Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Some more new homes in old neighborhoods


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

#51 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 8 2006, 09:00 AM) View Post
As to consideration for the "greater good", we have found out through a good deal of experimentation throughout the history of civilization that the greatest good is achieved by allowing individuals to pursue their own self interest with the sole confine that such pursuit does not infringe upon another's pursuit.


Yossarian, I appreciate your zeal for contemporary economics, but capitalism hasn't run it's course yet. And if you look at history carefully, you'll see that everything indeed runs it's course. I certainly appreciate the pragmatism of seeking Locke's ideal, and certainly don't condone anything as radical and failed as "each to his own abilities." However, the most sustaining and pervaisive spiritual perspectives (moral perspectives) point quite the opposite direction of self interest. This despite our prevailing Puritan model.

And once again, I was not suggesting that to be moral you have to predict the future. Failure to bear in mind reasonable consequences, or to ignore the effect one's indulgences has on members of a community is neglect. Most of the time the benevolence or malevolence of our actions is easily predictable - we're usually just too preoccupied to notice or care.

Understand that I'm not arguing here - I'm presenting a valid and confirmed perspective that most americans simply aren't used to hearing. I just think sometimes we rush toward material goals with with too much certainty in our motives. Sometimes the result being the untimely demise of a perfectly good place to live. If you'd like to explore this tangent more, perhaps we should pick it up on another thread in Misc?

Oh, and as far as "amoral" goes: I'm sure this is someones specific tidy conceptualization and definition that was read in a college course on business ethics or some such thing. Why then is "neglect" of human life punisheable by law? Law being a much lower moral understanding than simply doing the right thing.

#52 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:26 AM

QUOTE
I appreciate your zeal for contemporary economics, but capitalism hasn't run it's course yet. And if you look at history carefully, you'll see that everything indeed runs it's course.


rotflmao.gif

That is the funniest piece of collosal ignorance that I have read on this board in a long time Illustrator. I really hope you did not spend too much time crafting that response. I suppose you think that evolution might some day "run its course" as well.

QUOTE
Oh, and as far as "amoral" goes: I'm sure this is someones specific tidy conceptualization and definition that was read in a college course on business ethics or some such thing. Why then is "neglect" of human life punisheable by law?


That is exactly how the law views "neglegence", as "amoral". It is precisely why the proof of "intent" is required for the the more serious charges that a society or civilization has agreed to be "immoral", like murder. Along that reasoning, I guess you could codify some of your ideas with others support based on just that theory; oh wait, its been done. They're called home-owners associations; and those have not necessarily been beneficial to either the neighborhood or the individuals living there.

QUOTE
If you'd like to explore this tangent more, perhaps we should pick it up on another thread in Misc?


ok.

#53 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:32 AM

What about the proposed townhomes at Park Hill and Rogers Ave. They were supposed to start almost a year ago. Any word on those?

#54 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 09 August 2006 - 12:22 PM

*******Do we need a moderator or somebody to pick up these posts and put them somewhere else? I'm not sure how to go about doing this...don't want to interrupt the original topic any more than I have to here. Can someone help with this?
QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 9 2006, 08:26 AM) View Post

That is the funniest piece of collosal ignorance that I have read on this board in a long time Illustrator. I really hope you did not spend too much time crafting that response. I suppose you think that evolution might some day "run its course" as well.


Is it really that ignorant or is that just a reactionary comment? (BTW that's borderline ad hominem, and doesn't score you any credibility) The fundemental idea behind Darwin's theory is that things change - once the environment no longer supports a particular genetic trait, that trait runs its course. Sometimes whole species run their course. And as a matter of fact, Darwinian evolution may run its course very soon. Contemporary thinkers have moved on to even more sophisticated and myriad theories to explain evolution. Evolution is simply a scientific method of showing that EVERYTHING runs it's course.

But let's not get caught up in a pissing match about who knows more specifics about Discovery Channel fodder. I'm personally much more impressed by wisdom than technical knowledge.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 9 2006, 08:26 AM) View Post
It is precisely why the proof of "intent" is required for the the more serious charges that a society or civilization has agreed to be "immoral", like murder.

Did society or civilization (as a whole) really decide that? And how morally sophisticated is the law? Does anyone know how to get this and the previous few posts bumped somewhere else?

#55 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 09 August 2006 - 05:00 PM

QUOTE
The fundemental idea behind Darwin's theory is that things change - once the environment no longer supports a particular genetic trait, that trait runs its course. Sometimes whole species run their course. And as a matter of fact, Darwinian evolution may run its course very soon. Contemporary thinkers have moved on to even more sophisticated and myriad theories to explain evolution.


I never mentioned Darwin. In fact I specifically did not capitalize "evolution".

QUOTE
Evolution is simply a scientific method of showing that EVERYTHING runs it's course.


By whose definition?

QUOTE
I'm personally much more impressed by wisdom than technical knowledge.


I'm sorry Illustrator, but I am afraid that in my estimation, your reasoning exhibits neither. I will not say that you are neither knowledgeable nor wise which might be characterized as ad hominem, rather I am just having a hard time with your logic. More precisely, in utilizing the word "ignorant", I have presented that I find your statement to be just that, ill or at best inadequately informed.

Oh, and I stopped watching Discovery awhile back; I presume the same for you. I have very little interest in "extreme makeover" or plastic surgery exposes. But I would be more than happy to provide you with a bibliography on where I draw my opinions/conclusions should you so wish.

#56 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:29 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Aug 9 2006, 01:22 PM) View Post

*******Do we need a moderator or somebody to pick up these posts and put them somewhere else? I'm not sure how to go about doing this...don't want to interrupt the original topic any more than I have to here. Can someone help with this?


A moderator or an administrator can split this topic. I will do it soon.

#57 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:30 PM


[/quote]


But to be "immoral" there has to be an element of intent or neglect. I doubt the guys building McMansions intend to devalue the neighborhoods. They don't mean for the houses to be distasteful to the architecture community and they probably don't view them as distasteful. And the truth is, as long as people buy them and are happy with their purchases, it's tough to describe it as immoral.
[/quote]


Whether a design is inappropriate for its context is largely subjective. That does not make it trivial - it has a massive impact on our buit environment, which is where we spend our lives. There is an undeniable negative impact on the perceived quality of life in many older established neighborhoods when a new, highly visible building omits certain key characteristics that is key to that neighborhood's defining character - certain characteristics that make the place a charming, inviting environment in the first place.
Similarly, many of these new homes that residents dislike have one characterisitc in common: they lack a certain understated elegance that older homes have. Too often these new homes' designs are overly complex and have contrived, thematic designs. The designs aim for complexity (e.g., many gables crammed into a small roof) which, in the eye of many who don't follow design, can seem impressive or "nice" as one might say. I'm not vilifying people for not understanding this concept, it is just frustrating that most home builders seem to be part of the "doesn't get it" crowd. It is insensitivity. Even if they are blind to simple, elegant design, they still cannot deny that what they are building is totally inconsistent with the context of the neighborhoods.

I mean morality in the sense that we members of society have an implicity duty to try to improve the world around us, not to simply try to suck it dry of its resources for our own personal gain. This is not an "either/or" situation. Many will find ways to rationalize behavior that does just that (extracting maximum value and creating little or nothing), but I would argue that such behavior is less moral if not immoral.

#58 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:44 AM

^^^
Ah, it's nice to see there is someone that sees where I'm coming from. I think Urbandweller may be better at putting things into words than me. I have a feeling that some of what's said above may still make some people angry (the same way I know many have reacted to the things I said). Let me try to connect everything I've said in this thread back to Architecture (my principal preoccupation), so it's understood that I'm not trying to go off into a wild tangent of nonsense.

I recently watched My Architect, a biography/documentary about Louis Kahn and the women and children in his life. It’s not until the end film, when Louis Kahn’s son (Nathaniel Kahn, the narrator and director) finally begins to understand the true significance of his father’s work – this is when he finally vists the buildings in India and Bangledesh. There in the East, a Hindu man relates to Nathaniel the spiritual power of his father’s buildings.

I think a lot of people “like” our Kimbell Art Museum because we’re told that it’s a masterpiece by a brilliant architect, and we think it’s ours, we Fort Worthians possess it. The real genius behind Kahn’s work is the cosmic, archetypal, humanist force behind it – it speaks of something that is fundemental and benevolent about us humans. This is a beauty we can’t possess, but can only hope to experience.

One of the most revered architect-educators of the past century, John Hejduk, depicted angels in many of his architectural drawings. He depicted anthropomorhpic structures with names and human functions that played out roles on a dream-like stage. He too understood the importance of imbibing architecture with spirit – that is, ALL architecture, not just churches, mosques, synagogues and temples. And please note: this has nothing to do with any particular faith (save having some faith in people).

So Yossarian, anything in your bibliography speak to this or how we should regard our built environment? Starting to follow my logic yet? If not, maybe you should update the library.

#59 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:04 AM

Ok, Iíd like to impart to the readers here something that should leave little doubt where Iím coming from. This is a true story about life, death and architecture. And knowing Iíve offended some, I hope none of you will dismiss this post Ė Iím pouring my heart out here (are you listening Cberen?).

Once upon a time I was called up by a residential developer to do some conceptual design work. Now normally I donít work directly with developers (architects are my favorite business people), but I had some bills to pay, and developers really arenít all that bad wink.gif. In order to give me a sense of what he wanted me to design for him, he asked me to meet, and weíd drive around in his Escalade and look at houses - some heíd built, some he simply admired.

As we passed by each multi-million dollar residence, I could see an excitement in him grow. Each house added to his trove of desire, and his eyes would light up brighter with each mile we drove. It finally became apparent to me that he didnít just desire to make it his business to build these structures, but to craft his business such that he was constructing the very object of his desire Ė to live as his customers do.

So I returned to my studio, resigned myself to drawing up some designs against my schooling, and sent them on their way. Months passed and no word on my work came form his office (ok so Iím not the most organized, and probably should have followed up Ė especially if I wanted to get paid). I happened to run into an architect who also worked for this developer, who related to me that the developer had taken his own life shortly after I created my drawings.

At first I was shocked, then I understood, and finally I was deeply saddened despite not really knowing this person. And forever I will be saddened to think so many others lust for the same thing.


#60 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Aug 10 2006, 10:04 AM) View Post

I hope none of you will dismiss this post Ė Iím pouring my heart out here (are you listening Cberen?).

Once upon a time ...


...the developer had taken his own life shortly after I created my drawings.

At first I was shocked, then I understood, and finally I was deeply saddened despite not really knowing this person. And forever I will be saddened to think so many others lust for the same thing.


Interesting, but immaterial.

The point about the impact on our built environment is still a lopsided presentation. Is our built environment better served by suburban sprawl? Consider the client's alternatives and ask yourself which best serves the collective's needs?

A person in a quaint neighborhood has an opportunity to preserve that aesthetic. If that person can't muster enough support, then perhaps preserving the aesthetic is not as important to the community as other factors are. Residents have a mechanism for communicating their wishes. If they fail to participate in their local government, it is certainly not the obligation of the builder to read the minds of the residents.

All of that said, I hate McMansions, but I don't consider the bulk of them to be "immoral." There are a lot of high and mighty idealistic architectural viewpoints, but the notion that building McMansions in and of itself is immoral, well that's as far out there as I've heard. I just can't imagine St. Peter bringing it up.

#61 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:35 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Aug 10 2006, 05:52 PM) View Post
immaterial.


That's exactly it - now you're starting to get it. I'm offering you something immaterial here.

QUOTE
...but the notion that building McMansions in and of itself is immoral, well that's as far out there as I've heard. I just can't imagine St. Peter bringing it up.


I want you to think really hard about that statement. If it's so far out there, why does Urbandweller's post concur that it may at least be "less moral if not immoral." I mean I'm not the only one with this point of view (certainly I'm in the minority), and I'm not trying to be high and mighty here - this is real-world down-to-earth discussion about something that affects all of us. And as far as St. Peter goes, well I bet he might know a thing or two about the criticism and anxiety that follows a sincere message about spirit and humanity. Beyond that I don't know what more I can offer you.

#62 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 11 August 2006 - 07:59 AM

***** John: Iíve started a new thread titled ďArchitecture and MoralityĒ

I donít think we need to split the topic any more. Anyone interested in continuing the discussion started by the question: Is there a difference between what is morally correct and legally permissable (i.e., as it relates to development or building)?, can find it here.


#63 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:08 PM

Always an interesting topic, particularly where 'significant' period architecture is present. I have no problem with tear downs, often times they drive local conditions, improving property values for the least among us. Ive seen many very good projects and some not so great....but we'd be foolish to assume that every home built 'yesterday' was significant or superior.
Its really the same thing as urban renewel in the commercial sense. Cities often need new blood to revive areas that have faded.

#64 EricTCU

EricTCU

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Location:Stuck in a Cityview shopping center parking lot
  • Interests:May 3051 Odessa Avenue rest in peace.<br /><br />And a curse, I say, a curse upon those TCU administrators for destroying the house so many of us called home. And for what, 16 parking spaces?? A CURSE!

Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:45 AM

It could be worse. If you take Preston Rd all the way to Celina, Neon Deon Primetime Sanders displaced well over 75 cows for this...

IPB Image

Would someone please think about the cows?

But seriously, this thread has been great! I have relatives watching this happen to their neighborhood in Dallas (Royal & Webb Chapel). Primarily 1950's and 60's homes going down here. These are nice custom homes, two car garages, two living areas, formal & breakfast dining rooms, but many were built before the Master bedroom/bathroom suite was the norm.

My aunt and uncle were invited to a house warming party at one of the new McMansions and said it felt just like that 60 minutes story.

#65 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 27 August 2006 - 08:28 AM

QUOTE(mmiller2002 @ Jul 24 2006, 09:29 AM) View Post

Another one bites the dust. Corner of Virginia and Bunting. Dropping like flies in that area. Go one block west on Bunting there's about three at that intersection area. All the tear downs were somewhat run-down, but 10-15 years ago they would have been nice fixer-uppers. Now, BAM!

At least there's a nice renovation at the corner of Clover and Clarke. The green-ish one across Clover from it was very nicely renovated several years ago. Then someone squeezed a large brick 2-story next to it.

On the first Virginia block north of Camp Bowie, there's a nice renovation of an older (?) 2-story brick home going on, then, right next door, a new mcmansion is being squeezed right in, dwarfing the older home. Looks bad. That thing has an odd single door garage right in front.

Same area, on Clarke, near the Virginia intersection, there's one going in that looks like it will be all garage and concrete in front. Yuk.


Some examples:
Clarke @ Virginia
IPB Image

1200 Block Virginia (what's with that garage door in front?)
IPB Image

1200 Block Virginia
IPB Image

4000 block Bunting, 2 lots taken (this one is waaay out there for the neighborhood)
IPB Image

#66 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 28 August 2006 - 12:09 PM

The red-brick on 1200 block of Virginia, I find the faux concrete portico and faux flying buttresses quite amusing. Letís hope youíre not on the second floor if thereís a fireÖIím not sure a cat could fit through those windows, not to mention a person or child.

#67 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 28 August 2006 - 01:11 PM

The one on Bunting is just ridiculous. Look at the house next door !!!
Why would anyone do that??

#68 Holden

Holden

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 28 August 2006 - 02:03 PM

The Bunting one looks like a shopping strip.
So when does Subway open?

#69 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 28 August 2006 - 05:16 PM

QUOTE(Holden @ Aug 28 2006, 03:03 PM) View Post

The Bunting one looks like a shopping strip.
So when does Subway open?


Actually the Bunting building looks like a very desirable "urban village" streetside building: retail below, and residential above. If it could be moved a little closer, say about 25 feet, to the street you have the beginnings of a nice medium-density neighborhood.

#70 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:37 PM

I know I might be in the minority in this, but it's not really the design of the house on Bunting I have a problem with, it's the scale. I personally love a neighborhood with a wide variety of housing styles, especially when the the homes span many different periods. One of my favorite streets in FW is Meadowbrook Blvd. between Beach and Oakland. It's such a shame E. FW is so overlooked!!!! This street has homes representing almost 100 years of middle-class residential architecture. All built next to one another, in a seemingly random manner. Last time I drove down the street there were several new ones built in that wonderful cookie-cutter subdivison style, yet they seem to blend right in. But with such a wide mix of homes, I can't think of any that are so out of scale it looks out of place. This has made the blvd into an incredibly beautiful and interesting street. So I usually have no problem with someone building a design that is different than the rest of the neighborhood. To me it's not what you build, but how you build it.

#71 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 29 August 2006 - 07:17 AM

QUOTE(Holden @ Aug 28 2006, 03:03 PM) View Post

The Bunting one looks like a shopping strip.
So when does Subway open?



One of the nearby neighbors has referred to it as "their local Walgreens"

It's really looks like the kind of thing that will change (or ruin?) the block forever. Current owers will bail due to the over-scale size (or just cash-in), other wealthy Joneses will buy 2 lots and span them with a mansion, taxes will escalate. It's probably the worst one I've seen in the neighborhoods because of it's scale.

It's like a domino effect, once a house or two invades a block.

Unless the housing market dives, which may help. I'm waiting for my taxes to go down.

#72 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 29 August 2006 - 08:54 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 28 2006, 07:37 PM) View Post

I know I might be in the minority in this, but it's not really the design of the house on Bunting I have a problem with, it's the scale.


Excellent point vjackson,

It appears as though the architect had tunnel vision, couldn't, see the neighborhood surrounding the new building. I know it is possible to design and build a building that "fits" in with the surrounding structures, no matter the floor area (within reasonable bounds). In the case of the Bunting building, even turning the structure so the gable end faced the street would have helped it fit in some, since the neighboring house features a gabled front. It might make the job a little more difficult for the designer, but there are ways of blending new, larger structures into an existing urban setting.

My question is: if this blending is deemed desirable, and is to be enforced, what wording can be incorporated into the code to require that the existing neighborhood fabric be preserved by infill construction?

#73 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 29 August 2006 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE(Prairie Pup @ Aug 29 2006, 09:54 AM) View Post
My question is: if this blending is deemed desirable, and is to be enforced, what wording can be incorporated into the code to require that the existing neighborhood fabric be preserved by infill construction?


It would be nice if you could do that - put a clause in the zoning ordinance that requires new structures to respect their surroundsing. Problem is it would be interpreted in too many ways, and ultimately so it best serves the money maker's needs. Design by committee just doesn't work.

The real problem is people just don't care. You said it would make the designer's job a little harder - it should, and that designer should greet the challenge. The reality is the designer probably never even visited the street the house is being built on. One other thing to consider is all the 'designers' who do these jobs...in the mean time why aren't more architects being hired? Simple answer: nobody seems to care about the quality of our designed environment in general - it's more a matter of how much profit, how fast.

I had several instructors who promoted 'contextualism' in design, and I could talk about ways of making buildings fit into their surroundings all day long. But who cares?

#74 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 29 August 2006 - 11:38 AM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 28 2006, 07:37 PM) View Post

I know I might be in the minority in this, but it's not really the design of the house on Bunting I have a problem with, it's the scale. I personally love a neighborhood with a wide variety of housing styles, especially when the the homes span many different periods. One of my favorite streets in FW is Meadowbrook Blvd. between Beach and Oakland. It's such a shame E. FW is so overlooked!!!! This street has homes representing almost 100 years of middle-class residential architecture. All built next to one another, in a seemingly random manner. Last time I drove down the street there were several new ones built in that wonderful cookie-cutter subdivison style, yet they seem to blend right in. But with such a wide mix of homes, I can't think of any that are so out of scale it looks out of place. This has made the blvd into an incredibly beautiful and interesting street. So I usually have no problem with someone building a design that is different than the rest of the neighborhood. To me it's not what you build, but how you build it.

I feel the same way about that part of Meadowbrook.
Have you ever been going north on Oakland,on the right, right before I-30?theres a house similar to the one on Bunting.Its painted white with sort of a flat roof with black clay shingles.
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#75 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 29 August 2006 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE(texastrill @ Aug 29 2006, 12:38 PM) View Post

[I feel the same way about that part of Meadowbrook.
Have you ever been going north on Oakland,on the right, right before I-30?theres a house similar to the one on Bunting.Its painted white with sort of a flat roof with black clay shingles.


I know the house. Off-subject, but that house was for sale several years ago, and a friend of mine looked at it. Said it was very "interesting" on the inside. I also remember the house being priced at what I thought was a very low price (didn't know the market in that area). But it does stick out like a sore thumb among all of those ranch style homes. Oakland is another wonderful E. FW St., such a shame, the city allowed that wonderful residential street to become a thoroughfare to I-30.

#76 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 30 August 2006 - 12:36 PM

Which is worse ,the house on Virginia or Bunting?The more i look at Bunting the more i like it.
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#77 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastwood

Posted 30 August 2006 - 02:53 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 29 2006, 01:10 PM) View Post

QUOTE(texastrill @ Aug 29 2006, 12:38 PM) View Post

[I feel the same way about that part of Meadowbrook.
Have you ever been going north on Oakland,on the right, right before I-30?theres a house similar to the one on Bunting.Its painted white with sort of a flat roof with black clay shingles.


I know the house. Off-subject, but that house was for sale several years ago, and a friend of mine looked at it. Said it was very "interesting" on the inside. I also remember the house being priced at what I thought was a very low price (didn't know the market in that area). But it does stick out like a sore thumb among all of those ranch style homes. Oakland is another wonderful E. FW St., such a shame, the city allowed that wonderful residential street to become a thoroughfare to I-30.


I still love the neighborhood.

#78 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastwood

Posted 30 August 2006 - 03:01 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Jul 19 2006, 03:53 PM) View Post

It could just be the desire to own a home that's not only in the inner city, but in an established, desirable neighborhood...which may not be as numerous in FW as some might think. Although I was already aware of this, there was an article in the DMN last week, about the rapidly growing trend of teardowns in North Dallas....homes built in the 80's!!!!


It's a national trend that goes right along with fake boobs, steroids, fight clubs and mail order degrees.

#79 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastwood

Posted 30 August 2006 - 03:12 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Aug 28 2006, 07:37 PM) View Post

I know I might be in the minority in this, but it's not really the design of the house on Bunting I have a problem with, it's the scale. I personally love a neighborhood with a wide variety of housing styles, especially when the the homes span many different periods. One of my favorite streets in FW is Meadowbrook Blvd. between Beach and Oakland. It's such a shame E. FW is so overlooked!!!! This street has homes representing almost 100 years of middle-class residential architecture. All built next to one another, in a seemingly random manner. Last time I drove down the street there were several new ones built in that wonderful cookie-cutter subdivison style, yet they seem to blend right in. But with such a wide mix of homes, I can't think of any that are so out of scale it looks out of place. This has made the blvd into an incredibly beautiful and interesting street. So I usually have no problem with someone building a design that is different than the rest of the neighborhood. To me it's not what you build, but how you build it.



Checkout the scale on this house.

#80 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:04 PM

Why would they paint the nice, new red brick on this one?? Isn't one of the benefits of brick low maintenance? Now they're stuck forever.

Before:
IPB Image

After:
IPB Image

#81 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:17 PM

"Why would they paint the nice, new red brick on this one?? Isn't one of the benefits of brick low maintenance? Now they're stuck forever."

Well, that's about dumb.

#82 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 11 September 2006 - 09:23 PM

I do quite like painted brick, there is a historic precedent for it. At least back to the 1920's that is, but yes maintenance is part of the deal. Besides stucco, its really the only way to give you that monolithic, solid color look. Its really better to pick a gawd awful brick to put on, so you dont mind painting it.....

#83 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 12 September 2006 - 05:41 AM

Maybe they're gonna blast it to give it an aged look.

#84 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,828 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 12 September 2006 - 07:15 AM

For such an (I'm sure) expensive house, slapping that garage smack on the front and burying the front door behind it really makes it look, well, kinda cheap and tacky, if you ask me.

I play '60s-inspired power pop in The Diabolical Machines

Yes, I was the Fort Worthology guy


#85 texastrill

texastrill

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Location:EFW

Posted 12 September 2006 - 09:15 AM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Sep 12 2006, 08:15 AM) View Post

For such an (I'm sure) expensive house, slapping that garage smack on the front and burying the front door behind it really makes it look, well, kinda cheap and tacky, if you ask me.

I second that.
Whoever owns this house better have Mini and not a Cadillac if theyre gonna make that turn into the garage.Also,maybe they should switch to clay shingles to match that paint.
T E X A S T R I L L - G O C O W B O Y S

#86 vjackson

vjackson

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 12 September 2006 - 09:57 AM

QUOTE(Atomic Glee @ Sep 12 2006, 08:15 AM) View Post

For such an (I'm sure) expensive house, slapping that garage smack on the front and burying the front door behind it really makes it look, well, kinda cheap and tacky, if you ask me.

I don't think that the garage in front is considered tacky or cheap anymore. I've been seeing it more and more in expensive neighborhoods. I think those new wooden fortress-like garge doors make the garage in front acceptable. So I guess the garage doors make all the difference.

#87 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 12 September 2006 - 02:03 PM

QUOTE(vjackson @ Sep 12 2006, 10:57 AM) View Post

I think those new wooden fortress-like garge doors make the garage in front acceptable.


I think they look just fine also, but I don't think it's a design element that will age well. They are going to say, "new millenium" for a long time.


#88 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 12 September 2006 - 02:11 PM

"New Millenium" sounds too cool for something not. Dated it will certainly become, and fast.

#89 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2006 - 06:26 AM

Garage in front.......ehhh, theres always good examples and poor ones. And sometimes, theres no choice but to put it in the front and deal with it as best you can.
Everything, eventually is "dated".

#90 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 13 September 2006 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE(SLO @ Sep 13 2006, 07:26 AM) View Post
Everything, eventually is "dated".


That's true to a certain extent, but some things age better than others (do a little research on why Kahn's work is so highly regarded). There's a big difference between design and fashionable schlock. Fashions pass with the seasons, while good design is understood and appreciated from it's temporal context.

One little note: whether a garage stuck out front of everything else looks ugly/cheap or not isn't really the issue. A better question might be: if the first thing to greet us when we come home is our garage door, what does this say about our architectural priorities (or our social priorities - architecture is very telling of the culture that inhabits it)?

QUOTE(SLO @ Sep 13 2006, 07:26 AM) View Post
And sometimes, theres no choice but to put it in the front and deal with it as best you can


There's always a choice, and most often it's in favor of NOT dealing with something.

Outside the box.

#91 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:57 AM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Sep 13 2006, 09:40 AM) View Post

QUOTE(SLO @ Sep 13 2006, 07:26 AM) View Post
Everything, eventually is "dated".


That's true to a certain extent, but some things age better than others (do a little research on why Kahn's work is so highly regarded). There's a big difference between design and fashionable schlock. Fashions pass with the seasons, while good design is understood and appreciated from it's temporal context.

One little note: whether a garage stuck out front of everything else looks ugly/cheap or not isn't really the issue. A better question might be: if the first thing to greet us when we come home is our garage door, what does this say about our architectural priorities (or our social priorities - architecture is very telling of the culture that inhabits it)?

QUOTE(SLO @ Sep 13 2006, 07:26 AM) View Post
And sometimes, theres no choice but to put it in the front and deal with it as best you can


There's always a choice, and most often it's in favor of NOT dealing with something.

Outside the box.


I like the Kimball, I can say that for Kahn. The vast majority of people arent really taken by his work though, even in his height he had a hard time getting commissions.
All buildings are dated to varying degrees, just as everything else is, they speak of the generation that created them....
I looked for a good example of Kahns residential work........this may be inspiring to some, but I dont see it fitting into any classic neighborhoods. The masses just are not inspired by modern architecture, especially on the residential side.
IPB Image

The garage issue, sure the social implications of putting the garage first........this is the new urbanist mantra, remove the garage from the front of the house and cure your social ills. There is something to that, and ideally yes, a more human or pedestrian approach is preferable, but those arent the only goals of architecture.
In this day and age of quick turnaround and low price, "dealing" with design issues often is not top priority.

#92 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 14 September 2006 - 09:32 AM

SLO, please don't mistake what I said about Kahn for advocacy of a particular style...what I'm talking about here is design philosophy, and a discipline of social and public expression. I don't think we'd all be better off if more houses simply looked like the image you've posted above.

And don't mistake this for just another mantra I'm spewing out like a zombie-cult-inductee to the 'urban village' new wave. One of the aspects of ALL notable architecture (and if it's not notable, chances are it's not architecture at all) since the beginning is it's public impact - whether that impact is to uplift people, provide refuge or sanctuary, to celebrate place and history, or to stand ominously over its subjects. When we talk about quick turnaround and low price, we're not talking about architecture at all...we're talking about a non-architectural commidity like a pair of tennis shoes. I personally wouldn't want to reduce the very environment I live in to a mere commodity - my home celebrates the life in it.

QUOTE
The masses just are not inspired by modern architecture, especially on the residential side.
Careful with your terminology - 'modern' is not 'contemporary,' and it's term that often connotates something more on the 'ominous' side of design philosophy. You might be surprised to know that Kahn's work, despite what you may gather by it's appearance, has as much in common with what we might term 'Classical' as with 'Modern.'

#93 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:02 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Sep 14 2006, 10:32 AM) View Post

SLO, please don't mistake what I said about Kahn for advocacy of a particular style...what I'm talking about here is design philosophy, and a discipline of social and public expression. I don't think we'd all be better off if more houses simply looked like the image you've posted above.

And don't mistake this for just another mantra I'm spewing out like a zombie-cult-inductee to the 'urban village' new wave. One of the aspects of ALL notable architecture (and if it's not notable, chances are it's not architecture at all) since the beginning is it's public impact - whether that impact is to uplift people, provide refuge or sanctuary, to celebrate place and history, or to stand ominously over its subjects. When we talk about quick turnaround and low price, we're not talking about architecture at all...we're talking about a non-architectural commidity like a pair of tennis shoes. I personally wouldn't want to reduce the very environment I live in to a mere commodity - my home celebrates the life in it.

QUOTE
The masses just are not inspired by modern architecture, especially on the residential side.
Careful with your terminology - 'modern' is not 'contemporary,' and it's term that often connotates something more on the 'ominous' side of design philosophy. You might be surprised to know that Kahn's work, despite what you may gather by it's appearance, has as much in common with what we might term 'Classical' as with 'Modern.'


I agree with some of what youve said and certainly wouldnt advocate one style over another necessarily, because that would assume one is better than another in a general sense. Specifically perhaps. Kahns work has a certain discipline and order to it, that yes, is rooted or similar to classical design.
No, I didnt say Modern was contemporary, if the definition of contemporary is what is being designed today.
Philosophically, I think some in the architecture community are a bit, or more than a bit, elitist. You mentioned public impact and the ability to uplift people. One example I would note is the work of David Schwarz, who happens to have numerous projects in Fort Worth and Dallas. Most lay people I know really respond well to his architecture, the public seems to love his buildings. Some architects and most architecture critics hate his work.


#94 FWillustrator

FWillustrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:Eastsider
  • Interests:architectural illustration, concept design, environmental graphics

Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:46 PM

QUOTE(SLO @ Sep 14 2006, 06:02 PM) View Post
Kahns work has a certain discipline and order to it, that yes, is rooted or similar to classical design.

Hmmm...I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining myself (as usual). When I say 'discipline' I don't mean it so much in the sense that there is a clear visual discipline in a particular design - more at a conscientious effort toward a realized expression with purpose. And that visual discipline isn't exactly what makes something classical or otherwise. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it seems that you have the notion that 'modern' looks a certain way, and perhaps there are genralizations we can make about its appearance. But Kahn's (later) work, despite what it looks like on the surface, is really much more classical (or perhaps neoclassical humanist to be more precise) in it's philosophy than modern. This is an important distinction.

QUOTE
Philosophically, I think some in the architecture community are a bit, or more than a bit, elitist.

While what I said above might sound like a lot of elitist mumbo-jumbo, keep in mind that the money people are what make any artistic expression elitist by commodifying it - most genuine artists are simply concerned with art. When architects fall prey to the distractions of their clientele's world is when they too become elitist. Modernism was actually intended to benefit us all by well-meaning thinkers and designers...just didn't work out that way.

#95 SLO

SLO

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 15 September 2006 - 06:56 PM

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Sep 14 2006, 06:46 PM) View Post

Hmmm...I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining myself (as usual). When I say 'discipline' I don't mean it so much in the sense that there is a clear visual discipline in a particular design - more at a conscientious effort toward a realized expression with purpose. And that visual discipline isn't exactly what makes something classical or otherwise. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it seems that you have the notion that 'modern' looks a certain way, and perhaps there are genralizations we can make about its appearance. But Kahn's (later) work, despite what it looks like on the surface, is really much more classical (or perhaps neoclassical humanist to be more precise) in it's philosophy than modern. This is an important distinction.

I think I got ya..............the above may be an important distinction, but nobody knows it....

QUOTE(FWillustrator @ Sep 14 2006, 06:46 PM) View Post

While what I said above might sound like a lot of elitist mumbo-jumbo, keep in mind that the money people are what make any artistic expression elitist by commodifying it - most genuine artists are simply concerned with art. When architects fall prey to the distractions of their clientele's world is when they too become elitist. Modernism was actually intended to benefit us all by well-meaning thinkers and designers...just didn't work out that way.

When I say elitist, Im not speaking of money nor the clients that drive projects. Im speaking of snobish architects.......... cool.gif
I think the intention of Modernism is on a parallel with the intention of socialism or perhaps even communism..............it may sound extreme, but.....


#96 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 24 September 2006 - 08:02 AM

QUOTE(mmiller2002 @ Sep 10 2006, 09:04 PM) View Post

Why would they paint the nice, new red brick on this one?? Isn't one of the benefits of brick low maintenance? Now they're stuck forever.

Before:
IPB Image

After:
IPB Image





The final color, but I still dont get it.

IPB Image


Here's one a half block away on Clover from a couple years ago that might have been the design "inspiration."

IPB Image

#97 mmiller2002

mmiller2002

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Hi Mounttttt
  • Interests:Born 1959
    HS Grad 1977
    1982 BSEE Penn State

Posted 24 September 2006 - 08:08 AM

Here's one squeezed next to that poor older bungalow! Reach out and touch your neighbor from your window! It's on 5th or 6th St., I forget.

IPB Image


And the "nice" one squeezed next door.

IPB Image


And I wonder what's up with this excavation below grade on Virginia? Some sort of completely paved grand entrance for the limos and Hummers?

IPB Image

#98 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 24 September 2006 - 01:50 PM

Well, at least the one on Clover does a nice job of hiding the garage, and I think the design is pretty classic as well. It looks to me like the last one on Virginia (a beautiful house in my opinion) is being fitted with a circle drive.

While I think the combo stone/brick on the 6th St. houses is a poor design choice, overall I think all of these examples are pretty good-looking houses, and I don't really see why people have a problem with them. None of them set off my biggest pet peave, which is the front-facing garage on the front of the house. Sure they're larger than the houses they replace, but I guess my attitude is that people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want with their property.

#99 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 25 September 2006 - 08:09 AM

Every house will not suit everyones taste... however I think the houses that are being built are overall pretty nice. I don't like all of them but for the most part.. on a whole I think they look pretty good.

The construction seems to be pretty solid and the design suits today's Texas houses. I really don't understand all the negativity towards this new construction. Some of these neighborhoods were starting to look like a tooth with a cavity and that cavity kept causing the tooth to decay more and more. With these new homes the cavity is being taken out and a filling has been put in.

If there was not any redevelopment then these neighborhoods would have eventually turned into eyesores. I have been in many of these old "bungalows" just as many of you probably have. In fact the wife and I considered moving into the neighborhood for a long time. However, a lot of the houses were deteriorating past the point to be able to repair. We just did not feel comfortable laying down a quarter of a million on a house with bending walls and crooked floors after foundation repair. It just didn't make the potential homeowner feel good about the structural integrity. Now there are many homes in these neighborhoods that are still in excellent shape but noone is selling those. I have no problems with them tearing out the crap and replacing it with these homes.

#100 Bradleto

Bradleto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 25 September 2006 - 09:00 AM

Regarding the painted brick mentioned a few posts earlier, I believe what you may be seeing there is a product from Boral Brick called PastelCote where a brick is used specifically designed for coating, my guess is one that will allow better adherence of a surface application to it, then a cementitious and pigmented coating is applied to the bricks. The effect is supposed to be softening and quaint.

I generally like the looks of painted brick and, for me, it beats the hell out of driving by any one of any number of new residential neighborhoods where 70 to 90% of the homes have bricks some shade of pink or or some off-shoot of red, either lighter or some really dark red color. Lord, that gets so old.

Years ago, painted brick was quite popular. We had homes in Fort Worth with yellow painted brick. White was popular too and both provide great backdrops for landscaping and all the green color there.

From a technical point of view, painting brick is actually a no-no... the housing science guys want the walls to breath and paint seals them off, but I still like them a lot personally.

Cheers! Brad




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users