For the poll this week I hope to gauge the opinion of the readers on the subject of the design of infill in older areas.
Should infill be so well detailed that you can’t tell which building is from 1910 vs 2010? Or should infill be just whatever is being built in new edge communities at the time? Should high-design modern infill be given some wiggle room?
– Steve Patterson
Currently there are "13 comments" on this Article:
Good question! Replicating the old makes for continuity. Illustrated picture shows a definite departure from the existing structures and architecture which makes for a jarring visual encounter. Bottom line, we have so much available space in the city, development in and of itself is a welcome proposition. Some solutions would be acceptable on one block but unacceptable on another block just a block away. Not a personal fan of high design but can appreciate it's beauty.
From my childhood in Chicago in 1949, I remember two (on lots that were three houses-apart) infill pinkish-brick, “modern” single-storey cape-cod, GI Bill houses being built and how out of place they looked then. The other houses on the block were a mixed-lot of old mostly two-storey brick flat-roof duplexes or wooden peaked-roof single-family houses. Recently, I saw them again for the first time in over 50-years and quite frankly, while neither their style nor the much-older overall style of the whole block has changed, today they blend in just fine like they “belong” there.
Your OKC photo subject however won't look any less “odd” in that setting in 50 years than it does now. So perhaps the best answer for your poll really lies more in the ideas that Karen postulated in this article's 2nd response.
While there are black and white answers (great design is good and bad design sucks), it's all those shades of grey that are harder to answer. One component of good design is respecting, or, at least, reacting to, context. Massing and scale are two key criteria, but so is the reality that some neighborhoods are in transition – do you stay with the old scale or move to the newer, hopefully denser, one? And, more importantly, who decides? The majority, by voting? The vocal minority, by screaming? The property owner, by spending? The “city”, through complex rules? Bottom line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and tastes and needs change over time. I'm no fan of strictly replicating any particular style just because of what's next door, but I've also seen way too many examples of bad design to say anything should go, either. Requiring a licensed architect for every project over $X would be both too simplistic (and self-serving), yet letting any yahoo with enough money to pay for the work isn't the answer, either. The best answer may be the “kit of parts” scenario, but even that tends to fore design into a box, and limits the oportunities for new ideas and materials . . .
The brown cantilevered room was an unfortunate choice, but I do admire the fact that the architect actually tried to create something, as opposed to yet another cookie cutter McMansion with dramatic soaring roofs and stone turrets.
I wonder if that “brown” room is sheathed in Cor-Ten. Looks like it. Makes for a rather peculiar looking proboscis cantilevered out like that. Almost seems as if it doesn't belong on the house for which it was designed.
It is indeed sheathed in Cor-ten. The cantilevered volume houses a continuos space with living, kitchen and dining flowing together in one space. The decisions on the material palette were guided by several factors two of which are ease of maintenence and contrasting colorations that speak to the geometric compositions seen from different angles and views. Of note is that the cor-ten clad volume extend all the way through to the rear of the house and ends in a similar, but smaller, cantilever.
More photos can be seen here: http://fitzsimmons-arch.com/CaseStudy_1.html
I wholeheartedly disagree with Karen. “Replicating” the old does not make for continuity, it just makes for a lack of imagination. The above photo, while a gorgeous home, is out of scale with it's surroundings, which is an architectural failure. What many don't realize, like in my city (Jacksonville, Florida) is that these “historical styles” (like Prairie or Craftsman or the Vernacular style of the early 1900s) were “modern” for their day. They were a direct departure from the “revivalist” styles of the time that were “replicating” old architecture. So, by further replicating these previously moderns styles, you are directly opposing what those architects were setting out to accomplish so many years ago. Continuity can be achieved in any number of ways. Least of which should be replication. Historical neighborhoods should be saved and preserved, but there should be a direct disconnect between what is old/historic and what is new. New will be historic one day. Do we want our kids to look back at us and see nothing but what had been done before or do we want them to see the very best of what we could accomplish in our time?
It is indeed sheathed in Cor-ten. The cantilevered volume houses a continuos space with living, kitchen and dining flowing together in one space. The decisions on the material palette were guided by several factors two of which are ease of maintenence and contrasting colorations that speak to the geometric compositions seen from different angles and views. Of note is that the cor-ten clad volume extend all the way through to the rear of the house and ends in a similar, but smaller, cantilever.
More photos can be seen here: http://fitzsimmons-arch.com/CaseStudy_1.html
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
Great find. What part of the city is this? I am going to have to go check it out.
NW 7th between N. Shartel Ave & N. Francis Ave. There are two others in the area.
Okay, I have seen a couple of these but didn't explore. Neat, going to have to do some driving today and check them out.
Good question! Replicating the old makes for continuity. Illustrated picture shows a definite departure from the existing structures and architecture which makes for a jarring visual encounter. Bottom line, we have so much available space in the city, development in and of itself is a welcome proposition. Some solutions would be acceptable on one block but unacceptable on another block just a block away. Not a personal fan of high design but can appreciate it's beauty.
From my childhood in Chicago in 1949, I remember two (on lots that were three houses-apart) infill pinkish-brick, “modern” single-storey cape-cod, GI Bill houses being built and how out of place they looked then. The other houses on the block were a mixed-lot of old mostly two-storey brick flat-roof duplexes or wooden peaked-roof single-family houses. Recently, I saw them again for the first time in over 50-years and quite frankly, while neither their style nor the much-older overall style of the whole block has changed, today they blend in just fine like they “belong” there.
Your OKC photo subject however won't look any less “odd” in that setting in 50 years than it does now. So perhaps the best answer for your poll really lies more in the ideas that Karen postulated in this article's 2nd response.
While there are black and white answers (great design is good and bad design sucks), it's all those shades of grey that are harder to answer. One component of good design is respecting, or, at least, reacting to, context. Massing and scale are two key criteria, but so is the reality that some neighborhoods are in transition – do you stay with the old scale or move to the newer, hopefully denser, one? And, more importantly, who decides? The majority, by voting? The vocal minority, by screaming? The property owner, by spending? The “city”, through complex rules? Bottom line, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and tastes and needs change over time. I'm no fan of strictly replicating any particular style just because of what's next door, but I've also seen way too many examples of bad design to say anything should go, either. Requiring a licensed architect for every project over $X would be both too simplistic (and self-serving), yet letting any yahoo with enough money to pay for the work isn't the answer, either. The best answer may be the “kit of parts” scenario, but even that tends to fore design into a box, and limits the oportunities for new ideas and materials . . .
The brown cantilevered room was an unfortunate choice, but I do admire the fact that the architect actually tried to create something, as opposed to yet another cookie cutter McMansion with dramatic soaring roofs and stone turrets.
I wonder if that “brown” room is sheathed in Cor-Ten. Looks like it. Makes for a rather peculiar looking proboscis cantilevered out like that. Almost seems as if it doesn't belong on the house for which it was designed.
I was thinking it looked like a bad stain job on redwood maybe.
alf
It is indeed sheathed in Cor-ten. The cantilevered volume houses a continuos space with living, kitchen and dining flowing together in one space. The decisions on the material palette were guided by several factors two of which are ease of maintenence and contrasting colorations that speak to the geometric compositions seen from different angles and views. Of note is that the cor-ten clad volume extend all the way through to the rear of the house and ends in a similar, but smaller, cantilever.
More photos can be seen here: http://fitzsimmons-arch.com/CaseStudy_1.html
So true. The cantilevered room is too in your face compared to the rest of the building. I do love cantilevers though.
I wholeheartedly disagree with Karen. “Replicating” the old does not make for continuity, it just makes for a lack of imagination. The above photo, while a gorgeous home, is out of scale with it's surroundings, which is an architectural failure. What many don't realize, like in my city (Jacksonville, Florida) is that these “historical styles” (like Prairie or Craftsman or the Vernacular style of the early 1900s) were “modern” for their day. They were a direct departure from the “revivalist” styles of the time that were “replicating” old architecture. So, by further replicating these previously moderns styles, you are directly opposing what those architects were setting out to accomplish so many years ago. Continuity can be achieved in any number of ways. Least of which should be replication. Historical neighborhoods should be saved and preserved, but there should be a direct disconnect between what is old/historic and what is new. New will be historic one day. Do we want our kids to look back at us and see nothing but what had been done before or do we want them to see the very best of what we could accomplish in our time?
It is indeed sheathed in Cor-ten. The cantilevered volume houses a continuos space with living, kitchen and dining flowing together in one space. The decisions on the material palette were guided by several factors two of which are ease of maintenence and contrasting colorations that speak to the geometric compositions seen from different angles and views. Of note is that the cor-ten clad volume extend all the way through to the rear of the house and ends in a similar, but smaller, cantilever.
More photos can be seen here: http://fitzsimmons-arch.com/CaseStudy_1.html