A company (architect & developer) named “case study homes inc.” is claiming to continue the original “Case Study Houses” program in Dallas TX beginning with house #29. House #28 was the last house of the original program completed in 1966. They plan to build at least a dozen more, continuing the number sequence of the original program. They've used a similar font as the original logo and slightly changed the name from case study houses to homes.
Is it appropriate (ethical) to use the name and prestige of a famous and historically significant program to promote one's own work?
it is probably not ethical and it is certainly not appropriate.
the case study house program was intended to introduce domestic modernism to the american public. it was also intended to be an experimental project, where architects were allowed to try out innovations in materiality and planning in a "laboratory" setting, as it were. the case study house program resulted in a paradigm shift in the perception of modern architecture -- previously perceived as cold, east coast, and european, modernism became also associated with warmth, informality, convenience, and the american dream filtered through the california sun.
of course that perception wasn't universal, and ranch houses with fake dormers eventually conquered the day. but these days, dwell might be selling the mies aesthetic...but they're definitely selling the eames lifestyle.
this "case study homes, inc." program is just some developer who thinks gee, wouldn't it be cool to sell modern looking homes. there is probably a liberal application of some 1950s retro-chic aesthetics coupled with an outrageous price tag.
if the real case study houses program resurfaced today, with the same purpose, #29 would not look like something a 1st-year architecture student made in sketchup. it would be as innovative compared with today's normal residential crap as the case study houses were innovative compared with 1940s normal residential crap.
what would that innovation entail? possibilities are endless. maybe it would be completely built via automation with little or no human labor involved. maybe the materials themselves would filter the air and condition it. maybe it would be zero-energy. there's lots of possibilities, but this just looks like someone out to make a buck hitching on to the dwell bandwagon.
because modernism per se is almost 100 years old and it's not new anymore. that's why people are comfortable with it now.
i was raised to question anything coming out of dallas...period.
there should be some legal issues with co-opting the name of this program...surely someone's estate has something to do with this...i dunno, maybe i should get one of those $140,000 lawyers to check it out.
Unfortunately, it is an architect and not an engineer we’re dealing with. Apparently, some of us paid more attention in architecture history class than others.
and ochona is exactly right... not only does it seem wrong to use the name.. but they aren’t being innovative in any way whatsoever. Unless innovation means buying a Neutra book and learning Sketchup. Although, im not even sure they’ve gone that far.
With the real case study program, John Entenza had the smarts to hire seriously good architects (usually) -- with this unconvincing website, when you click on "about" you get nowhere, let alone to a list of formidable and/or up-and-coming contemporary architects. Sketchup and a Neutra book seems pretty accurate.
There have been attempts to 'revisit' the case study house ethos, e.g. in the competition from 4 years ago, Case Study Cleveland, or Michael Bell's efforts in nearby (to Dallas) Houston, or Sagaponack on Long Island is a strech maybe with it being more like a collection of one-off signature homes -- yet none I can think of have had sites distributed across entire regions like the original program in both SoCal and NorCal.
Have their Architects ever stepped foot in any of the Case Study Houses?
As a native of Southern California, I wonder what those that actually have real ties to the original Case Study Program ( such as current and past owners, descendants of the architects and developers, writers, critics and photographers) would feel about a company in Texas hijacking the name and the pedigree.
I went to the forum mentioned (www.livemodern.com) and read where the developer is a "fan" of the original program. Is this any different that a fan of the Usonian Houses starting a new company call Frank Lyod Wright, Inc and using his font and cherokee red square. Or what about a Dallas firm calling itself “La†Corbusier, Inc because they are a fan of the International style. Where would this end, Alto Homes with one less “Aâ€, BaHouse,Inc.
I realize we live at a time where one can walk into a any Target and pick up a Jacobson knockoff, or a Eurway and grab a Wassily Chair, but has architecture been reduced to this?
What separates this from the “Rolex†one can buy on the street corner for $50.00?
There is a reason that Architect’s don’t advertise on the back of the yellow pages, on busses, and on billboards along with the ambulance chasers and car salesmen.
I also noticed in the original forum that someone refered to them "borrowing" the name. Initially I took exception the the term "borrowed", which I assumed by definition is “used with permissionâ€. However when I looked it up one of the definitions is “to appropriate for one's own use†so maybe it’s closer than I had originally assumed. While I had the dictionary out I looked up another word, also a verb, whose definition was similar to borrow. It was “ to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own.†That word was plagiarize.
I think this is totally unethical and another sad example of jumping on the style-du-jour bandwagon.. Being from Dallas (hope you can handle that, Ochona) it pains me to see everyone in a tizzy about just another architectural style. Really - what makes newly built "Mid-Century Moderns" any different than Faux Chateux? Or Junior League Georgian? Yes - I like the clean lines etc... and truly admire the houses that were actually from that time. But, as others have said it better here, where is the innovation? It's time to move on.
They should not have taken that name of course, but for God's sake
Dallas needs at least something modern looking, instead the bricabrac shit that's going on!
actually, in defense of dallas, there is plenty of great modern architecture going on. dallas has a long modernist tradition, there beneath the turtle creek tudors and the preston hollow french provincials.
but this is yeah, just someone who caught a breeze from the east and one from the west and decided that something new was on the horizon.
btw, benben, dallas may be dallas, but dallas did give the world sly stone and the old 97s. so it's not so bad. but on the other hand, dallas also gave the world meat loaf and jessica simpson.
Yes there is plenty of great modernism. I am really talking about a trend in residential modernism that Dallas has lost, as well as I guess most other suburbs in the country. I mean we still have David Schwartz and Mary Kay.
The name "David Schwartz" makes me feel queasy every time I hear it. With all their money and many construction projects, how on earth did the Bass brothers decide that one mediocre architect should design every building they finance?
It's because they went to school together, and they are friends. I think that is as far as it goes. David Schwartz does not even have the architecture license. He's legally not an architect.
im so glad this thread was started... i hope the idiot who started that company ( and aggie from what i understand..) reads this and learns something...
and in defense of dallas, yes modernism is far and few between, but if u know where to look there are some nice peices of architecture.. dallas is up and coming and fortunately the $$ and the desire for modernsim is definately there...
i think a howard roark should be pulled on those dumbass houses...
im so glad this thread was started... i hope the idiot who started that company ( and aggie from what i understand..) reads this and learns something...
and in defense of dallas, yes modernism is far and few between, but if u know where to look there are some nice peices of architecture.. dallas is up and coming and fortunately the $$ and the desire for modernsim is definately there...
i think a howard roark should be pulled on those dumbass houses...
I'm not an architect. I'm a client. My partners and I hire architects regularly. I have lived in Dallas for years, but just for those on the board who think nothing matters that doesn't come from one of the coasts, I'll mention the fact that I'm originally from New York. I've invested in everything from urban townhomes and condos to apartments to office buildings to retail centers to industrial developments to mixed-use, master-planned communities. I've worked with a lot of architectural firms in my career - from SOM to a one-man shop in Memphis, Tennessee. For you Dallasites, I'm most impressed with Gary Cunningham and Lionel Morrison. Mr. Cunningham is currently designing the overall architectural standards for a 720-acre project in Mississippi in which I directed an investment of more than $8 million.
I too was initially glad this thread was started, but the arrogance of the posts on this topic is disappointing. Can I ask a question? Why is it a bad thing that an architect in Dallas has decided to form a company to build spec homes that are inspired by the Case Study Houses of the '40s? Several posts have referred to a supposed lack of "innovation," but I don't see any evidence for that assertion anywhere. In fact, all that seems to be available on the Case Study Homes website is a rendering or two. Regardless, though, are you telling me that you've recently come up with a better idea for how to "innovate" with respect to modern architecture, gotten it funded, and built 13 houses that reflect your firm's best efforts and interpretation of the modern aesthetic, as this guy has? Somehow I doubt it, but I invite you to prove me wrong.
Thanks for the post. I think that what many of us react to is the co-opting of the name "Case Study Homes" without co-opting the philosophy behind the original program.
In the 1940s, the Case Study Homes in California were beyond revolutionary. Modernism took its tie off and moved to LA and learned that the site mattered and that the climate mattered and that it could be a style that people liked and loved, not just respected. Personally, this means a lot to me. I visited the Eames Case Study home last year and I felt like I was on the site of a humble yet noble event that changed the world. Certainly changed mine.
Part of the brilliance of the program was that there was a patron who demanded that his clients break all the molds and create a new way of life. That was John Entenza, and I had the privilege of visiting his CSH as well. When I wrote above, I posited that a modern-day Case Study Home would slash through the envelope and explore the absolute outer regions of today's architecture and technology. That's what the original program's architects did.
This is special to a lot of us. If this had been named something else, it would not have attracted the sort of opprobrium that Case Study Homes, Inc. has.
Some people on this board would tell you that the financial aspects of this development aren't worthy of praise at all. They did not grow up in Fort Worth like I did. Anything like this is sorely needed -- because many of us modernists in the Metroplex just moved elsewhere like I did. I can imagine that it took a lot of investors going out on limbs they'd never imagined stepping on, limbs they didn't know existed. Yourself excepted.
We just wish that the name was different. To us, it seems the developers are using the rich history and potent innovation of a time long past to sell homes that, frankly, would sell just as well by any other name -- rather than blowing a much-needed shot in the bow of the resolutely traditionalist Metroplex new-housing market.
For anyone interested the two architects involved in this have scheduled a panel discussion in Dallas next week ( see below)
An evening of modern architecture with the launch of Sky Modern
Established Dallas architects Matt Holley and Doug Hildinger have joined forces to launch Sky Modern. Join us for an evening of introduction and panel discussion to announce the new partnership. Holley is the developer behind Kessler Woods, while Hildinger is responsible for the Case Study Houses project in Dallas, which is modeled after the mid-century Case Study Program in California. Both architects operate in the contemporary style, dedicated to bringing the essential tenets of modernism to Dallas. Join us for a panel discussion, which will include Holley, Hildinger and renowned architect Lionel Morrison. Refreshments will be served, including cocktails provided by Ciroc.
+1 with Ochona. i was dissapointed to find out it was just a marketing thing to sell homes by using the name.
i think the houses are aesthetically appealing, but decent architecural student could design a "good-looking" house.
good architecture should be about pushing the boundries and solving problems, design should come out of that in a sense. so i do not understand how these houses could could be called CS homes and look the same as the orginial CS homes. when are way of living is different, we have different materials, most importantly we have a better understanding of the enviornment. sadly none of these these points were addressed.
maybe i am wrong and i missed something.
I too, am appalled by the arrogance. I believe it is completely ironic and entirely appropriate that you all would criticize todays "experiment" in residential architecture. John Entenza commissioned already established architects to experiment in design for homes in a post-war era driven by a need for efficiency, not style. Case Study Homes, Inc. as it operates today, also looks for ways to push efficiency with new materials and energy sources. True, Mr. Hildinger has not established himself yet as a world renowned architect like Soriano and Neutra, but in no way does that disqualify him from using a similar name, to further a good cause. Besides, their fame is only perceivable because they inspired generations to study their work. Just as Soriano and Neutra did not appeal to all the simple masses, so too will Hildinger not appeal to all of you. Further, due to a significantly different backdrop, Americans are not as willing to embrace a smaller, yet sophisticated modern home in lieu of their Suburban Mausoleums. The modern architect of today has to meet enough people half-way, if he hopes to make a difference in the city residential framework. In order to draw people back to Dallas and away from wasted space, modernism has to be representative of what the population will accept as a favorable transition, while trying to preserve style. Any deficiency in modern architecture in the Dallas area, is due not to the architects that are trying to re-introduce it.
What ever happened to "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?"
-Soriano and Neutra did not appeal to the masses
-Hildinger is trying to meet the masses half way
so i do not understand how this makes the new CS venture
anymore qualified to coin that name.
like you said
"John Entenza commissioned already established architects to experiment in design for homes in a post-war era driven by a need for efficiency, not style."
form was derived from function. with the new CS what is the function, he is just using the form and marketing that. how is that a Case Study home? also, are we not in need of energy efficiency today? i really hope you think that we are more in
need the back then.
as for your mc mansion, you are underrating the general public,
offer them something completely new. enough people are wanting to change. meeting them half way is failing your profession, might as well just become a sale agent.
The company I work for has worked on over a dozen lots in Kessler Woods Court -- a development started by Matt Holley in Dallas (of all places). Many of you may have heard of it already, but KWC is a development that will feature 30 modern custom homes when it is completed. Most of the houses that have been completed or near completion at KWC are our work.
Although the DWR invitation for the launch of Sky Modern insinuates that Matt Holley is an architect, he is not licensed as one as far as I know. I am sure that Matt was lured into partnering with Doug Hildinger because, through the grapevine, I heard that Doug has somehow acquired the "legal" right to use the Case Study name.
It is bitter sweet for us who live and work here in Dallas -- a city with an apparent inferiority (reading your comments above) in terms of modern work. ...although we do have a couple of Pei's, a Piano, a Predock, a Holl, three projects to be completed in the near future by Foster, Koolhaas, and Cloepfil (Allied Works), in addition to the local firms like Cliff Welch, Frank Welch, Oglesby Greene, Lionel Morrison, Ron Wommack, Max Levy, Cunningham, Boudron & Fruit, etc. These small steps that Dallas tries to take seems to be dismissed as uninspired and unoriginal.
I believe that Dallas is in the process of learning about design and craft. The understanding of architecture, just as it happened during the development of these attitudes and movements, must be learned step by step. Sure, we are not in the forefront of the architectural movements, and we may never be. But have you walked into the Cistercian Abbey by Cunningham? or into the Chapel Hill house by Cliff Welch? We're proud of what the local architects are doing when give the opportunity. We're now working on educating the public.
I remain optimistic because I have seen the wonderful projects we have. I remain optimistic because developers are seeing the value of good design and modern living. I remain optimistic because homeowners are buying into these concepts. Why don't you come to Dallas and see it for yourself?
ive lived in Plano, Garland, and Irvine. i am tired of this thread.
i saw Piano this past week in Houston, amazing. he is going to
start a new project in Dallas in the upcoming months, but he
could not go into detail about it yet as he did not know himself.
to bad for houston. i do not think i have knocked Dallas for thier
arch, but i can sure say they are a lot more forward then us here
in Houston.
Sure. If we widen the net, we have Kahn, Ando, and Philip Johnson, in addition to some of the wonderful pieces by O'neil Ford all within an hour drive.
Getting back to your other comments, I don't think this whole thing is about who is more or less "forward." I think what matters is that architects, together with their clients, are moving forward from where they were yesterday. Progress is what is important. Cities like Southlake in this area are rather regressive, but others are making a leap forward. It is exciting.
By the way, the Trinity River Forest Interpretive Center (AKA Audubon Center) is under construction. It was designed by Antoine Predock and the architect of record is BRW Architects, Inc. from Dallas.
From following along, the issue is not whether Dallas (or any other city in the US for that matter) needs a better approach to speculative single family residential design, it seems like most of you agree on that.
It is the ethics of the marketing approach that is in question.
Is it ethical to copy the case study logo and slightly change the name for one's own personal gain with no permission or endorsement from the original program?
Does the general public fully understand the difference between a shrewd marketing approach and the historic case study program when they see the logo and contact the developer or architect.
Is this the approach of one who truly believes in what he is doing and operates from a strong set of convictions or he he just following the latest trend?
I agree that we were a bit off topic. Let me apologize.
The issue with which this thread started from -- the ethics of using this name -- has always bothered me ever since I heard of their intent. It is definitely a quick way to attach your practice to a historically significant event and "branding" without proven merit for the comparison. From what I have seen in the renderings and documents for their KWC home, it seems to be a nice mid-century inspired home. The home has not been completed yet, so we will have to wait to pass judgement on the innovative aspect of his design.
Our office has received the DWR / Sky Modern invitation for this Thursday from Matt Holley, the developer. We all intend to attend this event to see what their intent is first hand. In our experience working with Matt on the KWC houses, he has always been supportive of pushing good design, although we have had to make consessions due to budgetary constraints.
Yeah I went. I was rather impressed. I got some literature on Sunday's tour...for those that are interested
Starts at KesslerWoods (developer Matt Holley's master planned modern community) at 1:00
2203 Kessler Woods Ct.
Dallas, TX 75208
Tour will go area around White Rock Lake where Case Study Homes has sites, (see website) and ending at #2 on website (casestudyhomes.com)off Peninsula for a Sunday backyard social.
2-4.
I found it to be mostly style and image driven and not too much substance. Many "beautiful" people there, but Sky Modern did not show any architecture that was worthwhile. I talked to a couple of really well known local design architects (I don't want to mention any names) and they seemed to be disappointed with similar concerns that where discussed above. The original spirit of CSH is definitely not being pushed too hard. The one thing I found that was positive was their involvement at Montgomery Farm in Allen, TX.
I still feel the need to step back and wait to render my final judgement at least until they complete their KWC home under construction. The architecture they produce will help me make up my mind.
sorry to say it: dallas has always tended to have its finger in the wind, willing to buy whatever it takes to become a world-class city. in fort worth we would just laugh, because we were content with being what we were, a really big small town with a lot of cows.
but a quick google search did not reveal any information that might indicate that the rights have been purchased.
my gut tells me that nobody associated with this program nor their relatives would sell the name to some developer from dallas. but i could be wrong, people sell out, sure.
you know, it's an interesting question as to who would own the rights to 'case study homes', if anyone, at this point. presumably, 'arts & architecture' magazine owned it (does anyone have a back issue from the day? is there a little copyright symbol on it?), but that doesn't necessarily mean john entenza owned it personally. i can't imagine any of the architects or owners would have any kind of legal claim to it, since the magazine would have most likely hired them to do the design work (or the owners directly).
now, ethically, i think we all agree it's pretty cheap to rip off such a well known name and try to trade on it to push your own product. i applaud the developers for going with a much more 'modernist' concept, but really, did you need the name (and lettering) to sell it? why wouldn't it stand on it's own merits without the obvious need for profit by association?
and, to answer one comment above - it's not a 'similar' name. it's the exact name. and logo. with an inc. blot on the end. that's why most of the posts here are a bit peeved.
I believe the original program was always referred to as the CASE STUDY HOUSES, ( look at the old drawings and magazines) this company is CASE STUDY HOMES, not to be confused.
Use of the original name might have required seeking some sort of permission.
I could be wrong, has anyone ever seen where the origanal program actually used the word cs 'home'?
May 9, 07 8:11 am ·
·
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.
Case Study Homes TX
A company (architect & developer) named “case study homes inc.” is claiming to continue the original “Case Study Houses” program in Dallas TX beginning with house #29. House #28 was the last house of the original program completed in 1966. They plan to build at least a dozen more, continuing the number sequence of the original program. They've used a similar font as the original logo and slightly changed the name from case study houses to homes.
Is it appropriate (ethical) to use the name and prestige of a famous and historically significant program to promote one's own work?
more information can be found here:
http://livemodern.com/forums/geographic/dallas/456611437671
www.casestudyhomes.com
This is a far cry from Arts and Architecture magazine commissioning famous architects...
I think this is wrong. Ethically and hopefully legally.
it is probably not ethical and it is certainly not appropriate.
the case study house program was intended to introduce domestic modernism to the american public. it was also intended to be an experimental project, where architects were allowed to try out innovations in materiality and planning in a "laboratory" setting, as it were. the case study house program resulted in a paradigm shift in the perception of modern architecture -- previously perceived as cold, east coast, and european, modernism became also associated with warmth, informality, convenience, and the american dream filtered through the california sun.
of course that perception wasn't universal, and ranch houses with fake dormers eventually conquered the day. but these days, dwell might be selling the mies aesthetic...but they're definitely selling the eames lifestyle.
this "case study homes, inc." program is just some developer who thinks gee, wouldn't it be cool to sell modern looking homes. there is probably a liberal application of some 1950s retro-chic aesthetics coupled with an outrageous price tag.
if the real case study houses program resurfaced today, with the same purpose, #29 would not look like something a 1st-year architecture student made in sketchup. it would be as innovative compared with today's normal residential crap as the case study houses were innovative compared with 1940s normal residential crap.
what would that innovation entail? possibilities are endless. maybe it would be completely built via automation with little or no human labor involved. maybe the materials themselves would filter the air and condition it. maybe it would be zero-energy. there's lots of possibilities, but this just looks like someone out to make a buck hitching on to the dwell bandwagon.
because modernism per se is almost 100 years old and it's not new anymore. that's why people are comfortable with it now.
Wondering if were dealing with and architect or an engineer.....even after reading the site information.....
I question anything (architecturally) coming out of dallas
unless you think mass housing development is good architecture
i was raised to question anything coming out of dallas...period.
there should be some legal issues with co-opting the name of this program...surely someone's estate has something to do with this...i dunno, maybe i should get one of those $140,000 lawyers to check it out.
oh wait, i can't afford $400 an hour.
Unfortunately, it is an architect and not an engineer we’re dealing with. Apparently, some of us paid more attention in architecture history class than others.
and ochona is exactly right... not only does it seem wrong to use the name.. but they aren’t being innovative in any way whatsoever. Unless innovation means buying a Neutra book and learning Sketchup. Although, im not even sure they’ve gone that far.
With the real case study program, John Entenza had the smarts to hire seriously good architects (usually) -- with this unconvincing website, when you click on "about" you get nowhere, let alone to a list of formidable and/or up-and-coming contemporary architects. Sketchup and a Neutra book seems pretty accurate.
There have been attempts to 'revisit' the case study house ethos, e.g. in the competition from 4 years ago, Case Study Cleveland, or Michael Bell's efforts in nearby (to Dallas) Houston, or Sagaponack on Long Island is a strech maybe with it being more like a collection of one-off signature homes -- yet none I can think of have had sites distributed across entire regions like the original program in both SoCal and NorCal.
One would wonder....
Have their Architects ever stepped foot in any of the Case Study Houses?
As a native of Southern California, I wonder what those that actually have real ties to the original Case Study Program ( such as current and past owners, descendants of the architects and developers, writers, critics and photographers) would feel about a company in Texas hijacking the name and the pedigree.
I went to the forum mentioned (www.livemodern.com) and read where the developer is a "fan" of the original program. Is this any different that a fan of the Usonian Houses starting a new company call Frank Lyod Wright, Inc and using his font and cherokee red square. Or what about a Dallas firm calling itself “La†Corbusier, Inc because they are a fan of the International style. Where would this end, Alto Homes with one less “Aâ€, BaHouse,Inc.
I realize we live at a time where one can walk into a any Target and pick up a Jacobson knockoff, or a Eurway and grab a Wassily Chair, but has architecture been reduced to this?
What separates this from the “Rolex†one can buy on the street corner for $50.00?
There is a reason that Architect’s don’t advertise on the back of the yellow pages, on busses, and on billboards along with the ambulance chasers and car salesmen.
I also noticed in the original forum that someone refered to them "borrowing" the name. Initially I took exception the the term "borrowed", which I assumed by definition is “used with permissionâ€. However when I looked it up one of the definitions is “to appropriate for one's own use†so maybe it’s closer than I had originally assumed. While I had the dictionary out I looked up another word, also a verb, whose definition was similar to borrow. It was “ to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own.†That word was plagiarize.
I think this is totally unethical and another sad example of jumping on the style-du-jour bandwagon.. Being from Dallas (hope you can handle that, Ochona) it pains me to see everyone in a tizzy about just another architectural style. Really - what makes newly built "Mid-Century Moderns" any different than Faux Chateux? Or Junior League Georgian? Yes - I like the clean lines etc... and truly admire the houses that were actually from that time. But, as others have said it better here, where is the innovation? It's time to move on.
They should not have taken that name of course, but for God's sake
Dallas needs at least something modern looking, instead the bricabrac shit that's going on!
actually, in defense of dallas, there is plenty of great modern architecture going on. dallas has a long modernist tradition, there beneath the turtle creek tudors and the preston hollow french provincials.
but this is yeah, just someone who caught a breeze from the east and one from the west and decided that something new was on the horizon.
btw, benben, dallas may be dallas, but dallas did give the world sly stone and the old 97s. so it's not so bad. but on the other hand, dallas also gave the world meat loaf and jessica simpson.
Yes there is plenty of great modernism. I am really talking about a trend in residential modernism that Dallas has lost, as well as I guess most other suburbs in the country. I mean we still have David Schwartz and Mary Kay.
The name "David Schwartz" makes me feel queasy every time I hear it. With all their money and many construction projects, how on earth did the Bass brothers decide that one mediocre architect should design every building they finance?
It's because they went to school together, and they are friends. I think that is as far as it goes. David Schwartz does not even have the architecture license. He's legally not an architect.
Just found this article on the project in D Home & Garden magazine.
Case...Open
that burning in my throat...is bile.
case study houses in CA have fetched 90 - 125 PERCENT of original cost? try 90 - 125 TIMES their original cost.
koenig's #21 was just sold at auction this week for $3,185,600
what a steal!
Cute name, Marfa.
im so glad this thread was started... i hope the idiot who started that company ( and aggie from what i understand..) reads this and learns something...
and in defense of dallas, yes modernism is far and few between, but if u know where to look there are some nice peices of architecture.. dallas is up and coming and fortunately the $$ and the desire for modernsim is definately there...
i think a howard roark should be pulled on those dumbass houses...
im so glad this thread was started... i hope the idiot who started that company ( and aggie from what i understand..) reads this and learns something...
and in defense of dallas, yes modernism is far and few between, but if u know where to look there are some nice peices of architecture.. dallas is up and coming and fortunately the $$ and the desire for modernsim is definately there...
i think a howard roark should be pulled on those dumbass houses...
Hello all,
I'm not an architect. I'm a client. My partners and I hire architects regularly. I have lived in Dallas for years, but just for those on the board who think nothing matters that doesn't come from one of the coasts, I'll mention the fact that I'm originally from New York. I've invested in everything from urban townhomes and condos to apartments to office buildings to retail centers to industrial developments to mixed-use, master-planned communities. I've worked with a lot of architectural firms in my career - from SOM to a one-man shop in Memphis, Tennessee. For you Dallasites, I'm most impressed with Gary Cunningham and Lionel Morrison. Mr. Cunningham is currently designing the overall architectural standards for a 720-acre project in Mississippi in which I directed an investment of more than $8 million.
I too was initially glad this thread was started, but the arrogance of the posts on this topic is disappointing. Can I ask a question? Why is it a bad thing that an architect in Dallas has decided to form a company to build spec homes that are inspired by the Case Study Houses of the '40s? Several posts have referred to a supposed lack of "innovation," but I don't see any evidence for that assertion anywhere. In fact, all that seems to be available on the Case Study Homes website is a rendering or two. Regardless, though, are you telling me that you've recently come up with a better idea for how to "innovate" with respect to modern architecture, gotten it funded, and built 13 houses that reflect your firm's best efforts and interpretation of the modern aesthetic, as this guy has? Somehow I doubt it, but I invite you to prove me wrong.
Regards,
Dan Healy
from the original article in dhome;
'Some of the most recent sales of Case Study Houses in LA fetched 90 to 125 percent of the original cost.'
it is more like 90 to 125 times.
Dan,
Thanks for the post. I think that what many of us react to is the co-opting of the name "Case Study Homes" without co-opting the philosophy behind the original program.
In the 1940s, the Case Study Homes in California were beyond revolutionary. Modernism took its tie off and moved to LA and learned that the site mattered and that the climate mattered and that it could be a style that people liked and loved, not just respected. Personally, this means a lot to me. I visited the Eames Case Study home last year and I felt like I was on the site of a humble yet noble event that changed the world. Certainly changed mine.
Part of the brilliance of the program was that there was a patron who demanded that his clients break all the molds and create a new way of life. That was John Entenza, and I had the privilege of visiting his CSH as well. When I wrote above, I posited that a modern-day Case Study Home would slash through the envelope and explore the absolute outer regions of today's architecture and technology. That's what the original program's architects did.
This is special to a lot of us. If this had been named something else, it would not have attracted the sort of opprobrium that Case Study Homes, Inc. has.
Some people on this board would tell you that the financial aspects of this development aren't worthy of praise at all. They did not grow up in Fort Worth like I did. Anything like this is sorely needed -- because many of us modernists in the Metroplex just moved elsewhere like I did. I can imagine that it took a lot of investors going out on limbs they'd never imagined stepping on, limbs they didn't know existed. Yourself excepted.
We just wish that the name was different. To us, it seems the developers are using the rich history and potent innovation of a time long past to sell homes that, frankly, would sell just as well by any other name -- rather than blowing a much-needed shot in the bow of the resolutely traditionalist Metroplex new-housing market.
Best regards, Ochona.
For anyone interested the two architects involved in this have scheduled a panel discussion in Dallas next week ( see below)
An evening of modern architecture with the launch of Sky Modern
Established Dallas architects Matt Holley and Doug Hildinger have joined forces to launch Sky Modern. Join us for an evening of introduction and panel discussion to announce the new partnership. Holley is the developer behind Kessler Woods, while Hildinger is responsible for the Case Study Houses project in Dallas, which is modeled after the mid-century Case Study Program in California. Both architects operate in the contemporary style, dedicated to bringing the essential tenets of modernism to Dallas. Join us for a panel discussion, which will include Holley, Hildinger and renowned architect Lionel Morrison. Refreshments will be served, including cocktails provided by Ciroc.
RSVP to dallas@dwr.com May 1.
Sky Modern launch event
Thursday, May 3, 6–9pm
DWR Dallas Studio
4524 McKinney Ave, Suite 103
Dallas, TX 75205
Directions: http://www.dwr.com/studios/dallas
+1 with Ochona. i was dissapointed to find out it was just a marketing thing to sell homes by using the name.
i think the houses are aesthetically appealing, but decent architecural student could design a "good-looking" house.
good architecture should be about pushing the boundries and solving problems, design should come out of that in a sense. so i do not understand how these houses could could be called CS homes and look the same as the orginial CS homes. when are way of living is different, we have different materials, most importantly we have a better understanding of the enviornment. sadly none of these these points were addressed.
maybe i am wrong and i missed something.
yea much of residential architecture (versus housing) is more about marketing & recognition than it is about architecture unfortunately
Everyone,
I too, am appalled by the arrogance. I believe it is completely ironic and entirely appropriate that you all would criticize todays "experiment" in residential architecture. John Entenza commissioned already established architects to experiment in design for homes in a post-war era driven by a need for efficiency, not style. Case Study Homes, Inc. as it operates today, also looks for ways to push efficiency with new materials and energy sources. True, Mr. Hildinger has not established himself yet as a world renowned architect like Soriano and Neutra, but in no way does that disqualify him from using a similar name, to further a good cause. Besides, their fame is only perceivable because they inspired generations to study their work. Just as Soriano and Neutra did not appeal to all the simple masses, so too will Hildinger not appeal to all of you. Further, due to a significantly different backdrop, Americans are not as willing to embrace a smaller, yet sophisticated modern home in lieu of their Suburban Mausoleums. The modern architect of today has to meet enough people half-way, if he hopes to make a difference in the city residential framework. In order to draw people back to Dallas and away from wasted space, modernism has to be representative of what the population will accept as a favorable transition, while trying to preserve style. Any deficiency in modern architecture in the Dallas area, is due not to the architects that are trying to re-introduce it.
What ever happened to "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?"
Everyone,
Just remember when working for a residential developer to make sure you market the project as "Case Study Homes (insert your state here)"
grlfriday
i am not sure what you are trying to say.
-Soriano and Neutra did not appeal to the masses
-Hildinger is trying to meet the masses half way
so i do not understand how this makes the new CS venture
anymore qualified to coin that name.
like you said
"John Entenza commissioned already established architects to experiment in design for homes in a post-war era driven by a need for efficiency, not style."
form was derived from function. with the new CS what is the function, he is just using the form and marketing that. how is that a Case Study home? also, are we not in need of energy efficiency today? i really hope you think that we are more in
need the back then.
as for your mc mansion, you are underrating the general public,
offer them something completely new. enough people are wanting to change. meeting them half way is failing your profession, might as well just become a sale agent.
This set of comments is really interesting to me.
The company I work for has worked on over a dozen lots in Kessler Woods Court -- a development started by Matt Holley in Dallas (of all places). Many of you may have heard of it already, but KWC is a development that will feature 30 modern custom homes when it is completed. Most of the houses that have been completed or near completion at KWC are our work.
Although the DWR invitation for the launch of Sky Modern insinuates that Matt Holley is an architect, he is not licensed as one as far as I know. I am sure that Matt was lured into partnering with Doug Hildinger because, through the grapevine, I heard that Doug has somehow acquired the "legal" right to use the Case Study name.
It is bitter sweet for us who live and work here in Dallas -- a city with an apparent inferiority (reading your comments above) in terms of modern work. ...although we do have a couple of Pei's, a Piano, a Predock, a Holl, three projects to be completed in the near future by Foster, Koolhaas, and Cloepfil (Allied Works), in addition to the local firms like Cliff Welch, Frank Welch, Oglesby Greene, Lionel Morrison, Ron Wommack, Max Levy, Cunningham, Boudron & Fruit, etc. These small steps that Dallas tries to take seems to be dismissed as uninspired and unoriginal.
I believe that Dallas is in the process of learning about design and craft. The understanding of architecture, just as it happened during the development of these attitudes and movements, must be learned step by step. Sure, we are not in the forefront of the architectural movements, and we may never be. But have you walked into the Cistercian Abbey by Cunningham? or into the Chapel Hill house by Cliff Welch? We're proud of what the local architects are doing when give the opportunity. We're now working on educating the public.
I remain optimistic because I have seen the wonderful projects we have. I remain optimistic because developers are seeing the value of good design and modern living. I remain optimistic because homeowners are buying into these concepts. Why don't you come to Dallas and see it for yourself?
dont forget Ando
ive lived in Plano, Garland, and Irvine. i am tired of this thread.
i saw Piano this past week in Houston, amazing. he is going to
start a new project in Dallas in the upcoming months, but he
could not go into detail about it yet as he did not know himself.
to bad for houston. i do not think i have knocked Dallas for thier
arch, but i can sure say they are a lot more forward then us here
in Houston.
Sure. If we widen the net, we have Kahn, Ando, and Philip Johnson, in addition to some of the wonderful pieces by O'neil Ford all within an hour drive.
Getting back to your other comments, I don't think this whole thing is about who is more or less "forward." I think what matters is that architects, together with their clients, are moving forward from where they were yesterday. Progress is what is important. Cities like Southlake in this area are rather regressive, but others are making a leap forward. It is exciting.
By the way, the Trinity River Forest Interpretive Center (AKA Audubon Center) is under construction. It was designed by Antoine Predock and the architect of record is BRW Architects, Inc. from Dallas.
Seems like the thread is getting off topic.
From following along, the issue is not whether Dallas (or any other city in the US for that matter) needs a better approach to speculative single family residential design, it seems like most of you agree on that.
It is the ethics of the marketing approach that is in question.
Is it ethical to copy the case study logo and slightly change the name for one's own personal gain with no permission or endorsement from the original program?
Does the general public fully understand the difference between a shrewd marketing approach and the historic case study program when they see the logo and contact the developer or architect.
Is this the approach of one who truly believes in what he is doing and operates from a strong set of convictions or he he just following the latest trend?
I agree that we were a bit off topic. Let me apologize.
The issue with which this thread started from -- the ethics of using this name -- has always bothered me ever since I heard of their intent. It is definitely a quick way to attach your practice to a historically significant event and "branding" without proven merit for the comparison. From what I have seen in the renderings and documents for their KWC home, it seems to be a nice mid-century inspired home. The home has not been completed yet, so we will have to wait to pass judgement on the innovative aspect of his design.
Our office has received the DWR / Sky Modern invitation for this Thursday from Matt Holley, the developer. We all intend to attend this event to see what their intent is first hand. In our experience working with Matt on the KWC houses, he has always been supportive of pushing good design, although we have had to make consessions due to budgetary constraints.
I wasn't able to make it to the opening. Did anyone else go?
Yeah I went. I was rather impressed. I got some literature on Sunday's tour...for those that are interested
Starts at KesslerWoods (developer Matt Holley's master planned modern community) at 1:00
2203 Kessler Woods Ct.
Dallas, TX 75208
Tour will go area around White Rock Lake where Case Study Homes has sites, (see website) and ending at #2 on website (casestudyhomes.com)off Peninsula for a Sunday backyard social.
2-4.
I had the opportunity to go as well.
I found it to be mostly style and image driven and not too much substance. Many "beautiful" people there, but Sky Modern did not show any architecture that was worthwhile. I talked to a couple of really well known local design architects (I don't want to mention any names) and they seemed to be disappointed with similar concerns that where discussed above. The original spirit of CSH is definitely not being pushed too hard. The one thing I found that was positive was their involvement at Montgomery Farm in Allen, TX.
I still feel the need to step back and wait to render my final judgement at least until they complete their KWC home under construction. The architecture they produce will help me make up my mind.
Doug Hildinger stated that they were handling the "Case Study" references with "white gloves" and a " great deal of respect".
I'll pose the same questions to Mr. Hildinger that I raised in an earlier post:
Have you ever even stepped foot in a real Case Study Home?
Have you spoken with any of the past or present owners, and how do they feel about this?
Have you run any of this marketing effort by Dion Neutra, Eames Demetrius or the hiers of the Entanza family to see how they feel?
What about MIT press?
Was any of this discussed in any way with anyone even remotely involved with the original csh program?
I would think each of these would have been part of the due diligence involved in "white glove" treatment.
absolutely correct, arlo1.
sorry to say it: dallas has always tended to have its finger in the wind, willing to buy whatever it takes to become a world-class city. in fort worth we would just laugh, because we were content with being what we were, a really big small town with a lot of cows.
but a quick google search did not reveal any information that might indicate that the rights have been purchased.
my gut tells me that nobody associated with this program nor their relatives would sell the name to some developer from dallas. but i could be wrong, people sell out, sure.
you know, it's an interesting question as to who would own the rights to 'case study homes', if anyone, at this point. presumably, 'arts & architecture' magazine owned it (does anyone have a back issue from the day? is there a little copyright symbol on it?), but that doesn't necessarily mean john entenza owned it personally. i can't imagine any of the architects or owners would have any kind of legal claim to it, since the magazine would have most likely hired them to do the design work (or the owners directly).
now, ethically, i think we all agree it's pretty cheap to rip off such a well known name and try to trade on it to push your own product. i applaud the developers for going with a much more 'modernist' concept, but really, did you need the name (and lettering) to sell it? why wouldn't it stand on it's own merits without the obvious need for profit by association?
and, to answer one comment above - it's not a 'similar' name. it's the exact name. and logo. with an inc. blot on the end. that's why most of the posts here are a bit peeved.
I believe the original program was always referred to as the CASE STUDY HOUSES, ( look at the old drawings and magazines) this company is CASE STUDY HOMES, not to be confused.
Use of the original name might have required seeking some sort of permission.
I could be wrong, has anyone ever seen where the origanal program actually used the word cs 'home'?
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.