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.