Totally agree, Kurt. And I'm not saying all structures are equal, I'm saying you have to clarify on what terms you are judging something before you can claim it does or does not meet criteria.

I think there *is* a valid argument that in a neighborhood of big houses anything big will to some extent "fit in". How does a "contemporary" house NOT fit in to a neighborhood with a few Georgians, some Spanish Colonials, a French Country, some Tuscan villas, etc? All architecture is on a continuum, right? Some styles are 500 years old, some are five. If someone can't define their reason for disliking a house more than "It doesn't fit in" they don't leave much room for further discussion. If the neighborhood requires a 1:12 roof pitch, then you've got a valid argument.

I do strongly agree that a stringline setback would have been a far better way of managing this neighborhood's appearance, as well as Mr. McMansion's disappointment at the loss of his view.

I say screw the gypsumboard eisf mc mansion....When the modern house is done it will raise the level of design in the neighborhood, from what I can see from looking at the architects web site. Hopefully the Mc Mansion will become a teardown...

wicked smile!

i think many are missing the point. this is not a community, it's an enclave of elitist douche bags with tremendous amounts of disposable wealth. Zillow

a sense of community or fitting in is and never was going to happen. if any of these people really cared about "community" then they should have realized that their community extends by their private island retreat, and into a much larger context. i mean ecology; what happened when the city allowed this to happen? 10 - 20k sf homes, runoff, pesticides leeching into a large body of water, noise and petrol pllution from their yachts?

what happened here is because these tools are so busy with their heads up their collective asses, that when someone bought the property, the failed to engage the new owner - there is a home on the site [or was] - of the property and that would have possibly given them some indication of what might happen next, and then when they realized the existing home was going to be bulldozed the "community" could have went down to the planning dept and reviewed the dwgs, and if they hated it, they could have filed an injunction. but, they didn't, why not, they have gobs of $$$$, could have tied that property in litigation for years, they didn't because they don't care, their Judge Smails attitude allowed for some sense protection, and felt insulated from the "crass" Al Czervik's of the world; you know the kind, the guys building condos right next to a million dollar private, read whites only, golf club, that farts and blames it on a duck type.

i rather live next to the Al Czerviks, then Judge Smails any-fucking-day, any.

i am willing to bet these tools - on either side of the property - are the only ones bitching and moaning, and to that i say, boo-hoo. i mean if you look at the Zillow link, you'll see these "homes" are right on top of each, who does that? now, what should have happened, and astute developer/planner of crap developments like these should have done better of recognizing the potential for "chaos" and designed this island retreat around a covenant. that would have allowed these "thoughtful, caring, community types" to live in the comfort they soooo deserve.

now, i think a better architect could have done a different design, that would have been a better solution and would have fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, i have seen it done - within design covenants constraints - the result was remarkable, and from the exterior you'd never see the dif, but on closer examination you knew something was amiss. but here's the thing; most of our commentary is based on renderings, and as we all know renderings hardly ever - well never - represent reality, and the photo's we do have, are frontal, and fail to give a real context and sense of the space and site issues. so, i think stepping back from the edge is critical, and lets see what actually gets completed.

...that should read; beyond their private retreat...

With all that said and done...go look at the project it is on his web site and you tell me which house looks like and architect was involved. I can only imagine some developer draftsman laboring away on the neighbors house for years in order to make it look like
crap. Which I'm sure the clients one of many wifes helped pick out all of the tacky furnishings and fixtures.

i have been in many HOA fights both with good architecture and stuff that fit all of their rules to a T, but the just did not like it. the arguements are just purely fear that everything is going to drop their values of their homes. in houston our house is just 2 blocks from the new light rail line, but all of my neighbors fought...and are still fighting it. they feel it will hurt our values. uggh. i know it will increase them, but i guess fear is just that...the unknown.

ironically, when i moved in to that house, i slowly told them that i had designed a house that they had very aggressively fought because of it being "a monstrosity".

as for this case, that wall is, in my humble opinion, too much. having looked at the picts, it really looks like a technique to hide what they percieve as ugly. whenever you do that...you are just asking for this battle!!

yeah, well in this case the battle exists only in one owners mind, and shitty sign. in this day and age of "my kingdom, my castle" and again, no respect for the community in the larger sense, i have no problem with the residence. now, if they tried to build a mcmansion in my hood, next to my home, you better believe my hood would be up in arms, forget about me, that's the kind of people/community i live in, we care about what goes on here.

but unless you've got some regs in place to curtail it, ___*, you'd have just as much trouble fighting that mcmansion.

'caring' doesn't cut it. you have to have rules in place, or you have to let it go.

i think le bossman point rings much more true than the others ... I understand the wall - but if you look at the model photos on the cobb website, everthing was originally in line with the neighbors home, didn't encroach into the setback, and was much more respectful of the context and neighboring views ... maybe so called next door neighbor did some things along the way to entend the wall and proverbial middle finger.

true in some respects SW, and not in others, my community's history has some defacto community standards, enforced by the community history and name which would not allow the mcmansioning - take a look at the mpls history and i believe i am right on this. i think you might be right knock on the neighbor thing, i mean shit your don't like the house being built next to you, and you put up a sign basically calling your neighbor an asshole, how infantile is that?

what i mean SW, is that this neighborhood i live in, shows up, whenever anything outside the norm takes up shop, they and we - and i say "we" tepidly as i am only in this home for about 10 months...

"...'caring' doesn't cut it. you have to have rules in place, or you have to let it go. "

Hmm.

You've got a pretty tight grip on that rule book there, Steven Ward. I'm sensing that your knuckles might be a little white. (All with a smile -- I'm not trying to pick on you).

I remember being in a studio once where, when pressed for some validation of his design, a guy flatly stated "My building meets code." Man, I could not believe that one, either.

Yes --again -- from your "regs" only point of view, you are absolutely correct. In that sense neither building is good, bad, or indifferent....most of us have been to zoning meetings -- we know the drill all too well. Both houses are approved "legal", and the rule book makes no further distinction. But, when you are working on one of your projects, and you've met the zones and codes and "regs", are you then done? Do ya send out the CD's? Chalk up another satisfied customer? I'd hope not, and so why even post it? We know that clients seek out architects for some other reasons. would any of us bother to be architects, otherwise?

The rule book can't, didn't, and wasn't intended to solve the case of Cobb v. McMansion. Instead, they have a bit of a mess within "our realm" -- the built environment. Have we nothing else to offer but code/zoning compliance? Clearly we do. Well, then, beyond this rule book, the question I've posed is: So then what? Is Cobb's solution good enough? Why are some here repeatedly pointing out that it must have met zoning, as if nothing further can reasonably be discussed?

Instead, I'd suggest you're then standing at the "jumping off point" for architecture, leaving behind the world of "code compliant structures". Isn't it the place where Cobb -- or any architect -- starts to do the important part of what we do? Besides, if a laundry list of rules were all it took for a successful built environment to occur, who'd need an architect? More rules has never been the answer.

I was hoping to see some more constructive posts on this thread from some far better thinkers than me.

The unfortunate world of McMansions is one the most prevalent contexts our there. Is that realm only for builders? Have architects no answer, and/or no way to participate thoughtfully within that context? Whatever else, Cobb has apparently produced a form that seems to help bolster an "Us v. Them" scenario, which probably occurs at several adversarial levels. Is that good enough?

Kurt, I posted this above: If someone can't define their reason for disliking a house more than "It doesn't fit in" they don't leave much room for further discussion.

This discussion has taken place around a sign posted by someone who hasn't a stronger argument than "I don't like it". This point of view leaves little to argue beyond "Well, it's allowed to be built this way."

If Mr. McMansion - or you, Kurt - want to offer up a valid critique, one that can be argued on merits not preference, let's have it. After looking at the Cobb website and the photos above, I still can't really tell what this building looks like. It looks to be decently proportioned in an aggressive contemporary way. From the website it looks like this architect's other houses are beautifully detailed. The upper story glass-enclosed space will no doubt be a gorgeous airy space in which to enjoy a stunning view.

The most valid argument - the cutting off of someone else's view - really is only a code/zoning issue, and an issue that can be determined and if need be avoided before someone buys a lot/house.

So what *exactly* is the problem with this house? Is visual context of utmost importance when designing a project? And can't visual context be, in this case, described as "A neighborhood full of homes which assert the Owner's financial success"?

I don't disagree with you most of that, Liberty Bell --

I'm just having trouble thinking that a bunch of us architects can't argue beyond the code compliance argument. It's OK per code to cut off the view, co Cobb did it. Is that OK with you? Would you do that as your solution? I kind of doubt it. So, for architects, is zoning really the final word? That's my point. Any validity to that? (I may be wrong, and often am.)

And you are right about Cobb's detailing and general aesthetic quality. I really respect the guy -- and hey, I'm not arguing for mcMansions! I'm just not too sure that he helped along the case for hiring architect, ya know?

i think it comes down to: as long as it is within the letter of the law than do what you want, but know that you will eventually piss someone off. if you are okay with that, then fine. you can't make everyone happy. my guess would be the angry neighbor will eventually move.

No, I don't think this project will make people who buy a spec McMansion feel like they might hire an architect for their next house.

If they go inside the house and see how the spaces are and work and take advantage of the site, they might be convinced. But would probably still be too scared to hire one.

And of course I see your point too, Kurt. This thread has been a bit of splitting hairs and talking about etiquette, while I do think there are bigger issues to discuss on it.

For example: why is modern/contemporary architecture such an easy target? Why are people so scared of modernism in their homes, but not in the things they fill the homes with? I can't get beyond wondering: does Mr McMansion have an ipod? Tivo? Surround sound? Glass break detectors? Air conditioning? Motrin/Prozac/Viagra?

But there really isn't much else here to argue. Let's say the house had been built in a style the neighbor found completely inoffensive. Other than (possibly) height, what other issues would that really negate? He'd still have the side of another house facing his house. Given that his house appears to have a lot of windows on the side, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the neighbor to build a house with a relatively blank wall there, no matter what the style or materiality. It seems he's just conflating the aesthetics and the particular design approach with the inherent problems that come from building large houses on small, view-dominated lots.

It's OK per code to cut off the view, co Cobb did it. Is that OK with you? Would you do that as your solution? I kind of doubt it.

It depends. We don't know the particulars of this situation so it's hard to say. Cutting off views might have been unavoidable in making all the programmatic requirements fit within the setbacks. Upon figuring that out I'd probably try to talk the client into making some cutbacks, but for all we know what we're seeing here could be the scaled down version.

I'm not all that sure that views have been cut off anyway. From the photo it looks like the Cobb house doesn't cut off any views from the house on the left. It appears that a row of trees that I assume belongs to the left house is already doing that. As for the house on the right, it's a tougher call, but that house is also surrounded by a tall hedge on its left side that probably isn't helping matters.

additionally, the neighbor isn't cobb's client.

Ok...true, holz.box. But the neighbor is context. Angry, angry context.

and probably anything involving demolition of the existing house and a ground up would have drawn irrational neighbor's ire.

i imagine if it was a 12,000 sf mcmansion like his, put to the same rear yard setback as the cobb design (25') he would be whining about lost view. the new house is about 40' closer to the water than the whiner's house.

I have no idea what Cobb attempted in working with the neighbors -- somewhere between zero and a whole lot... and, maybe, the Mcmansion guy is just one of those impossible to satisfy personalities... However, in any other case, and judging from the negative outcome, it sure seems to appear that he adopted your mine-only attitude. Bad neighbor relationships are a pretty rough start. I can't imagine that this Graham guy is going to have a very comfortable experience outdoors any time soon. Not a great way have to live. Point is, it all matters for a successful project.

the issue doesn't appear to have much of anything to do with detailed criticism of this modern house, kurt. the neighbor doesn't like this house because of what it does to him. that's why i think it's a rules-based issue.

noone's suggested that the design has or should have stopped with codes and regulations, only that, since these have probably been met, the neighbor is simply demonstrating his disappointment by calling names and crying foul. he is powerless to affect what happens on this adjoining property - and that this is as it should be.

we all know that, while he may have still had the same beef if it had been a mcmansion matching his, we wouldn't have heard about it here. we only got this because he was able to make it more of a sensation by bashing the style of the house. the fact that it's modern polarizes both the general public and the architecture audience. that's the sum total of why we're discussing it.

so if we say the style of the house seems fine and we even agree that it's likely to be pretty good, what's next?

could it have been more friendly to its neighbors? sure. i can think of lots of more contextually sensitive things that might have been done. obvious things. but why should this neighbor have been more conciliatory or accommodating than the others? because he came last? he doesn't have any say regarding the style or positioning of others' houses. who knows? this owner may have already had a run-in with our complainer - a history making this house actually driven by context.

in a public environment my attitude would definitely be different. there is a burden of responsibility to a larger public on a main street, for instance. but in the rarefied air of an island retreat, everybody's elbowing their way to the best view. there is no particular public good, so it's a free-for-all.

I was kind of seeing your point of view until that last paragraph, Steven, which seems to contain some subtleties with which I don't necessarily agree.

A new picture up on the original link, as well as commentary by Mr. McMansion himself.

Here is one aspect that is shading my point of view: this kind of waterfront development is terrible in *any* case. It's terrible environmentally and it takes miles of shoreline out of public domain and it reflects the fear people have of others.

So when someone tries to do something architecturally interesting with their steroidal private dwelling, that counts as a bit of a positive for me.

if the guy dint want a house there he should have ponied up and bought the lot to keep it free and clear of any development that would spoil his little piece of paradise...

I'm convinced the wall was added after McMan criticized the appearance of the Graham House. Architect and Graham replied with a more effective visual barrier to what i am sure they agree is even worse, the McMansion and it's territorial owner.....

methinks mr. cobb is a hack, and we are all a bit too infatuated with a flat roof and exposed concrete.

No no, jafidler: I'm not infatuated with exposed concrete, I'm full-on in love with it. ;-)

A wall like that makes a nice foil for some greenery -- and a lovely and appropriate separation from too-close neighbors -- doesn't it ?

The McMansion owner will realize that, sooner or later. . .

McMansion Owner bought that larger-than-life pie-shaped lot situated in the corner of an intercoastal waterway. Much like the cul-de-sac lot with radial lot lines.....now he's jammed in an awkward spot with less frontage than he had assumed to have had.....
Prison wall blocks once afforded sunset views. EIFS is moldy...cooling bills are through the roof....
It's all about modern sensibility and jealousy thereof.
Hire an architect you fat-assed american trust fund baby wave-runner revisionist architecture establishment McMansionist.

the wall blocks morning light. he'll have a nice radiant oven on summer afternoons. ahhhh!

Greg has a point when he complains about privacy invasions. If the livingroom really is 'directly above' the backyard, with 'direct lines of sight' into bedrooms, then I would agree that its an invasion of privacy. Do most local codes address things like that? Sure, the Architect designed to the setbacks, ect, but are there codes to address a look out tower? Since I don't live in a home-owner's assoc. subdivision, can I build a turret to play peeping tom, it would be much more convenient than peering through the blinds.

you know for me the older i get, the less concerned [or interested] i am with style and aesthetics. for me, architecture is successfull if it improves quality of life. i don't really know where i was going with that, but i thought i'd throw it out there.

"in a public environment my attitude would definitely be different. there is a burden of responsibility to a larger public on a main street, for instance. but in the rarefied air of an island retreat, everybody's elbowing their way to the best view. there is no particular public good, so it's a free-for-all. "

Steven, I completely disagree with this, and I think it goes to my main point here with my comments on this thread... (but again with a smile -- really not trying to antagonize anyone!)

I disagree with your continuing theme that there is, or should be, a difference in a given architect's presumed responsibilities relative to public v. private projects.

You actually flatly state that "there is no particular public good" on an island retreat...which I think is a remarkable statement to make -- because of course there is a public good there, as there is among private persons everywhere. (I'd guess you don't actually make a practice of "free-for-all" toward those around you! But I'll take you at your words for now...)

Unfortunately, your view places all responsibility elsewhere from, in this case an architect, and onto some external governing body. Back to your zoning rule book, and I guess I understood your stated position from your first post. You're saying that unless it's written/proposed/adopted into the public code, no one can reasonably expect much else. I completely disagree with that on many levels, and i don't believe we would ever get very far doing the minimum legal requirements, which really goes for any situation.

From what little I know if it, Cobb v. Mcmansion Guy seems to have resulted in a mini war zone. Well that's no good. Who would want that? But you're saying that since a building satisfies the existing codes, you yourself would -- nor should -- feel no necessary further responsiblity. I can't buy that. I think that going beyond that minimum needs to be what we do, and I'll bet that in practice, that's exactly what you and most eveyone here tries to do.

Steven, you asked "...why should this neighbor have been more conciliatory or accommodating than the others?" Because this neighbor had the opportunity.

calling me out, kurt. ok.

we do have ethical responsibilities to various parties with every project. but depending on the project, the balance of these parties shifts. we have responsibilities to our clients, to ourselves, to users (where different from clients), to the public/community good, and to anyone else that can be identified as potential stakeholders in the project. environmental issues, planning goals, binding elements, and regulations are usually understood as part of the 'public/community' aspect of this dynamic.

the balance begins to be a sliding scale based on how many people a project may affect and what their relationship to each other is.

- if i'm doing a school, obviously the client group is important (department of education, school board), as is the separate user group (admin, faculty, and students). because it's a community facility - basically a public building - the public interest is a big component: where is it related to students', how useful can it be as a community facility, what does bus traffic do to its neighbors, how does it relate to its immediate surroundings and the community at large?

- if i'm doing a commercial infill building in a row of storefronts, i am maybe a little more responsible to my client, over the general public, because the place is not by it's nature a public-owned building. but given its context, the number of people it might affect on a daily basis, my ethical responsibility is still to provide a solution which honors the public interest. the building should be respectful of its surroundings and provide a similar level of public amenity as its neighbors. for a commercial project a level of amenity and complementarity may start to be in the client's interest anyway, separate from any altruistic concern for the public. this is not a design style distinction so much as a requirement that there be some level of analysis of what the context is DOING: attention to scale, protection from elements, clear communication of use, etc. this is also why i also reference regs so much: these rules are established based on a community's own stated interest in any given project. they're not abstract; they're built based on consensus of a stakeholder group.

- if i'm doing a house in a subdivision, i'm responsible to the client, to the regulations of that subdivision, etc. if there is an established pattern of development, i may want to see what i can learn from it, whether that means to pay attention to setbacks, sightlines, the way things address a street, whatever. but the balance of stakeholder interest is beginning to shift more to my client and away from some overarching public interest. the number of people affected by the design is getting narrower, meaning that their is unlikely to be a large affect on a 'public' and more on just a few neighbors.

for this particular house by cobb that we're discussing, the stakeholder group is very small given the isolation of the project. assuming that the community's interests have been met via conformance to regs and that there are no environmental issues (which i'll just have to assume), there are possibly only three stakeholders: a client and two neighbors. it's pretty apparent what the concrete wall was meant to address. i'm less clear about the view down to a neighbor's yard - whether that will remain true or whether it is actually what will happen. in residential work there is often the consideration that you don't want to start off as bad neighbors, but maybe this isn't a community where neighbor relations really happen anyway. (i've seen this in many resort places: your experience is in your house or coming or going from your house, not interacting with a neighbor. for that reason, i'm complicit with liberty bell: these high end exclusive 'communities' are generally poor examples of good design or community anyway, much less consideration of someone else's interests.)

le bossman's comment actually gets right to the point: architecture is successfull if it improves quality of life. the question here has to do with whose quality of life. if you can't make the quality of life equally improved for all three stakeholders - and, in this case, it seems like the architect could not have - who becomes the priority? in this situation, the client became the priority. this client obviously wanted to perch out in a private aerie, move out past any other obstructions of his/her view, and block any sightlines to a neighbors' house.

i don't know that i can fully support this design because i don't know enough about the client's goals, the architect's goals, or how the actual finished condition will look and act. i would probably have designed a much more polite building because i'm generally a more polite designer (which i often see as a liability). i guess i'm just taking a position that, while this may not be an ideal situation, there is nothing inherently wrong with the design prepared by cobb's office.

honestly, i'm getting more gray about the whole deal the more i think about it. these are the things we struggle with in every project and from which we can learn. we develop an ethical direction for ourselves (and our practices) over time.

(check out 'the ethical architect' by tom spector for more on how i've defined the stakeholders and their positions relative to the architect's responsibilities. a great book, whether you agree with MY positions in this particular relationship or not.)

What the debate between Steven and Kurt seems to come down to is this: "it's generally better to be a nice guy and care about what your neighbors think, but we don't HAVE to be nice, or care what they think."

In a funny way, it's the same principle at work when you buy a cup of coffee. Most people say "thank you" because it's the polite thing to do and you want to get along with your fellow humans. But nothing is obligating you to say thank you. (What you ARE obligated to do is to pay for your coffee, and for them to give it to you.)

In the case of these houses, the Cobb house is somewhat rude. But it's perfectly within its rights to be rude, under the code. So now the neighbors don't like it and the owner doesn't get invited to the neighborhood barbeque. So it goes.

Kurt, on your point, there may be a generalized public good. People do give in to the public good out of a sense of social obligation. But no one is required to abide by it. Humans have all sorts of social mechanisms for compelling people to act in the public good, but rarely are these enforceable: smiles, thank yous, holding the door for others, not talking loudly in public places, using deodorant, not littering, etc etc.

it will always be an architect's instinct to protect and serve his client first, but in my opinion a lot of the clients i work with are pretty arrogant people. counterbalancing ethics and business can be a difficult thing, butto remove money from the equation for the sake of argument there are a lot of people out there who have pretty assinine ideas who i'd just as soon tell to go shove it. i think 'ethics' for architects often involves trying to make someone happy even though you don't really believe in what you are doing. i don't know what cobb would've said, but if i was a mid-level employee working on this joint i probably would've been disallusioned with the way it was situated on the site, but that is just me.

hmmm...i love the smell of concrete in the morning

The difficulties accumulate. It's one thing if you're the boss, and the client has an asinine idea. You can act as their advocate, or maybe even reject the project.

But what if it's your boss who has the asinine idea? If my boss wanted to build a forty foot windowless concrete wall within 6' of a property line, and I fundamentally disagreed, what should I do? Quit? I'm the one who has to draw this thing, render it, create presentations of it?

I'm not throwing this out as a hypothetical. I've been there -- I've had bosses who have wanted to do some pretty offensive things in the name of architecture. What's a strategy for dealing with these situations?

well my strategy if this becomes a consistent problem is to just do it, save up some money, and eventually go work somewhere else

I'm not sure a firm where one person is consistently such a unilateral decision maker is a good place to build a career over the long haul. I had a job with a boss like this once and quickly came to the point where I lost all interest in and passion for the projects I worked on. I came to see my job as 'just a paycheck'. Now that I work at a firm where people work more collaboratively and are open to other people's opinions I feel more ownership over the projects I work on and that has really brought my passion for architecture back to life.

Steven, thanks for the response, but holy smokes, buddy! -- I got a little blinky reading your detailed precision response protocol for public v. private projects... yikes, man! Well no one can fault your consistency, backing up a rule-book defense with even more documented texts and sliding-scale rules. Hey, whaddya need all that stuff for? Well, OK, but blog-prone architects have already read an awful lot of the same books, anyway. And, the answers are not in those books, my friend.

Most of us probably like Cobb's work, and most of us probably hate McMansions...from what little we seem to know of this case, it's obvious that the oil and water mix of the two as they massed out in such tight quarters made a pretty contentious mess. Apparently a legal mess, yes, I get that part... yet still a mess, and my point is that we can surely recognize when a mess has likely occurred, and that we know that few here would actually enjoy any ownership in making messes, and isn't an architect's role to create less messes, and not to just argue for the blamelessness of a mess-making architect?

I think that you end up allowing that you would have proposed a different design is important, Mr. Ward. In your gut you know the situation calls for an architectural fixin'.

But Kurt: the situation doesn't "call for an architectural fixin'", because nothing quantitative has been done wrong here. That's the point.

Please stop making us all chase you: what do you think is "wrong", quantitatively, with this situation, and how would you fix it?

I should have said 'called' for, Liberty... 'calls' for made no sense, since it's largely built. I've acknowleged the point and accept that there seems to have been no quantitative breach of the existing reg's. If that's "the point", then we're good.

I was looking for something else and stumbled upon this:


it is a completed project by the above mentioned architect, and was a merit award winning AIA Project for the Northwest and Alaska awards in 2005.

I think it should put this baby to rest. Most likely he isn't such a bad guy after all. The amazing thing is he is finding clients who are willing to take a risk and build....unlike alot of paper architecture which seems to be floating around these days.

no, i'll vouch for cobb's crankiness.

but he has been getting things built, and he markets things really agressively (sometimes a little too much, submitting a project 3 years running for the same prize...)

I'd love to hear about your experience with his crankiness holz. do tell!

aren't you the one that worked for him, dml?

Kurt, I still want to hear more from you about what exactly the problem is and what you think a better solution would be. I think you raise some good points, but you still seem completely unsatisfied with the discussion.

Let me say I agree entirely with Steven's assessment of levels of community/contextual response. I think we have all seen rowhouse rows in which a very modern box will share the cornice line with an adjacent Italianate and it all looks very rhythmic and pleasing.

Let's set aside the zoning regs and neighborhood covenants deeds restrictions argument. It appears this neighborhood has none, thus no quantifiable rules have been broken.

So what *is* the problem, Kurt?

Holz, I'm, not sure that the 3-years running re-submittal thing isn't pretty typical...i worked at a firm that gathered AIA awards fairly regularly, and man the did the same thing!

But hey man...holz, I'm looking at the "name that building" thread... dude, what gives? ...how have you developed such "recognition skeeeels"???

Your knowledge base seems COMPREHENSIVE... ENCYCLOPAEDIC... perhaps even PANOPTIC... (which is my new word0