Sep
5
2006
 3

Teardowns




I suppose that it is inevitable that houses like these are being torn down. As neighborhoods change, generation after generation, so do the houses.


I sat staring at Toby Weiss‘ photos and wondered how to save these unique spaces. How could more people not appreciate the originality and creativity that it took to conceive these homes? Is my own taste in architecture really so obscure?
The comments on these posts tell me that others out there are just as concerned with the destruction taking place, but I don’t think that will solve the issue. And I don’t think the answer is to somehow “save” these homes by turning them into historical monuments.
Instead, I’m issuing a kind of call to arms to all you other enthusiasts out there: rebuild. If we can’t save these houses, the least we can do is to archive them photographically as Weiss has done and then repeat the forms in our own efforts. These one-of-a-kind relics may disappear over time, but at least we can pay homage to them in our own way, keeping alive that which we love about them. Imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

3 Comments for Teardowns


bp
September 5, 2006, 8:17 pm

While I am very much on the save these homes wagon (it is the driving force behind my site), my free market instincts sometimes get in the way of true outrage.

I have seen more than a few homes sit on the market for months and months without buyers. Then they got bought and torn down. Then come the cries and incriminations.

I think modernism isn’t that obscure a taste. Based on the emails I get and the conversations I’ve seen online, there is a healthy market for the homes. The problem is where most of the modern market sits; too far on the upper end of the scale. Older modern homes are overwhelmingly in now desirable areas.
New homes are marketed and price towards the cultural and financial elite. This certainly limits the available pool of buyers and in some cases puts others off (witness how good design appreciation is lumped in with snobbery). I get an email a week on where can I find a home like this for under $300k. They just don’t exist in quanity.

So when you seen a Fehr & Granger listed for $700k that probably needs another $300k in work, it is easy to see why the home doesn’t sell. I know someone with a F&G and it is beyond lovely in design and setting but would be an enorous undertaking to update and rehab. Problem is that the lot is worth about $500k or more alone. How many people can afford or desire to invest that kind of capital and effort?

I am with you. The answer is not regulations nor restrictions (that cuts many ways and rarely good for progress). The answer is exposure, education, and even more available homes, particularly at the entry level. Once people have lived in well designed homes, they never go back.


Psymonetta Isnoful
September 5, 2006, 9:29 pm

Part of the reason I felt right about buying our house is that it sits on a double lot and is surrounded by new (ugly) homes that have replaced the sister homes of my house over the last few years. I knew that with the addition of a light rail stop just six blocks from our house, it was probably destined to be torn down and replaced with a couple of narrow new constructions or even condos (for the view).


Christiane
September 6, 2006, 9:39 am

The answer is not regulations nor restrictions (that cuts many ways and rarely good for progress). The answer is exposure, education, and even more available homes, particularly at the entry level. Once people have lived in well designed homes, they never go back.
Beautifully written.
Psymonetta, that sounds a lot like our neighborhood–except I think your house is way cooler than ours ever was!