The Problem With Buildings That Just Fit In

Buildings and their surroundings have a complicated relationship. Especially in a residential context, the pressure for a building to fit in can be enormous. The collective desire for maintaining property values can often usurp an individual’s desire for their home to reflect their specific thoughts or dreams. This video calls for a more thoughtful approach to our knee jerk reactions to a building that is different. Concepts like contextualism and critical regionalism help to explain why houses like the Gallery House by John Ronan does fit in, despite it not appearing so at the outset. Also, examples like the Robie House, which certainly does not fit in, comes to be loved for the very reasons that set it apart.
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a KZbin journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/

[@stevevice9863]

As an Architect trained as a modernist, that house is a missed opportunity and a bit of a mess. Just because it has brick, a porch and windows, doesn't make it sympathetic to the neighborhood. It is clumsy and lazy. Scale and proportion play a larger role than just the materials and the elements of the house. The scale is completly out of whack with the surrounding houses. The windows are big punched holes in a random pattern with proportions that don't align with the typical windows of the older homes. This would have been bad second year work when I was studying Architecture 40 years ago. My critique has nothing to do with a modern house next to traditional houses, it has to do with bad design. I don't think this would be good design even if it sat alone in a field with no context. The randomness of the fenestration is clumsy and has no order or rhythm. The "porch" is not a space that anyone would want to sit and talk and have a drink. It's just a dark tunnel leading to the door. I feel it is my duty to spend my clients money in a responsible manner and give them a building that has value, and isn't going to be a nightmare to maintain or constantly explain why it looks the way it does. Even people with no training in design have an innate sense of when something is good design vs bad design, or at least makes sense. They may not be able to identify what makes something good, but they recognize it at a deeper level.

[@clifftarrance9389]

I am not an architect, so there's no expertise coming from me, but my opinion is informed by living nearby and passing that house nearly every day. I have tried not to be knee-jerk about it, tried to stifle the shock and disbelief that washed over me the first time I saw it. I did enjoy this video, and appreciate Mr. Hicks's generosity to the architect, but I think you nailed it, steve vice. It is the scale and apparent randomness of the design that is so grating. Good design should not require such great effort to be appreciated. Good design appears inevitable, and rewards deeper consideration by revealing its less obvious attributes. This house is an assault on the senses. Its best feature is the many trees on the property, which I hope in time will obscure the monster in their midst.

[@stevevice9863]

@@clifftarrance9389 Frank Lloyd Wright once said, "A Surgeon can bury his mistakes, an Architect can only advise his clients to plant vines."

[@superadventure6297]

You didn't even point out the turquoise tinted windows! That is something I see today (mostly on remodels) that is a really bad trend I wish didn't exist. The facade having random placement of the windows seems to have come out of the Deconstructivist mindset which is pushed pretty hard in Arch programs now... but the home is generally a big rectangle, but with the fenestration being slightly moved around. I agree on the stairs up to the door- but the whole way this house meets the street doesn't work. The front yard becomes a wasted space you can't use. I don't personally hate the house, but agree it's a missed opportunity. Designed entirely in Sketchup and 3DS or something with sterile blank backgrounds, without ever visiting the site probably....

[@hatukai]

This is exactly my opinion on that building , it's just dull and weird

[@SarahRenz59]

@steve vice, I agree. Stewart didn't say a whole lot about scale and proportion, and I think those are key in integrating new architecture in an established neighborhood. AND cohesive design! That's what makes McMansions so ugly: the clunky random-ness of the "design" elements, plus the fact that they're usually shoehorned into the lots they occupy.

[@Paul_Wetor]

It's not that the Gallery House doesn't try to fit it, it's that it shames itself by being so bland and sterile. The neighboring houses are rich in detail, while the Gallery House can be drawn in detail on a napkin.

[@axle1717]

Yep. Its gross and boring.

[@ligametis]

@@axle1717 It looks very high quality. In Europe such houses are respected.

[@xx_gamer_xx8315]

@@ligametis No

[@ligametis]

@@xx_gamer_xx8315 all the houses around it look repetitive and boring, many even look cheap and undermaintained. There are thousands of those "old" houses and only a few more interesting modern ones in that part of the city.

[@youraveragesinner5474]

@@ligametis no?

[@j.pendergrass9805]

I just don’t understand why, generally speaking, architects tout “blending in with the natural environment”, then blatantly defy that creed when building next to any historical architecture.

[@jcivilis533]

Because most architectural practice is essentially theoretical and limited to paper and 3d models. Because of the way architectural education works most of them are able to write great stories on all sorts of abstract topics concerning housing, but you'll never actually see many of them experirnce the atmosphere and environment of a place in real life.

[@j.pendergrass9805]

@@jcivilis533 but they have eyes right?

[@toomanymarys7355]

They hate history and human society. Modern architectural education is almost wholly destructive.

[@maxwellstarcevich]

@@toomanymarys7355 I'm a graduate student in Architecture school and in my experience what you say is true. There is a real fear (hatred even) of tradition, and human happiness and joy is one of the rarest topics discussed even though one would think it would be a high priority.

[@andreja9425]

I like blending in with an environment or utilizing the features of the landscape to influence the design but contrast can be cool too (to a degree). I think it’s more important that a house flows with the landscape rather than just being the same as the landscape. A lot of historical homes are beautiful but many are very ugly (many subdivisions in general are quite ugly). There’s no reason to continuously repeat the same styles over and over again but to reimagine and reinterpret them. I love walking down streets where every house has its own style and personality. In paris you’ll see beautiful limestone haussmann building right next to something more modern but it works cuz neither is imposing itself over the other. They’ll be roughly the same height and will have similar relationships to the street, they also might have many of the same materials etc. It flows super nicely and displays the organic evolution of a city over time. It’s my favorite thing. I also enjoy when architecture deviates from the expectations of western styles, drawing influence from ancient cultures and other parts of the world. I think a lot of incredible design can be found in such places. In general I find a lot of neighborhoods too atomized and sprawling. They are neither full of nature nor full of people so they become these weird non spaces. It would be so cool to have a semi urban, semi forested land with high density dwellings intermixed with gardens, community/leisure spaces, and genuine nature. The buildings could be multilevel and multipurpose too. Some areas for extra apartments and others for rooftop/balcony gardens.

[@sluasnAI]

I believe this modern design undeniably looks more commercial and less approachable than the traditional home s surrounding it. Mostly due to the details, like lack of visible porch, operable windows and any kind of trim or highlights to create design hierarchy.

[@SirWussiePants]

Yes! This building looks commercial. All straight lines and boxy. Horrid in a residential setting. Maybe adding roof elements would help this abomination (who designs a flat roof in Chicago homes for goodness sake?)

[@mirjam3553]

The lack of detail is the part that sores my eye the most. Change the windows to some smaller panes (like divide the ground floor street-facing window in thirds) and it'd feel better already. A slightly wider window frame by itself - and more visible from the outside would already give some life back to it. Maybe overhang the roof by an additional foot. But it's far from the worst (imagine if the outside were glossy!)

[@RobertLockhartMakesGames]

@@mirjam3553 Good suggestions. Just adding some Quoins or other masonry flourishes would make it blend better, too.

[@etherealtb6021]

This was a bad example to make this point, as it is just a big box. I've seen them much better done.

[@KyleCorbeau]

I think if they had even softened the windows by using a visible frame it would have been enough to make it more approachable. It just feels so cold compared to everything else surrounding it.

[@ArturdeSousaRocha]

The only thing that bothers me about that house is that it kind of overbears the house to the left of it. From that angle it looks a bit too industrial or even like a prison.

[@brookeg5979]

I know the lots are fixed and the houses were built to take full advantage of as much space as they can, but I totally agree. I don't mind the boxy house next to the old build, but they're now SO close together at first I thought it was an extension and not a spearate house. As a neighbor, I'd be more pissed about them building a giant brick wall just outside my livingroom/bedroom whatever.

[@ligametis]

But it is a silly argument that you must fit in with that particular neighbor as there are many houses around that are 2-2.5 floors tall.

[@faithlesshound5621]

Yes, it's almost self-consciously anonymous. Someone said earlier that the obvious conclusion would be that it's a funeral home.

[@theZ49]

Its probably the least inviting home I've ever seen. It looks like it belongs in an office park.

[@Meghoowvve]

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm from Chile and is really a normal practice to see people remodel old houses for modern purposes. Some respect the old characteristics, while some redefine the house completely. And I love to see the mix of having Spanish, English, French, and Contemporary houses in the same block. But, at the same time, I like to go to a beautiful and fancy beach town in Chile, called Zapallar. The oldest houses are from the early 1900s and the town has beautiful houses and mansions with different styles, some really creative and fun, with different colors and materials, all surrounded by trees and endemic flora. But now, people are making these copy-paste modern and minimalist houses, that contrast too much with the eclectic style the town has, and making everything concrete and grass (when the town barily uses grass because is in the mountains and has no practical use). I feel like these houses are slowly killing the town's personality. I don't hate modern houses, but I hate them when they don't add anything interesting or, on contrast, takes from the beautiful and picturesque composition the other houses built.

[@ffccardoso]

indeed

[@hackarma2072]

To me it doesn't sound like the new houses are architect's houses. But I clearly agree with you.

[@alaskanmooseman5975]

I love Chile! What city are you from?

[@jcivilis533]

The difference between the old and the new houses is that the old houses were modified, changed, rrnovated and extended many times to suit personal taste and the fashion of the times. Modern "minimalist" housing is essentially delivered as a sterile finished package, these houses are jot built to be modified or extended and are often placed squarely on the house grounds so as to state "im here, dont change me". However more technically advanced these modern houses may be they never attain the sort of patina of age older housing has because it is impossible for people to modify them by hand and because they cannot be sourced to a certain history through time

[@coconutcore]

I do hate them, because they always replace the more picturesque and never fit in with the rest of planet Earth. Everything natural is out the gigantic window. In stead it’s all cold greys, whites and blacks in imperfectly perfect geometric shapes and perhaps when you’re lucky, a garden…with grass arranged in rectangles. There is no life. There is no space for cosiness in the minimalist design, no space for functional details like a porch that could make your life more enjoyable. There’s only clinical simplicity. I sincerely don’t want to live in a place where that is normal. It is everything that’s wrong with the world, things becoming less natural. I don’t even believe that people who like it aesthetically could possibly be happy in it. It’s dead. And every neighbourhood of modern and postmodern houses is a spot of necrosis that we’ve inflicted on Earth.

[@jaimegarch]

When we designed our house , many of our neighbors had progressed to a newer style which we didn't like. The way we fit in was we adopted an older style that made it stand out but was consistent with a style that would have matched the age of the neighborhood. So now people think our house is the older one even if it's one of the newest, and people don't mind the difference. Love your videos.

[@abyrupus]

Agree, I think it's less about old vs new, and more about having character. A good example is Santa Fe. The older neighborhoods in Santa Fe have Victorian architecture. However, the city passed an ordinance that the newer buildings should be inspired by Pueblo style Mud-houses from Native American design. So, the newer neighborhoods have reverted to Pueblo-Style Pre-European/Native design and it looks spectacular.

[@ligametis]

I personally dislike fake old. :/

[@dyscotopia]

@@ligametis it often looks bad due to cheap materials. Different materials are fine, but if it looks cheap, it's like a tacky gingerbread house. There are ways to do it where it nods to the past but is a product of the present.

[@Moosemoose1]

@@ligametis There's no such thing as "fake old" though, just architectural styles. You can have a new building designed in Art Nouveau style and it will still be a new building. This consumerist society brainwashed us into always seeking the "new", even if it isn't much better than what came before. The only kitsch that exists are theme park fantasy structures.

[@faithlesshound5621]

That's reminiscent of the "Young Fogey" movement in the UK, AKA "dressing like your granddad." You stand out at first as a young chap in retro clothing, but as you get on people start to think you're the oldest.

[@user-tk5jx4ih4g]

I think the architect failed on integrating it. A few more design changes that wouldn't affect the actual blueprint of it would have made it easily fit in.

[@UnbeltedSundew]

And compromise the architects "artistic" vision? Ignore the architects need to be noticed and feed his ego? No way. Most architects are just tik thots, except using buildings to make up for their lack of booty.

[@Spookspek]

Yeah, it's literally just "cubes, lmao". It being made out of brick makes it fit in no more than a tractor would at a race track.

[@Krokmaniak]

True. I know what architect was aiming for but end result reminds me of those cheap buildings made in communist countries in 50's and 60's, maybe 70's instead of modern house

[@Icetea-2000]

Did you even watch the video? The point isn’t to make an identical house So you are Japanese?

[@dickrichard626]

This is just an attempt to Trick people into believing that a real life minecraft house is better then a normal one.

[@laurencefraser]

I'd argue, at least to some extent, that it's less a matter of "fitting in" and more a matter of "not clashing" (or at lest, it should be). Which sounds like the same thing from the other direction, but isn't really.

[@niluss6]

Yeah, I find it stupid when neighbors dictate what your house should look like.

[@mikeewin7544]

@@niluss6 uneducated, or not having a discussion with neighbors explaining why design decisions are made would be a better choice of words rather than "stupid"

[@Moosemoose1]

@@niluss6 The community shouldnt have to suffer staring at a hideous building that some lone individual imposes on it. The community is more important than the individual, the individuals opinion and preference takes a backseat to the will of the community.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

@@Moosemoose1 Draconian HOAs seem to be the only context in America (apart from the military) that eschew the usual individualist rhetoric. Americans seem to despise collectivism when it's for the greater good (e.g. healthcare), but are fine with it when i it's used as a weapon to curtail individual freedoms, as in this case. I just don't get it!

[@niluss6]

@@Moosemoose1 Yeah community is built when you can agree on things. There are extremes, hideous as you may say it. But hideous is not equal to just having a different look. Let's be honest, people care more than their property value not going down the the actual looks of their neighbor's house. And it may seem to look better when everything looks the same. But yeah I think it is low/shallow/skin deep. Because identity is lost. I know of a funny story of a lady who went on a cab on her way home. And she can't find here house in the village. Because the houses were prebuilt designs and they all look the same.

[@bscottb8]

"Architecture is frozen music," said Goethe. But many architects are tone deaf. They don't feel their designs, they think them. They don't feel harmonies (scale, proportion, material, light and shade, color) within their buildings, much less within the neighborhood. Without Wright's feel for harmonies, what results is frozen ego -- the novelty du jour.

[@mikeewin7544]

very well said

[@davidschaftenaar6530]

Fitting in is overrated, yes: But the frontside of that Gallery House distinctly reminds me of a mausoleum when placed in between those bungalows. Buildings in a neighborhood don't have to repeat, but they ought to at least _rhyme_ somewhat. This, being where it is, is an expletive.

[@pluviophileh1849]

It does look hideous.

[@pidgepagonis]

AGREED

[@Joat2]

I like your song analogy. If the choir is singing opera and a new guy walk in singing jazz, it won't matter if he is in tune, or excellent. He made everyone worse by being there.

[@error-xn7hn]

It seemed like a mausoleum to me too. I guess the thinking is, it doesn't look like a house. But it doesn't really look like an shop or an office building either. It looks sort of grand and somber and so maybe it's intended to be non-denominationally religious. The conclusion is that it's a funeral home? I think people are supposed to look in the giant front window and see all the art. But in real life, unless you're a business then you don't want people looking in your front window.

[@modestrocker1]

its amazing how a brick cube thats the most neutral form of modernism can offend you so much.

[@elmerkilred159]

The problem that you have with abstracting a form down to a box is that; anything you do to the box is going to be the most noticed feature. If the most noticed feature is not similar to the box next door, then your box is going to stick out. (IE; Contextualism). So, matching the windows and doors, and bricks can be a way to blend in, but when your box shape has changed so much that it is obviously different, no amount of matching windows in the world is going to 'blend' the shape into the neighborhood. This is because the shape of a box has been abstracted down to it's most basic form. If you take a 1965 Ford Mustang and park it next to a a 1968 Ford Mustang, you will see slight variations of the form. If you take a 2020 Ford Mustang and park it next to a 1965 Ford Mustang, you will still be able to tell that it is a Ford Mustang. It has not moved from the form so much that it appears to be a complete different design. Not all forms belong in the same space. At a car show, the a pink Ford Pinto, doesn't really belong between a Ford Model T, and a Ford GT 40. (My initial thoughts). To actually fit in with the neighborhood, you probably need to start out with the actual design shape, and then modify it, instead of building it backwards with matching windows.

[@pidgepagonis]

Couldn’t agree more. I think this type of thing is pretentious and an abject display of one’s financial prowess when it comes to their real estate more so than care and quality when it comes to the design and buildout of their home. No matter what, whenever I see one of these eyesore, my gut reaction is to think the people living there are jagoffs.

[@wojtekpolska1013]

great way of thinking. if you want to express your individuality, and fit in, you first take a standard house you would find in the neighbourhood, and put "your twist" on it. not create a new abstract thing, and make fitting in just an afterthought.

[@Arlae_Nova]

As a city planner and landscape architecture student, I think this is a subject I am qualified to talk about. Fitting in and the concept of genius loci don't mean that everything needs to be the same but indeed that the context needs to be fitting. With that I completely agree. But this doesn't mean that you can just use some features of the neighborhood, build a house that uses those features and expect it to adhere to genius loci. It needs to fit the space, visually and story wise. The house you give as an example, imo, breaks genius loci and just uses some features from homes around it while completely disregarding the soul that the housing around it has. Soul is very subjective, but I feel that the house doesn't have the same soul as the surroundings

[@NihongoWakannai]

Exactly, you don't need to have the exact same building as those around you, it just needs to fit the general look on the outside so that the area can have a consistent aesthetic. Some modern architecture seems like it's trying specifically to stand out as much as possible with strange design, which isn't very respectful towards your neighbours.

[@Hamstray]

"disregarding the soul that the housing around it has." neither that house nor the housing around it has any soul.

[@ffccardoso]

agreed

[@Friek555]

​@@Hamstray Neither do you, "soul" is a metaphor for a subjective set of characteristics which define something

[@axucaroso]

Visual rhythm! Jimi Hendrix is a great guitar player, but he doesn't fit with Miles Davis Kind of Blue.

[@Bobrogers99]

I'm not entirely convinced, and frankly, the front of the Gallery House would be ugly in any context, especially because of those big, dead windows. The harsh rectangularity could have been softened by windows that had some attractiveness.

[@noniesundstrom119]

Unless made with special glass, those windows are going to kill so many birds

[@ackables]

@@noniesundstrom119 Well it seems like the big windows have made the residents feel exposed so they keep their blinds closed. That should spare the birds at least.

[@alii3206]

it's the point

[@9DeadDingo]

Here lies the issue your view of attractive windows are ugly to me I hate old fashioned windows from grandmas house

[@mikeewin7544]

Steve Vice accurately described the problems of a bad compositional design, a sketchy definition of fitting in with its neighbors resulting in basically a clumsy box. It's a real stretch to call the entry a porch. There is nothing inviting to the entry. A dark hole with some open brickwork to one side. I have no idea how the interior works because there are no clues. Big window = big space? No delight from details because there are no details. Similar bricks are the only attempt at relating, much less having a conversation with those structures around it. No one has addressed the breach of the linear rhythm of the street. Two houses were demo'd with a large empty lot next to the new house. A car is parked in the "front yard" A curvy fence defines a side yard. Why that fence which seems so out of place. This open view of the side of the house is even less appealing from a compositional standpoint. I doubt those window shades are ever open, and I doubt I'd ever want to look inside. If there is some architectural delight inside, it would be surprising. I try to give an architect some credit. She/He may know something I don't. But I don't understand this house, and even more, I don't care. Fertilize those trees and make the whole thing go away.

[@Moosemoose1]

I'm sorry, but merely "taking elements" of the surrounding environment and "reimagining them in a contemporary context" isn't good enough to declare that a building fits into its location. Some architect could use that same vague architectural jargon to justify an angular, Deconstructivist shard made out of brick with textural elements, big front windows and a deep entrance in that same location. It literally doesn't reflect ANY of the aspects of a bungalow, and no average person looking at it would ever think "Oh wow! Look at how it took elements from the bungalows around it, how clever!", because even the "elements" the architect added look nothing like those from the bungalows around it. Using a brick facade, having big windows and a porch isn't even the minimum criteria necessary to justify this building's relationship to its environment. The European buildings you've shown at least share SOME of the same elements of their surrounding environment verbatim, without "reinventing" or "reimagining" them because of some undefined need to make things "contemporary", this literally does nothing to complement the environment. Speaking of "contemporary", what does that even mean? Minimalism? Weird, misshapen windows? Asymmetry? What is the philosophy behind it, because at this point it feels like dogma that every single new building must follow this hideous, soulless pattern. Please, I want to know - because I want to know why designing buildings in classical aesthetics is not considered "contemporary", and who gets to define what "contemporary" means? This house is designed purely for function, and is aesthetically mute and bland, in addition to its wildly unbalanced, disproportionate design with misshapen windows and strange massing there's hardly any ornament or other signs of humanity on it - it looks like a boring, soulless tan cube and what makes people angry are people saying that this unbalanced mess is valid architecture and that we should respect it. How is this creative in any way? How is this worthy of admiration or respect? Just because a small handful of people may enjoy it doesn't validate it or make it good architecture, what matters is what the community as a whole thinks. Nobody wants their community to look like Minecraft. Sometimes HOA groups are fully justified in preventing things like this from being built, after all, the community should have a say in what they have to live with, and shouldn't have to suffer from staring at an eyesore everyday just because some individual wanted to impose their eclectic taste on the community, because that just ain't democratic.

[@JOCoStudio1]

It's not even designed for function. That deep porch is a useless dark space. They haven't done anything practical with the front yard, it's just a monoculture lawn. I'll give them points if the roof has anything like solar cells, rainwater capture, access to residents, any vegetation, passive lighting, passive cooling etc.. Also big question- do those ugly unframed, inconsistently sized and located large windows provide good lighting and/or a view? If so, that's at least some justification.

[@stinkywizzleteets4740]

You summed up my thoughts on this perfectly.

[@TearThatRedFlagDown]

Perfect comment right here. Should have more likes.

[@miketackabery7521]

@@TearThatRedFlagDown should have several million.

[@OldTownCrab]

The gallery house simply does not fit in with its context. The surrounding bungalows have depth and texture both created by the shape of the houses themselves and the ornamentation and design elements on the pillars and the rest of the house. The gallery house has a flat front face with only a rectangular hole for a door way and three cold naked and wide windows that do nothing to help the depth or design. The robie house on the other hand does fit in, it has an amazing amount of texture from the elongated bricks and stacked roofs and windows. It fits in with the detail and texture of its surroundings while being lovingly distinct through its shape and architecture. Fitting in is a matter of keeping the soul of a place intact, the canal houses of amsterdam make an excellent point out of this. Each one of them is individually distinct but they all follow a color pallet that blends well together, that all share similar design elements and sizes. Using your metaphor of clothes the gallery house is like a celebrity fashion show outfit, it screams "look at me, look at me, look at how outrageous i am" but has nothing to it when you do look at it. The robie house is a dress or a suit that both brings eyes to it and looks good. Attempting to be unique to just be unique and different will more then not end up in the failure of a design. Being unique should be a side effect of good design, not a cause for it.

[@mikeewin7544]

Well said also

[@ligametis]

That neighborhood doesn't seem historically unique or valuable. Is it really worth such strict preservation?

[@ElRinconJoestar08]

You explained my point of view on this topic. I like a balance between unanimity and difference. I like a neighbourhood houses that have diferent colors, sizes, number of floors, etc, but that at the same time have a common style.

[@Friek555]

I accept that something doesn't need to look exactly like its surroundings. I still hate the house you used as an example. I'm not an architect and I don't necessarily have the vocabulary to describe what exactly I hate about it, but it is incredibly ugly and soulless to me. Edit: I think I have identified one point that explains my anger at this house: I usually don't like it when people get offended by modern art. If you don't like it or don't understand it, don't look at it. But this is a house which imposes itself on its neighborhood. You can't just ignore it if you don't like it. I usually don't mind if art is not appealing at first sight, and needs some more thought: If people don't see the hidden beauty of e.g. minimalist paintings, they can just go on with their lives. But with a house, I just don't accept the argument that "there are some small design ideas that we took from the neighborhood, so *actually* this fits in perfectly". As a neighbor or a passer-by, all I see is an ugly brick cube. In something that shapes the streetscape as much as a house does, it is not okay if it can only be appreciated by architects.

[@twells138]

For an environment to evolve, there always has to be a first. Who knows, maybe this example will be a catalyst to evolve the neighborhood. Maybe it will be deemed as one of the unsuccessful examples and be demolished by the next owner. That is the tolerance one has to have with these things.

[@ts-wo6pp]

@@twells138 that would be a very ugly street if all the houses looked like it

[@jasonreed7522]

@@twells138 their always needs to be a first yes, but the catalyst needs to actually be a good design on its own first and this is ugly as sin without the context of actually well designed homes highlighting all of its flaws as a soulless brick cube with 0 details. (Minecraft builders know how to make better buildings than this just by experimenting, lesson 1 is large flat faces without detail make things feel off)

[@Lincolnator721]

The exterior of a house can be deceiving. I've seen 5,000 sq ft houses that are much less practical than a 1,700 sq ft house, interior-space-wise with the living room, kitchen, and dining room.

[@LordSathar]

It's because it's post modern and brutalist, critical regionalism just doesn't seem to bridge that gap here between it and the neighborhood.

[@jorgemontero6384]

There's levels of fitting in: One doesn't have to just match the surrounding architectural style, but it's hard for a building to be beautiful if it doesn't attempt to take into account the space surrounding it. Take, for instance, the Congress Palace Building in Oviedo, Spain, built by Santiago Calatrava. The building itself is not bad in a vacuum. I imagine it, say, in the middle of a very large park in Chicago, and it'd be an icon. But when you look at its surrounding space, whether from a few hundred feet away, or all the way from the mountains surrounding it, and it looks as if a giant enemy crab had just landed on top this terracotta city. All the wonderful diagonal lines make it feel even bigger than it already is. When one compares this to, say, the wonderful transitions the city has near its medieval core, when we switch from an ancient cathedral, a university finished in 1608, to the wondrous Casa Conde and Campoamor theatre, both built in the late 19th century, in a few hundred feet. One could teach a class just on the differences in transition quality, and see where the architect did their best to be innovative within what surrounded it, and when they thought that the world ended at the edges of their plot.

[@michaellamberty7136]

I graduated from UIC in the late 80’s and contextual meant much more that just the brick match of the neighborhood. As many comments noted the scale, proportions and fenestration is all off. There doesn’t appear to be any acknowledgement of the horizontal banding of a bungalow with the half basement, main level and attic. A “modern” design/ building would be perfectly acceptable if there were some detail and relief from a box with punched windows. It would have been a great help to see the stages/ concepts that the architect ran through to arrive at this final design. At least the U of C building opposite the Robie house reinterpreted what Wright had done. Unfortunately this house wasted the opportunity to do the same. As always your videos present a valuable conversation. Thanks.

[@mikeewin7544]

Thank you for very relevant comments.

[@koene2276]

One of the problems I see with the gallery house example, is that the only element it takes is the building material. The rest just contrasts too much. The houses surrounding it are full of detail, masonry by crafstmen, and tiled roofs. The gallery house is a bland box with three mismatched windows and an incredibly dark portico. The contrast is just too great. The Robie house however is a great example of hat you're talking about, in my opinion.

[@Klosterliv]

The building material seems ill-advised as well, makes it look even more like cardboard from a distance.

[@klubstompers]

It would look 100's better if the coarse of brick under each window was a different color. A header, or soldier coarse, under the windows.

[@seanreidy1420]

​@@Klosterliv Exactly right. If the houses next door were made of gingerbread, this architect would have running around saying "Well it fits in because I made it out of gingerbread! Using brick was insufficient to create context - So Don't.This structure is anything but contextual, incorporating dated, ugly, inappropriate brick is not the answer. Wear your modern design on your sleeve and use the appropriate materials, context be damned.

[@ligametis]

I don't get how it is such a big deal in US. In Europe like half of new private houses have modern style and it is fine. This house somehow even has a name :/

[@mabus4910]

Sorry but in this case I don't agree with you at all. Aesthetic feeling is also very dependent on habitus. I believe that many of these architects design houses that are recognized as great art in their social environment, but simply do not correspond to the habitus of the people from the neighborhood where the house is ultimately located. For me, the house shown is just an ugly shoebox, like architects build all over the world. If I must have studied architecture to find a building respectable, then something is wrong with it.

[@edmarferreirajunior724]

I am an architect and I totally agree with you. Architects always tend to see buildings as an ends in themselves, something that even the most severe critics of the famous architect Peter Eisenman seem to agree with. But to the rest of other mortals, buildings are just what they always were, that is, means to other ends.

[@strayiggytv]

If building are just a means to an end then why does it bother you if their aesthetically unpleasant. You can't say buildings serve only a practical purpose, then chase it with "but If it's ugly I don't like it". Most people are just inflexible and want the same design that they're used too over and over again until their dead and their kids crave whatever they were exposed to as kids.

[@edmarferreirajunior724]

@@strayiggytv , but one of the ends or one of the practical purposes of building is precisely to meet the aesthetic expectations of those who hire the architects to design it. The question here is definitely not whether a building is aesthetically unpleasant, but WHO is to say whether it is aesthetically unpleasant.

[@oliviastratton2169]

@@edmarferreirajunior724 The question of the purpose of architecture is an interesting one. It reminds me of something I read about the "Hunchback of Notre Dame" and how part if Victor Hugo's thesis was that architecture is a medium of communication - indeed, the primary non-verbal medium in societies with low literacy rates. I think this conception of architecture is relevant today. Most people want a home that conveys a feeling like "cozy" or "elegant" that will tell people something about those who live inside. However, too many architects see these buildings as a canvas for their own artistic expression, or a chance to push the boundaries of their field. Like an experimental filmmaker too caught up in creating dynamic shots and finding unusual camera angles to make sure they're telling a compelling story. Not sure where I'm going with these analogies, but this tension between artistic vision and audience/buyer desires is an interesting one.

[@daviddodds30]

We are not given a look into the interior of the house in this video. We do not know how it meets the needs of its current inhabitants. In fact, we are not even told how this house’s design relates to its neighbors, other than the brick. With this in mind, I, unfortunately, cannot agree with your argument until we are given that information. It may be that the house perfectly fits the needs of the owners. It may be that there are quiet references in the facade or in the function of the house to the surrounding neighborhood. There could be proportions, angles that aren’t obvious at first glance, or other design tools that somehow bring the building more in line with the neighborhood than one might initially believe. We cannot go into these things with our preconceived notions of new designs. It is possible, though I do not know that it actually happened, that the architect and homeowners meticulously related the house to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, and this is unusual for this content maker, the video does not quite fit the premise that we are given when we click on it. I’d give this video a B- or a C+, whereas I’d normally give his videos an A or A-.

[@michaeltres]

Many modern houses look as if no one actually lives there, as if the structures are actually neighborhood dentists' offices. My biggest complaint about structures like the one in this video, though, is that the owners pull down existing structures that are part of the neighborhood's fabric in order to replace them with something completely new (as opposed to building on empty lots). Once the process of pulling down begins, it's hard to stop, and within 50 years, the old neighborhood is gone. That more than anything else is what historic neighborhoods are fighting against.

[@timnewman1172]

This. The biggest problem is the lots were way too narrow to begin with! 25ft may work for row houses, but it is horrible for single-family dwellings like this... My other knock on modern homes is they lack character. Over-built on the exterior, but the same, bland open floorplans on the inside. What made the bungalow attractive was the living spaces were divided by built-ins like colonades, etc which allowed some openess without being barn-like.

[@crazydragy4233]

Not gonna lie even non modern houses suffer for me from this. Any row of identical houses, regardless what style they are can easily look fake and sterilized, even if they have architectural detail. It's definitely easier to find examples of this with modern tiramisu boxes but it's not exclusive to them in theory, IMO at least.

[@comradevlad2050]

When it comes to the Gallery House, the problem isn't (just) about fitting in; you can put it anywhere and it will look unappealing, except perhaps for a Minecraft world, where it might at least fit in

[@TheCaffeinatedOrganist]

Wow great comment. That building is aesthetically corrupt. So much more could have been done to be more sympathetic to street scape.

[@rocki_bb]

@@TheCaffeinatedOrganist but what about the desires of the owners? Their previous home that sat on that lot had been rehabbed FOUR times. They looked for another building site before deciding to stay on their lot. Modern design is not to my taste, but even I can see the beauty the architect created inside the rooms of that house. A house/home is more than who strangers see it from the outside.

[@jasonreed7522]

Even in minecraft that exterior would be hated. Sure the inside could nice but with an exterior like that who wants to be anywhere near the thing, its like a school had a child with modern art. You don't need to fit in but it helps to be independently attractive and to rhyme with the area. This house has all the context sensitivity of a golfcourse in the desert.

[@leejerrett8268]

I find it interesting that most people who build things in Minecraft spend a lot of time and thought trying to break up the inherent boxyness which is imposed on them by the limitations of the ‘materials’ they are restricted to. The variety of styles and pleasing complexity people are able to achieve in Minecraft despite the limitations is a good lesson for real world architects that limiting yourself to simple un-ornamented building blocks need not result in an uninteresting building which is divorced from history

[@julmaass]

I think it might have been designed in Minecraft -> imported to Revit

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

90% of the time, "critical regionalism" seems to come down to a standard rectangular unadorned modern building except it's got the same sort of stone or cladding on the outside as the traditional style. Frankfurt is full of these and you can just feel the architect smugly patting himself on the back for noticing that the city was built with red sandstone.

[@matthewluck9077]

frampton’s ideas weren’t as grounded in community as one would hope but pieces of critical regionalism and it’s development as an idea over time have made new opportunities for creating new ideas with consideration for their context. the house stewart showcased in this video is an excellent example of critical regionalism. it isn’t just the material. it’s the placement, the height, and even subtleties that many wouldn’t notice too much but are important in other realms such as real estate and common living experience, such as the entrance and the rear of the lot

[@Gulitize]

which Frankfurt? The one in Germany?

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

@@matthewluck9077 (Not a comment on critical regionalism as a whole here, just the house in the video:) I find the "you see, _technically_ this big cube respects its surroundings because it cites some architectural notions in a very general and abstracted way" argument too clever by half. Like, I can see it's a big box that's shaped nothing like a bungalow and doesn't reflect their general style either. And that's fine, you can build big boxes if you want. But no-one who hasn't read the architect's blurb would think it's a respectful homage to the design of its neighbours. If that's what it's trying to communicate to passers-by, it's doing a bad job. But since I was complaining about Frankfurt before, there are actually some pretty nice contemporary interpretations of old building forms in the "new old town" area they recently completed. It's 50% faithful reconstructions of the buildings that stood there before the WWII bombings, and 50% new buildings that pick up the same shapes and materials. There isn't anything especially "critical" about them though, admittedly. It's a tourist area, so they're mostly trying to look pleasing and not clash with the reconstructions.

[@superadventure6297]

I didn't see anything standard, or rectangular, about the brick church he shown. There are just as many (or as few) rectangles in its design as there are on the bungalows.

[@HeadsFullOfEyeballs]

@@superadventure6297 Brick church?

[@kevinolive]

I really don’t like the “cookie cutter” neighborhoods (i.e. subdivisions) where the houses look nearly identical. My prior house was in an old neighborhood and there was a ride range of styles and sizes in the area. Some were built 100+ years ago and some were more recent. Mine was new, brick, and fit in well with the mix of styles.

[@jackstephenson5238]

I agree. My neighborhood has houses stretching from the 1890s all the way to the 1970s but they all (or almost all) complement each other. Another thing adding to the look of older neighborhoods is all of the old growth trees. In mine, the massive trees create a canopy over the roads and provide lots of privacy between homes. Modern developments with their new growth only accentuate the sameness between properties.

[@wclifton968gameplaystutorials]

The lack of building styles is just a leftist-nimby attempt of curtailing freedom without anyone realising

[@LucasFernandez-fk8se]

I actually much prefer semi cookie cutter developments. As long as the designes work well together and the homes aren’t all identical then I think it looks best

[@Moosemoose1]

@@wclifton968gameplaystutorialsNo choice? What are you talking about, theres plenty of styles to choose from that arent Modernist crap from after 1940 - you got romanesque, beaux arts, victorian, arabesque, art deco, art nouveau, gothic, literal hundreds of types of traditional styles and vernacular design from around the world, but NoOooOo if you cant choose hideous soulless minimalist buildings you have no "freedom". Please.

[@MrWhiskeycricket]

The Victorian shotguns of New Orleans are gorgeous.

[@marconarvaez9871]

I still think the gallery house doesn't fit in. I don't disagree with the argument, though; the other structures mentioned here are very appealing, but the first one... it's just too simple for me. Compare the fronts of every other building shown to that of the gallery. It's just a square, with 3 asymmetrical windows. Once the side view is shown around 8:08 the added complexity makes it more interesting in my opinion.

[@josephkopel8722]

Love that the tone of discourse on Stewart’s channel is, by and large, respectful and curious. People are animated by what they find interesting in the subject and just behave themselves well. Makes it so much easier to come back to the videos and stretches the mind more. My appreciation for a community that, hopefully, one day, will be far more common on the internet ☺️

[@33Jenesis]

I work in los angeles’ west side real estate. The flippers mostly destroyed old homes exterior and interior to build modern looking homes that double the size. Very few owners and architects are into preservation (remodel and enlarge with respect to significant architectural merit of original structure).

[@TearThatRedFlagDown]

Those people deserve all my hate.

[@DouglasWatt]

In addition to the others commenting negatively about the Gallery House, I would like to add that the building also lacks a sense of warmth and invitation. The gentle approaches to the doorways of the old bungalow style are intentionally more inviting to residents and visitors. While the Gallery House has a dark tunnel, lacking even a minimal attempt at use of greenery, that is simply designed to make visitors unwelcome. This sense of being 'unwelcome' definitely contributes to negative opinions from those who pass by.

[@ashleyhamman]

I find variation in buildings to be part of what makes a city interesting. When you go for a walk in any decently nice downtown, your day is brightened by the surprises of interesting little things that stand out, and buildings can be a large part of this. In addition, they can be useful for wayfinding, you aren't bound to get lost in a seemingly endless and unfamiliar single-family neighborhood when you have something that is memorable for being different.

[@theoccasionalvideo]

Exactly.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@mangarinemiil7128 what u talk is genius loci. That brutalist building dont / cant respect it

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@Spearca sounds like C. Alexander vs P. Eisenman :)))))

[@konstantinosstag6436]

Where do you live? I live in Athens where at this point there is absolutely no architectural harmony whatsoever. The city is a complete chaotic mess with buildings that are for the most part just completely unimaginative functional structures of cement. And the only areas/neighborhoods that tourists visit and people want to live in are obviously the ones where there is at least some type of architectural harmony. The old parts of town that is. This idea of a building that does not fit in the context is what I hate the most. I see it happening in cyclades now too. All houses are white and blue but with all the variations of this vernacular theme and then someone just decides that he is going to build some modernist pretentious thing standing out making the most juvenile statement possible.

[@ashleyhamman]

@@konstantinosstag6436 I'm in suburban California. The old-town areas are interesting, but there's so much tract housing for single family low density. The best we get in variation is if someone goes all-out on landscaping and special roof tiles. Of course, if our housing policy changed towards densification, then maybe things would start to change, but as it stands, every neighborhood is repetitive.

[@michaelbird9148]

I agree that "fitting in" doesn't need to mean "the same" and that there can be broader criteria for cohesion. I think that in general we can benefit from broadening our acceptance of more modern styles. Expecting a whole neighbourhood to remain as the 1920 suburb isn't healthy. Good architecture can be appreciated, and that will inevitably bring diversity - especially good for a long-term. Saying this, I think this is a matter of tact. There are people being picky and reactionary, but I can think of times when we inflict "good architecture" on the people across the street. When you're joining an existing neighbourhood, it isn't only a case of architecture being a representation of personal identity or modern standards. The prairie house you showed looked beautiful in part because it also had some space around it to help generate its own context; it wasn't in the middle of a bunch of city- and period-specific houses on a residential street. The call for moderation, accommodation, and compromise can also be reflected back at contemporary architecture, too, especially in the less considered applications of design. Your example is good in that the design is trying to do that where it can. Thanks for the video!

[@daltonbedore8396]

explain why that isnt healthy?

[@archwaldo]

@@daltonbedore8396 because time passes; passing times bring change. you really want an entire community to look like the 1920s when it's already the 21st century? Hell, scale it up to the next century, or even millennium. still wanna retain the look in the year 3000? It would be better for a community to reflect the changing times and adapt as necessary; it's how evolution works.

[@mikeewin7544]

@@archwaldo I think you misread Michael Bird's comment. I don't read that he supports freezing a neighborhood in the 1920s. He's simply reasoning that a more contemporaneous style should consider the context and reinterpret it in an architecturally and functional manner.

[@mikeewin7544]

I agree with your comments. I don't though think it's a good example. There are no references to the context other than similar brick. The massing does not relate to its neighbors. The composition inherently is awkward. It is not inviting, rather cold and unapproachable. An architect once told me a good design should have "delight and good repose" The Gallery House has neither. The Robie House has both these qualities then and now.

[@mikeewin7544]

I agree with your comments. I don't though think it's a good example. There are no references to the context other than similar brick. The massing does not relate to its neighbors. The composition inherently is awkward. It is not inviting, rather cold and unapproachable. An architect once told me a good design should have "delight and good repose" The Gallery House has neither. The Robie House has both these qualities then and now

[@cebo494]

If the Gallery House had slanted roofs, it would fit in perfectly. The rest of the look is already good, but the flat roof stands out a little much.

[@edwardvermillion8807]

this is what i was thinking, too. i'd add that the windows don't really fit either. the windows on the originals tend to be more symmetrical in placement, while the windows on the new design, well, they look kind of hodge-podge to be fair. they leave me wondering what kind of mess is going on in the interior that would require window placements like that. i don't mind things not fitting in if what you're building is a guggenheim, or a robie house, but this ain't those.

[@metricstormtrooper]

What is "fit in" it's different, it's new but it isn't bad design, I like different, different brings change and change fosters some good things, staying the same fosters stagnation.

[@timmmahhhh]

@@edwardvermillion8807 I fully agree about the windows. It would be more contextual.if the windows followed a rhythm or pattern of some sort, but these look like punched openings with no relevance to each other or any other features of the house.

[@AngelaMerici12]

Is a recycled paper box.

[@leejerrett8268]

I just dislike flat roofs for practical reasons. Unless you are building for a very arid climate there is no reason not to built an inclined roof unless you care more about the aesthetic than about making sure the roof doesn’t leak.

[@avxbynl6882]

Calling the gallery house fancy words like "critical regionalism" because it has a porch and its made out of bricks is no excuse for the poor neighbour who has to wake up and see such an eyesore every day. "Fitting in" is more of not being an asshole to the people around you.

[@RickF7666]

I think the reason people think that the new house doesn't "fit in" with the rest of the area, is because of the house's profile. All the rest of the houses have peaked roofs, while that new one has a flat roof, making it look a lot more blocky. Even though the new house uses brick, the lack of a peaked roof gives it a more hard edged, Brutalist feel, which has always been off-putting to most people.

[@chronicmango]

I love a well designed house that stands out. However, large boxes with sharp angles and sheer vertical two story walls, when set alongside homes with set backs and gables isn’t really my idea of contextualism. If the architect was to set back the second story a bit, I think that would really go a long way toward reducing the jarring juxtaposition. I understand they’d lose some square footage, but it would help add balance to the home in its context imho.

[@Artfacility]

Yep it looks like what every minecraft builder calls an amateur build

[@NegraLi34]

tbh I hate this house you're showing. The way that the windows don't align with themselves or anything else, that big, dark, unwelcoming entrance, the weird, seemingly random brick pattern on the side, that white material contrasting the brickwork like it was glued together as an afterthought. the more I look at it the more I ask "why?", but not in an intrigued, interested way, more like as a general sense of disappointment. It seems like nothing fits in an unsettling way. I agree with you that the problem is bad design, it just so happens that the majority of houses trying so hard to stand out end up being bad designs almost on purpose.

[@matthewgodlewski2388]

Hey, I can see my house from there! No, seriously. I live two blocks from this house and have walked past it many times. I've often remarked at how unfitting it is for the neighborhood. I loved this video and the opprtunity to learn more about my neighborhood and my city. Thank you!

[@imrelukacs]

I think the new house lacks in contours compared to the the rest of the neighborhood. I'm not a fan of those bungalows, but I think the level of detail on the street side of the buildings is overlooked by the architect of the new house. Anyway, great video Stewart!

[@Icetea-2000]

I love the fact that you go against what many average people would say about architecture from an outsiders perspective. When in reality the answer is always more complicated. I especially liked the video about the flat roofs

[@daltonbedore8396]

if i bought a house on a street full of older well kept homes from a similar time, id be pretty dissapointed that my neighbor apparently wished he lived on a different street but insisted on building that near me.

[@NihongoWakannai]

Yeah, having a single building be a completely different style to everything around it just ruins to aesthetic of the area for everyone else in it.

[@daltonbedore8396]

@@NihongoWakannai i said id be dissapointed, not that they "ruined" the street.

[@vector.z4065]

Hello Mr Stewart, let's hope you'll maybe read my comment. I wanted to share my opinion on neighbourhoods : your video was very interesting, and to be honest, even though I don't like contemporary architecture, this home you showed did fit in. Critical regionalism however, isn't in my opinion a good-bad idea. Sure, it makes new buildings more discreet, which is great to my eye, but they are still very ugly and lack personnality. There is a difference, as you said, fitting in and being beautiful. However, you talk about neighbourhoods in a very, very American way. You say in the end of your video that every neighbourhood was built at a particuular time in a particular style. However, for example here in France, it is not always the case. Modern neighbourhoods are done this way, but it is not rare to see buildings that have centuries between themselves, a building from the 17th and a one from the 19th can stand next together. lots of neighbourhoods in Europe have been built in centuries, with changes being brought every period. A typical French city usually has a ton of different styles blended up in a single neighbourhood. Yet modern buildings are the only ones standing out of all this, mostly by their uglyness. There is a problem in modern architecture, critical regionalism uses local materials, but to have the style and the indentity of a place, a building has to be more than materials

[@charlesor1023]

Yeah there is a problem with "modernism" is just cold and ugly. Doesn't feel alive or timeless like old european houses.

[@kideatspaper3618]

@@charlesor1023 i think you’re just encountering ugly buildings. the 17th century building and the 19th century building looking good next to eachother both have survivorship bias, they still exist bc they are good and timeless, but ugly buildings were made in all periods. and i’m sure there are examples of modern buildings that you would agree are timeless and beautiful. and probably in a few hundred years people will point toward the surviving good examples of modern architecture and say “at least that all fits in and makes sense” in response to future aesthetic blob buildings

[@georgibolshakov4897]

It is American indeed. I live in Germany and the architecture here has taught me, that there is always a way to create something modern and beautiful in any historical context. A classic view on a German inner city street would be a 16th century Fachwerk house standing pround some five meters across a large glass facade of a mall. However the facade will mirror the old houses' beauty, widening the street and making it appear lighter.

[@dmreid9620]

Yes but the very difference in styles between those buildings from different eras is what creates the overall character. To simply take all of them as “traditional” then build pastiches would not be continuing the very ideas which created them. A modern building next to these other buildings from different eras only continues the tradition of building to the standards of the current time period. No one would want to live in a theme park where every structure is a lie only created to trick you into thinking you’re standing next to a building from a different era. And as far as ugliness goes, although the building in this video is not to my taste, I’d hope you would agree that the Frank Lloyd Wright house is beautiful as well as many other modern takes.

[@pidgepagonis]

Yes! If this is these architects “trying”, then they should go back to the drawing board because the gesture feels more like a slap in the face to everyone else.

[@roelsch]

The profession of architecture imploded when they decided that ornaments are a sin ‘because it's not necessary’. This is why this condo stands out. It is as if I (not an architect) just protruded a box in SketchUp and made a few holes for doors and windows, and done. The older buildings have varying decorations like window sills, colour accents. The doors stand out due to the patios, instead of just being a dark rectangular hole. (This effect of entrances shying away from the streets is a hallmark of Modernism, and a main reason why it feels so cold and alien.) Now beautiful buildings are like a Roman concrete, or Damascus steel. We no longer know how to make them.

[@pauljackman7137]

I agree. The surrounding bungalows engage the street with wide porches, banks of windows, and front doors that are highlighted with detailing, paint, lighting, and (the horror!) even pots of flowers. The blank box next door is hostile to the street and all who pass by. I'm surprised they didn't dig a moat and install a drawbridge in front.

[@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person]

That's my main criticism with modern house architecture, and I'm always arguing with my whole family which loves it. They are so "smooth", they are boring to watch. Smooth glass panels for windows, smooth white or black walls, smooth square parts, too smooth. I want a portico, I want an oriel window, I want a balustrade, I don't want something that came out of SketchUp with minimal effort. Also, don't even get me started with the modern skyscrapers. They are glass boxes of garbage, there are not a single one I've seen that is beautiful. Even Brutalist architecture had it's charm.

[@jewelrylover2958]

this is my favorite comment. really broke it down well. this is exactly what’s happening. also the entrance shying away from the streets reminds me of something I saw about how the US especially is building roads/streets and the outdoors for cars instead of people. if we don’t re-evaluate humans are only going to become more isolated from each other

[@jewelrylover2958]

@@Bronze_Age_Sea_Person OMG I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. i’m college hunting rn and i’m pretty much set on not attending a urban/big city/downtown school with all modern class buildings, super “smooth” modern & new classrooms etc. 😷 It just doesn’t feel right to me, like it alright and I understand that change and growth is important. But i’d MUCH rather live/go to school in an environment where the buildings have deep history, character, and depth to them.

[@ligametis]

those single story old buildings just don't look good. they seem copy-paste even if they have some decorations.

[@flyingturret208thecannon5]

I’ll be honest, my dream home has a flat roof with easy access. Likely a greenhouse on top, and the stairs would lead into the greenhouse when going up. Then, you can step outside the greenhouse, and see the area around you from the view.

[@Looter92]

In Belgium all the houses on a street have the same form (doors and windows), but they are built in different styles and every house is unique

[@hydrocharis1]

Haha, yeah. We have taken this to a whole other level, and I definitely would argue we have taken the anarchy too far in some places, but the variety is at least interesting and not as mind-numbing as the monotony of many places in the Netherlands/England/US.

[@j.mieses8139]

My wife is from Chicago and she grew up in one of those Bungalow Homes. In my professional opinion that style has a unique charm and character and that is very well expressed throughout the neighborhood that the Modern Home dropped in the middle of the neighborhood simply lacks. I do not think its a matter of that modern home not fitting in as much as its lacking any kind of character. If it had that it would not stick out as it does now.

[@pidgepagonis]

Chicagoans are very protective of our bungalows. We even have a historic bungalow society here in the city (briefly mentioned). I think you should do a follow up city with someone from that organization. Bungalows make great first homes for so many people. None of the good things about them were mentioned.

[@pidgepagonis]

P.s. I don’t live in a bungalow, but in another cherished chicago style - a 2 flat Graystone.

[@StephenCoorlas]

A good supplementary video would be to further define "hideously designed atrocities" and "bad architecture". Acknowledging the poor qualities of these buildings could be more constructive than justifying the shallow method of applying contextual materials to help a building assimilate to its surrounding. Still - a very well-rounded video for such a subjective and controversial topic. Nice work as always.

[@pidgepagonis]

Agreed

[@rosezingleman5007]

I just adore those bungalows. I spent an inordinate amount of time studying, restoring and documenting them during my 30+ years as an architect. (I had a feeling you’d use the Robie House as an example of neighbors not liking a new design not fitting into context. It always works in that example.)

[@arsezxvi]

This will always be a difficult subject. adhering to the local context without being to historic while still respecting it. And depending on the function you can experiment some more. Some buildings are built to be an icon or in an extreme contrasting manner, as to draw attention. And when done well, this creates the bilbao-effect. However there are enough examples that failed in this regard and alienate both locals and tourist. For dwellings however I feel people should feel at home and these extreme contrasts damage the local identity. On the other hand, you cannot replicate the current buildings due to numerous factors (buildings code changes, costs of labor and materials, change in desires, etc). The awnser is somewhere in adopting some elements and trying to alter them to the modern context. Which Stewart rightfully adresses, though it think the example of the galleri house is quite weak. The building across the robby house is a nice exemple though. Nevertheless enjoyed the video and I would like to see you make more examples of good architecture integrated into the context.

[@daltonbedore8396]

its a completely contrived confict. no one is forcing an architect to build an ugly cube next to a bunch of similar older houses- the architect chooses to.

[@lukedahlinghaus6019]

I do see that in some situations a new building standing out from its surrounding structures can be very beneficial to a neighborhood and it’s growth. However I do believe it needs to be done properly. Sadly with the home you have shown in this video I don’t believe it has been done successfully. Firstly, a previously existing home on that lot that could have simply been updated to produce less waste was instead torn down for a more contemporary structure which I will never support. Second, while the new structure does use brick like the old bungalow style this really can’t be considered as a call bad to the neighborhoods architecture as most homes in the Midwest use brick. This home Simply has no connection to the neighborhood or the climate of Chicago like it’s older neighbors. The lack of any pitch to the roof or any details in the windows and even the color of the brick makes this home stand out like a sore thumb. I also believe that this home also shows the lack of true creativity and passion put into contemporary design. Why do no modern home have any detailing or different materials used on their exteriors. It’s always disappointing. I also believe scale is important when bringing in new construction into an older neighborhood. A giant square box in a neighborhood that is full of homes with step backs on the second floor and irregular shapes in the floor plans just looks very out of place and imposing. Scale is something the Frank Loyd Wright home did successfully and is why it does not look out of place in the neighborhood. Sadly many architects fail to understand how their designs will truly effect the area surrounding their designs. This home looks like it has drained the life out of the street it is on and I found myself looking at the homes surrounding it more than the home you were discussing.

[@pidgepagonis]

Omg I pretty much wrote the same thing in my comment but yours is so much better said. I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t even realize but I also was looking at all the other houses as well. Also… where did the older trees go?? Did they tear those down to build this ugly ass box??

[@benvin10365]

Outside of historical context, I find most neighborhoods where the houses look alike to be boring and unimaginative. We need more neighborhoods to be a mixture of both shared functional features and glaring dissimilarities in style, materials, texture, and presentation. I am beyond tired and bored with cookie cutter neighborhoods full of replicant homes with dull architectural features, which I refer to as Generic America or "Generica" for short. Builders aren't providing the American dream with their limited design style options in stuffy HOA neighborhoods. Builders are creating boring objects using ancient materials that they sell at significant markup, and make covenant deals with municipalities so that cities can find places to store families and individuals. I love this KZbin channel.

[@Zarcondeegrissom]

“cookie-cutter” neighborhoods, remind me of the “cookie-cutter” computer case trends that end up with every computer case for a few years all having the same exact flaws. Transformer-Voltron style plastic fronts with fake vents that can't cool the guts, to tempered glass convection ovens, then "all mesh" cases that let air from fans immediately back out without cooling anything, to vertical GPU mounts that starve the graphics card of air while blocking all the other expansion slots on the motherboard, cases that support large motherboards with 6+ SATS plugs that have less than 3 hard drive bays, etc. lol.

[@alonedoughnut]

Personally I am opposed to the modern square "office building inspired" homes. Not a style that I can get behind, but I can appreciate adapting to the modern style to something older.

[@Defeshh]

In the context of urban sprawl that you talk about, I agree with you. However, we should bulldoze urban sprawl and make actual cities.

[@tomorrowhowever7488]

That particular building looks so much like the one I work in that I would be depressed walking into it after work.

[@mgscheue]

Yes. It looks more like an office than a house.

[@zzajizz]

It is interesting for me that in a society where individualism seems paramount, there is such a degree of importance placed on ‘fitting in’.

[@EstrafaDC]

I really love your videos. But when you stand in front of a house and speak of it having a porch, when it so clearly has no visible porch, you reveal the problem with architect's proclivity to play fast and loose with terminology. It makes it hard for many to take the argument seriously. I for one don't mind this building, but I wouldn't waste time attempting to claim it fits in or is in relation to it's surroundings when it clearly is not. You do yourself a disservice.

[@loribriggs494]

Great video Stew and very controversial. I applaud you for having the bravery to tackle this topic. I have to admit that it makes me very uncomfortable seeing a new home with that aesthetic, placed in such a time period, historic area. I can see your point on how the architect did a few things to tie into the other homes but it is so off the chart, those things don't help. Why not go with a new, cool bungalow that would fit in. There are many ideas to choose from. Certainly not as modern, but that isn't the flavor of this neighborhood. If I lived on that street, I wouldn't love it. If I was driving down that street, it would catch my attention but not in a good way. Personal preference.

[@ligametis]

I don't really get how such single house is such a big deal. In Europe I see them everywhere. Meanwhile, the whole city seem to have thousands of those "old" houses, how a few of them really matter?

[@jfmezei]

As a kid in the 1970s, my parents brough us to Bethany Beach Delaware a number of times. The beach town had pecularity of not having any tall buildings due to local bylaws. In 2010, I returned (by bike) and it was really interesting to recognize the place when I arrived at night. Same look and feel. But the next morning, touring the town, I realized that most cottages were rebuilt from "cottage" to "expensive homes capable of renting to multiple families". Yet, a few of the original cottages such as the one we rented on central avenue (they were named at the time, ours was "Snug Harbor" was still standing. So it was interestint to see the town basically totally rebuilt with slightly taller more impressive "homes" while still keeping its original spirit. Snug Harbor (though no longer bearing its name) has since gotten a boxy addition to bring it up to the same size as other buildings, alas. Snug Harbor was the yellow building (alas Street View doesn't go back to 2010 when it was still "original". But the 2 homes next to it are still original. If you travel to other streets, you will see the much bigger/modern constructions that still maintain a beach style while being drastiucally different. www.google.com/maps/@38.5402345,-75.0560714,3a,75y,340.48h,82.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Ais5IL5RWnroHCv_xOGGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656www.google.ca/maps/@38.5402345,-75.0560714,3a,75y,340.48h,82.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Ais5IL5RWnroHCv_xOGGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[@jtd8719]

I lived in a Chicago bungalow 20 years ago, and enjoyed several aspects about the style at the time (newly married, no kids) like how the narrow frontage and porch area encouraged you to get to know your neighbors. Biggest problems at the time were leaky basement (water intrusion and sewer backups - welcome to Chicago in the early 2000s), uninsulated and low attic (I'm 6'-6"), no central AC and outdated electric. I'd have happily replaced it with a modern reinterpretation of a bungalow that took advantage of better materials, layout and practices if we had stayed and had had the means to afford the redo. I notice the gallery house has at least an extra fenced lot on the one side, which is not usual for Chi-town bungalows.

[@jorolo70]

Stewart Hicks, you are a great architecture educator, you're videos are interesting and spark conversations. Would love to share a coffee and a couple of hours of your time, but I live in Chile, hahahaha, hope to meet you some time in the future... maybe when I visit Chicago... Thanks for your work on KZbin

[@shimmeringchimps3842]

I think this house would fit in very well in Cold War-era East Germany. It also reminds me of the Social Security Building back in my hometown.

[@thomasblyth7539]

I’d love to see a video about the “Charleston Single” style of home: long narrow 2 story houses common in Charleston, SC

[@BlackMagickMike]

Thank you for this video. Though not your intent, my take-away was the context you provided about the bungalow style. I just moved to Tulsa, and there are a lot of, my guess, Craftsman-style bungalows here. Even newer construction in some of the older neighborhoods mimic this style. I enjoy this type of home's appearance. (I am renting one that was divided into a duplex.) Once I started to explore the floorplans on Zillow, I began to realize how, as you mentioned, they are not really suited for a contemporary lifestyle, without a lot of modification. Thank you, again!

[@liammullan2197]

Another very interesting video, many thanks. Valid and important points on "fitting in". I rather suspect that much of the "problem" with the Gallery House is not actually about "fitting in" but simply the design of the house itself. I'm sure its mother loves it dearly but most of us have to try hard not to wince. Also the other examples you gave showed hetrogenous looks but did show respect of proportions and rhythms, which this one doesn't seem to. I suspect many other modern(ist) designs would have been much more accepted by locals. Having said that... I suspect it would grow on me the more I saw it, strangely...

[@toomanymarys7355]

The architect was being deliberately offensive to any sense of aesthetics. It wasn't an accident.

[@liammullan2197]

@@toomanymarys7355 ok, that explains it then!

[@bruce-le-smith]

@@toomanymarys7355 yeah, it just reads as a bit of a wank really

[@user-xi4nz3be1x]

@@toomanymarys7355 Such a thing for an architect to do. Completely disregarding the need of the environment in pursuit of their own philosophy.

[@arbitrarycolors]

Another wonderful video, Stewart. Thank you for the time and care you put into this channel. Do you have any suggestions for further reading/exploring on critical regionalism?

[@marcopolo6807]

Let me just say, the way your videos are narrated feels an awful lot like one of those architecture tours I've always wanted to take in the city. I enjoyed this video sir. Thank you.

[@StewIsRat]

I find this interesting because there was a new neighborhood that started developing behind my Aunt's house a few years ago. Almost all of the houses have different designs/styles/builders and they are are unique in their own right. The only thing is, there is a set color palette which allows a few dark colors, but mostly beiges and grays. Roofs can be made of any material but metal and also have a strict color palette. Now that most of the houses are built it's a very unique yet cohesive community due to the respect which the people moving in had for their neighbors and the rules of the city/HOA/community. Now if we look at my own neighborhood, all of the houses were built in the 70's and we have little restrictions for building and a much wider selection for color palette. As is, many of the houses are similarly built by only one or two different groups of people, however really anyone can build in the area at this point. Someone finally beat the wild flower restrictions and is building a new patch of houses in a previously protected area. They look overly modern, don't match our neighborhoods style or colors at all, and they stand out in a bad way, never the less the group is trying to expand and buy houses on my block to tear them down. There is little respect for the homeowners in the area, including personal experiences I've had with the builders taking biased surveys and trying to get our backyards taken away. Hell, take a walk down my street away from that clusterfuck and be confused at Susan, whose husband works for the city, and her lime green split level which dwarfs all of our single story homes by almost 2 stories. Or even the person one street over who somehow got approved to make their entire front yard into a concrete pad. It's not a "fear" of new designs or modern buildings and I could care less if it actually looked decent. My problem is, there is a right way and a wrong way. You can compromise with the people around you or you can push your way in and tell everyone else to deal with it. Yes, I do believe people have houses that match their personality, but I would rather some of them keep it to themselves so I don't have to see whatever is going on in their head- Susan's house looks like shit lets be real.

[@johnmonroe4499]

The problem with the Gallery House isn't that it doesn't fit in, it's that it is a dull, sterile, inhumane design. It is hard to imagine people either living in it or building it. Would make a good neighborhood store or community center, though, with a little work.... As it is, it seems to be pointing towards a future of urban blight, a modern Bronx with buildings that look impressive if you read about them first.

[@charlesor1023]

Yeah too blocky

[@jj_vinet]

Hey Stewart, thank you so much for your help in finding this video again. Keep up the great work You are a real asset in the world of architecture and simplifying complex ideas in the field and communicating those ideas to the non-professional.

[@charlietripi]

I never thought I'd be so pleased with architecture, but witness it be used as a vehichle for an appreciation of art as a whole so much. Love the perspective!

[@LordZedz]

See my problem with that house isn't that it doesn't fit in, it's that it's fucking ugly.

[@dnxls_]

Love the passion in how you deliver your concluding thought. About creating a new context, in the style of a groundbreaking building. But doesn’t this apply to all groundbreaking structures? Not just those as stark as the Ellis House? A starkly sh!t building is going to inspire other, sh!t projects. And surely that’s the housing associations’ whole point. Whilst I admire your effort, there’s no convincing these communities to change. It’s time, to reshape the suburbs

[@jamesmaddigan8132]

A key aspect is the integrity of the mature neighbourhood that likely drew most people to buy there, as opposed to it being a cheaper location to buy, tear down and build up/out. What is good architecture and what makes for fitting into an existing setting is always debatable. I recently reviewed a 1950s house that used 1950s technology, but the exterior was designed borrowing elements of massing, window, brick&stone cladding and roof from the existing neighbourhood. It was not a clone of the neighbouring buildings, and had its own unique character. The architect could have designed the exterior in a 1950s Modernist style, and had used a Modern style for other projects, even the for the same client. The neighbourhood is now part of a designated historic district, but was not at the time with no obligations to design with a historic style. The building still fits in and is considered as one of the historic buildings, not looking like a dated 1950s insertion ripe for renovation and/or replacement. A perfect example of following the genius loci and not zeitgeist. Great video, and looking forward to more in 2022.

[@priscilahenning2642]

Hello! I just came across one of your videos (the one on the building by Mies van der Rohe recently built in Indiana) and loved it. I've just started following and have watched four videos in a row. It's hard to find good thought-provoking architectural discussions here, and as a university professor teaching Architecture in Brazil, your videos have inspired a series of reflections I'll definitely use in class. Thank you so much, and congrats!!

[@ltlbuddha]

I've seen areas with similar architecture that felt right and those that felt cheap and lacking personality. Part of that is time. Buildings in a neighbourhood of similar initial style grow a little more individualistic over time. And we see Old as traditional/classic/etc.

[@DeAndreEllison]

I'm all for the "natural" evolution of neighborhoods.. OK it's easy for developers to start out with the same styles, but in my mind.. that doesn't mean it's the way it has to stay

[@TearThatRedFlagDown]

Doesn't mean that bland architecture that's designed to look hostile to humanity is the way to go. Architecture should be nice to look at, because we literally have to live in and alongside it.

[@DeAndreEllison]

@@TearThatRedFlagDown highly subjective

[@TearThatRedFlagDown]

@@DeAndreEllison Wrong. People may have preferences, but beauty has objective standards and whether you think something is beautiful or not is based on certain standards. If beauty were highly subjective, then visual design principles would also be completely useless and meaningless, since if it's that subjective then there wouldn't be any real standards to judge the quality of a design by. I can guarantee you that at least 8/10 people will say that Tudor architecture is by far more appealing than brick/concrete boxes.

[@DeAndreEllison]

@@TearThatRedFlagDown those standards that you speak of are highly subjective. Your beauty may not be mine or the next person. Because my standards are different than yours and the next person

[@TearThatRedFlagDown]

​@@DeAndreEllison That's what I meant with preference, but just because people have preferences doesn't mean that there are no objective standards for beauty. It's literally my job to make things that are visually appealing, I'm trained to do that and there are design principles that I adhere to in order to measure the quality of a design. The fact that the design principles that I and other people in my field adhere to are consistent means that there is an objective measure for beauty. You can take your subjectivism and shove it. Exceptions don't make the rule.

[@jeffgood2394]

I have many mixed and contradictory feelings on this topic. I understand the desire to maintain the look & feel of a neighborhood, but I don't think we should be so precious about preserving things just because they're old-ish. I also don't put much value on conformity for its own sake, but I also think context is important and you should have a good reason to stand out in a fairly homogeneous setting. In this example, I'd probably lean towards defining the aesthetic with a range of roof pitches, and materials, and insisting that renovations be visually consistent (the main issue with the "popups" is when they have brick on bottom and clapboards on top, like a house mullet). There should always be room for exceptions and innovation in such neighborhoods, but probably not for a random single family home.

[@twells138]

To change an environment, there always has to be a first. Who knows, maybe this example will be a catalyst to evolve the neighborhood.

[@toomanymarys7355]

Natural additions and expansions on houses provide a pattern of normal growth that fits with neighborhoods. Houses that are merely the right scale with reasonable rooflines can actually vary a lot in style without becoming an offense to the eyes.

[@functionoflightone]

Thank you. I'm not judging whether the Gallery House is good or bad.. frankly, I'm not qualified to judge. But I do appreciate your reminder to be a little more open to what is different.

[@rakeantl6730]

just like my professor said: good architecture is relative, but the bad one is absolute

[@MarcinRaburski]

That's exactly the problem with modern architects and architecture. No amount of context and knowledge can make anything more beautiful. Beauty is a primitive cognitive phenomena and not a result of logic and reasoning. You can make something more interesting by explaining, but not more beautiful.

[@toomanymarys7355]

They aren't trying to be beautiful. They hate beauty and are at war with it.

[@LucasFernandez-fk8se]

@@toomanymarys7355 that’s exactly why I’m going to architecture school. I’m so sick of architects building ugly things and justifying it with floofy nonsense. Unfortunately THATS LITERALLY ALL IT IS. Every project or near every project 90% of us build are UGLY no wonder it’s so hard to create good architecture when they train us to build with arbitrary logic like “I was inspired by the pull and push of the form” rather than just the teachers guiding us towards beauty and away from ugly ness

[@ilikestuff9250]

Funny I like beautiful buildings but living in one doesn't mean much to me. The interior is what matters, the space I actually do stuff in. I'm spending perhaps 10 minutes daily looking at the house or even less. So a cube wouldn't have much of an impact on me. The only thing I'm unhappy with is that stupid staircase. Makes moving anything within the house larger than a bag difficult. Definitely built by someone who couldn't care less about the neighborhood and it's people. Function over form.

[@BandGGaming]

There are ways to make things more beautiful. For one, symmetry. We've been making symmetrical things for thousands of years just because we thought they looked pretty

[@9DeadDingo]

But . I hate old buildings i think they suck Here lies the issue beauty is subjective what you think is beautiful is ugly to other people

[@davidpeterson5186]

The House in Missouri video probably initiated the fitting in with the neighborhood comments. That monolithic chunk of concrete does not fit into the neighborhood nor will it inspire any imitations. The Robey House is a classic of American architecture the other examples not so much.

[@douglasmaddox7808]

I remember something like this in Seaside Fl. There were all these unique but identical houses dictated by very strict building codes. But there was this one that followed the codes to the letter and produced a Modern style house.

[@JBoss5678]

Love how I could tell this was my city by just seeing the neighbors houses

[@Newmachinemusic]

I’d love to see a video about the Chicago 7 architects (beeby, jahn, tigerman etc.) in the ‘70s! I can’t find much information on them but I have a feeling you could do a great job!

[@grantbierlmeier7641]

My neighbourhood was also mostly built in the period 1900 to 1940. We currently see many of the original houses demolished to make way for “architectural” boxes for rich new residents to move in. Socially these houses say a lot to the neighbourhood about who the new residents are - and are not. It is a visual representation of the social tension dividing our neighbourhood. The familiar, middle class families that live in homes that may not be perfect but have stood the test of a century of community. Against the ever more wealthy and exclusive people moving in that have no connection or awareness of the history of this place - people that need a sentence to order a coffee. Of course the future is clear. The old will give way. For those of us that love our old neighbourhoods - the emotional response to these changes is visceral as it puts the conflict in your face - at all times. It’s a complex issue and good architecture should also recognize the social issues inherent in the setting in the same way architecture needs to consider orientation in the physical landscape.

[@SarahRenz59]

Thank you, @Grant Bierlmeier, for touching on this point. The much more expensive dwellings that replace tear-downs create a state of economic apartheid in a neighborhood. It can eventually overtake an entire town; that's what happened to the suburb in which I grew up. From its founding through the 1970s, my hometown had a mix of people: factory workers, shopkeepers, waitresses, cops, executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. Admittedly, it was also very white. Then a major pharmaceutical company built its headquarters nearby. Company executives and highly-paid scientists were drawn to my town for its quaint downtown and excellent schools. As they moved in, the rising property values/taxes and tear-downs of affordable housing stock drove out the working class residents. My hometown is now more racially and religiously diverse, but economically much less so. It's an odd trade-off. Shortly before the pandemic, I had lunch in one of the restaurants in town. Listening to the diners around me talking about their European ski trips and expensive new cars, I felt very out of my element, which was sad for a place I called home for so many years.

[@Modern_Nostalgia]

I live in an area that is around 85% Victorian era homes. Just in the last few years, we're seeing a lot more modern-style and tiny homes popping up. It's actually really cool to see the modern designs in contrast to the old. Modern homes are really fascinating!

[@anthonyiacovetti4294]

I admire the philosophy of the storyteller on fitting in. I grew up in a beautiful suburb of Chicago that underwent a lot of development in my lifetime - some good, some bad. I’ve always admired the independent architecture of Chicago. Now, I live in Columbus where most development is corporate/government designed and feels like we’re living in North Korea because there would be no possible way do design your house different from your neighbor because everyone is in a cheaply built subdivision or a 90 unit apartment complex.

[@anthonyiacovetti4294]

My point is that I think design that occurs freely over time is aesthetically more pleasing than anything planned by any institution attempting to solve a short term problem by creating monotone development in large quantities.

[@garethgriffiths1674]

Fab video! Interesting that you should show Aalto's Säynätsalo town hall (1952) as an example of contextualism/critical regionalism: Aalto hadn't really used fair-faced red brick until his time at MIT and Baker House (1949), which is said to have kick-started his redbrick period of the 50s back home in Finland. So the inspiration came less from Finnish precedent and more from Anglo-American collegiate architecture.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

But not red brick is nordic, exterior wood it is. In fact, everyone praises him, because he "takes the wood out of the house"

[@garethgriffiths1674]

@@cosmanvalentin3467 While wood is indeed the traditional building material in Finland, brick has been in use there since the Middle Ages ,along with natural stone. In fact, by the start of Aalto's career, there was a move away from wooden structures; Aalto used them more for temporary structures (exhibition pavilions), interior finishing but also for housing after WW2, when there was a shortage of building materials such as brick, steel and concrete.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@garethgriffiths1674 in the Middle Ages, brick and stone are used everywhere :))) Can you give an example of a building you are talking about? Indeed, Aalto uses wood in temporary construction, and from there it begins to use wood outdoors. But the use of wood on the outside is not a reaction to the lack of other materials but simply an intentional fact. Aalto's architecture eventually evolved from modern Bauhaus architecture to Nordic architecture. In this evolution he is concerned first with the interior (Viipuri Library 1927) then with the topography (Paimio Sanatorium 1929) then with the exterior (see Aalto's house in Helsinki 1934) where brick, wood and stone define it. Although it is said that its architecture becomes regional with the Viipuri Library (see: Christian Norberg-Schulz. Nightlands: Nordic Building) the statement is vague, because regional architecture really refers to a region and Aalto does not build regionally in the true sense. Alberto Perez Gomez says in The City is not a post-card that: To understand regionalism in the sense that Aalto's architecture is Nordic is fundamentally wrong. In this case, Gaudi's architecture does not belong to Spain, nor does Corbu's to France. Modern architects have personal styles, and they should not be confused with regional architecture (you mentioned Baker House :)) ). For example, in my country, regional architecture refers to the fact that I have a specific architecture in a village, and 50km from that village I have another architecture that has different features. This means that regional architecture is really found in popular architecture, once architecture becomes cult it is no longer regional in the true sense because the participation of the common man in the realization of architecture is no longer realized in a natural sense.

[@garethgriffiths1674]

@@cosmanvalentin3467 Your original claim was that redbrick is not Nordic, which is a strange claim. It was Frampton that chose Aalto's Säynätsalo town hall as an example of critical regionalism. Interestingly, in his video, amongst his photos of Säynätsalo, Stewart adds a redbrick building, perhaps suggesting Finnish brick tradition. I recognised the building, a former army barracks on the Sveaborg fortress off the coast of Helsinki, but the building was actually from the fortress's Russian era. As for Aalto, he gave great thought to the civicness of materials, yet could import these from abroad, as with his use of Carrara marble, and his tiles, arguably he first saw in the middle East, north Africa or Spain.

[@cosmanvalentin3467]

@@garethgriffiths1674 However, I did not understand why my statement about the fact that the brick is not Nordic can be contradicted? As for civicness of materials, we should note this in a precedent of the Säynätsalo region, a precedent that I have not yet found. In fact, Säynätsalo Town Hall is a more personal and less regional architecture (which is why it fits very well in critical regionalism) and cannot be framed in genius loci. That's why I said earlier that once architecture becomes cult, it can no longer operate regionally in a true sense. Because architects have their own style in a global world, they no longer operate inside their city as arkhi + tekton, where a boss helps the local to build his house or the locals help the boss to create a public building. EG regional architecture (genius loci): Trulli Italy / Dogon tribe architecture EG critical regionalism: Aalto / Botta The difference between the two is that the regional architecture has a true specificity, eg the materials provided by the place are actively processed resulting in a local architecture. Critically, regionalism is a pastiche where the materials do not have organicity with the place but are assimilated. The difference between wood and brick is that the popular architecture in Finland is actually made of wood (at least in some regions as far as I know). At Villa Mairea we can see a real case of regionalism in the case of the sauna. It is made of wood and has a grassy roof.

[@dewisri662]

I love all the video you make mr.Stewart..good job..👍👍👍

[@abdullahsy]

I just love the way you put it, as a student sometimes we are afraid of trying new things that won't fit and will be hated by the people. I will keep your words in mind whenever I start a new project! P.S. what's the drawing app you're using on your Ipad?

[@oartchid]

Man I thought I was the only one! I’ve been saying this for so long to my friends and family but they are not as interested in architecture lol. Now that I’m an architect student I’ll make sure to keep this in mind!

[@RoySchl]

I think in that specific case (the cube bungslow) it's not a case of dislike of the different, but dislike of the ugly (to most people at least)

[@hawk00055]

This is clearly a controversial video and I admire your courage for making it. It is one of the reasons I love your channel. Please keep up the good work.

[@Limit19970]

"Just because something is old and repeated a lot doesn't make it impervious to questioning" 👍 could be used to describe a lot of things.

[@thelorax9622]

Thanks Stewart - I like the Ronan house a great deal - it would be interesting to know if the interior is completely modern, or if it has a nod to the style of its neighbours. They chose the brick colour well, as it seems to fit with the surrounding houses and maybe helps head off some objections from traditionalists.

[@illbeback2YT]

Very interesting topic. Based on the reactions so far, it probably needs a follow up video to clearify, or explore, some elements in the debate. Many people do not accept too many changes in a street. But preparing for the future, adapting to other needs, existing buildings will need to be transformed, and the design of new buildings tend to differ from the types we are familiar with. Sooner or later everything we know will be changed, transformed, or replaced. Because we change, all the time.

[@namebrandmason]

Thank you, I see many people on KZbin complaining about "modern architecture" comparing it to the "sensitivity" of old cities. If you look at the streets of those old cities, it's a Georgian building next to a Queen Anne building next to a Beaux Arts building. Everything was new and contemporary at one point in time. There has always been "good" architecture and "bad" architecture, and architects have always had egos, you're just used to some things.

[@toomanymarys7355]

All of these had to observe the same kind building language because of the materials used. Modern houses often look unmoored because modern construction techniques have removed the mass and silly architectural styles have removed sensible elements of water management so that the result doesn't look like it works. And often, it doesn't.

[@grandmasterplank]

Great informative video, and as always, easily digestible, which is much appreciated. One question, what is the app you're using to draw on the ipad? I've been using a few and which are over complicated, this look simple and ideal for my purposes.

[@stewarthicks]

Adobe fresco

[@CarlosEmilioEsq]

I grew up in Ravenswood Manor and that house that Stewart is standing in front of was my favorite house, just a couple of blocks away from my parents' house. We moved out years ago, and I live in another state now. But I visit the old hood every time I come to Chicago. That Gallery House was not there when I was last in the city, and I can't imagine that it fits even contextually within that neighborhood. From afar, it doesn't look like it's very good design.