This week... I WILL BEGIN WRITING

I am back at school and... okay! Let's get down to business! (to defeat... the Huns - hyaaah! No, not really.)

Guided loosely by the last outline (which my professor has encouraged me not to revise so hastily quite yet), I will begin writing this week. My goal is to write at least 20 pages by the first day of classes on Jan 16th. I plan to write parts of the Introduction and the bulk of Chapter 2, as that is what my professor has encouraged me to focus on: defining what LH is and what it does.

Some notes on where I'm headed from here:
- I will no longer focus so narrowly on relating LH's choice to go with Modernism with subconscious anthropocentric tendencies.. Maybe this is for one of the later critique/analysis chapters, but not for Ch. 2 where I introduce the company. The tour opened up other, most salient reasons for why Modernism, according to LH, was a suitable style to build, that it expressed virtues of cleanness and simplicity. LH's people are clearly passionate about the environment, but to them, it is also about pragmatism - and I think first describing that tension, between pragmatism/realism and passion, is more salient than just diving right into anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is just ONE way of looking at LH, and I don't want to limit the entire paper to that.
- I will definitely still write about the history of LH and ground it its background in Case Studies, Post-WWII experiments in prefab, the hope of the times, etc. as well as to explain the Modernist ideals. Now that I've read more, I feel these are very important for understanding the ideology of LH, and just why they are so hopeful and passionate in starting up their company.

My professor said not to worry about changing direction just yet, so I won't, and will see how far I get this week. Stay tuned...

Conversation with a friend

me: before i visited i got the sense that they just build a product and wait for ppl who are already eco-people to come

me: but after i realized its as important to the success to the company as anything that they actively convert

me: after all that's what marketing is, and any company that sells products is gong to use marketing

me: whether thats to convert a preference or convert a belief in whole lifestyles. LH just happens to deal in lifestyles

friend: i see

me: thats kind of the beauty of it

me: in more than one way, LH makes it so that financial sense meshes with eco sense

me: which feels sneaky

friend: or elegant

me: i'm in awe

me: are you?

friend: a little

LivingHomes tour

Today I actually had the chance to visit LivingHomes #1, founder Steve Glenn's house! It went really well. My tour guide Shiron was really helpful and offered me lots of insights to ponder. He was also kind enough to let me take tons of pictures of the tiniest details. (And of course thanks must also go to Steve Glenn for offering his personal living space as a model home.)

My first reaction to the house was, wow, it looks so much more *real* in real life. Admittedly that last sentence sounded a little tautological but I mean it. So much more "believable." Part of me had expected to look just like the pictures that have been so widely posted on the web: pristine, picturesque, so idealized it was untouchable. But this was not so. First of all, today was a rainy day, so there was no luscious golden Santa Monica sun streaming in through the glass walls, like in all the beauty shots. Second of all, it looked surprisingly lived-in. The rugs looked like they'd been stepped on lots by shoed feet, there were a lot of unopened envelopes in a pile near the couch. Mr. Glenn's desk was stacked with paperwork and knicknacks. Closets had shoes and clothes in them. Bathrooms had half-used soap containers. My initial fear that it would feel like a soulless, sterile model and Modernist home quickly evaporated. The comfort-level afforded by this sense of lived-in-ness allowed me to enjoy the space more and imagine how a person might actually call this place "home."

My second main reaction was to the tour guide himself. He was really passionate about LH's mission. After leaving the tour, I got the sense that LH was truly setting out to change the way people built and thought about homes...

Here are some points of interest from the notes I took during the tour:

- Though the tour guide confirmed LH's marriage to the Modernist style in all future designs/architect selections, he also said the designs would be adaptable to different clients. He referred to this system as "constained customizability" - nothing about the structure would be changed, though the client could select different counter top materials, different flooring material (all sustainable harvested or produced selections), and even replace the material of the walls, which are curtain walls (non-structural). In the Santa Monica version, there was of course lots of glass, but he said when adapting for cold climates, it's most likely that the glass will be replaced with something with more insulation capability. So in short, even though the design is the same, differences in local climates will definitely be accounted for as much as possible.

- A corollary to the limited customization is the idea that the house could be easily expanded over time. The tour guide explained that the current building paradigm encourages buyers to buy too big of a house "in case," without knowing that they'll really need that extra space. (Or because they are concerned about property values.) The modular system makes it easy to add on (through LH-supported construction -- all this happens through the company) another room, another floor even.

- The space is very flexible: entire walls can be opened up or closed via sliding wood panels, to section off a private bedroom at night or let in more light during the day. It makes the entire second floor feel very generous, open and friendly; there's no dark cave-like hallway with clearly demarcated private spaces behind closed doors. The entire space also makes full use of natural lighting -- it was a cloudy day but the interior felt flooded with light. Sometimes there was a little TOO much openness, as the bottom floor bathroom was separated from the stairwell by only a translucent textured plexiglass sheet.

- The "constrained custom" essentially means that LH seeks to sell "out of the box" houses, where the architect's role is to delimit the options but not provide a full custom design for every locale. (Quite like the Sears kit homes?)

- The earlier concern I voiced in my blog about prefab requiring more materials than stick built applies only to traditional wood-frame houses, said the tour guide. The LivingHomes models would never have walls in the modules back-to-back either, as the modules don't even back walls (they are just frames). The only additional materials used for the extra needed strength are "more nails and glue."

- Tour guide's answer to why prefab kept failing before, and why it won't fail now: The economy was never quite ready back then. People's perceptions of Modernism and steel as cold and strange aside, "it was simply cheaper not to." The prefabs were still experimental projects and could not take advantage of economies of scale. (But what about the idea that all the airplane factories used during the war could be converted to building houses?) But now "people are more aware" and there are more and more government tax incentives for using solar, etc. However the tour guide felt that we aren't completely there yet; need more help from people, more awareness - so there has to be an educational component. Which moves us to...

- LH hopes its houses will educate people to live better lives. The tour guide believes that a house CAN fulfill this active didactic role, instead of just being a passive receptive for its occupant's ideals. He cites the cleanliness and purity of the Modernist aesthetic in encouraging a more minimalist lifestyle based on necessities rather than the accumulation of clutter and material goods. (I couldn't help noticing though that the house did have 5 sofas, which seems like a lot for a single occupant?) He also believes that the traditional Cape Cod or Tudor style houses are more ornate and heavy in feel, and therefore almost encourage the house becoming a repository of junk in hidden nooks and crannies, accumulating based on whim rather than real function or need. He believes the functionalist attitude of Modernism will encourage "cleaner" living in this respect.

- The tour guide seemed to believe, all in all, that if everybody were to consider living spaces logically, everybody would clearly arrive at a preference for Modernist homes like LH (keyword logically, not emotionally or sentimentally or otherwise...). He believes that there aren't actually that may differences between a traditional Cape Cod style house and this one - all it takes is a "few days of living here" to find out just how similarly amenable and comfortable this space can be. (He is making good sales moves - after all, product experience itself can be seductive, even if you don't intend to buy.) Seems to think lifestyle here is objectively better.

- Why all the luxury in the implementation of LH1? 1) LH believes that the most innovative products tend to rely on the rich first to gain the funding to develop into its full realization (as in space travel industry). There are no economies of scale for any of these ventures at first, but gathering interest alone will cause the price to be more in-reach for the average home buyer. 2) Luxury products make a lot of press and LH wants to get word out first. (To date it's been featured in more than 50 magazines and news publications.. wow) It's easier and more attractive to build a reputation for having great products and then lower the price, than to work your way up if you start out with a reputation for being average. So yes, in a sense, LH wants to effect world change and environmental good through seduction. LH does hope to eventually differentiate the product more to appeal to even the affordable housing sector, to truly reach out to everyone and make an impact on the status quo of how we live. (Big dreams! It's quite exciting.)

- Glass and steel - high embodied energy now, but in the future, energy will be all renewable (one hopes) so using high embodied energy materials is ok.

That's it for now... in short it was a very fruitful tour! Speaking to Shiron allowed me to gain a very different perspective on the company, one that was hopeful and passionate instead of just purely critical. it's refreshing. But at the same time it allowed me to reinforce some ideas about sustainability and modernism, i.e. why its attempt to be the one and only umbrella approach to sustainability might be counterproductive to solving the big problem. Modernistic attitudes can't be the only solution but rather part of a mosaic of solutions working in concert. My tour guide's hope was infectious and after being there, I enthusiastically want LH to succeed and really make a difference in lots of people's lives, educating them about better ways of living, and approaching sustainability from the angle of clearheaded rationality. At the same time, the definition of "better" needs to be contested. Is pure objectivity possible? I don't think it is, and that is one of the central flaws of Modernism.

WHY!?

Why is the story of prefabricated homes always one of high hopes, promising experiments, yet spectacular failures? Stylistic issues aside, why are there no takers?? Is "radical" Modernism really the only reason?

On a related note, why are there no serious answers to this question in any of the 5 books I've read so far??

Relationship between consumerism and technology?

I clearly still need to talk about the role of technology/technocentrism in LH's approach to sustainability, but where to fit that in? The introduction, where I give an all-over introduction and critique to the key characteristics of LH? Is there a better way to integrate it into consumerism so some of my prior research can still be used?

In thinking along these lines, I recalled the close relationship between mass production and consumerism, that one has historically stimulated the other by offering to the public products that are cheap, high-quality, and widely available.

Neil Jackson's "Metal-framed houses of LA" article, part II, talks a lot about Case Study architect Raphael Soriano's interest in prefabrication. Soriano, among others, was interested in bringing houses into the mass-production sphere by using standardized parts and steel frame construction. LH's focus on prefabrication and metal frames clearly pays tribute to this legacy, although they no longer seem to have that revolution-minded industrial zeal of those 50s architects. For LH it is more of a matter of pragmatism - it saves money. There is little talk of reforming how people live, entering upon a new era, etc. (in Arts and Architecture there was plenty of that.) And for LH, there is little talk of mass production, merely streamlining the process for the few who do decide to build. (or is there?)

Could it be that Soriano et. al.'s legacy for LivingHomes has been diluted after decades of lukewarm interest in prefab houses? Or is LH's interest in prefabrication indicative of a small desire to make the sustainable home into a mass-produced commodity? If the latter, then a strong relationship can be built up between technology (via fabrication and construction methods) and consumerism in the analysis of LH... that would be a good question for the tour.

Which, incidentally, is tomorrow!! Yikes!

Modernist homes and Southern CA

Author Neil Jackson writes that the steel-frame architecture of the Modern movement inherently suits the Southern CA landscape:

"Indeed, it could be argued that the Lovell House employed a framing material more suited to the nature of southern California than the omnipresent timber frame, since constructional quality timber is hardly a southern Californian product. The natural terrain of the coastal plain which stretches inland from Santa Monica or Long Beach, is that of the desert: in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and throughout the Anaheim Hills to the south, it is high chaparral. In neither case is it forested like northern California, so single-storey, thick-walled adobe construction had once been the way of building. Thus Neutra's metal-frame house would seem to provide both a seismically acceptable and readily available contemporary response to construction. The metal frame would be designed to withstand the lateral forces so destructive in earthquakes and the use of steel would take advantage of a minimalist, industrial, building technique inherently suited to the
openness of the hot, barren southland." (154)

Whether intentionally or not, LH's choice to build in the Modernist style in the Southern California landscape reflects a subtle sensitivity to place. It is true that high Modernist residential architecture has become solidly embedded in the local culture of Southern CA - from the Lovell house to John Entenza's Case Study houses. Even along the coasts of San Diego where I used to live, one sees everywhere less famous but clearly Modernist residences, geometric in form and clad in glass. It is no longer being just built by the high theorists. You could say that it has become a local vernacular.

One could potentially argue that this move on LH's part addresses a concern in the sustainable building lit for place-appropriateness when building. If a building is to address a regional vernacular without being condemned of frivolous, sentimental pastiche (as it would surely be if building in a historical Spanish colonial or adobe style), then Modernism is surely just as valid a style as any.

EDIT: At the very end of this same article, the author questions Arts and Architecture magazine's attempts to frame Modernist steel-frame houses as a uniquely Californian style. He reminds us that elsewhere and contemporary to the Case Studies, other noted architects such as Philip Johnson and Mies van der Rohe, were conducting their own radical experiments with prefabrication and steel frames. He does however conceded that CA's development of the steel framed house may have arisen organically from the climate, geographical features (steep slopes, crumbly ground), and historical conditions (WWII), as the Neutra and Eames bunch didn't seem to be heavily in touch with the East Coast crowd. He ends on a note that, while LA is now "known" for these radical, celebrity instances of steel frame houses, it is certainly nowhere near being the dominant vernacular: "It is indicative of the inherently conservative attitude of the Los Angeleno that even today, what is perhaps the world's most automobile-orientated society park their eight million metal-framed vehicles every night outside timberframed houses decorated in Spanish, Tudor or, increasingly, Post-Modern styles."

Production vs. consumption

I just had a silly epiphany. I realized suddenly why the architectural literature almost never talks about how architecture is experienced or sold or consumed.

Of course, it's because architects by definition are primarily concerned with the production of buildings, not the consumption of them. Note to self: duh!

The architectural journals and books talk a little sometimes about how a particular built project can have an impact on society via local community building, or city planning, or whatnot, but still it's fairly consistent with the developer/designer/builder perspective. There are few descriptions of what it's like to actually experience, for example, a sustainable building; a few that I've found so far are personal memoirs of very specific events - not very good reference material - or psychological studies about environmental factors and their effects on behavior.

Even if an architect builds a home for himself and lived in it, he would continually be aware of the its supports, massing, form, space, etc, all the elements that went into the designing and planning of the structure. That's because architects, after all, are the producers. And this is also why all the sustainable architecture books are preoccupied with material, energy use, siting, and form, almost to the exclusion of occupant experience.

(This also goes very far to explaining why a lot of the Greatest Hits built works from history all sounded great in theory, when explained by the architect, but the occupant never quite gets it... sigh.)

Was this obvious to anyone else but me?? I feel silly now.