Ancient architecture

[perryh]

I don't know about any of you but I have never had a job where there wasn't some kind of limitations on it( money, whatever) so I have never been free to do whatever I wanted. Not to say I can't get creative with It, but its always limited.

[gawdzira]

@Jay, I am not sure which Earth you are from but the materials I buy ain't too cheap.

[jcaffee]

"...why you do not see the details that you see in older houses."

Um? See attached. Do you still want to talk lack of details or craftsmanship in modern architecture? Maybe more subtle than gingerbread, but the details are still there.

jon

[Sledge]

"...why you do not see the details that you see in older houses."

Um? See attached. Do you still want to talk lack of details or craftsmanship in modern architecture? Maybe more subtle than gingerbread, but the details are still there.

jon

Right and how many people can afford something like you posted? Many of the older homes where I live we're owned by the regular Joe.

Money talks, but most people don't have it. I am sure if you paid any tradie enough and gave him time to ply his trade you could come up wth something better than what you posted.

Let's put things in perspective.

[McQueen3D]

He has a point. I have books full of stock plans from the 20's and 30's of homes for the average Joe. They range from 600-2600 sq. ft. Almost all of them down to the smallest one have some kind of detailing, the most common being casing, crown, and baseboard, and exteriors having corner boards, a band around them, shingles (sometimes at alternate exposure), and exposed rafter tails. Many have fireplaces. What they do not have, however, is a well-designed kitchen or bath, and almost no such room designed during this era would be acceptable today.

[lbuttery]

almost no such room designed during this era would be acceptable today.


all it takes is a revamp of the design to expand hallways to 36" and the baths/kitchens to modern proportions
add closets to the bedrooms etc

some tweaking here and there and a house for a modern family

while I have seen a few "modern" homes that are "appealing"
many are "appalling"

I'm a traditionalist who prefers Prairie or Arts/Crafts or Queene Anne Victorian
(among others)

Lew

[William H Lynch]

almost no such room designed during this era would be acceptable today.


all it takes is a revamp of the design to expand hallways to 36" and the baths/kitchens to modern proportions
add closets to the bedrooms etc

some tweaking here and there and a house for a modern family

while I have seen a few "modern" homes that are "appealing"
many are "appalling"

I'm a traditionalist who prefers Prairie or Arts/Crafts or Queene Anne Victorian
(among others)

Lew

I'm with you, another point of agreement, this is getting scary!

Bill

[johnnyprc]

There is no such thing as "old" and "new" architecture being the determining factor of quality - just "good" and "bad" architecture/building, with variations inbetween no matter the age.

Modern architecture practiced 50 years ago can look "dated", but can also look timeless (F.L. Wright) just like Classic architecture practiced 1,000+ years ago can be timeless.

If you get wrapped up into thinking today's "trends" is what makes a building "fresh" or "old" looking, you have already made a huge mistake.

[VHampton]

Modern architecture is a unique language and those who practice it often don't do traditional homes. Likewise those who work in the traditional vernacular usually don't take on modern designs. We all have our specialties. At the end of the day to each his own.

That said modern work is definitely something to be appreciated. They have a sculptural quality to them even if they may be perceived as somewhat cold and less cozy than a shingle style or arts and crafts home. To answer the original posters question, the call for modern work isn't exactly the norm in the majority of our country. It might only be found in places where the 1% are buying "luxury" real estate.

A builder friend of mine says that the cost for a home as depicted in that photo can run upwards of $600 to $800 per square foot. The details might be lacking but there are zero tolerances for imperfections.

I see no reason why any one of these projects can't be drawn in Chief. http://batesmasi.com/portfolio/portfolio.html

[Architex]

@Jay, I am not sure which Earth you are from but the materials I buy ain't too cheap.

They are cheaper than they were in the early 1900's. In 1919 the price of lumber in today's dollars was around $550 per thousand board feet and that is more than double what it was last year.

I agree it seems like it is a never ending march towards higher prices but it is lower that it was when a lot of the houses with all the detailing were built. What would lumber cost if they actually had to go out and "chop" down a tree verses the extremely efficient method they use today?

[Sledge]

....

A builder friend of mine says that the cost for a home as depicted in that photo can run upwards of $600 to $800 per square foot. The details might be lacking but there are zero tolerances for imperfections.

Wow what a bargain, wish I could get a builder to build at that rate and do quality at the same time.

Oh and those wonderful modern building materials we have now like MDF replacing timber for base moldings and door trim etc spells "cheap", especially when you get a height of about 50mm (2") as a going standard.

[VHampton]

Agreed on the lack of detail Rod. Most of these homes have the warmth of a car showroom between all the glass walls and stone floors.

I was just making a simple observation that they're hugely expensive despite the minimalistic nature of the design.

I'll take a peaked roof home chock full of crown moldings and wainscotted walls any day.

[Sledge]

I have a client atm, with a project about 3700 sq ft (if I have my conversions correct). Whilst the outside is traditional, the inside doesn't have any fantastic detail for the following reason.

The builder said (and this was the general attitude) "we can't make it too intimate in detail" otherwise they couldn't squeeze it through their sausage machine. So we only have 9ft ceilings, 90mm (3.5") cornice or crown molding and 3" skirtings. The only big expense, if you can call it that, was granite benches and two paq cabinetry. Whilst the house will still look good, to add the finer detail, most builders here won't touch it because it takes up too much time or they whack you heavily for materials to make it worth their time. In the process, to construct this home they can knock up 4-5 cardboard boxes (or as John Mellencamp said - little pink houses).

Oh and they also have to hit you up for energy ratings to feed the pigs with snouts in that trough.