House-pets for the Rich

[names]

http://www.gsd.harva...ck/26_Fein.html

One wonders, with this proliferation of Modernist-minimalist residential properties and the growing spate of shelter magazines promoting similar styles of living as well as a mass audience for now household-name architects,15 is Modernism just a new sign of hipness for the ultra rich and those that aspire to join the circle of real estate fashionistas? By branding minimalist-chic living in properties priced far beyond the reach of average homebuyers, are starchitect designers collaborating in the creation of a culture of good taste inseparable from social exclusion?

In 1919, Georg Simmel observed that fashion is, for the middle classes, tied inextricably to a need for belonging and is, for the upper classes, deeply fixed to a desire for distinction.16 Perhaps it is the exclusivity of maintaining truly minimalist conditions in one’s dwelling and the exclusivity that ownership of such rarities as these properties brings that secures the rich in the realm of distinction so desired by all hoarders of cultural capital. The painful question is: Are these social constructs in any way compatible with Modern architecture’s essentially utopian foundations, and are these starchitects — at least those truly capable of imagining new modes of living for all classes — creating and contributing to a lifestyle that they themselves admire?

Why is it that identifiable "architecture" is always the province of the affluent?

Disclaimer: I grew up poor in rural Louisiana and have to admit a chip on my shoulder every time I see "tetris" styled architecture under construction. Why is it that so much emphasis is placed on expensive interior finish materials yet exteriors are slapped with stucco? And why is it that hardly any other of my graduating architecture classmates haven't ever really struggled just to live let alone foot an unpaid summer internship or even have the proper attire to associate with potential cliente? I think maybe I was born into the wrong passions...

Your thoughts?

[TheNiche]

http://www.gsd.harva...ck/26_Fein.html

Why is it that identifiable "architecture" is always the province of the affluent?

Disclaimer: I grew up poor in rural Louisiana and have to admit a chip on my shoulder every time I see "tetris" styled architecture under construction. Why is it that so much emphasis is placed on expensive interior finish materials yet exteriors are slapped with stucco? And why is it that hardly any other of my graduating architecture classmates haven't ever really struggled just to live let alone foot an unpaid summer internship or even have the proper attire to associate with potential cliente? I think maybe I was born into the wrong passions...

Your thoughts?

People live inside of structures. The interior sells the property. A striking exterior is indeed the province of the rich, whom can afford to bother to impress.

As for your classmates, bear in mind that most architecture schools are taught from the model of an art school. I myself took a couple of architecture courses at UH thinking that I might minor in it, but was disappointed at the curriculum and my peers. People whose parents can afford them to be impractical (and the institutions that cater to them) rarely deserve the expectation of great things. You might consider a transfer to Texas A&M; they teach architecture as a profession.

[infinite_jim]

names PM me, I have something of interest to you.

There is a whole litany of examples of contemporary modernists that break the modernist starchitect mold (not to mention a vast literary repudiation of it). Off the top of my head, the work of the late Samuel Mockbee at Auburn and here in Houston the project row houses with the addition of the Zerohouse.

@TheNiche: It's strange knowing that we've probably crossed paths before and I appreciate your thoughtful posts but I know names personally and she is quite a character at times FYI (LOL at the time stamp, projects due huh? )

[TheNiche]

@TheNiche: It's strange knowing that we've probably crossed paths before and I appreciate your thoughtful posts but I know names personally and she is quite a character at times FYI (LOL at the time stamp, projects due huh? )

Probably not. The courses I took were in 2004-ish.

Goddamn, is 2010 already!?

[Dan the Man]

http://www.gsd.harva...ck/26_Fein.html

Disclaimer: I grew up poor in rural Louisiana and have to admit a chip on my shoulder every time I see "tetris" styled architecture under construction. Why is it that so much emphasis is placed on expensive interior finish materials yet exteriors are slapped with stucco? And why is it that hardly any other of my graduating architecture classmates haven't ever really struggled just to live let alone foot an unpaid summer internship or even have the proper attire to associate with potential cliente? I think maybe I was born into the wrong passions...

Your thoughts?

My thoughts:

Why is it that identifiable "architecture" is always the province of the affluent?

"Identifiable architecture", or good design typically requires that the architect devote more thought and attention to detail to the project than would normally be expected. This typically results in a higher fee, which is in turn passed on to the client and end-user. Most clients are not willing to pay the higher fee. The two exceptions to this rule are: 1 - clients who value design more than cost (the province of the affluent); 2 - clients who plan to use the design for marketing purposes, hoping that a unique building can command more revenue to offset the higher architectural fees.

Why is it that so much emphasis is placed on expensive interior finish materials yet exteriors are slapped with stucco?

I agree with Niche on this one. Interiors sell projects. Most people spend the majority of their time indoors, and they do not typically pay attention to the exteriors of buildings. In an ideal world, more attention would be devoted to the exterior of buildings. The exterior keeps the elements out, and it is typically subject to more extreme conditions than the climate-controlled interior. Besides, most commercial interiors are considered disposable with just a 10-15 year lifespan.

And why is it that hardly any other of my graduating architecture classmates haven't ever really struggled just to live let alone foot an unpaid summer internship or even have the proper attire to associate with potential cliente?

Architecture school is expensive, both in terms of the materials that the students have to purchase, as well as in the additional time that the students must spend in school to be eligible for licensure. Those paying for their own education will typically choose a cheaper degree path. The majority of architecture students receive funding from a family member and are from middle-class backgrounds.

The lack of proper attire is probably just a suspicion. Most college campuses are very informal, as most of the students and professors do not wear business attire to class. Since the students don't need formal clothes for school, they typically spend their money on school supplies, living expenses, food, and alcohol (not necessarily in that order.) In addition it seems to me that many architecture students like to view themselves as nonconformists or misunderstood artists, so they wear bizarre outfits or grungy clothes to help cultivate this image. I never understood this mindset as I felt that it undermines the students' credibility, especially during project presentations and final reviews.

[Adam79]

It is an old film probably in the 60 or 70. I didn't get to see the whole film but was interested in the story that is why I am here. All I know is that it is about a man trying to get home by swimming through pools. I assume he is swimming through all the pool he bump into or something. It is more like he swim through one pools got out then walk then hit a pool instead of walking around or just get a taxi home he want to swim through it to get home. Along the way he also meet up with people that he met in his life time like a lover from a past affair. At the end he finally got home but his home look like no one been living in it for years. It started to rain and he try to open the door but couldn't the film then focus on to a broken window and show the inside of the home then back out of the house and zoom out then credit roll. Yup that is all I seen from the movie it was on tv.

[mkultra25]

It is an old film probably in the 60 or 70. I didn't get to see the whole film but was interested in the story that is why I am here. All I know is that it is about a man trying to get home by swimming through pools. I assume he is swimming through all the pool he bump into or something. It is more like he swim through one pools got out then walk then hit a pool instead of walking around or just get a taxi home he want to swim through it to get home. Along the way he also meet up with people that he met in his life time like a lover from a past affair. At the end he finally got home but his home look like no one been living in it for years. It started to rain and he try to open the door but couldn't the film then focus on to a broken window and show the inside of the home then back out of the house and zoom out then credit roll. Yup that is all I seen from the movie it was on tv.

That would be 1968's THE SWIMMER, starring Burt Lancaster. It was available on DVD, but it looks like it's out of print and expensive now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swimmer_(film)

[Simbha]

That would be 1968's THE SWIMMER, starring Burt Lancaster. It was available on DVD, but it looks like it's out of print and expensive now.

That's interesting. I wonder why it's so expensive. It does appear to be available on Amazon on VHS for much less (roughly 1/5 of the DVD price). I wonder how much it costs to convert it onto DVD...

I also notice it's not available on Netflix - via neither streaming nor mail. Hmm...

[LarryDierker]

The Swimmer is available on several torrent sites if one is not morally opposed to that sort of activity.