Page 1 of 1
Living vicariously through you Mid-Century Dwellers!!!
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:54 pm
I'm an East Coast Girl! My degree is in architecture and I spent my career as an interior architect for a corporate interiors firm in the Washington Metro area. Modern design is my passion. While in Northern Virginia I was the first owner of a cedar California Contemporary open plan home. It was a nice alternative to the over abundance of McMansions and center hall colonials. I am now a transplant in the mid-west - Ohio to be exact. I managed to find a wonderful custom home built in 1966 with fabulous mid-century features. Love it so much more than my other home. It has such character. But I long to experience an Eichler or one of the Case Study Homes! It is my dream to actually reside in one if I have to build one myself! The flat roof is not practical here, but i'll figure something out!
Since modern design goes so much deeper than the aesthetic, what I really want to know is - how does it feel? Those of you who lived in traditional homes prior, how did it change the way you live? Describe your modern lifestyle in your home? How does it influence your organization? What does the modern lifestyle really mean to you? What about modern design do you love? What is your favorite spot in your house? You don't have to be an Eichler dweller to respond because, like me, there are many of you out there that live in homes that are of the same spirit of an Eichler. Feel free to be as philosophical or as silly as you want. Even the little niceties can have profound impacts on our lives!
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:25 pm
Welcome, N.U. Mod !
I was born in Akron, during the War, so I'll pipe up first. Congrats on your new home, and, retrospectively, on your career.
Don't you feel that a modern membrane roof allows one to build flat virtually anywhere ? Or isn't weather and drainage the issue for you ? As an architect you'd have the inside poop on this, I suppose.
Re: Living vicariously through you Mid-Century Dwellers!!!
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:23 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:31 am
I feel it's a trade-off; the modern homes aren't built NEARLY AS WELL, not in any way shape or form, but the clean lines and simplicity make up in the convenience of it. I grew up in a 1925 Spanish style bungalow in the Willow Glen area of San Jose, before it was at all foo-foo. If you have something like dry-rot, then it becomes a hassle to fix the the stucco if you have to replace the wood underneath. Unfortunately, most off old-growth forests were raped to get the high quality building materials to make these incredible structures. The craftsman ship to make these old houses is almost completely lost, the newer houses let you "fake it" very easily, so out of convenience, that's a plus: I love real sash-windows. If one has an eye for recreating an authentic mid-century home, it becomes a real life-style that you live, not just collect. Gabby and I have a rule in out house, "if you aren't going to use it, it doesn't belong at our house." We love our old stuff, but we use it too; when friends come over, they always make the comment equivalent to walking into a living history museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/93018283@N ... 072678202/
My two cents worth,
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:46 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:35 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:28 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:28 pm
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:40 pm
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:56 am
"Design trumps materials" Hugh? the only advantage modern houses have over the pre-war houses is that they were "CHEAP" to build, if you average out the houses, there's no way you can compare them; most pre-war were "over built", and the custom-built homes of the time, since you brought that up, were simply put, works of art; marble, mahogany, walnut.
The average pre-war house used lath and plaster walls, as compared to dry-wall of the post-war. Lath and plaster is a superior insulator, both thermally and in noised reduction. The average post-war house was set on a concrete slab, whereas most pre-war houses had a foundation with a crawl-space, basement and attic, which makes it far easier to heat or cool; working on older houses is usually much simpler than modern houses.
I'll take redwood, maple and oak over Douglas fir, pine and particle board anytime.
and things have changed somewhat
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:19 pm
I can understand the move to drywall-lath and plaster is labor, materials and time consuming over drywall, but I agree it is much better at insulating both heat/cold and sound. But it was just too attractive to move to drywall, it's faster and you can insulate by other methods. But yes I do remember S&S was one of the last homebuilders to tout 'genuine lath and plaster' walls, eventually they had to succumb to drywall.
And now we have space for washers and dryers sans the laundry sink (usually optional) and they are located in the bedroom part of the house instead of by the kitchen or in the garage. And the advent of FAU and it's advent of moving it to the attic. Altho I do mourn the loss of broom closets and breadboards, why I dunno but I'll bet mostly COST.
And sadly I mourn the loss of (in some areas) of the woodburning fireplace which at least in So. Cal. will not be allowed in new const. come Mar. 09. I don't mourn the loss of the McMansion tho but it looks like the economy seems to be doing that in.
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:54 pm
Re: and things have changed somewhat
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:57 pm
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:00 pm