipness: Get a chicken as a pet, a cool stacking European washer and dryer, an expensive cappuccino maker, an ipod stand...check off the list... and voila you are DWELLING!
Perhaps its time that Dwell revisit its first 2 years of magazines and republish-yet once again-its "Fruit Bowl Manifesto" as a way to remember what it was at one time a really 'nice modernist.' I want my magazine back-pretty please?
There has been a change, slowly evolving since the change in editors a year or so ago. I'm maybe not as bothered by it as you, though, since it's still better and more wide-ranging than any of the other design mags I've found. Some of the changes are better than others.
Your complaint above would make a good letter - it's a good argument, anyway. Suggest sending a note to the editor if you haven't already.
Thank you Steven for your comments and suggestion. The editorial person's changeover went totally unnoticed by me (do you know what happened to the previous person?), though that change really showed through in their choice of recent stories. i wish it would stop trying to be a soft-core version of (old) Wallpaper.
I had also sent the Dwell editors my comments--yes my trident is milti-pronged-- and an open invite to this Archinect discussion's link because 1) i would like to know what they think and maybe they are willing to somewhat adjust their course and 2) because i doubt they would publish my comments-usually their letters to the editor are as saccharine and hyper-laudatory as a Ronco infomercial. "These are the best knives i have (n)ever had!!!!!!" Nothing negative ever gets published on those letters pages.
But what i really hope to soon see back in its pages is some old-school Dwell stories.
remember the shopping article featuring paul petrunia in pier one (i think it was pier one??) a couple of years ago?
I wonder if dwell is trying to reposition themselves against real simple?
I would have to sadly agree with Suture. Although it is better than most the other magazines on the shelf, It seems to be straying from its original intent. Unfortunately that may be what sells to the general public, who more often than not seems to be there market.
I too, as you and many probable many others have countless fond nostalgic memories about specific stories.
Dwell used to be a "healthy?" cult {like Apple} that brough together those who loved it for unrepentantly broadcasting its alternative modern design politisasions. Now its just a nightmarishly occult branch of the likes of DWR, AKA, Design NOT Within Reach. Nice enough looking airbruhed architectural porn to look at.
I would agree with this point. Just follow the ridiculous Modern Modular Home series. Not only did it prove that mass production is still yet unaccessible, but the writing was hopeless, as if it was constantly trying to justify the endeavour. Of most fun was them constantly omitting costs to be able to quote the 200k target budget.
If they really wanted to deal with that issue, then they should have looked at the pre-fab market that does work, and people do buy, and see how to improve it (single and double wides across the country), instead of yet another pre-fab fantasy.
Like most things, its sold out commercially and become more focused on a lifestyle supported by the consumption of modernity.
good points, but it is a really tricky niche market they're contending with. if they don't make sure they stay viable they'll start on that downward spiral like architecture and a whole history of other mags throughout the century.
This week a client came to me and as she was showing me what she liked as far as architectural details from the latest issue of dwell she paused and commented that dwell magazine is the only magazine subscription that she has. My point is this, it appears to me that while the above comments maybe on target dwell is widening their consumer market. I could clearly see that my client could relate to this magazine from a lifestyle point of view. So I went out and bought the latest issue (I don't subscribe to anything) and I saw why she would feel comfortable with its content. There was an article on how to read plans. What services can an architect provide, it also points out that you can actually pick and choose which services you may exclude as part of your contract. What type of contract you may expect as far as the lenguage. It also has a great article on the perspective of a client towards his architect, and the opposite view as well. In any case it appeared to me as not an "architects mag" but rather an end user mag that is geared to a better understanding on how to build in a modern style.
good obervations tectonic... i agree that it seems geared toward end-users and not design professionals. i quickly became bored with dwell soon after my pilot year subscription and never renewed. i did, however, give a gift subscription to my mother-in-law, who is a closet modernist. she loves it and i believe she still subscribes.
My sister decided to drop her subscription of "Veranda" and "Arch Digest" after she saw my latest article of Dwell lying on the floor. At least there's that.
8 months ago i was contemplating a subscription, but having noticed the same shift, i decided against it. thanks for bringing this up suture. i will give them an earful too. although, i'm sure they will just read a couple of sentences and hit the delete button.
Personally, I think it's the best thing happening in architecture right now. It's the only thing providing education for the consumer, something architects seem to think is above them.
I only briefly looked at Dwell years ago and found it to be boring, so I never even bought an issue. But the newer ones did catch my attention and I've subscribed for two years now. Perhaps I fall into the mass consumer market, if so, I am glad as that puts me, so to speak, on the same page as my clients.
As for the prefab market, I can tell you first hand that it does work. How far it will go, only time will tell. But manufacturers are interested and it is opening new doors. It's also got a little momentary spotlight that is helping to push otherwise overlooked designs forward.
The only complaint I have is that if they are going to show very nice homes, show really nice homes, not just expensive modern design. There are plenty of excellent designers out there.
All in all, Dwell has brought business opportunities to me and I am grateful to be able to have clients that share somewhat similar interests and design ideals.
You are a true Professor! I totally agree with you when you say Dwell has "sold out commercially and become more focused on a lifestyle supported by the consumption of modernity."
Thanks for editing my thoughts to that level of eloquence. If enough people speak up, maybe we can get both the reprinting of te "fruit Bowl" and more articles that will feature new "paul petrunias" of our time who are doing great work that trancends the latest fashion.
Trace- do you find that your clients come to you asking for dwell details, but with a do-it-yourself budget? My issue with them of late is that although they do feature some nice homes, they are more and more expensive, and quite often, foreign (Mexico, Europe, etc.) I'm not sure that they are claiming to be showing affordable deisgn anymore, but I get the feeling that the average person reading the magazine absorbs it as though it's potentially within their reach (ie, can't we do this out of board-formed concrete & stainless steel?) It's nice that there is an accessible design magazine other than Sunset and Metropolitan Home, but if no one except the very rich can afford to build these things, what's the point?
as long as it educates the client as to what is out there...
it serves as a good spring board to other solutions (by testing us to define the intrinsic qualities of a 'popular' product and seeing whether or not we can boil it down further into its essential character) and maybe even providing more case studies for the magazine.
What I am finding is that Dwell is helping to sell a lifestyle, not just a home. It's not just about the architecture, but about appreciating design as an asset to living well.
The new Target adds are nice. It's all aimed at consumerism/consumption, of course, but that's what we do - we design things to be consumed. That's why I work hard, to consume what I want not what someone tell's me is in a certain budget. If you haven't seen the add, it just says DESIGN is good, helpful, needed, etc., etc. Hopefully it'll make people think more when they do go to consume and build. Target has essentially done what Dwell and the prefabers are hoping to do - to bring quality design to a mass market, which will bring prices dramatically down.
Dwell, at least from my point of view and some clients, is about a vision of a better kind of lifestyle. It's not as pretentious as Wallpaper or as elitist as Metropolitan Home, but it's better than average. Sometimes things cost more (DWR and all the classics) and sometimes things can cost less.
As meverusyou and silverlake point out, it's really about opening a dialog, based on appreciation for design, between us and our clients.
just a little observation, of course the magazine is trying to appeal to a mass market to increase circulation, however, much of the transformation described above is not about increasing its appeal to the public. it is about increasing the appeal of the magazine to its advertisers. that is where the money comes from. the ads are not just in the ads if you get what i am saying.
What is even sadder is how low the whole crop of design blogs has gone, in a spiral that follows the Dwell trend. Let's be super-consumers! We're excused because we have good taste!! This is my rant o' the day following the publication in the Times of an "article" (more like a lundry list) about the crop of retroid-modernist design blogs .
take a look http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/garden/27blog.html
Just a thought here, why is "design" in this context always considered modern? Are we being elitists ourselves by discrediting classical or traditional design, which no one here will disagree has served society adequately and continues to serve the majority of the population.
If one takes an objective, non sentimental look at Dwell, it is providing a home for a historical design period no different than Traditional Home, AD, or any other similar publication. Furthermore, if all of you have noticed the recent rise in the "Luxury" lifestyle trend, exemplified by Robb Report, Las Vegas, The Maybach, Wine aficionados, and an obsession with Luxury Brands as propagated by Hip Hop and the rest of the entertainment industry, Dwell is looking for its niche within this crowd, allowing their readers a way to consume a codified luxury product (let's face it, nothing in that magazine is either affordable or accessible).
i work in a firm that has its share of wealthy clients and a share of clients who dont have alot of money, but still look to express themselves in the same manner as the wealthy. its not about a 'product' being affordable or accessible. its the ideals behind it, its a way to educate yourself and your client as to what is essentially 'there.' what does a slatted teak exterior facade really mean? what does a 1/4" reveal between the plaster and floor really mean? i believe that the mag helps to bring forth questions (and most importantly, imagery) of what is important in design, and i believe it is my job to teach the client a vocabulary when it comes to formal design. i live about 2 minutes away from the haus martin (the cover image from jan/feb) and it is such a beautiful home. yet it is so utterly simple in design terms, once you strip away some of the superfluous 'machine for living' crap.
its kind of like, if you can understand the principles of the design, why a+b=c, then there is always a way around $$.
Even Snoop Dogg's video shown him flossing in the Goldstein Residence by John Lautner and 50 Cent's recent video started with a close-up shot of his i-Pod.
I would not mind if Dwell were opening eyes to fresh ideas/ manufacturers..but its always the same mies furniture/ H2 / Range Rover/ expensive coffee makers/ light fixtures...
all this eventually turns people into followers instead of innovators. I dont care how early and quick of an early-adopter to a new fad one is-its still all trucker hat lemmingry.
good observations suture! i let my subscription to this rag lapse because of all the reasons you mentioned. i really became tired of hummer ads and so called affordable houses containing ottomans that cost more than my car. as many of the respondents effectively stated its a magazine looking for its metrosexual/queer eye/sex in the city niche. have a good weekend all.
I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. Seems like a typical architecture discussion, I guess. Perhaps why architecture continues to loose footing in the world - we can't even agree on anything amongst ourselves.
Having been a co-instructor with Joe Tanney, one of the partners in the Dwell home, I'd have to disagree with Maestro's theory about the tenability of the prefab prototype that Dwell sponsored. While I do think the writing was simplified too much, failing to give a true sense of all that Resolution 4, Dwell, the manufacturers, and the contractors went through, the project itself was admirable and Resolution 4 continues to work through the same model.
Remember that Resolution 4 and their Modern Modular research predates the Dwell Home competition. Also remember that, yes, although this one-off busted the budget (though not by much), it is only one house representing a system that would realize its economies through repetition.
Re: the magazine. I come down on both sides. I think it's changes are unfortunate, but I'm still a loyal subscriber and still look forward to it each month. If the changes mean that it serves a larger audience, sounds good to me.
to add my two cents, i bought the second issue of Dwell and liked alot of the mag, i did not like the cartoonish hand drawn plans, but i like feel, the size, the scope, the screwballness at times and the other early things, what i liked even more was the lack of advertising. i mean pcik up any other rag that has been around a long time and its loaded front to back with advertisements, so much so that content seems squeezed, condensed to nothing, and then the product advertised of course seems to find its way into content, not unlike the product placement "ads" in tv sitcoms, or film. i have also been a subscriber of and on since my first purchase, and have finally let it lapse because of what has been said. i do appreciate the magazine doing its part to make design more pallatable to joe six pack, but if you ever visit dwells online forum you can talk to the naive masses that appreciate the 4000 dollar sofa and wonder why architects fees are so high, and then they think that you can just copy what x architect has done for their new home, and other shit like that. there have been times through either editorial content or through the content itself, where the role of even having an architect has been questioned, not good.
beta - those are good points. I think it is a valid question - 'do we need architects?'. The answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Obviously, developers are having no problem making loads of cash without architects (or architects with more than a tech drafting degree). This is nothing new. I think architects need to look around and decide where we want to be in 10 years. There will still be custom jobs, and most likely, things will be the same.
BUT there will be new, emerging markets, that stand to bring in loads of cash for those that pioneer it. Those that are doing prefab now stand a chance of being part of this. A development of all R4A or Glidehouses? It's not that far fetched and these architects would make a decent amount while being able to negotiate discount rates for producing many homes at once.
It's all business.
I'd suggest reading 'Refabricating Architecture' by Kieran and Timberlake. Nothing new if you are familiar with Lynn's work and ideas, but it's a good, quick read.
I guess it just depends on what your personal goals are, too. Custom homes for little or many homes for a lot.
trace - one of the very first clients i worked with (while at a firm), was always fond of this saying: if you cater to the classes, you will dine with the masses. Cater to the masses and you will dine with the classes...
i've found this thread kind of funny. most of the people critical of dwell's current state are harping on the 'crass commercialism' that they see more and more of as time has gone by. are we condeming them as sellouts because hummer wants to buy space instead of some mom and pop furniture collaborative? or because, as suture pointed out, the actual work shown isn't the funky d.i.y. type projects anymore, but more sophisticated, expertly crafted work?
i think dwell has always been targeted towards the mainstream user. we (as the design community) were included, but they've always wanted to be hipper, better met. home. and they've filled out that niche nicely. and, yes, they make money while doing it.
in the past year +, i've had a chance to talk with andrew wagner, the senior editor, on three different occasions, all pretty casual and all for a long period of time. he's a great guy, knows exactly where he wants to take the magazine but is loving not quite knowing how the journey to get there will unfold, and is more than happy to open doors to places/people/products that haven't been seen before. (he founded a great little journal called dodge city reports, which were these postings/articles about his experiences visiting off the beaten path kind of places all over). he knows he's selling a magazine. and nothing would make him happier than to have great stories to share. apparently, there aren't too many of those crossing his desk these days... (and by 'stories' i think he means projects which have a great story behind them that might connect to some larger trends going on in the world of culture, not just 'hey this is my latest kick ass project).
do i personally like the recent obsession with prefab this and that? not really. do i think it's shift away from funkycoolcheap towards, coolsleekexpensive is positive? not as a tool to share with most of my clients. but it's still far better than most of what's out there and i think i'll hold on to the subscription one more year...
"I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. Seems like a typical architecture discussion, I guess. Perhaps why architecture continues to loose footing in the world - we can't even agree on anything amongst ourselves."
come on trace, that's just plain silly. us not being able to agree whether dwell is a good rag or not has nothing to do with architecture losing footing. we are a large group with diverse interests and focuses. of course we are not going to see eye to eye on every point. especially the small things.
imho i believe that architectural ideas are trickling down(up) into the mass production housing market. these ideas are not coming from the proponents of the dwell typology, however. they are coming from architects like susanka and duany plater-zyberk. the not so big house/traditional neighborhood idea is catching on in mass production and houses designed and built by the traditional builder. this trend can be seen in magazines such as "builder" where one finds away rooms and detached garages as well as a shying away from the "mcmansion" that has ruled this market's recent past. lenders are also getting hip to this trend and as a result many more traditional neighborhoods are popping up.
like it or not most people have strong ideas and emotions about the concept of "home" and for the most part they involve the little things that we tend to dismiss as sentimental. these ideas generally do not include corrugated metal siding, flat roofs or exposed i-beams. therefore, i can never see the ideas found in dwell to be absorbed into the mainstream of american domestic construction/building/architecture.
e - perhaps you are right, but I meant in a broader spectrum we disagree in general. It's been discussed on here a bunch of times. The AIA, the lack of direction, no real message to promote.
That's really what I meant, more that architects are so diverse, and diversity is generally good, but it makes it next to impossible to promote good architecture. I don't think it's enough just to promote architecture, it needs to be 'good' architecture.
The New Urbanists continued and growing success (albeit quite, at least in the architecture circle) is interesting, esp how they've managed to incorporate a diversity of designs, from the Truman crap to dwellish moderism, all on the same block. Singular vision, with a tad of flexibility tossed in. Good business move, focused and flexible.
vado - what about lofts? They are extremely successful and it's pretty much a requirement that they have exposed mech sys and corrugated metal, or at least a modernist formal theme. It'll be interesting to see if the aesthetic spreads beyond the downtown urban arena.
You also may not have anticipated the absorption of iPods, iMacs, and new Beetles into the mainstream, but slick design is now prevalent in just about every aspect of the life of mainstream America - just not their home environment. Because of the Beetle and the iMac, we now have much more design-savvy SUVs, computer accessories, televisions, kitchen appliances...
I think architects have simply been too willing to roll over, fatalistic in the face of the stranglehold Joe house builder has on the construction industry. A guy with a hammer, a garden hose and an F150 has more clout in the housing market than we do. Res4 et al have recognized that architects have been pushed out of the single-family residential market and they're trying to poke their way back in. They should be our heroes rather than the precious jewel-box makers we all know an' love.
I am impressed with the discussion that has gone on with this post... I look at the magazine occasionally. I have had 2 or 3 clients who were readers of the magazine, but I confess they were far from my best clients. They were good but they presented perhaps their own particular set of challenges when it came to managing expectations. I am not sure if that's a good sampling but I found a couple of things both good and challenging:
1. That making a piece of architecture is like shopping. That is, it is quick, easy and like picking things from a catalog. Somehow they all work together and you're done. The fact that they considered themselves "experts" because they read the magazine made it a little more challenging to educate them and manage their expectations.
3. That $150K can get you a living room addition, new kitchen, new windows, etc. Again, the expectations thing.
4. Prefab is better. This was fun to find because most people equate it with cheap and unnattractive. And they've done some great stuff in the magazine. Kudos to Dwell.
5. Stock house plans are good. I don't understand any of this stuff. How does this save money? And what does any of this have to with architecture? Most of the stuff I have seen is real crap.
I agree that it is a magazine promoting a life style for an end user. That is a good way to promote architecture and further an architectural culture in this country. Any effort at that is to be applauded. I think there is room for a more serious magazine, rigorous modern architecture as opposed to lite-modern.
SW you make some interesting points in your comments. I agree that certain product designs may heighten the general public's awareness about design. But the products you describe are just that; products. they are designed and redesigned to the degree that they are because their useful life is limited and must constantly be upgraded to satisfy the marketplace of desire. in the end though, today's award winning fondue pot is tomorrow's garage sale bargain. even though these things are cool and we covet them, in the end they are just things and very few of them contain the magic to become iconographic.
homes are not objects in the sense that a new beetle is an object. even for people who have no home, the idea of the form of the archtypal home, just the word "home" triggers memories, both individual and collective, that lift it above and beyond the scope of a mere product. the transcendant power of the form to create meaning from those memories gives even the humblest starter home a symbolic power that transcends culture and time. therefore, a house cannot be compared to a blender, computer or even a gibson les paul gold top.
don't get me wrong i think the res4 house is stunning, and i am sure that if dwell magazine developed a neighborhood using this prototype that they would sell them all before a single module was built, but all in all i would say that this will remain a niche market. my point in the previous post was that architectural ideas are making it into the mainstream. The tangible evidence of these ideas that i see reinforces established architectural precedents that have been abandoned(forgotten) by the bulk of builders in this country. afterall one of the architects i referred to, sarah susanka, was a judge on the dwell house competition.
trace i agree with you regarding lofts, however, i was referring to single family dwellings.
p.s. the F150 is america's best selling vehicle.peace
vado - it is a stretch from a loft to a sfr, but it's happening slowly. I am noticing numerous small units, like 4 (quad-plex?), that have I beams and industrial materials, and they are selling for $600k+. It'll take some time, but it will impact the sfr market.
thats the point joed, if modernism would have produced the same warm fuzzy feelings then we would all be living in our villa savoye's and not having this discussion.yo.
and even though i let my subscription lapse i looked at it yesterday at barnes and noble.nice ads.
I've never subscribed because the magazine always seemed to be presented toward the consumer, not the architect. The level of writing in the mag is similar to that of the newspaper's style section.
A recent issue was dedicated to architecture in Los Angeles, so I bought it. I must say some of the projects presented were just not that good or innovative, and the budget seemed irrelevant. I thought that there must be more interesting things happening in Los Angeles right now.
One of the featured architects had been chosen for the next Dwell "competition." And I saw a full page advertisement for an LA architect, which I thought was really weird.
Just one more point on the Dwell Pre Fab home. It would have been cheaper to build non modular. The reason double wides and modulars are so popular around the country is that contractors have become far and few between in rural areas. This provides people with not just the cheapest alternative, but the only one. The amount of customized labor required to finish the Dwell house was ridiculous, and probably the reason it would never work in its current form. Our architect's sense of non uniformity, must give in in order to provide for a manufactured product within the options that manufactured housing can give. Everyone should visit their local mobile home sales center to see that those guys are already 100 ahead of Modern Modular (not on design) but on production.
The catalog comment from earlier I think is on target, given that most people don't really know how to work with an architect, hence they feel they don't need one. Look, none of us, and most people would not operate on themselves, or defend themselves in court. However, the same people feel adequately qualified to design and execute the construction of a house. Tradings Spaces, This Old House, and Decorator's challenge does nothing to repudiate this notion, in fact, it affirms it in the mainstream. When an architect is shown on the mainstream media publications or shows, its in a superstar type of context or a "way out there" kind of thing.
The reality is that we need to acknowledge that our profession is quite unecessary by the public when it comes to domesticity. Architects are very much needed when it comes to housing as a planned development or an urban multi family situation, but single homes will always be an uphill battle because everyone has these misaligned expectations and feels that they need to be part of the process. How many times have you heard cockatail party chit chat where the phrase "I told the architect to do....l". How many times do you hear "I told the dentist to use a #7 instead of the maxillary gauge".
There is a need that Dwell has satisfied for a population that is 1. uneducated about what they want 2. Inexperienced with what the value of an architect is 3. Already contaminated with "architect horror stories" which most likely stem from misaligned expectations and performance and makes them more likely to believe that they can do it themselves.
Personally, I don't think I could design my own house and would hire an architect or do like most men, let my wife run the show.
Not sure where you live, Maestro, but in Ky builders/contractors are definitely NOT in short supply in our rural areas. I'd guess that general contractors or trade contractors represent some of the most common occupations. The key distinction is that they all know how to do things the way they've seen them done by every other builder for the last 30 years.
What prefab brings to the equation is the possibility of specialized knowledgeable labor working in a controlled remote environment. You don't need to teach the local contractor the new things you propose to do. You've got a shop full of people who work 9 to 5 in a warm dry place. The work force is more dependable and quality control is more easily maintained.
Agree that too many feel they know our job and think they can tell us how it's done. Disagree that we are unnecessary to the public in areas of domesticity. An excited, involved client may be much too eager, learning construction tips from the internet and interfering with the contractor and my work to the detriment of the project. (Contractors don't like this any better than we do.) But that same client will be very appreciative of the architect's ability to observe their living patterns and develop a plan uniquely suited to their needs, i.e., allowing a more personally relevant 'home'/domestic intimacy. In my experience with residential work, this pattern repeats over and over.
Fom your previos postings, especially the one on 01/30/05 20:15, you seem more than happy to wallow in an Architecture that is debased by a crass commercial culture and crude advertising. Just because the F150 is the best selling truck and just because Madison Avenue likes to insert sexuality into every ad (see the back page of the latest Dwell) and just because most pople are suckers and get a rise from overt titilation, does not make the debauchery right.
We should expect a much higher standard from a magazine that, as many above have come to opinionate, represents Architects.
ah i think my original post noted that i let my subscription lapse due to the advertising in dwell. a magazine that talks about "nice modernism" should be advancing the cause of sustainability, reuse and selective consumption/consumerism not selling ad space to promote h2's. the last post was an attempt at humor. the f150 comment was just a counterpoint to steven's comment about the new beetle. by the by i own less crap than anyone i know.
It's a real bitch, ain't it. As designers, we want to change the world and we want recognition... we want to design stuff, but we need buyers (consumers). Consumerism is a necessary evil, the general public will never understand what design truly means – ever – and so we are tortured by success (and what it means) or toiling away in obscurity, never recognized for great ideas.
We need both points of view... we need the tortured designer/artist/musician who fights the norm, pushes the envelope, and hates mass culture. They are the reasons we have evolution and change... but when that evolution becomes "popular," well of course there are those that then want nothing to do with it. Avant garde often leads to trends, and yes, much of the meaning and ideology is lost… trendy is “superficial.â€Â
I think that Dwell walks the line... but walking the line just begs to be pushed off the edge. Dwell does make an effort to educate, and isn’t that what we want? On the other hand, the magazine needs to draw people in before it can educate… and it also must sell to begin with. I do wish that Dwell held a higher standard, from their features to their advertising. But look at Architecture magazine published by the AIA… is this honestly much better? This is an organization run by architects and they can’t even get it right within the profession! Frankly, I think Dwell does a better job and even though it is aimed only partially towards professionals and mostly towards laity (um… consumers).
We were mentioned (although briefly) in the NY Times article, and in part we look towards Dwell as a model, but really in-so-far as straddling the gap between designers and laity are concerned. On the one hand, our goal is education, but on the other, I have no problem saying “hey, this is cool, I like it†with the idea that the reader can take what they will at whatever level they are capable.
I disagree about who needs who- Architects need consumers but unfortunately consumers dont seem to need Architects as over 95% of structures are built without architects. The Richard Meir residential towers and Robert Stern Shingle homes of the world are few and far between.
The Dwell 'modern chic' aesthetic just makes it so that contractors/ developers can bypass the Architect and sell the consumer masses unfinished "loft-like" spaces at a price premium. If some trendy neo-yuppie wants to feel like they are living the urban dream, the developer is more than happy to charge extra for the added "work" of exposed concrete/ brick/ ductwork/ floors/ stub outs/ stainless steel prison trendy toilets...
i dont think that Dwell is helping to make for a more well educated consumer of "design", but merely providing for the exponential growth of more gullible superficial consumers.
I don't think that Dwell provides for growth of more gullible (or superficial) consumers... people are going to buy something, and perhaps this ignorance is a larger society issue. Dwell does make some attempt to educate, successful or not. And just because Dwell says that an architect may not be necessary is not Dwell's problem, but rather a problem of the profession. If no one hires an architect, then there are no architects. Design comes from somewhere with or without designers… is influencing trends worse than having no say at all? Is publicity of some kind better than none?
More than five years ago, Aaron Betsky said: ""The world's new passion for designer labels is making waves even in the hallowed halls of architecture. … For hip-hop, you go to Tommy Hilfiger. For retro-futurism, it's Tom Ford for Gucci. For urban revitalization, look to Frank Gehry - or Michael Graves or Robert A. M. Stern. Architects who used to just design buildings are now being hired to create signature structures that will help lure us there."
Now, I'm not saying that this is entirely good, but raising the profile of the profession should be (at least in some ways) a good thing. As I said, people are going to buy something, so if architects (and designers) want to position themselves to make a difference, then perhaps they need to get right in the middle of the big "C" word. Unless they do, then this discussion is about the way it will be. Which is fine, as long as you can deal with what it means.
Dwell Magazine: A Slow Commercialised Descent? Has it stoped being a "Nice Modernist?"
I have recently received the latest March issue of Dwell to much disappointment. Slowly but surely, over the past few months, that magazine has slowly changed. What started as a great magazine whose goal was "a minor revolution" that could democratise a modern design vocabulary "within a budget" "with the occasional aesthetic lapse" and also be about "real life" has quickly descended into an opportunistically self-serving commercialised "design" rag.
I remember the days of past issues where people imaginatively made their own coffee tables and stenciled their walls in unique patterns. Now it serves a niche community of those, who though tasteless, can afford to outlandishly outfit a living room seating arrangement with $20,000 plus worth of iconic Mies furnishings. It is now meant for those who locally wheel around town in mid 1950's Mercedes Benzes (p114) and jet set about the globe (p124) with their $1,000+ luggage, staff inspected and tested by Dwell in a recent issues.
Where they once documented honest, affordable projects that did not strain to be trendy, they are now profiling unfinished projects (or was that a proposition for a new temporal plywood design) (p96) just so they can stuff crass advertising down peoples throat (back cover and 123), sell branded shoes (see p127), sell not very accessible or ecologically friendly cars (p 27 and they have had H2 ads before)...sadly the list goes on. I wont even touch the out of control and exponentially growing ad section in the back that is busting at the seams.
Where once they were about creative solutions, now they are unfortunately about providing a trite recipe for hipness: Get a chicken as a pet, a cool stacking European washer and dryer, an expensive cappuccino maker, an ipod stand...check off the list... and voila you are DWELLING!
Perhaps its time that Dwell revisit its first 2 years of magazines and republish-yet once again-its "Fruit Bowl Manifesto" as a way to remember what it was at one time a really 'nice modernist.' I want my magazine back-pretty please?
There has been a change, slowly evolving since the change in editors a year or so ago. I'm maybe not as bothered by it as you, though, since it's still better and more wide-ranging than any of the other design mags I've found. Some of the changes are better than others.
Your complaint above would make a good letter - it's a good argument, anyway. Suggest sending a note to the editor if you haven't already.
Thank you Steven for your comments and suggestion. The editorial person's changeover went totally unnoticed by me (do you know what happened to the previous person?), though that change really showed through in their choice of recent stories. i wish it would stop trying to be a soft-core version of (old) Wallpaper.
I had also sent the Dwell editors my comments--yes my trident is milti-pronged-- and an open invite to this Archinect discussion's link because 1) i would like to know what they think and maybe they are willing to somewhat adjust their course and 2) because i doubt they would publish my comments-usually their letters to the editor are as saccharine and hyper-laudatory as a Ronco infomercial. "These are the best knives i have (n)ever had!!!!!!" Nothing negative ever gets published on those letters pages.
But what i really hope to soon see back in its pages is some old-school Dwell stories.
remember the shopping article featuring paul petrunia in pier one (i think it was pier one??) a couple of years ago?
I wonder if dwell is trying to reposition themselves against real simple?
I would have to sadly agree with Suture. Although it is better than most the other magazines on the shelf, It seems to be straying from its original intent. Unfortunately that may be what sells to the general public, who more often than not seems to be there market.
PGB
Jeffe,
I too, as you and many probable many others have countless fond nostalgic memories about specific stories.
Dwell used to be a "healthy?" cult {like Apple} that brough together those who loved it for unrepentantly broadcasting its alternative modern design politisasions. Now its just a nightmarishly occult branch of the likes of DWR, AKA, Design NOT Within Reach. Nice enough looking airbruhed architectural porn to look at.
Karrie Jacobs last issue was December 2002. She had gone to SF to start Dwell, but she missed NY.
Allison Arieff took over at that point.
I would agree with this point. Just follow the ridiculous Modern Modular Home series. Not only did it prove that mass production is still yet unaccessible, but the writing was hopeless, as if it was constantly trying to justify the endeavour. Of most fun was them constantly omitting costs to be able to quote the 200k target budget.
If they really wanted to deal with that issue, then they should have looked at the pre-fab market that does work, and people do buy, and see how to improve it (single and double wides across the country), instead of yet another pre-fab fantasy.
Like most things, its sold out commercially and become more focused on a lifestyle supported by the consumption of modernity.
good points, but it is a really tricky niche market they're contending with. if they don't make sure they stay viable they'll start on that downward spiral like architecture and a whole history of other mags throughout the century.
God bless capitalism....
It's a catch 22.
This week a client came to me and as she was showing me what she liked as far as architectural details from the latest issue of dwell she paused and commented that dwell magazine is the only magazine subscription that she has. My point is this, it appears to me that while the above comments maybe on target dwell is widening their consumer market. I could clearly see that my client could relate to this magazine from a lifestyle point of view. So I went out and bought the latest issue (I don't subscribe to anything) and I saw why she would feel comfortable with its content. There was an article on how to read plans. What services can an architect provide, it also points out that you can actually pick and choose which services you may exclude as part of your contract. What type of contract you may expect as far as the lenguage. It also has a great article on the perspective of a client towards his architect, and the opposite view as well. In any case it appeared to me as not an "architects mag" but rather an end user mag that is geared to a better understanding on how to build in a modern style.
I was really happy with that article that Tectonic was talking about... plust I bougt an ACME bag for my laptop from the adverts page...
good obervations tectonic... i agree that it seems geared toward end-users and not design professionals. i quickly became bored with dwell soon after my pilot year subscription and never renewed. i did, however, give a gift subscription to my mother-in-law, who is a closet modernist. she loves it and i believe she still subscribes.
My sister decided to drop her subscription of "Veranda" and "Arch Digest" after she saw my latest article of Dwell lying on the floor. At least there's that.
8 months ago i was contemplating a subscription, but having noticed the same shift, i decided against it. thanks for bringing this up suture. i will give them an earful too. although, i'm sure they will just read a couple of sentences and hit the delete button.
Personally, I think it's the best thing happening in architecture right now. It's the only thing providing education for the consumer, something architects seem to think is above them.
I only briefly looked at Dwell years ago and found it to be boring, so I never even bought an issue. But the newer ones did catch my attention and I've subscribed for two years now. Perhaps I fall into the mass consumer market, if so, I am glad as that puts me, so to speak, on the same page as my clients.
As for the prefab market, I can tell you first hand that it does work. How far it will go, only time will tell. But manufacturers are interested and it is opening new doors. It's also got a little momentary spotlight that is helping to push otherwise overlooked designs forward.
The only complaint I have is that if they are going to show very nice homes, show really nice homes, not just expensive modern design. There are plenty of excellent designers out there.
All in all, Dwell has brought business opportunities to me and I am grateful to be able to have clients that share somewhat similar interests and design ideals.
Maestro,
You are a true Professor! I totally agree with you when you say Dwell has "sold out commercially and become more focused on a lifestyle supported by the consumption of modernity."
Thanks for editing my thoughts to that level of eloquence. If enough people speak up, maybe we can get both the reprinting of te "fruit Bowl" and more articles that will feature new "paul petrunias" of our time who are doing great work that trancends the latest fashion.
Trace- do you find that your clients come to you asking for dwell details, but with a do-it-yourself budget? My issue with them of late is that although they do feature some nice homes, they are more and more expensive, and quite often, foreign (Mexico, Europe, etc.) I'm not sure that they are claiming to be showing affordable deisgn anymore, but I get the feeling that the average person reading the magazine absorbs it as though it's potentially within their reach (ie, can't we do this out of board-formed concrete & stainless steel?) It's nice that there is an accessible design magazine other than Sunset and Metropolitan Home, but if no one except the very rich can afford to build these things, what's the point?
as long as it educates the client as to what is out there...
it serves as a good spring board to other solutions (by testing us to define the intrinsic qualities of a 'popular' product and seeing whether or not we can boil it down further into its essential character) and maybe even providing more case studies for the magazine.
right on trace-
if it is becoming what the contempory perception of architecture is instead of arch digest, that alone is profound.
architecture has continuously alienated itself from the public for almost a century. dwell really is helping bridge the gap.
Glad some people agree.
What I am finding is that Dwell is helping to sell a lifestyle, not just a home. It's not just about the architecture, but about appreciating design as an asset to living well.
The new Target adds are nice. It's all aimed at consumerism/consumption, of course, but that's what we do - we design things to be consumed. That's why I work hard, to consume what I want not what someone tell's me is in a certain budget. If you haven't seen the add, it just says DESIGN is good, helpful, needed, etc., etc. Hopefully it'll make people think more when they do go to consume and build. Target has essentially done what Dwell and the prefabers are hoping to do - to bring quality design to a mass market, which will bring prices dramatically down.
Dwell, at least from my point of view and some clients, is about a vision of a better kind of lifestyle. It's not as pretentious as Wallpaper or as elitist as Metropolitan Home, but it's better than average. Sometimes things cost more (DWR and all the classics) and sometimes things can cost less.
As meverusyou and silverlake point out, it's really about opening a dialog, based on appreciation for design, between us and our clients.
Isn't that worth a lot?
just a little observation, of course the magazine is trying to appeal to a mass market to increase circulation, however, much of the transformation described above is not about increasing its appeal to the public. it is about increasing the appeal of the magazine to its advertisers. that is where the money comes from. the ads are not just in the ads if you get what i am saying.
you mean to say that dwell is actually trying to turn a profit with its magazine? what kind of sick monster...
kidding. good call
Trace... the Targer ads are great I agree.
What is even sadder is how low the whole crop of design blogs has gone, in a spiral that follows the Dwell trend. Let's be super-consumers! We're excused because we have good taste!! This is my rant o' the day following the publication in the Times of an "article" (more like a lundry list) about the crop of retroid-modernist design blogs .
take a look
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/garden/27blog.html
Just a thought here, why is "design" in this context always considered modern? Are we being elitists ourselves by discrediting classical or traditional design, which no one here will disagree has served society adequately and continues to serve the majority of the population.
If one takes an objective, non sentimental look at Dwell, it is providing a home for a historical design period no different than Traditional Home, AD, or any other similar publication. Furthermore, if all of you have noticed the recent rise in the "Luxury" lifestyle trend, exemplified by Robb Report, Las Vegas, The Maybach, Wine aficionados, and an obsession with Luxury Brands as propagated by Hip Hop and the rest of the entertainment industry, Dwell is looking for its niche within this crowd, allowing their readers a way to consume a codified luxury product (let's face it, nothing in that magazine is either affordable or accessible).
i work in a firm that has its share of wealthy clients and a share of clients who dont have alot of money, but still look to express themselves in the same manner as the wealthy. its not about a 'product' being affordable or accessible. its the ideals behind it, its a way to educate yourself and your client as to what is essentially 'there.' what does a slatted teak exterior facade really mean? what does a 1/4" reveal between the plaster and floor really mean? i believe that the mag helps to bring forth questions (and most importantly, imagery) of what is important in design, and i believe it is my job to teach the client a vocabulary when it comes to formal design. i live about 2 minutes away from the haus martin (the cover image from jan/feb) and it is such a beautiful home. yet it is so utterly simple in design terms, once you strip away some of the superfluous 'machine for living' crap.
its kind of like, if you can understand the principles of the design, why a+b=c, then there is always a way around $$.
Maestro,
Even Snoop Dogg's video shown him flossing in the Goldstein Residence by John Lautner and 50 Cent's recent video started with a close-up shot of his i-Pod.
I would not mind if Dwell were opening eyes to fresh ideas/ manufacturers..but its always the same mies furniture/ H2 / Range Rover/ expensive coffee makers/ light fixtures...
all this eventually turns people into followers instead of innovators. I dont care how early and quick of an early-adopter to a new fad one is-its still all trucker hat lemmingry.
good observations suture! i let my subscription to this rag lapse because of all the reasons you mentioned. i really became tired of hummer ads and so called affordable houses containing ottomans that cost more than my car. as many of the respondents effectively stated its a magazine looking for its metrosexual/queer eye/sex in the city niche. have a good weekend all.
I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. Seems like a typical architecture discussion, I guess. Perhaps why architecture continues to loose footing in the world - we can't even agree on anything amongst ourselves.
Having been a co-instructor with Joe Tanney, one of the partners in the Dwell home, I'd have to disagree with Maestro's theory about the tenability of the prefab prototype that Dwell sponsored. While I do think the writing was simplified too much, failing to give a true sense of all that Resolution 4, Dwell, the manufacturers, and the contractors went through, the project itself was admirable and Resolution 4 continues to work through the same model.
Remember that Resolution 4 and their Modern Modular research predates the Dwell Home competition. Also remember that, yes, although this one-off busted the budget (though not by much), it is only one house representing a system that would realize its economies through repetition.
Re: the magazine. I come down on both sides. I think it's changes are unfortunate, but I'm still a loyal subscriber and still look forward to it each month. If the changes mean that it serves a larger audience, sounds good to me.
to add my two cents, i bought the second issue of Dwell and liked alot of the mag, i did not like the cartoonish hand drawn plans, but i like feel, the size, the scope, the screwballness at times and the other early things, what i liked even more was the lack of advertising. i mean pcik up any other rag that has been around a long time and its loaded front to back with advertisements, so much so that content seems squeezed, condensed to nothing, and then the product advertised of course seems to find its way into content, not unlike the product placement "ads" in tv sitcoms, or film. i have also been a subscriber of and on since my first purchase, and have finally let it lapse because of what has been said. i do appreciate the magazine doing its part to make design more pallatable to joe six pack, but if you ever visit dwells online forum you can talk to the naive masses that appreciate the 4000 dollar sofa and wonder why architects fees are so high, and then they think that you can just copy what x architect has done for their new home, and other shit like that. there have been times through either editorial content or through the content itself, where the role of even having an architect has been questioned, not good.
beta - those are good points. I think it is a valid question - 'do we need architects?'. The answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Obviously, developers are having no problem making loads of cash without architects (or architects with more than a tech drafting degree). This is nothing new. I think architects need to look around and decide where we want to be in 10 years. There will still be custom jobs, and most likely, things will be the same.
BUT there will be new, emerging markets, that stand to bring in loads of cash for those that pioneer it. Those that are doing prefab now stand a chance of being part of this. A development of all R4A or Glidehouses? It's not that far fetched and these architects would make a decent amount while being able to negotiate discount rates for producing many homes at once.
It's all business.
I'd suggest reading 'Refabricating Architecture' by Kieran and Timberlake. Nothing new if you are familiar with Lynn's work and ideas, but it's a good, quick read.
I guess it just depends on what your personal goals are, too. Custom homes for little or many homes for a lot.
trace - one of the very first clients i worked with (while at a firm), was always fond of this saying: if you cater to the classes, you will dine with the masses. Cater to the masses and you will dine with the classes...
i've found this thread kind of funny. most of the people critical of dwell's current state are harping on the 'crass commercialism' that they see more and more of as time has gone by. are we condeming them as sellouts because hummer wants to buy space instead of some mom and pop furniture collaborative? or because, as suture pointed out, the actual work shown isn't the funky d.i.y. type projects anymore, but more sophisticated, expertly crafted work?
i think dwell has always been targeted towards the mainstream user. we (as the design community) were included, but they've always wanted to be hipper, better met. home. and they've filled out that niche nicely. and, yes, they make money while doing it.
in the past year +, i've had a chance to talk with andrew wagner, the senior editor, on three different occasions, all pretty casual and all for a long period of time. he's a great guy, knows exactly where he wants to take the magazine but is loving not quite knowing how the journey to get there will unfold, and is more than happy to open doors to places/people/products that haven't been seen before. (he founded a great little journal called dodge city reports, which were these postings/articles about his experiences visiting off the beaten path kind of places all over). he knows he's selling a magazine. and nothing would make him happier than to have great stories to share. apparently, there aren't too many of those crossing his desk these days... (and by 'stories' i think he means projects which have a great story behind them that might connect to some larger trends going on in the world of culture, not just 'hey this is my latest kick ass project).
do i personally like the recent obsession with prefab this and that? not really. do i think it's shift away from funkycoolcheap towards, coolsleekexpensive is positive? not as a tool to share with most of my clients. but it's still far better than most of what's out there and i think i'll hold on to the subscription one more year...
"I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. Seems like a typical architecture discussion, I guess. Perhaps why architecture continues to loose footing in the world - we can't even agree on anything amongst ourselves."
come on trace, that's just plain silly. us not being able to agree whether dwell is a good rag or not has nothing to do with architecture losing footing. we are a large group with diverse interests and focuses. of course we are not going to see eye to eye on every point. especially the small things.
imho i believe that architectural ideas are trickling down(up) into the mass production housing market. these ideas are not coming from the proponents of the dwell typology, however. they are coming from architects like susanka and duany plater-zyberk. the not so big house/traditional neighborhood idea is catching on in mass production and houses designed and built by the traditional builder. this trend can be seen in magazines such as "builder" where one finds away rooms and detached garages as well as a shying away from the "mcmansion" that has ruled this market's recent past. lenders are also getting hip to this trend and as a result many more traditional neighborhoods are popping up.
like it or not most people have strong ideas and emotions about the concept of "home" and for the most part they involve the little things that we tend to dismiss as sentimental. these ideas generally do not include corrugated metal siding, flat roofs or exposed i-beams. therefore, i can never see the ideas found in dwell to be absorbed into the mainstream of american domestic construction/building/architecture.
e - perhaps you are right, but I meant in a broader spectrum we disagree in general. It's been discussed on here a bunch of times. The AIA, the lack of direction, no real message to promote.
That's really what I meant, more that architects are so diverse, and diversity is generally good, but it makes it next to impossible to promote good architecture. I don't think it's enough just to promote architecture, it needs to be 'good' architecture.
The New Urbanists continued and growing success (albeit quite, at least in the architecture circle) is interesting, esp how they've managed to incorporate a diversity of designs, from the Truman crap to dwellish moderism, all on the same block. Singular vision, with a tad of flexibility tossed in. Good business move, focused and flexible.
vado - what about lofts? They are extremely successful and it's pretty much a requirement that they have exposed mech sys and corrugated metal, or at least a modernist formal theme. It'll be interesting to see if the aesthetic spreads beyond the downtown urban arena.
You also may not have anticipated the absorption of iPods, iMacs, and new Beetles into the mainstream, but slick design is now prevalent in just about every aspect of the life of mainstream America - just not their home environment. Because of the Beetle and the iMac, we now have much more design-savvy SUVs, computer accessories, televisions, kitchen appliances...
I think architects have simply been too willing to roll over, fatalistic in the face of the stranglehold Joe house builder has on the construction industry. A guy with a hammer, a garden hose and an F150 has more clout in the housing market than we do. Res4 et al have recognized that architects have been pushed out of the single-family residential market and they're trying to poke their way back in. They should be our heroes rather than the precious jewel-box makers we all know an' love.
my note was in reference to vado retro. sorry.
I am impressed with the discussion that has gone on with this post... I look at the magazine occasionally. I have had 2 or 3 clients who were readers of the magazine, but I confess they were far from my best clients. They were good but they presented perhaps their own particular set of challenges when it came to managing expectations. I am not sure if that's a good sampling but I found a couple of things both good and challenging:
1. That making a piece of architecture is like shopping. That is, it is quick, easy and like picking things from a catalog. Somehow they all work together and you're done. The fact that they considered themselves "experts" because they read the magazine made it a little more challenging to educate them and manage their expectations.
2. They were interested in "modern." That was helpful and was a segué in explaining that buildings are made through asking questions, exploration and lots of sketching. What it looks like comes out this rather than the other way around. Perhaps I should start a magazine named after Cecil Balmond's book Informal? ;-)
3. That $150K can get you a living room addition, new kitchen, new windows, etc. Again, the expectations thing.
4. Prefab is better. This was fun to find because most people equate it with cheap and unnattractive. And they've done some great stuff in the magazine. Kudos to Dwell.
5. Stock house plans are good. I don't understand any of this stuff. How does this save money? And what does any of this have to with architecture? Most of the stuff I have seen is real crap.
I agree that it is a magazine promoting a life style for an end user. That is a good way to promote architecture and further an architectural culture in this country. Any effort at that is to be applauded. I think there is room for a more serious magazine, rigorous modern architecture as opposed to lite-modern.
Wm
SW you make some interesting points in your comments. I agree that certain product designs may heighten the general public's awareness about design. But the products you describe are just that; products. they are designed and redesigned to the degree that they are because their useful life is limited and must constantly be upgraded to satisfy the marketplace of desire. in the end though, today's award winning fondue pot is tomorrow's garage sale bargain. even though these things are cool and we covet them, in the end they are just things and very few of them contain the magic to become iconographic.
homes are not objects in the sense that a new beetle is an object. even for people who have no home, the idea of the form of the archtypal home, just the word "home" triggers memories, both individual and collective, that lift it above and beyond the scope of a mere product. the transcendant power of the form to create meaning from those memories gives even the humblest starter home a symbolic power that transcends culture and time. therefore, a house cannot be compared to a blender, computer or even a gibson les paul gold top.
don't get me wrong i think the res4 house is stunning, and i am sure that if dwell magazine developed a neighborhood using this prototype that they would sell them all before a single module was built, but all in all i would say that this will remain a niche market. my point in the previous post was that architectural ideas are making it into the mainstream. The tangible evidence of these ideas that i see reinforces established architectural precedents that have been abandoned(forgotten) by the bulk of builders in this country. afterall one of the architects i referred to, sarah susanka, was a judge on the dwell house competition.
trace i agree with you regarding lofts, however, i was referring to single family dwellings.
p.s. the F150 is america's best selling vehicle.peace
vado - it is a stretch from a loft to a sfr, but it's happening slowly. I am noticing numerous small units, like 4 (quad-plex?), that have I beams and industrial materials, and they are selling for $600k+. It'll take some time, but it will impact the sfr market.
caves evoked warm and fuzzy feelings at one point. get with it yo.
thats the point joed, if modernism would have produced the same warm fuzzy feelings then we would all be living in our villa savoye's and not having this discussion.yo.
and even though i let my subscription lapse i looked at it yesterday at barnes and noble.nice ads.
I've never subscribed because the magazine always seemed to be presented toward the consumer, not the architect. The level of writing in the mag is similar to that of the newspaper's style section.
A recent issue was dedicated to architecture in Los Angeles, so I bought it. I must say some of the projects presented were just not that good or innovative, and the budget seemed irrelevant. I thought that there must be more interesting things happening in Los Angeles right now.
One of the featured architects had been chosen for the next Dwell "competition." And I saw a full page advertisement for an LA architect, which I thought was really weird.
Just one more point on the Dwell Pre Fab home. It would have been cheaper to build non modular. The reason double wides and modulars are so popular around the country is that contractors have become far and few between in rural areas. This provides people with not just the cheapest alternative, but the only one. The amount of customized labor required to finish the Dwell house was ridiculous, and probably the reason it would never work in its current form. Our architect's sense of non uniformity, must give in in order to provide for a manufactured product within the options that manufactured housing can give. Everyone should visit their local mobile home sales center to see that those guys are already 100 ahead of Modern Modular (not on design) but on production.
The catalog comment from earlier I think is on target, given that most people don't really know how to work with an architect, hence they feel they don't need one. Look, none of us, and most people would not operate on themselves, or defend themselves in court. However, the same people feel adequately qualified to design and execute the construction of a house. Tradings Spaces, This Old House, and Decorator's challenge does nothing to repudiate this notion, in fact, it affirms it in the mainstream. When an architect is shown on the mainstream media publications or shows, its in a superstar type of context or a "way out there" kind of thing.
The reality is that we need to acknowledge that our profession is quite unecessary by the public when it comes to domesticity. Architects are very much needed when it comes to housing as a planned development or an urban multi family situation, but single homes will always be an uphill battle because everyone has these misaligned expectations and feels that they need to be part of the process. How many times have you heard cockatail party chit chat where the phrase "I told the architect to do....l". How many times do you hear "I told the dentist to use a #7 instead of the maxillary gauge".
There is a need that Dwell has satisfied for a population that is 1. uneducated about what they want 2. Inexperienced with what the value of an architect is 3. Already contaminated with "architect horror stories" which most likely stem from misaligned expectations and performance and makes them more likely to believe that they can do it themselves.
Personally, I don't think I could design my own house and would hire an architect or do like most men, let my wife run the show.
Not sure where you live, Maestro, but in Ky builders/contractors are definitely NOT in short supply in our rural areas. I'd guess that general contractors or trade contractors represent some of the most common occupations. The key distinction is that they all know how to do things the way they've seen them done by every other builder for the last 30 years.
What prefab brings to the equation is the possibility of specialized knowledgeable labor working in a controlled remote environment. You don't need to teach the local contractor the new things you propose to do. You've got a shop full of people who work 9 to 5 in a warm dry place. The work force is more dependable and quality control is more easily maintained.
Agree that too many feel they know our job and think they can tell us how it's done. Disagree that we are unnecessary to the public in areas of domesticity. An excited, involved client may be much too eager, learning construction tips from the internet and interfering with the contractor and my work to the detriment of the project. (Contractors don't like this any better than we do.) But that same client will be very appreciative of the architect's ability to observe their living patterns and develop a plan uniquely suited to their needs, i.e., allowing a more personally relevant 'home'/domestic intimacy. In my experience with residential work, this pattern repeats over and over.
vado retro,
Fom your previos postings, especially the one on 01/30/05 20:15, you seem more than happy to wallow in an Architecture that is debased by a crass commercial culture and crude advertising. Just because the F150 is the best selling truck and just because Madison Avenue likes to insert sexuality into every ad (see the back page of the latest Dwell) and just because most pople are suckers and get a rise from overt titilation, does not make the debauchery right.
We should expect a much higher standard from a magazine that, as many above have come to opinionate, represents Architects.
ah i think my original post noted that i let my subscription lapse due to the advertising in dwell. a magazine that talks about "nice modernism" should be advancing the cause of sustainability, reuse and selective consumption/consumerism not selling ad space to promote h2's. the last post was an attempt at humor. the f150 comment was just a counterpoint to steven's comment about the new beetle. by the by i own less crap than anyone i know.
It's a real bitch, ain't it. As designers, we want to change the world and we want recognition... we want to design stuff, but we need buyers (consumers). Consumerism is a necessary evil, the general public will never understand what design truly means – ever – and so we are tortured by success (and what it means) or toiling away in obscurity, never recognized for great ideas.
We need both points of view... we need the tortured designer/artist/musician who fights the norm, pushes the envelope, and hates mass culture. They are the reasons we have evolution and change... but when that evolution becomes "popular," well of course there are those that then want nothing to do with it. Avant garde often leads to trends, and yes, much of the meaning and ideology is lost… trendy is “superficial.â€Â
I think that Dwell walks the line... but walking the line just begs to be pushed off the edge. Dwell does make an effort to educate, and isn’t that what we want? On the other hand, the magazine needs to draw people in before it can educate… and it also must sell to begin with. I do wish that Dwell held a higher standard, from their features to their advertising. But look at Architecture magazine published by the AIA… is this honestly much better? This is an organization run by architects and they can’t even get it right within the profession! Frankly, I think Dwell does a better job and even though it is aimed only partially towards professionals and mostly towards laity (um… consumers).
We were mentioned (although briefly) in the NY Times article, and in part we look towards Dwell as a model, but really in-so-far as straddling the gap between designers and laity are concerned. On the one hand, our goal is education, but on the other, I have no problem saying “hey, this is cool, I like it†with the idea that the reader can take what they will at whatever level they are capable.
I disagree about who needs who- Architects need consumers but unfortunately consumers dont seem to need Architects as over 95% of structures are built without architects. The Richard Meir residential towers and Robert Stern Shingle homes of the world are few and far between.
The Dwell 'modern chic' aesthetic just makes it so that contractors/ developers can bypass the Architect and sell the consumer masses unfinished "loft-like" spaces at a price premium. If some trendy neo-yuppie wants to feel like they are living the urban dream, the developer is more than happy to charge extra for the added "work" of exposed concrete/ brick/ ductwork/ floors/ stub outs/ stainless steel prison trendy toilets...
i dont think that Dwell is helping to make for a more well educated consumer of "design", but merely providing for the exponential growth of more gullible superficial consumers.
I don't think that Dwell provides for growth of more gullible (or superficial) consumers... people are going to buy something, and perhaps this ignorance is a larger society issue. Dwell does make some attempt to educate, successful or not. And just because Dwell says that an architect may not be necessary is not Dwell's problem, but rather a problem of the profession. If no one hires an architect, then there are no architects. Design comes from somewhere with or without designers… is influencing trends worse than having no say at all? Is publicity of some kind better than none?
More than five years ago, Aaron Betsky said: ""The world's new passion for designer labels is making waves even in the hallowed halls of architecture. … For hip-hop, you go to Tommy Hilfiger. For retro-futurism, it's Tom Ford for Gucci. For urban revitalization, look to Frank Gehry - or Michael Graves or Robert A. M. Stern. Architects who used to just design buildings are now being hired to create signature structures that will help lure us there."
Now, I'm not saying that this is entirely good, but raising the profile of the profession should be (at least in some ways) a good thing. As I said, people are going to buy something, so if architects (and designers) want to position themselves to make a difference, then perhaps they need to get right in the middle of the big "C" word. Unless they do, then this discussion is about the way it will be. Which is fine, as long as you can deal with what it means.
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.