Contemporary home architecture

[Kent Wang]

I have noticed this trend, starting from about 5-10 years ago, of modern-looking homes that utilize heterogeneous materials and unusual shapes that I find very unattractive and overwrought. A good example is this entire development in Austin that is built in this style.

Is there a name for this type of style? Is it over-taking faux-Tuscan, or are they co-existing peacefully?

If I were to live in a modern-looking house, I would go with a more simplistic and stark design like the Philip Johnson Glass House:

 

[itsstillmatt]

I'd call the style to which you are referring, ugly ass wannabe modern track home deluxe.

 

[Parker]

^ ha!
It will be interesting to see those babies 20 years from now. I blame it on Dwell.

 

[designprofessor]

I wouldn't mind a mixture of some of the shapes, but i'd prefer a different selection of materials.
I'm not feelin' the color choices they show.

 

[MCsommerreid]

The boxier styles work much better in monolithic apartment/condo/loft structures. A lot of those have been getting put up around Oakland and Emeryville, and they don't look half bad.

I think anything done in development form would look awful, though. Imagine a development full of classic victorians, all neatly arranged on neatly spaced plots of neatly kept land full of plastic housewives drinking cosmopolitans out of giant martini glasses. Enough to make you vomit out your nose.

 

[gamelan]

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

The boxier styles work much better in monolithic apartment/condo/loft structures. A lot of those have been getting put up around Oakland and Emeryville, and they don't look half bad.

I think anything done in development form would look awful, though. Imagine a development full of classic victorians, all neatly arranged on neatly spaced plots of neatly kept land full of plastic housewives drinking cosmopolitans out of giant martini glasses. Enough to make you vomit out your nose.

+1.

Lorcan O'Herlihy condo complex in WeHo, CA:




-Jeff

 

[poppies]

For an architecture student I have shamefully bad vocabulary when it comes to aesthetics but it looks a bit postmodern to me since it retains much of the modernist box-like geometries, but uses some variations of color and more extreme angled details to subvert conventions.

Still looks more interesting than any McMansion though.

And would you really want to live in that glass house? Even Johnson himself never really used it since he felt he couldn't get any privacy (uses it as a guest house instead haha).

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

I think anything done in development form would look awful, though. Imagine a development full of classic victorians, all neatly arranged on neatly spaced plots of neatly kept land full of plastic housewives drinking cosmopolitans out of giant martini glasses. Enough to make you vomit out your nose.

That sounds delightful

I'd rather live in a business park than the linked housing development. At least then I could just have a nondescript building on a 20,000 sq ft concrete slab.

 

[Kent Wang]

Originally Posted by gamelan

-Jeff
I don't think this is very good. Maybe just decent, better than the Nine Sixty Nine development though. The combination of the black and wood paneling is just bizarre -- and is that even real wood? At least the shapes look alright, no bizarre angles.

Originally Posted by poppies

And would you really want to live in that glass house? Even Johnson himself never really used it since he felt he couldn't get any privacy (uses it as a guest house instead haha).
It's a bit extreme. If the walls were all concrete, then it would be fine. But is privacy really an issue? I thought the property was huge and just assumed there was no line-of-sight from the outside.

 

[Reckoner]

I love the Cullen's house in Twilight. Timber and lot's of sunlight.

 

[Bhowie]

That development is so indicative of the way Austin is. Trying to be different, creative, and artsy and managing to fail. "Look at our houses they don't look like yours, we have rejected the American tract home for this art." "It must be art and intelligent because it is different compared to your house." Bullshit. It's ugly it shows a lack of creativity, and just excatly how dumb people are. Great marketing tactic used to gobble up the prius driving idiots.

Just beacause your flock is smaller doesn't mean your not a sheep.

 

[poppies]

Originally Posted by Kent Wang

But is privacy really an issue? I thought the property was huge and just assumed there was no line-of-sight from the outside.
No, you're right the property is huge. It's just more of a psychological issue I'd imagine.

 

[suited]

Originally Posted by Kent Wang

I have noticed this trend, starting from about 5-10 years ago, of modern-looking homes that utilize heterogeneous materials and unusual shapes that I find very unattractive and overwrought. A good example is this entire development in Austin that is built in this style. Is there a name for this type of style? Is it over-taking faux-Tuscan, or are they co-existing peacefully? If I were to live in a modern-looking house, I would go with a more simplistic and stark design like the Philip Johnson Glass House:

That "house" is absolutely hideous, not to mention the entire concept is marsupialed. When did creating an idiotic idea become a necessity to classify something as "contemporary art/architecture"? I have a better idea for a modern looking home. It's just 4 sticks in the ground, each at the corner points of an invisible square, then you just stand in the center.

 

[JoelF]

I think this is pretty nice for infill development in a place like West Hollywood, which is full of all forms of kitsch in any case.

 

[spertia]

How's this for a contemporary abomination?

Saw it on a real-estate site the other day.