Tags
architecture, art, culture, decoration, DIY design, graphics, interior design, photography, travel
Why must the villain in movies almost always live in a modern house?
One of the early lessons learned in architecture school is the issue of design and context. When introducing a project, our professors would allow us to choose if we were going to “respect the existing context” or “disturb the site” with our design. You would think that the persuasive word usage of “respect” vs “disturb” would have swayed us all towards a more positive, cooperative solution. Not so.
There were some students who would choose to respect. First understanding and working within the existing context of scale, materials, streetscape and building height. This group would arrive at a design that was creative, solution driven and most important, an improvement to the environment. Then you had the group who wanted the attention getting structure – something often out of scale, certainly unconventional in its form and construction and not coming close to being a good neighbor (and I must admit, early on I belonged to this group!). My reason for choosing this option was to use every creative trick there was in one building – “why waste it on being boring and conventional” I would think. As I have gained more experience and matured in my design anxiousness, I now lean more towards understanding and respecting an existing context. I sometimes question the motives of designers who knowingly choose to disrespect a neighborhood, community or its surroundings with a structure (house, building, etc.) that could be viewed as insensitive.
A modern house within an existing context. This image came from the blog Life of an Architect where the question is asked, is this house being a good neighbor?
This image could be from anywhere – these situations are present in almost every city…
Context is not only about neighborhoods. Sometimes it affects people and systems beyond the residential lot lines. The Walk Disney Concert hall underwent a $90k “renovation” in 2005 to remove “the shimmering stainless steel panels in an effort to reduce the heat reflected across the street to condominiums whose air conditioning system is being overwhelmed” (NPR).
The issue of appropriateness should be an underlying question every designer (interior designer, architect) visits often and responds to. Sometimes it IS appropriate to be the big, shiny building and sometimes it is the client that wants that iconic design. The intent of our profession is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the general public while at the same time addressing a context, solving a problem and – my favorite part- making it beautiful. Creativity and expression should not take a back seat to these issues as there are plenty of superb examples of iconic designs that are good neighbors to its surroundings.
When a design is overdone or insensitive, it comes off like the man with too much cologne or the woman with too much make-up and jewelry. Simply inappropriate.
seamless 
What a an insightful blog. Thank you.
Thank you! I’m happy you liked the post.
Hello Dawn, what a great blog [loaded with insightful posts], which I found through LinkedIn. I can relate to this post in many ways. While in design school, I was always the one on the respect & practical side while many of my counterparts were on the disturb side with little thought about how their grandiose design decisions would affect the outcome. Often times, they ran into problems at the end. Design ought to follow a well-thought out process so that it makes sense long-term.
Marilyn,
Thank you for visiting and following. As you read, I was on the “distrub” side, but quickly began to realize, like you stated, that those designs were impractical to begin with – so it made it harder to “control” towards the end of the project. Time has taught me that you can still start wildly creative, it just takes more time, energy (and money) to make sure you keep that design “spirit” throughout the project. Keep in touch!
We really need to consider our neighbors right to maintain there investment and show compassion, not just selfishness. Some places that works okay, Like in Manhattan (sometimes) Is that why we have codes ???
Hi Joe,
Thank you for visiting my blog and following. I agree that we should consider our neighbors in living and building. Codes, at a minimum, provide the public with the minimum level of safety and accessibility inside and outside of buildings. Oftentimes if a neighborhood is registered as a ‘historic’ or another marker (neighborhood commission, other regulations) the rules and regulations surrounding the community dictate the type of construction that can happen. A modern building can be built “to code” just as a traditional building can. I love the aspects of modern, transitional, and traditional residential/commercial design – it is now important for me to ask myself the question, “what is appropriate here?” and hopefully begin to design not just for me and a client, but for the larger “context”.
The image of the modern house next to the traditional house with the lattice fence makes me ask another question. What if the modern house was there first? Would the traditional house that moved next door then be the insensitive neighbor or do we always give traditional looking houses a grace pass?
Hi Paula,
I see you’re at TVS – I used to work there! Thank you for your comment and for visiting my blog. What I was trying to communicate was that it is the context of a neighborhood that designers should engage with. If the context of a neighborhood is in fact, modern houses, then that is the prevailing context – the same goes for a traditional style. I am not arguing for or against modern or traditional or transitional, I feel all styles are valid. I am hoping that as designers we are aware of and are sensitive to the existing and historical fabric of a space, neighborhood or community and engage with that appropriately.
Great blog. I always enjoy your insights.
Thank you kindly, I’m happy you’re enjoying my ramblings!