Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:14 am
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:47 am
Long low and streamlined is a part of mid-century modern...but not the only part. My house is a two story box, and about as modern as it gets. I've never seen a McMansion in the modern style but my definition of McMansion may be different than yours. I equate McMansion with size over substance. I think there are many new homes being built that are large but still keep the "modern" vibe using quality materials that "fit in".
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:01 am
I think the phrase coined earlier on this board was McModern.
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:57 am
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:02 pm
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:08 pm
in re the link about...
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:52 pm
The Ivan Hill homes-no surprise to me they have to be rented. I saw the plans on the website and they are nothing special once you get beyond the modern facade and yep the location is NOISY, dunno why the powers that be or the bldr./develpr. DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE. I remember FOR YEARS there was a big billboard at the T intersection of Glendale/Fletcher advertising 'view lots for sale, with potential in progressive area'-what the heck is 'progressive area' is that a 'code' word for 'noisy area'.
I seem to think the rest of the 'Built' properties around town are the same once you get beyond the exteriors they aren't really anything different that the usual tract infill housing, except maybe a little overpriced.
Interesting to see how these 'Built' projects pan out.
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:34 pm
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:22 pm
In the Nathaniel West novel, The Day of the Locust (taking place in 1930s Hollywood) the narrator makes some comments about the local (contemporary) architecture...conveying that it's silly and badly built (think "storybook" homes and Spanish revival bungalows). By todays standards I hardly think anyone here would consider most prewar homes to be badly built (some silly maybe). While I wouldn't connect any of todays developer built homes with anything resembling architecture I think we can consider most if not all current attempts at so-called "modernism" as the contemporary version of those old Spanish revival homes, with adjustments made for our apparently diminished expectations regarding workmanship and originality. Maybe this pseudo-modern style should be called "modernist revival", or to utilize a term I bear a special hatred for: "retro-modern" (I can imagine several RE agents taking a real liking to that one).
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:53 am
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:46 pm
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:37 pm
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:32 pm
um, I don't mind McDonalds either
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:49 pm
Perhaps the new post is 'unique names for big, badly built homes'
1. Vanilla Villas
2. Ill Manors
3. Cheapeau Chateau
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:41 pm
I always think of Contemporary as what happened to modernism in the 70's. People just started thinking, "hey, let's see what happens when we use lots of angles. Then the windows can be "fun" shaped. Then the wood siding can run in lots of directions!" McContemporary? Just doesn't slip off the tongue.
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:49 pm
oooh. in a drive around the neighborhood today i found a block or two of the angled
contradictory siding, weeping spiral trees, and water hog lawns. doesn't deserve a 'Mc'funny
does it? maybe i need a set of blinders like a race horse. though i have trained myself, on
my regular route, to only glance at the beauties.
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:35 pm
There was a home like that near me. Up on stilts, all wood with wierd angles and black windows. An 80's nightmare. It is gone now, thanks to a cigarette dropped on a sofa. I watched the thing burn, and it was all over before the fire department got set up. I had pics of it before it happened, but it was just to show friends how ugly a home can be. The home next door is all concrete, and although the paint was peeling off the storm shutters, the 60's concrete home only 12 feet from the inferno still remains.
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:45 pm
to the original question, in west oakland (where we used to live) there were many multi-family dwellings (condos / townhouses) which might be considered mcmodern, some are of a decent architectural pedigree, but many are pale knockoffs. judge for yourself. we lived in one similar and liked it quite a lot (but could also be considered the pre-sellout version by a pedigreed architect). some of the developers are friends and wonderful people to boot. in some ways, any development in this area is good development...
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:33 am
Most of those are what I would describe as Postmodern.
This is a term I find irritating when used by Realtors to
refer to actual mid century modern homes. The worst McModern
I have ever seen was in the canyon of Cliff May homes. In a deep canyon of Sycamores and single story rambling ranch houses, was a three story white
monolith pressed hard against the hillside. The front mostly driveway. My next worst example is the huge modernish box that got built at the end of Dundee drive next to Neutra's Lovell Health house. To the newly wealthy who build these monstrosities, they say "we have money". As we know it also says "we have no taste".
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:06 pm
We call the smaller mcmansion wannabes "happy meals"
People who wish they lived in one of the mega ones but had to settle for a new small cheaply built one in an endless cul de sac....
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:43 pm
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:02 pm
thanks for the schoolin'... i thought i'd post to show folks what "modern" is looking like in our (former) corner of the world. we traded a david baker designed townhouse in for an eichler-built no matter the architectural terminology, it's better to be wakened by a rooster at dawn than gunshots at midnight... or a crashing into your house on christmas night...
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:34 am
Did you get anything good?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:16 am
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:15 pm
When we were looking for a house, we looked at a mcm that was described as "post-modern" , which meant it was a mish mash of every kind of half-ass decorating styles from the 50's through the 90's with a deck about to fall off the back to boot. Real estate agents..
Post-modern is a word that I came to despise as a result of too many years of art school talk. Contemporary is just describing the state of "now", as said above...
Modern is a very slippery term. (for most people) In art it describes a very specific time period (Manet being one of the first on up to Pollock) I did not study architecture but I'm sure you could say the same regarding.