DESIGN MIAMI 2011
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2011
DUTCH DESIGN WEEK 2011
VIENNA DESIGN WEEK 2011
Posted by hipstomp | 3 Mar 2009
|
Comments (14)
Never mind the question of "Whatever happened to neighborhoods;" folks, whatever happened to being neighborly?
Once, architecture was just about building habitable dwellings. Now it can be used to signify a breakdown of community, both aesthetically and sociologically. After an unnammed individual purchased enough land for two homes in the Washington, D.C. area, "neighbors, wanting to preserve the historic feel of the area, blocked his bid to get a zoning variance."
The builder responded by putting up the tallest structure he could within the law, and made sure it was as aesthetically different as possible from his neighbors' homes.
That'll show those bastards. Or maybe the builder is the bastard. We can't decide. You?
Comments
Love the attitude. It is one of those social-fascisms that every house, person, taste etc should be equal and conformed to a specific ideal.
on one hand, i see the view in the eyes of those preserving historic neighborhoods, etc. but honestly, from the look of that pic, this neighborhood is not one to "preserve the look." it's like stupid HOA rules in McMansion neighborhoods...what's the point? so everything is the same? let's get some diversity out there.
I love it! An end to the tyranny of zoning laws and condo associations! Why must we all live in little boxes made of ticky tacky?
I love this building, so small but in its location its wicked.
There's something about rebellion against the snottiness in such communities that appeals to me, but the homeowner's action smacks of a certain childishness... I would have just sold the lot and moved out of the neighborhood.
I side with the architect / builder - In the pursuit of keeping up neighborhood property values and social conformity neighborhoods are tramping on property owner's rights, not to mention stifling creativity. We could always use less cookie cutter McMansions and expanses of manicured lawns. Bravo.
Well, he knew about the zoning law when he bought the house, so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him not getting the variance. But the house that he built is awesome; looks great (to me, anyway), and stays carefully within the restrictive covenants he agreed to when he bought.
As a lawyer, I am all in favor of people doing things that are just barely within the law.
Brilliant. Why the need to conform to the LCD, or the perception of some that living in the past IS the way we all have to live. If anything this is a very interesting piece of architecture.
Wow - angry, angry people out there! I shouldn't talk though, if I had the money and this happened to me I'd probably do the same thing as the builder.
Love the attitude. It is the new American dream that you should be allowed to do whatever you want without considering others in the least.
What is considered a misfit today, might just be 'it' tomorrow.
And, ehherm, what exactly is 'historic' here?
Wow, lots of comments. Apparently since people like the design, it's okay. What if he wanted to build something that didn't appeal to you? Would you still be in favour? Ugh.
Well the response is a tad childish, but I do agree that he shouldn't HAVE to conform. The design is great.
The neighborhood, by requiring conformity and uniformity, expresses selfishness no more no less than the builder. They might pretend to protect the common good, but it is simply to protect "their" (perceived) property value.
Design style is not the issue. The builder should have the right to build whatever the codes allows, and he did. At least it's not a McMansion. More power to him.