when i was in arch school, i spent hours in the library, combing books, mags and slides.
regarding the re-re-submission, i guess it's just weird to win an award in 2007 for something that was built in 2004. i mean, if someone else nominates or recognizes your work that's one thing.
but to annually submit a board with the accompanying $200+ check, seems a bit... asinine. aren't there better things to do with your time? and as bruce mau says,
<i>Don’t enter awards competitions.
Just don’t. It’s not good for you.</i?
and that was hours ,a day in the library. and a plethora o'books sprawled all over my desk. i used to fly with the assumption that if i understand how projects were organized, it'd make me a better architect. but now it's just turned me into to some archi-photo fetishist.
liberty, in my attempt to push people to react to things beyond what you're calling the 'quantifiable', Steven's ever-expanding rule book, and -- in my opinion -- attempts to cleverly condone things that should not be, I seemed to have caused you to take up a bit of frustration with me...
Not my intent...sorry, and i shall (mercifully?) leave it at that...
The guy with the sign I think is justified, under planning law he may be able to go against the neighbor with something like a nuisance law or variance to get that wall brought down or adjusted. There is also a case law about a neighbors' right to enjoyment of his property and access to sunlight, and that wall casts a big shadow. I think the modern house is fine but the owner should have considered where he was building and the effect on his neighbors.
Just wanted to hear some of your firsthand accounts of ECobb's crankiness...
If you have a problem with the AIA Seattle's award submission guidelines, take it up with them. ECobb is hardly the only architect that resubmits projects year after year (there is a cut-off BTW). What do you care if he chooses to spend his money to resubmit if he feels that a project may be viewed favorably by a certain guest juror or jurors?
I actually think you can take LB at her word. She just wants to hear from you what your specific problems are with the house (or situation) that the this thread is about. I don't get the sense that she's frustrated, just wanting to continue the debate. And have you define your side a little better.
What are these "things beyond the quantifiable" that you refer to, for instance? And be specific.
Kurt, like farwest says, I really was just trying to get a more direct opinion from you, but if you're bored with the conversation, then I am too.
But here's a new development that maybe some Seattle-ites can answer:
From the original blog post:
We have built two homes on MI and each time the architect has made sure
that the design did not obstruct the view or privacy of the homes on either
side of us. Also that the design enhanced the visual quality of the neighborhood. That is why our architect is probably the top architect in
Seattle. (we have lived in this house 15 years) You can not build in a neighborhood and not consider others around you. Because of the Eric Cobb designed home we have no privacy. His design looks into every room
in our home.
Bolding is by me. So this must be the neighbor on the other side: WHO is her architect, the "top architect in Seattle"? Anyone know?
I looked at Gelotte's website. I guarantee that anyone who practices that kind of "cut n' paste" architecture is NOT the top architect in Seattle.
I have all of the Bob Stern and Venturi books too, and could easily hit the copy button on my xerox machine. But, luckily, they're gathering dust on the bottom of a bookshelf.
Here is what really chaps me, and I know posting this proves that I am spending far too much time thinking about this.
If you look at the Zillow Map of the neighborhood, you can click on each lot and get more info, including bird's eye views from each direction, of each property. The house to the other side of Mr. mcMansion is 1,000 sf smaller and was built in 1942. Mr. McMansion's house was built in 2005. if you look at the aerial, you can see that his house is FAR closer to the water than the house next store, which means when his house was built it totally cut off the view of the neighbor's much older home.
Now I realize this may not be the case, Mr. McMansion's house was probably a tear-down and *perhaps* the previous house was sited close to the water too. But it seems to me it's a case of not being able to take what he already did to someone else.
i think you're right on, lb. i'll take it a little further, since we can't get kurt's position on this. (isn't it fun to get geeky about things like this?)
kurt’s right in identifying my analytical nature. while my ethical positions above weren’t ‘rules’ established by anyone but me (therefore ‘values’?), i’ll admit that they kind of act like rules. i do think that a sort of rigor in ethical judgments or in design – or in ethical design – is part of how i operate. so i ALSO, like you, want to know what kurt might do differently – what that unquantifiable response might be.
here’s the site, where the house with the orangey roof was:
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2763474243_05021c5d87.jpg?v=0 width=418[/url]
mr sign-man is in the foreground in the aerial and on the left in the plan view – one gable, three chimneys. the neighbor on the other side, with the tennis court, is the one who is supposedly now in a fishbowl because of the modern house’s positioning.
i'll try to be a conscientious designer, watching out for my client's interests, but also considering those of my neighbors. some potential speculative answers to the problem – and questions:
1. i’ll agree that the concrete wall right up next to mr sign-man’s house was probably rude. i still guess that it has something to do with previous experiences, but i don’t know...we can’t know. so maybe kurt’s first response would have been to turn a softer shoulder to mr sign-man, maybe a trellis or something. certainly not windows, because those would also cause a negative response.
2. so maybe mr cobb’s client should have moved the house back so that it was in line with mr sign-man’s, because that would be the polite thing to do. a shame, since our lot goes out a good 30’ – 40’ further into the water, but polite.
3. but, if we’re being polite, we should also consider the other neighbor. that house is back another 100’ feet! if we don’t back up to there, we’re also cutting off their view. but if we do back up that far, we’ve left over half of our $4m+ lot unbuilt and we’ve put ourselves back behind mr sign-man’s house and cut off our own view.
you see the dilemma.
the concrete wall, as built, extends about 15’ – 20’ forward of mr sign-man’s front wall. i’d guess the required setback named a certain distance from low-water mark and, because mr cobb’s client could build the same relative distance from the water as mr signman and because this lot extended farther into the water, he did! i’m sure it seemed like a coup: an unencumbered view!
so all i can get to is that the concrete was a rude choice. it seems unreasonable to expect any other accommodation regarding setback, etc. BEST CASE, maybe was to put the new house on the same footprint as the former orange-roofed house. but then you wouldn’t be taking advantage of the extension of this client’s land farther into the water which, i’d guess, was one of the reasons for this client buying this $4m+ lot.
Well Steven, you certainly have quite a supporter in Liberty Bell......Hey, Liberty Bell, I read his posts already! Fine! He's a genius -- SHEESH! ( I am smiling big when I say that!)
You're kinda clever with your words and wording, Steven, and yet i think your position seems to be mitigating as you write more.
"while my ethical positions above weren’t ‘rules’ established by anyone but me..." Hmm. Well, if we were playing poker, I'd think I just spotted a 'tell'. I'm shoving back my chair and shouting "I'M ALL IN!!!"
Holz (Panoptic Knower of All Projects) and Vado suggest one end of the spectrum: Leave it empty. Ah, the null set. Yes, sometimes that is best, but I don't think that would be necessary here. Holz and Liberty Bell also seem to hold steadfast to their idea that since everything is legal, it's all good. With all i wrote, it should not be hard to tell that I think it's critical for architects to not stop there. Simple idea.
To say "I still don't see how the neighbor can have any issue"...or "no quantifiable rules have been broken, So what *is* the problem, Kurt? "...or "only when put in the form of zoning regulations or deed restrictions do these opinions become meaningful", which is where Steven began, and, partly ended with)...just doesn't sound fully honest or very complete or resolved to me. To be honest, I think these comments also smack a little of an attitude that most of us really wish was not part of the general public perception.
Man I don't know how many more times or different ways to write that i fully concede that legally, yes, everything is fine. Yes. Yes. Yes. I got it. Legal, OK. I'm nearly begging not to be told again.
My simple point is not that i know THE specific solution to the specific little war zone Cobb helped create -- again, I never saw the site before it was posted here. The point is, even from what little we do know, can't we recognize that a problem does exist there? It's a naitonally publicized problem. Moves were made architecturally, and now people are shouting mad. Trouble in the built envronment. If I am completely wrong, why have Steven and others offered some simple guesses at to what might have worked better? Obviously not because there is not a problem, but rather that there indeed is a problem.
Despite Cobb's resoundingly satisfactory solution regulations-wise, most of us would not have stopped there, nor would many of us actually have said, 'well, code doesn't prohibit it, so put your house out in front of everyone else's'... Creative minds and knowledge of architecture make many other better solutions possible. Steven has started to name a few. G'boy... seriously. It's only my opinion, but I think that is exactly the gut-level instinct to follow to get to a far more complete architecture.
Now I'm going to go watch Holz specifically identify stuff I've never even heard of...
angry neighbors...
when i was in arch school, i spent hours in the library, combing books, mags and slides.
regarding the re-re-submission, i guess it's just weird to win an award in 2007 for something that was built in 2004. i mean, if someone else nominates or recognizes your work that's one thing.
but to annually submit a board with the accompanying $200+ check, seems a bit... asinine. aren't there better things to do with your time? and as bruce mau says,
<i>Don’t enter awards competitions.
Just don’t. It’s not good for you.</i?
whoops...
Don’t enter awards competitions.
Just don’t. It’s not good for you.
'when i was in arch school, i spent hours in the library, combing books, mags and slides."
well we all did that, holz!
I think you're holding out some kind of secret memory enhancer... whaddya got?....is it an herb?...what?...
um, i drink lots of beer?
and that was hours ,a day in the library. and a plethora o'books sprawled all over my desk. i used to fly with the assumption that if i understand how projects were organized, it'd make me a better architect. but now it's just turned me into to some archi-photo fetishist.
Seriously, quite impressive.
...but now...must....stump....holz...
OK, i'm thinking of a buidling. which is it?
To me, this is beauty, contextual but diverse:
Borneo Sporenberg, Amsterdam, West 8 masterplan.
So what *is* the problem, Kurt?
liberty, in my attempt to push people to react to things beyond what you're calling the 'quantifiable', Steven's ever-expanding rule book, and -- in my opinion -- attempts to cleverly condone things that should not be, I seemed to have caused you to take up a bit of frustration with me...
Not my intent...sorry, and i shall (mercifully?) leave it at that...
The guy with the sign I think is justified, under planning law he may be able to go against the neighbor with something like a nuisance law or variance to get that wall brought down or adjusted. There is also a case law about a neighbors' right to enjoyment of his property and access to sunlight, and that wall casts a big shadow. I think the modern house is fine but the owner should have considered where he was building and the effect on his neighbors.
Holz-
Just wanted to hear some of your firsthand accounts of ECobb's crankiness...
If you have a problem with the AIA Seattle's award submission guidelines, take it up with them. ECobb is hardly the only architect that resubmits projects year after year (there is a cut-off BTW). What do you care if he chooses to spend his money to resubmit if he feels that a project may be viewed favorably by a certain guest juror or jurors?
...KURT....
I actually think you can take LB at her word. She just wants to hear from you what your specific problems are with the house (or situation) that the this thread is about. I don't get the sense that she's frustrated, just wanting to continue the debate. And have you define your side a little better.
What are these "things beyond the quantifiable" that you refer to, for instance? And be specific.
Kurt, like farwest says, I really was just trying to get a more direct opinion from you, but if you're bored with the conversation, then I am too.
But here's a new development that maybe some Seattle-ites can answer:
From the original blog post:
We have built two homes on MI and each time the architect has made sure
that the design did not obstruct the view or privacy of the homes on either
side of us. Also that the design enhanced the visual quality of the neighborhood. That is why our architect is probably the top architect in
Seattle. (we have lived in this house 15 years) You can not build in a neighborhood and not consider others around you. Because of the Eric Cobb designed home we have no privacy. His design looks into every room
in our home.
Bolding is by me. So this must be the neighbor on the other side: WHO is her architect, the "top architect in Seattle"? Anyone know?
my guess would be curtis gelotte. he does a lot of the bellevue/mercer crowd...
yech
i'd venture to say most nouveau riche would think suyama, jim olson, jim cutler or bosworth-hoedemaker
Holz, I can see a famous building through the window near my desk. Which one is it?
860/880
I looked at Gelotte's website. I guarantee that anyone who practices that kind of "cut n' paste" architecture is NOT the top architect in Seattle.
I have all of the Bob Stern and Venturi books too, and could easily hit the copy button on my xerox machine. But, luckily, they're gathering dust on the bottom of a bookshelf.
I didn’t say he was the top, the homeowner of the abortion did.
Personally, I would rather jump off the aurora bridge.
Right, I was referring to the homeowner. I know your taste is far better than that.
typical Mercer Island snark!
this rig really needs to park it in that MI cove for a bit...
Are there any redeeming qualities to the house on the right?
Materials
Scale
Context
Asethics
Here is what really chaps me, and I know posting this proves that I am spending far too much time thinking about this.
If you look at the Zillow Map of the neighborhood, you can click on each lot and get more info, including bird's eye views from each direction, of each property. The house to the other side of Mr. mcMansion is 1,000 sf smaller and was built in 1942. Mr. McMansion's house was built in 2005. if you look at the aerial, you can see that his house is FAR closer to the water than the house next store, which means when his house was built it totally cut off the view of the neighbor's much older home.
Now I realize this may not be the case, Mr. McMansion's house was probably a tear-down and *perhaps* the previous house was sited close to the water too. But it seems to me it's a case of not being able to take what he already did to someone else.
I should go into architectural forensics.
There is something evil about a person who post a cheap sign assailing his neighbor.
an expensive sign assailing his neighbor, now that's a different story.
[oh wait, perhaps that would be a 30' tall concrete wall.]
i think you're right on, lb. i'll take it a little further, since we can't get kurt's position on this. (isn't it fun to get geeky about things like this?)
kurt’s right in identifying my analytical nature. while my ethical positions above weren’t ‘rules’ established by anyone but me (therefore ‘values’?), i’ll admit that they kind of act like rules. i do think that a sort of rigor in ethical judgments or in design – or in ethical design – is part of how i operate. so i ALSO, like you, want to know what kurt might do differently – what that unquantifiable response might be.
here’s the site, where the house with the orangey roof was:
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2763474243_05021c5d87.jpg?v=0 width=418[/url]
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2763474141_664982548a.jpg?v=0 width=418[/url]
mr sign-man is in the foreground in the aerial and on the left in the plan view – one gable, three chimneys. the neighbor on the other side, with the tennis court, is the one who is supposedly now in a fishbowl because of the modern house’s positioning.
i'll try to be a conscientious designer, watching out for my client's interests, but also considering those of my neighbors. some potential speculative answers to the problem – and questions:
1. i’ll agree that the concrete wall right up next to mr sign-man’s house was probably rude. i still guess that it has something to do with previous experiences, but i don’t know...we can’t know. so maybe kurt’s first response would have been to turn a softer shoulder to mr sign-man, maybe a trellis or something. certainly not windows, because those would also cause a negative response.
2. so maybe mr cobb’s client should have moved the house back so that it was in line with mr sign-man’s, because that would be the polite thing to do. a shame, since our lot goes out a good 30’ – 40’ further into the water, but polite.
3. but, if we’re being polite, we should also consider the other neighbor. that house is back another 100’ feet! if we don’t back up to there, we’re also cutting off their view. but if we do back up that far, we’ve left over half of our $4m+ lot unbuilt and we’ve put ourselves back behind mr sign-man’s house and cut off our own view.
you see the dilemma.
the concrete wall, as built, extends about 15’ – 20’ forward of mr sign-man’s front wall. i’d guess the required setback named a certain distance from low-water mark and, because mr cobb’s client could build the same relative distance from the water as mr signman and because this lot extended farther into the water, he did! i’m sure it seemed like a coup: an unencumbered view!
so all i can get to is that the concrete was a rude choice. it seems unreasonable to expect any other accommodation regarding setback, etc. BEST CASE, maybe was to put the new house on the same footprint as the former orange-roofed house. but then you wouldn’t be taking advantage of the extension of this client’s land farther into the water which, i’d guess, was one of the reasons for this client buying this $4m+ lot.
sorry.
Wait, I screwed up, didn't I? I thought the empty lot is where construction is taking place?
Ignore me, I'm delirious.
yeah, steven!
though i still don't see how the neighbor can have any issue.
vado is correct, if the guy really wanted an unencumbered view, he should have bought the lot.
otherwise, his beef is w/ land use code.
Well Steven, you certainly have quite a supporter in Liberty Bell......Hey, Liberty Bell, I read his posts already! Fine! He's a genius -- SHEESH! ( I am smiling big when I say that!)
You're kinda clever with your words and wording, Steven, and yet i think your position seems to be mitigating as you write more.
"while my ethical positions above weren’t ‘rules’ established by anyone but me..." Hmm. Well, if we were playing poker, I'd think I just spotted a 'tell'. I'm shoving back my chair and shouting "I'M ALL IN!!!"
Holz (Panoptic Knower of All Projects) and Vado suggest one end of the spectrum: Leave it empty. Ah, the null set. Yes, sometimes that is best, but I don't think that would be necessary here. Holz and Liberty Bell also seem to hold steadfast to their idea that since everything is legal, it's all good. With all i wrote, it should not be hard to tell that I think it's critical for architects to not stop there. Simple idea.
To say "I still don't see how the neighbor can have any issue"...or "no quantifiable rules have been broken, So what *is* the problem, Kurt? "...or "only when put in the form of zoning regulations or deed restrictions do these opinions become meaningful", which is where Steven began, and, partly ended with)...just doesn't sound fully honest or very complete or resolved to me. To be honest, I think these comments also smack a little of an attitude that most of us really wish was not part of the general public perception.
Man I don't know how many more times or different ways to write that i fully concede that legally, yes, everything is fine. Yes. Yes. Yes. I got it. Legal, OK. I'm nearly begging not to be told again.
My simple point is not that i know THE specific solution to the specific little war zone Cobb helped create -- again, I never saw the site before it was posted here. The point is, even from what little we do know, can't we recognize that a problem does exist there? It's a naitonally publicized problem. Moves were made architecturally, and now people are shouting mad. Trouble in the built envronment. If I am completely wrong, why have Steven and others offered some simple guesses at to what might have worked better? Obviously not because there is not a problem, but rather that there indeed is a problem.
Despite Cobb's resoundingly satisfactory solution regulations-wise, most of us would not have stopped there, nor would many of us actually have said, 'well, code doesn't prohibit it, so put your house out in front of everyone else's'... Creative minds and knowledge of architecture make many other better solutions possible. Steven has started to name a few. G'boy... seriously. It's only my opinion, but I think that is exactly the gut-level instinct to follow to get to a far more complete architecture.
Now I'm going to go watch Holz specifically identify stuff I've never even heard of...
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.