The steel structure looms large from Midge Cross and Scott Johnston's back porch. And from the beginning they say Architect Tom Kundig and his partners ignored land covenants meant to prevent any ridgeline buildings that would be visible from below.
"To me it was the extended third finger," said Cross. "Like, 'Up yours, Mazama, we can put this here and the heck with you guys.'"
— komonews.com
In the fall of 2012, Tom Kundig of Olson Kundig Architects built a private cabin on the picturesque ridge of the Methow Valley in Washington. Prior residents of the valley's Mazama community were miffed by the ruined view, and claimed that the cabin violated "protective covenants for visual consideration", established in 1987. They were joined by current property owners and sued Kundig last year. Kundig has now been ordered by the court to move the hut away from the ridgeline.
Kundig is no stranger to Washington, or off-grid cabin architecture – a native of Spokane, Kundig was educated and practices as an architect in Washington with Olson Kundig Architects, and his "Rolling Huts" offer modest camping lodges near Mazama. While Kundig hasn't offered any official comments on the case, his office did state that "Tom Kundig designed this cabin with the valley's natural elements and history as a priority. His aim has been to create a building that embodies the Pacific Northwest spirit of contemporary architecture. While the legal process continues in appeal, there is no further comment."
From the Court's statements:
"Defendants violated the Covenants by building the hut as and where they did. From plaintiff's property, especially the Mazama Ranch House, the hut cuts dramatically into the skyline. It does not attempt to blend with its surroundings: it is in stark and vivid contrast to anything around it. The hut could not have been built in a manner more insensitive to the visual minimizing goals of the Covenants.”
“It is not necessary to the Court's ruling but the evidence suggests defendants used the hut and its location to make an architectural statement” ... “this was not an innocent act.”
27 Comments
Good.
Funny how people feel entitled to their pristine views of uninterrupted nature from their environmentally destructive styrofoam vantage.
How could this happen? I bet I know - Covenants & deed restrictions are part of the title search when closing on land – the architect isn’t there then. People don’t read these things and proceed…..what’s the architect supposed to do – order a title search? I suppose so. Add that to all the shit we have to do and pay for. Then they went through zoning – no check there….then it appears that the neighbors just sat back and watched it happen….with no warning or demand. I don’t want to get legal but IMO this is the owners fault.....but of course there is much unknown. I blame too the neighbors – there is such a thing as mitigating damages – if you see something breaking it’s your responsibility to call “fowl” once known. Although, I wonder if the neighbors didn’t know or care but once they saw the objectionable (to them) design then legaled-up and found the clause. Better start packing.
Carrera - The architect is supposed to read that thing and find out if there are any restrictions. The real estate agent likely descried any restrictions to the buyer. Code enforcement or zoning reviews do not have any responsibility to look into deed restrictions.
The very first thing that an architect should do on ANY project is to look at the title report and read the CCR's. Tom Kundig knows this.
The architect, Tom Kundig, is also the co-owner of this property.
Another fact that should be considered: Bill Pope, a former chief litigator and corporate lawyer for Microsoft, and one of the main proponents raising all hell about this house is a land owner who has a residence/hospitality property on the valley floor, and can presumably afford lots of litigation if something like this interrupts his marketable view. Not to mention his competition with the rolling huts project in the same area (another Kundig Project)
Tom Kundig knew exactly what he was getting into. He was just daring that they would fall in love with his architecture just as he's in love with himself.
jla-x, you summed it up perfectly, in my opinion. Those styrofoam villas in the valley are the middle fingers saying efff you to everyone and nature, not this little project.
Restrictive covenants are a crude tool really - it's kind of like zoning by fiat. They leave no possibility for public input on something that can greatly affect the future development of a city.
Though in this case it seems reasonable and sounds like Kundig should have known better. His house is nice, but this isn't about the architecture. The original owners (it's not clear from the article if they still live nearby) sold the land on the condition no one would block the view - and now there's a house there.
Also, look at the photos - it's not finished. The neighbors probably complained as soon as they saw construction start. He may well have known he was in defiance of the covenant as soon as he started.
But Kundig can content himself knowing that if there's ever a landslide here - and it looks inevitable - he'll come out on top!
spark88 is right. He knew what he was doing, bet he could get away with it, and got busted fair and square.
I'm generally okay with playing fast and loose with these kinds of rules (because they're dumb). But rules ARE rules, the covenants and easements were perfectly legal, and if you're going to do it that way, you need to suck it up and take your lumps if you get called out on it.
"The hut could not have been built in a manner more insensitive to the visual minimizing goals of the Covenants.”
I'm pretty sure it could have.
Oh man orangeeli, can't stop laughing, made my day. I think you nailed the problem.
This is such a shame. It seems to be very modest from this view, and it is hard to imagine that the view from below could be that agressive. I'll admit I love Tom's work, and I like this simple little structure.
He breached a restrictive covenant. What is so hard to understand?
Also - was that McMansion on land subject to the covenant?
Stupid rules are meant to be broken.
LOL orangeeli, well done!
"Who needs laws?!"
alternative, it's really only the people that break the laws who needs laws. there wouldn't be any point in having laws if everyone already followed them, would there?
Not following your logic.
There is a website built by the community against the siting of the hut including a bunch of photos from below / documentation...
http://www.movethehut.org/
They posted the CC+Rs, they are extremely vague and open to interpretation which is why I think Tom is in this mess. I imagine in his mind he is meeting all of the criteria outlined below, while in the mind of the community he is not. So we end up here.
http://www.movethehut.org/pdfs/Flagg_Mtn_Covenants.pdf
"Any structures constructed on the property shall blend in with the natural surroundings of the property and adjacent lands and all construction shall utilize building materials and colors which are in harmony with and compatible with the colors of the natural surroundings. All improvements placed on the property shall be constructed with constraint and special sensitivity and consideration in order to minimize the visual impact of any such improvements on adjoining parcels and on all other lands, including lands located on the floor of the Methow Valley and all other lands which have a direct line of site to the property."
Can you say with a straight face that the hut "blended" with its natural surroundings?
Like this?
Is that Pomona, CA?
I dunno - is the land where that faux palm is placed subject to a restrictive covenant?
Not sure, but it sure does blend in well.
West Covina. I was close.
love ornageeli's comment. do anyone else follow http://mcmansionhell.com/ ? :)
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.