Rice Design Alliance Small House Tour

[WAZ]

OK so I've become a fan of Sir Peter Cook's writings in Architectural Review. Sometimes I wish I could write like he does. Now's one of those times - with the RDA's Small Houses x 9 tour coming this weekend.

I wish I could be as eloquent as Cook when I wonder how the RDA could think a 2000 square foot house is small. Many houses have 2000 square feet or less and it's not that hard to plan one. A really small house, say 1000 square feet or less, poses a real challenge to design. But that's not the subject of the RDA's tour.

If I were Peter Cook I might also ask - aside from being small and having bamboo floors, what's so green about these houses? They're new houses after all. Nothing's reused. They're not built on brownfields. They have the neighborhood connectivity, I'll hand them that, but what else?

And Sir Peter Cook wouldn't pretend that the 2000 square foot house is a new thing. William Floyd. William Jenkins. Harwood Taylor. Lars Bang. They were all in Houston, designing significant houses under 2000 square feet during the 1950s. I happen to live in one. But the RDA's tour doesn't feature a single one of these. (Nor does the RDA's tour feature a single house outside Loop 610.)

I will try to bring this to a close as Peter Cook might. I will say that while the RDA's houses might not be really small, and small might not be green or new - 'small' is the future. Smaller, more compact cities. Smaller houses. Smaller cars, too. The RDA is absolutely right to notice this . I think I may go to one or two of these houses.

[RedScare]

I think I may go to one or two of these houses.

And while you are there, perhaps you could ask what is so small about a 2000 square foot house.

[Ross]

Our house is 1400 sq ft and doesn't seem small because it's well designed. In fact, I can't think of a better layout for a 2 bedroom house. 2000 sq ft is not small.

[TheNiche]

OK so I've become a fan of Sir Peter Cook's writings in Architectural Review. Sometimes I wish I could write like he does. Now's one of those times - with the RDA's Small Houses x 9 tour coming this weekend.

I wish I could be as eloquent as Cook when I wonder how the RDA could think a 2000 square foot house is small. Many houses have 2000 square feet or less and it's not that hard to plan one. A really small house, say 1000 square feet or less, poses a real challenge to design. But that's not the subject of the RDA's tour.

If I were Peter Cook I might also ask - aside from being small and having bamboo floors, what's so green about these houses? They're new houses after all. Nothing's reused. They're not built on brownfields. They have the neighborhood connectivity, I'll hand them that, but what else?

And Sir Peter Cook wouldn't pretend that the 2000 square foot house is a new thing. William Floyd. William Jenkins. Harwood Taylor. Lars Bang. They were all in Houston, designing significant houses under 2000 square feet during the 1950s. I happen to live in one. But the RDA's tour doesn't feature a single one of these. (Nor does the RDA's tour feature a single house outside Loop 610.)

I will try to bring this to a close as Peter Cook might. I will say that while the RDA's houses might not be really small, and small might not be green or new - 'small' is the future. Smaller, more compact cities. Smaller houses. Smaller cars, too. The RDA is absolutely right to notice this . I think I may go to one or two of these houses.

You're confusing architecture with a profession that isn't interested in attracting clients.

You're right to point out that (one aspect of a future with higher energy costs is that) people will live in more compact housing arrangements. However, the majority of these will be run-of-the-mill apartments built by developers for whom avant garde design is a gambit not worth taking on 300 units at once. Such housing has to have broad appeal, and is basically an exercise in one-upping competitors by adding a salt water resort pool, a salt water lap pool, and something billed as a "full service spa" that actually is only a jacuzzi next to an outdoor kitchen. Big whoop. :shrug: With spaces as small as I've seen in cities like Seattle or Portland, the architecture becomes so extremely uncomplicated (just anal) that the real challenge falls to the interior designer. It's just the same old ticky-tacky on a bigger scale.

Aside from the business-to-business clientele, the only meaningful income to be made is from wealthy people looking to have a custom home built; those clients think that 2,000 square feet is small. In the context of their peers, it is. These are the homes that are relevant to architects. And while there are certainly a handful of new custom-built homes that are less than half the size, they're outliers. The RDA can put on an event for smaller houses if and when the market for designing them matures.

As for green designs, there's a reason that they've been slow to catch on in the residential marketplace. It's that commercial real estate gets sold on the basis of its Net Operating Income, and green technology can save on utilities costs in a way that is reflected on the P&L statements. Such benefits are more difficult to measure or translate to an apples-to-apples comparison between residences, so they cannot be as effectively marketed to price-conscious consumers.

[Highway6]

Yah.. What Niche said...

While 2000 is regular medium sized home for David Weekly and your typical track home... It is on the small end for custom homes built by architects.

For custom designed homes built for rich people, and who else but rich people are going to go this path to home ownership.. 2000 is on the low end.

Also.. as someone who lives in less than 700 SF with a wife and zero storage space... I can say there is no way i could live in something this small when the times comes for a kid or 2.

Add a bedroom or 2, a 2nd bathroom, some storage.. its really easy to jump to the 1600-1800 range.

Relative to the kinds of homes one would expect on an architectural home tour.. 2000 is moderately small.

[infinite_jim]

You're confusing architecture with a profession that isn't interested in attracting clients.

You're right to point out that (one aspect of a future with higher energy costs is that) people will live in more compact housing arrangements. However, the majority of these will be run-of-the-mill apartments built by developers for whom avant garde design is a gambit not worth taking on 300 units at once. Such housing has to have broad appeal, and is basically an exercise in one-upping competitors by adding a salt water resort pool, a salt water lap pool, and something billed as a "full service spa" that actually is only a jacuzzi next to an outdoor kitchen. Big whoop. :shrug: With spaces as small as I've seen in cities like Seattle or Portland, the architecture becomes so extremely uncomplicated (just anal) that the real challenge falls to the interior designer. It's just the same old ticky-tacky on a bigger scale.

Aside from the business-to-business clientele, the only meaningful income to be made is from wealthy people looking to have a custom home built; those clients think that 2,000 square feet is small. In the context of their peers, it is. These are the homes that are relevant to architects. And while there are certainly a handful of new custom-built homes that are less than half the size, they're outliers. The RDA can put on an event for smaller houses if and when the market for designing them matures.

As for green designs, there's a reason that they've been slow to catch on in the residential marketplace. It's that commercial real estate gets sold on the basis of its Net Operating Income, and green technology can save on utilities costs in a way that is reflected on the P&L statements. Such benefits are more difficult to measure or translate to an apples-to-apples comparison between residences, so they cannot be as effectively marketed to price-conscious consumers.

Cook is the modern day equivalent to Boull

[TheNiche]

Architecture is not a commodity. Your talking about buildings, so I believe your the one who's truly confused. It is a moral argument but it is completely unavoidable in life and its just a tinge sad that you would empirically trounce that possibility of Architecture.

The production of nearly all kinds of fine art can be carried out by hobbyists. Architecture is the exception. Architecture requires patrons. Take away the patrons and you're left with a bunch of draftsmen and structural engineers.

Now help me better understand you. How am I arguing morals? Which possibility of architecture did you believe that I was trouncing, specifically? And why are you capitalizing the word 'Architecture' where it is unnecessary?

These homes are not even close to a present day avant garde, in fact it is arguable that the avant garde died generations ago, but that's for another thread.

I use the term as a figure of speech, not as a style in itself. To clarify, the term should be read to mean a style that is new, cutting edge, sophisticated, a break from tradition, and perhaps something that is embraced by only a few cultural elite in its nascent form.

The homes represent real people's functionality, not everybody can have a "soul" as you pointed out with your small apartments of the future vision.

Self actualization does not require a large apartment. An individual's "soul" cannot be purchased, only cultivated in the mind.

The factors that influence home size are driven by an individual household's budget. The proportion of a household's budget that is spent on housing tends to decline as the budget is increased, reflecting that more options are available to and being demanded by such a household that heretofore would not have been.

Small is just a sense of scale that has no greater meaning unto itself. Compaction might be a better word to use. I believe Cook would agree that Moore's Law has its undercurrent analog in Architecture.

Please explain the concept you've introduced.

[Highway6]

Aside from the fact that 2000 is a reasonable cut-off point for the term "Small" relative to custom residential architecture.... Did you even bother to look up the sizes of the selected houses before dogging the RDA?

Of the 9 houses chosen, the average size is 1520 SF with the median being 1600 SF.... Still not small enough for you ??

1) 5011 Blossom Street - 1600 SF

2) 1302 Knox Street - 1330 SF

3) 614 Columbia Street - 1930 SF

4) 206 Cordell Street - 1860 SF

5) 4015 Jewel Street - 1200 SF

6) 4914 Curtin Street - 1184 SF

7) 5910 Grace Lane - 1987 SF

8) Rice University Campus - Solar Decathlon House - 800 SF

9) 1851 Lexington Street - 1814 SF

[marmer]

My wife went to the RDA-sponsored discussion about the houses at the MFA last Thursday. She enjoyed it a lot, but the one thing that made the strongest impression on her was that several of the homeowners, and the mortgage broker on the panel, all said that these small custom homes are extremely difficult to finance because their cost per square foot is so great. Another factor which complicates financing is the size of other houses in the area. Although everyone agreed that these houses have a lot of charm and a certain "simple-living" appeal, as well as energy advantages and loads of design virtuosity, there did not seem to be any kind of solution to the financing problem on the horizon. The mortgage broker had to endure several horror stories from the homeowners.

[Highway6]

Completely off topic, but i dont feel this is new thread worthy..

I'm trying to gauge the security of having big architectural non-operable glazing in a new residence. Has anyone seen break-in statistics of these kind of windows vs operable standard windows. I would think it would be significantly less likely a break-in occur at this point but after 15 minutes of googling i cant find anything to back that up.

Anyone have statistics on this or want to share their personal feeling/stories on this matter ?

[TheNiche]

Completely off topic, but i dont feel this is new thread worthy..

I'm trying to gauge the security of having big architectural non-operable glazing in a new residence. Has anyone seen break-in statistics of these kind of windows vs operable standard windows. I would think it would be significantly less likely a break-in occur at this point but after 15 minutes of googling i cant find anything to back that up.

Anyone have statistics on this or want to share their personal feeling/stories on this matter ?

That's thread-worthy. Go create one.

[Highway6]

ok

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...showtopic=19730

[marmer]

I went. At least three, maybe four were architect's studio/homes. Like Highway_6 said, none of them would work for anything except a childless couple or a couple with one small child. Also not the kind of houses where you want to have a large collection of books, music, clothing, art, or anything else.

I don't understand the need for booties on polished concrete floors. Really, I don't. Especially booties that won't fit over an average man's shoe. And I refuse to walk around in stocking feet with some of those poorly marked stairs and transitions out there.

[BenH]

I went. At least three, maybe four were architect's studio/homes. Like Highway_6 said, none of them would work for anything except a childless couple or a couple with one small child. Also not the kind of houses where you want to have a large collection of books, music, clothing, art, or anything else.

I don't understand the need for booties on polished concrete floors. Really, I don't. Especially booties that won't fit over an average man's shoe. And I refuse to walk around in stocking feet with some of those poorly marked stairs and transitions out there.

I don't understand the need for snotball docents. The bunch that was at the Carlos Jiminez house on Saturday afternoon working the front booth were particularly bad.

[marmer]

I don't understand the need for snotball docents. The bunch that was at the Carlos Jiminez house on Saturday afternoon working the front booth were particularly bad.

Hmm. I thought they all were quite nice on Sunday afternoon. I saw a few I knew. Larry Whaley of Haynes Whaley Associates (structural engineers) was at the Lexington house, Nonya Grenader was at the Blossom house, and Monica Savino was at her house on Columbia. And Burdette Keeland, III (now that's an illustrious name) was inside one of the houses, don't remember which. Maybe they were freaked out by your camera. I've noticed that the home tours are getting steadily less camera-friendly. That's why I always...never mind, I'm not going to give away my secret!

[BenH]

Hmm. I thought they all were quite nice on Sunday afternoon. I saw a few I knew. Larry Whaley of Haynes Whaley Associates (structural engineers) was at the Lexington house, Nonya Grenader was at the Blossom house, and Monica Savino was at her house on Columbia. And Burdette Keeland, III (now that's an illustrious name) was inside one of the houses, don't remember which. Maybe they were freaked out by your camera. I've noticed that the home tours are getting steadily less camera-friendly. That's why I always...never mind, I'm not going to give away my secret!

Regardless of whether they're "camera-friendly" or not, no one from the RDA, or come to think of it, even the owner of the house, has the right to yell "NO PICTURES!" at anyone who is standing on a public street, which is what one of the docents did on Saturday to me. And one of the police officers that was hired for security was standing not three feet from me. He saw the whole exchange, and did nothing. Incidentally, how can they actually stop you from taking a picture inside the house? RDA has no authority to enforce any policy they may have, other than having you removed by hired security, which no one really wants to do. It's very bad publicity to have people pay as much as they charge and not allow photography.