posted 02-27-2002 08:26 PM            

I adore modern architecture, but the semiotic language of the Wyatt house exterior leans more towards cheap apartment complex than post-modern cleverness. Surprisingly, aside from a bit of exposed kitchen plumbing, the interior looks quite ordinary. It seems the glowing house is not as challenging to those living inside as it is to those who are forced to look at it from across the street. And beyond the aesthetics of the exterior, what offends even more is the house’s colossal size, which rivals the worst of the zero-lot-line McMansions.

Loving a neighborhood should include being sensitive to the character that makes the neighborhood lovable and to the neighbors who have invested in their homes and community. Building with the attitude that you are the arbiters of the new style, without regard to the scale and design of the existing structures, does not bring "new life and vitality", it is simply selfish and egotistical. And a spread in Metropolitan Home or dwell does not justify the Wyatt's hubris at the expense of the residents of an established community. By repeatedly pursuing magazine coverage, the Wyatts appear to relish the exposure the controversy surrounding their houses has brought them, making their distress at all the attention come across as somewhat disingenuous.

While they may not have broken any laws, the Wyatts are not particularly nice neighbors, and the residents of the Lakeside community have my sympathy. And Ms. Arieff should be ashamed for so aggressively manipulating the story to belittle those people who made their neighborhood so lovable and intimate that the Wyatts dreamt of moving there. That is not only bad reportage, but bad karma as well. Save your venom to defend better architecture and more compassionate people.

(To dispel any concerns that my views may suffer from a "lack of familiarity with contemporary design that often generates a defensive response": BFA-Studio Art/Design, Stanford University '82. Graphic Design, Rhode Island School of Design '88.)

posted 02-28-2002 07:04 AM               

There is one point that I do not beileve stands well though - why would the Wyatts wish to create a house like this in a neighborhood like this. I must say that conformity is not the only appropriate response to context. I find stylistic contextualism shallow, patronizing, and even insulting. I find a lot of merit in seeking out the means of the times in building - build with what is expedient and at hand. This speaks to modern materials and process vs traditional materials and often more labor intensive process. There are other aspects of a neighborhood beyond the architetural context too. There is perhaps the walkability, the schools, convenience of walking to a store vs driving everywhere, there could be hundreds of other reasons why this neighborhood was right which don't hinge on the character of the other houses. I think it is off base to suggest they should have built this in a new subdivision.

Given all that has been well said about the neighbors point of view, it comes down again to aesthetic judgment. The size is a sticking point - either they built within zoning limits, or requested a variance which gave the neighbors opportunity to protest and render influence. That has past. If the neighbors were interviewed for these articles and said we really hate the house for these reasons, end of story, I would feel sorry for them, and have sympathy, and in fact I do for the ones who feel that way and have not joined this legal action. But the ones who have sued have taken the low road to exert their will over the Wyatts in a domain where they were within their rights. I do not have sympathy for them, and I do not believe they have acted honorably what so ever.

posted 02-28-2002 10:33 AM               

No one "owns" the neighborhood that this house is in except the city of Louisville which all involved are citizens of (I believe). Furthermore cities have always thrived on diversity - it is in fact what their driving force. The fact that there are differences in people, thinking, and architecture is what keeps places like Louisville vital. While some have suggested that the Wyatts should have built their house in a new sub-division, I think it is perhaps just the opposite. That the neighbors who don't want anything to change ever in their neighborhood might want to consider moving to a new subdivision. One where there is a gate that none who disagree with their rules can pass through.

Also, it is completely reasonable to assume that the Wyatts wanted to bring a new piece of architecture (and hence, a new way of looking at the world and a new way of living) to their new neighborhood and still be good neighbors.

Questioning tradition and being nice people are not mutually exclusive. I believe the Wyatts are perfectly in the bounds of respectability. It is not as though they came into the neighborhood and turned their property into a drug den and prostitute haven, but you might think that judging from the lawsuit and some responses to the article...

posted 02-28-2002 01:14 PM            

1. This is not an issue of “aesthetics” or the result of a "lack of familiarity with contemporary design that often generates a defensive response." The neighbors’ efforts to enforce the existing deed restrictions are based on their shared conviction that the Wyatts’ choices of exterior materials - galvanized metal, cementitious shingles and polycarbonate - are substandard, will not stand the test of time and the elements, and will deteriorate much more quickly than brick, brick veneer, stone or stucco. This belief has been reinforced by the neighbors’ extensive research into the properties and performance of these materials in the field as well as their first-hand knowledge that these materials were not installed per the manufacturers’ requirements and specifications.

2. Far from being “ignored,” the Lakeside deed restriction requirement that homes be constructed of “brick, brick veneer, stone or stucco” has been so extensively complied with through the years that of the 190 homes that make up the Lakeside subdivision, 96.3% are constructed of brick, brick veneer, stone or stucco. Only seven homes (less than 3.7%) are not in compliance. Of those, five were built decades before any of the neighbor/plaintiffs were even born, and the last two were built fifteen years before any but two had moved into the neighborhood.

3. Coleman Coker’s design for the Wyatt house called for the roofline to project several feet past the Wyatts’ property line into a utility easement… inches away from an electrical transformer. In November of 1999, the Wyatts wrote to the neighbors whose properties adjoined the easement asking them to sign off on a request for a variance. When the neighbors unanimously refused, the city of Louisville required that the Wyatts reposition the house on the lot and pull the roofline back. These were NOT “concessions” to the neighbors, but legal necessities resulting from unfounded presumptions and poor design. The original design called for unpainted silver gray galvanized metal, clear polygal and gray cementitious shingles. The Wyatts changed the metal to light green, the polygal to opaque and the shingles to terra cotta in an attempt to avoid complying with the pre-existing deed restrictions.

posted 03-01-2002 06:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexamaya:
As a devoted and enthusiastic fan of dwell, I am stunned and saddened by the perspective of the article about the Wyatt house (“Slugging it out in Louisville”, April 2002). It is not at all clear why the Wyatts "loved this neighborhood", since they have such disdain for the neighbors and their "German cave-style" architecture. It seems less a case of the neighbors eschewing "the shock of the new" and perhaps more a case of a couple who have, more than once, pissed off the neighbors and then scoffed at them for their lack of sophistication. (And we know they meant to go there from the conspiratorial giddiness of Mrs. Wyatt’s now-famous quote, "I don't have the heart to tell them about the corrugated metal.") It is beyond comprehension why the Wyatts would want to raise their children in a place where they have upset their neighbors to the point of litigation - all over their need to bring what they percieve as innovative achitecture to Louisville.

I adore modern architecture, but the semiotic language of the Wyatt house exterior leans more towards cheap apartment complex than post-modern cleverness. Surprisingly, aside from a bit of exposed kitchen plumbing, the interior looks quite ordinary. It seems the glowing house is not as challenging to those living inside as it is to those who are forced to look at it from across the street. And beyond the aesthetics of the exterior, what offends even more is the house’s colossal size, which rivals the worst of the zero-lot-line McMansions.

Loving a neighborhood should include being sensitive to the character that makes the neighborhood lovable and to the neighbors who have invested in their homes and community. Building with the attitude that you are the arbiters of the new style, without regard to the scale and design of the existing structures, does not bring "new life and vitality", it is simply selfish and egotistical. And a spread in Metropolitan Home or dwell does not justify the Wyatt's hubris at the expense of the residents of an established community. By repeatedly pursuing magazine coverage, the Wyatts appear to relish the exposure the controversy surrounding their houses has brought them, making their distress at all the attention come across as somewhat disingenuous.

While they may not have broken any laws, the Wyatts are not particularly nice neighbors, and the residents of the Lakeside community have my sympathy. And Ms. Arieff should be ashamed for so aggressively manipulating the story to belittle those people who made their neighborhood so lovable and intimate that the Wyatts dreamt of moving there. That is not only bad reportage, but bad karma as well. Save your venom to defend better architecture and more compassionate people.

(To dispel any concerns that my views may suffer from a "lack of familiarity with contemporary design that often generates a defensive response": BFA-Studio Art/Design, Stanford University '82. Graphic Design, Rhode Island School of Design '88.)

[This message has been edited by alexamaya (edited 02-28-2002).]

---

posted 03-01-2002 10:00 AM               

As far as the performance of the deed restrictions, I would be curious to know what the nature of the small percentage of violations were? Did any of those warrent legal action? Were any of them in a contemporary style, or just injudicious use of vinyl siding?

Observer described a concern for the longevity of the materials used in the Wyatts house, and a question of whether they were installed in keeping with the manufacturers requirements. The motivation is the well being of the Wyatts? The property values in the neighborhood if the Wyatts house deteriorates?

posted 03-01-2002 12:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marilyn Belak:
You have expressed the problem with this whole thing very well - I totally agree with you. The Wyatts have had an "up yours" attitude since the beginning.

---

posted 03-01-2002 01:11 PM            

The Wyatts have a right to be obnoxious, provided they stay within the bounds of the law. Their house may be too big (in someone else's opinion), their house may not be "sturdy" enough, their house may not fit the character of the neighborhood. Should they have taken these opinions into account (and that's all they are, opinions of other people)? Maybe. But they are not under obligation to.

Now, if aspects of their house cross property lines (light glowing out from inside into a person's bedroom), then maybe they have to do something about it. That could be changing design, or providing a landscape screen to block the light. Light pollution and noise pollution issues can be very disruptive.

posted 03-01-2002 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:
I'm sorry but this notion that the Wyatts somehow had it in for the neighbors before groundbreaking began is patently ridiculous. It just doesn't stand to reason. That the Wyatts were in conflict with their neighbors after being served with legal papers is understandable and not in dispute here. But this recurring suggestion that this was some premeditated attempt on the part of the Wyatts is just silly.

---

Ms. Arieff, your "I must defend the Wyatts at any cost" position is costing you what little journalistic credibility you had left after your most recent attempt to canonize the Wyatts in print. The Wyatts' contempt and disregard for their future neighbors prior to any litigation is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD not only in the form of several newspaper articles and meetings, but most ironically in your original DWELL December 2000 article in which you quote Mrs. Wyatt as saying “I don’t have the heart to tell the neighbors about the corrugated metal.” You even promised to “keep you posted about the neighbors.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming you must have interviewed the Wyatts at least a couple of months before the December ‘00 issue hit the stands in October ‘00, LONG before any litigation was pursued by the neighbors. In fact, the Wyatts brought that 12/00 issue of DWELL to the very FIRST meeting with the neighbors and the attorneys.

posted 03-01-2002 02:04 PM               

I believe all anyone, including Ms. Arieff, is arguing against is your assertion that "The Wyatts' [had/have] contempt and disregard for their future neighbors."

The Wyatts simply made a decision - and a very important life decision at that - to build a home!!! In my book, that is pretty huge!!! Now, building a home that expresses their views and allows them to live a life the way they see fit may not seem important to you, but to the Wyatts it was an incredibly pivotal decision (in more ways than one obviously). It not only expresses them personally but professionally.

You (and other neighbors) may not like the Wyatts choice of expression and perhaps they did not take the best route in accomplishing their dream but I have to ask myself, if and when I build a house that costs me thousands and thousands of dollars, what am I going to do? Build something that suits me and my family or allow myself to be bullied into conforming to some strange mix of others wishes and desires?

posted 03-01-2002 03:11 PM               

For this story, I interviewed many of the Wyatts' neighbors, several local architects, urban planners, professors of architecture and/or urban design, lawyers for both sides, and several other members of the community including people who had hired architects to build them homes in Louisville. Most people I spoke with were firmly against the lawsuit and defended the Wyatts right to build. That information may not be what you want to hear but that is what I experienced in Louisville. It has also been what we've experienced since the publication of this article vis-a-vis numerous letters, emails, phone calls and newspaper articles written on this piece. And I believe that will end up being the outcome of this unfortunate dispute.

The purpose of this discussion is not to sling mud or to throw stones but to reasonably and thoughtfully discuss the many very interesting issues surrounding the story--ranging from innovation and free speech to codes and restrictions. Perhaps we can get back on track...

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:
Ms. Arieff, your "I must defend the Wyatts at any cost" position is costing you what little journalistic credibility you had left after your most recent attempt to canonize the Wyatts in print. The Wyatts' contempt and disregard for their future neighbors prior to any litigation is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD not only in the form of several newspaper articles and meetings, but most ironically in your original DWELL December 2000 article in which you quote Mrs. Wyatt as saying “I don’t have the heart to tell the neighbors about the corrugated metal.” You even promised to “keep you posted about the neighbors.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming you must have interviewed the Wyatts at least a couple of months before the December ‘00 issue hit the stands in October ‘00, LONG before any litigation was pursued by the neighbors. In fact, the Wyatts brought that 12/00 issue of DWELL to the very FIRST meeting with the neighbors and the attorneys.

If you are going to rely solely on the Wyatts for your facts, this discussion is going to be VERY entertaining.

---

posted 03-01-2002 06:54 PM            

For example ( and what I find most interesting ) are the comments about how the roofline was designed to cross property lines. I'm an art student, not an architect; however, that seems like a serious flaw to me. It certainly sheds a new light on the information presented in the article. And, from what I have heard about Coleman Coker, he is a well respected architect. Why has he backed away from the project? I don't understand why he doesn't defend his work even to supporters at dwell.

Another thought I'd like to share is -- is it really awful for the neighbors to want the house to look like it will last. That seems to be their issue. Perhaps they are not making a statement about modern architecture as much as they are concerned for the longevity of their neighborhood. So many urban neighborhoods are abandoned when they deteriorate. In an older neighborhood of stone and brick houses, the houses last for generations. The Wyatt's house is shiny and new now but what about 30 years from now? I can understand why they would try to make the Wyatts comply.

posted 03-01-2002 07:40 PM               

You can characterize my comments about the neighbors as character assasination if you wish, but I then I would tend to see Observer's evaluation of Allison in the same light! When I make such statements I qualify them as "my opinion" or by saying "I think", such as "I do not believe they have acted honorably what so ever". I contrast this to unqualified statements such as " is costing you what little journalistic credibility you had left " which while obviously opinion are written in context to appear as fact. Fair enough to simply say we all have our opinions about the actions of the partys involved.

It has been suggested that because the neighbors who have brought this suit did not live there, or were not even born when other violations of the deed were made, that somehow their actions are justified. Is it suggested that they would have taken action against these other property owners if they had been there? Or that even though no action was taken in support of the deed restrictions for many years that this new generation of homeowners is justified to take up this cause now? If they liked the house and it did not offend them, would they have taken action simply because it was not within the deed restrictions? The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like a convenient point of leverage. Tell me more - I want you to change my mind. Speak in terms of the neighbor's motivations.

I feel like I could go on and on, deconstructing the writings, on both sides. This is what sounds like the essence of both sides:
• The Wyatts have made an agressive affront to their neighbors in the building of their house and the neighbors have no recourse left but legal action to protect their rights.
• The Wyatts have built a personal vision which contrasts sharply with the status quo, the neighbors rejecting their vision attempt through legal means to make changes that overide the Wyatts rights.

posted 03-04-2002 10:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew:
While I respect the neighbors complaints and acknowledge that some mistakes were made in the planning and building of the Wyatt's house, what really gets me about the neighbors response (meaning the lawsuit) to the house and many of these posts is the sense of "ownership" that is implied. Having lived in a neighborhood for years does not give one the right to (try and) dictate how others live
and express themselves.

---

Just down the street from my father is a man who keeps a sign in front yard reading "Zoning is Robbery". You find a lot of people who dislike building codes, zoning laws, etc out the rural areas of Indiana where I am from. Yet as a matter of legality, there are all sorts of restrictions that can be put on "your" property. A man's home is not his castle, particularly in an urban area where you might face extremely restrictive zoning, building codes, mandatory design reviews, or have to deal with homeowner's associations, etc.

A lot of these are based on a recognition that what I do with my property affects my neighbors. If my house is unsafe and catches on fire, it jeopardizes my neighbor. If I have a substandard septic system, or build a factory in a residential neighborhood, I reduce the value of my neighbors property. We've chosen as a society to regulate these negative externalities rather than turning everything into a tort case.

I'm surprised (and mildly amused) to see modernist urbanites in the same camp as arch-conservative rural types. But I have sympathy for your opinion and share it to a great deal. I think the pendulum has swung much too far in giving neighbors veto power over things they don't like. I'd rather see basic building codes and zoning, with no "design review" or other deed restrictions like what the Wyatt's are going through. We should all be just a little bit more tolerant of our neighbors' eccentricities.

On the other hand, just because I think that someone ought to have the right to do something doesn't mean that they should. There are a number of very separate questions.

1. Do/should the Wyatt's have a _legal_ right to build their home as it is?

2. Do/should the Wyatt's have a moral/ethical right to build their home as it is?

3. Is it advisable as a practical matter to build such a home?

I think we can all agree that there are many things that are legal but which are wrong or not very smart. We have a right to free speech, but I think most of us would agree there are a lot of reprehensible things people can use that right to say. Just because we support their legal right to say something, doesn't mean we hold them up to be heros when they use that right to say something obnoxious. The ACLU treads this line every day.

I think the lawsuit should be tossed. As a matter of general principle, I don't believe that one generation has the right to bind another. A bunch of guys 100 years ago shouldn't be able to tell us how to live our lives today. The Wyatt's should be allowed to have their home. But as a practical matter, was it a wise decision on their part? Probably they should have done some things differently. And I think if we're going to give the Wyatt's their right to express themselves, we certainly ought to give the neighbors their right as well. They are certainly free to repudiate the Wyatt's design, ostracize the Wyatt's, and generally make their own opinion known - including in court if they think they have a case.

posted 03-06-2002 09:44 AM               

quote:

---

On Feb. 13, I wrote:
... I have not seen Word One in the local media about this.

---

I am now informed that the Gannett-owned Courier-Journal did in fact have two reports on this controversy - one on the second page of the Metro Section, another as a news brief in a Neighborhoods insert. Although this hardly constitutes heavy coverage (I'm told that a third article is in the works), I erred in reporting that the paper had reported nothing, and would like to correct the record.

I have also read the article now, and would generally concur in Arenn's comments:
While the neighbors haven't distinguished themselves in this fight, and many of them would probably be happier in a suburban tract mansion than a city neighborhood, the Wyatts appear to have hardly been sensitive to the neighborhood or its historic character.

posted 03-06-2002 04:51 PM               

I spent a lot of time in Louisville researching this story and asking people their opinions about the controversy. My observations and comments are gleaned from interviews and legal documents but also from communicating with people in Louisville as well as with a broad and diverse community of people in the fields of architecture, design, urban planning, and the like throughout the country--not the result of "cynical reporters joking privately." The number of resounding letters of support for the Wyatts that our publication has received from readers across the country bears this out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rgarr:
I am now informed that the Gannett-owned Courier-Journal did in fact have two reports on this controversy - one on the second page of the Metro Section, another as a news brief in a Neighborhoods insert. Although this hardly constitutes heavy coverage (I'm told that a third article is in the works), I erred in reporting that the paper had reported nothing, and would like to correct the record.

I have also read the article now, and would generally concur in [b]Arenn's comments:
While the neighbors haven't distinguished themselves in this fight, and many of them would probably be happier in a suburban tract mansion than a city neighborhood, the Wyatts appear to have hardly been sensitive to the neighborhood or its historic character.

As a longtime journalist, I'm also compelled to note that the reporting in the Dwell story was poor, with numerous factual errors and a tendency toward unnecessarily snide sniping at the neighbors. What's funny among cynical reporters joking privately is often less appropriate in cold print.[/B]

---

posted 03-07-2002 06:33 PM            

In the end the legal jargon of losing sleep, missed promotions and mental distress is simply “smoke and mirrors” to justify yet another law suit in an already overcrowded legal system. Community members - just simply cut to the chase. This discussion, the law suit and your frustration is simply about RESALE VALUE. You are not looking for a neighbor you are looking for an investment partner – strapped to the heels of what is and has been a money making machine – buy in and watch the value appreciate. It is a very simple equation and I cannot say that I completely disagree with your ideals but I do disagree with the attitude that THIS house will bring down the neighborhood. How does the group know that over time this house will have any impact on the longevity of the neighborhood? The Wyatt’s home is simply a piece of a much bigger puzzle. People attempt to buy into a community culture not a vanity fair.

For those of you who have not been to Louisville, there is a wonderful street called Bardstown Road. Bardstown is full of tattoo parlors, large residences, shaved ice stands, music shops, entertainment, consignment shopping, fine dining, etc. – you get the picture. It is, simply put, eclectic chaos. Everyone in the city loves this area of town and in turn you can find a cross section of society strolling the street on any given night. However, this diversity evidently has its place. I wonder why we can handle and enjoy this type of haphazard event in parts of our cities but ignore that fact that diversity may reside as our neighbor. I can come to no conclusion other than by becoming urban tourist we are able to engage in diversity but withdrawal at the moment that it becomes uncomfortable. By keeping the diversity at arms length (“over on Bardstown”) we can access the wild and live in the calm. In turn, no true chances are taken and our fears are subsided by the safety in numbers.

posted 03-17-2002 09:59 AM            

responses and reactions will yeild supporting statements....

posted 03-17-2002 08:16 PM            

As for Dwell's writer, she apparently could not resist throwing in a few completely gratutious innuendos that the neighborhood is racist. (The Wyatt's are white). There ought to be a Godwin's Law for magazine articles.

oh gosh, so right on here....

all things cute and liberal in sanfran!....whatever goes, right? but it's a cool juxtaposition!

....whatever.

this is what's miffed me in the past about dwell. way too boutique and "art directed".

posted 03-18-2002 08:58 AM            

I do not think that the neighborhood would consider itself undiversified. It is 'us' outsiders who like to think that the lack of diversity has caused this problem. The reality is that it is human nature to be afraid of difference.

The Wyatt's are a part of your community. This is FACT. Embrace the challenges and let freedom and "wackyness" reign.

posted 03-18-2002 11:21 AM               

Topic: Just some thoughts...
mgbulger
Junior Member
posted 03-01-2002 06:44 PM

I, for one, welcome the comments of "Lakeside Observer" in this forum. This person has provided alot of valuable information about this situation that hasn't been mentioned before.

For example ( and what I find most interesting ) are the comments about how the roofline was designed to cross property lines. I'm an art student, not an architect; however, that seems like a serious flaw to me. From what I have heard about Coleman Coker, he is a well respected professional. Why has he backed away from the project? I don't understand why he doesn't defend his work even to supporters at dwell.

Another thought I'd like to share is -- is it really awful for the neighbors to want the house to look like it will last. In an older neighborhood, the houses last for generations. The Wyatt's house is shiny and new now but what about 30 years from now? I can understand why they would try to make the Wyatts comply.

posted 03-18-2002 11:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jettison:

But what I find most disturbing about this story is the attitude that the Wyatt's and Dwell have taken towards the people who live in the neighborhood. I think it's pretty clear that even before starting work on the house, the Wyatt's had already judged their neighbors and found them wanting. Like many other superior forms of life, the Wyatts have decided to bring a little "civilization" to a group of people they feel are uncultured rubes.

---

would you spend thousands of dollars to learn a lesson to a bunch of people you don't know or care about?

quote:

---

They didn't just come into the neighborhood looking to be accepted for who they were. They came in actively looking to change the neighborhood and the people in it to be something they think is "better".

---

I don't think the Wyatts ever wanted to "change" people. They just wanted to build their dream house.

quote:

---

As for Dwell's writer, she apparently could not resist throwing in a few completely gratutious innuendos that the neighborhood is racist. (The Wyatt's are white). There ought to be a Godwin's Law for magazine articles.

---

The comment about the neighborhood's 80 year old ban on african americans was to point out that in their attach of the Wyatts the neighbors have unearthed a charter (deed restrictions) from another era --which no longer makes sense both socially and architecturally.

quote:

---

oh gosh, so right on here....

all things cute and liberal in sanfran!....whatever goes, right? but it's a cool juxtaposition!

....whatever.

---

Its pretty insulting that you think our whole basis of architectural opinion is based on your perception of San Francisco being cute and liberal. Now it looks as though you are employing "completely gratutious innuendo."

quote:

---

this is what's miffed me in the past about dwell. way too boutique and "art directed".

---

I suppose bland and layed out by the staff of Kinko's would be much more to your liking?

quote:

---

the wyatt's and dwell have completely missed the point of good architecture. spaces that synergistically fit into a site. spaces that complement a neighborhood, not fight it.

---

posted 03-18-2002 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sam@dwellmag:
would you spend thousands of dollars to learn a lesson to a bunch of people you don't know or care about?

Its pretty insulting that you think our whole basis of architectural opinion is based on your perception of San Francisco being cute and liberal. Now it looks as though you are employing "completely gratutious innuendo."

I suppose bland and layed out by the staff of Kinko's would be much more to your liking?

And that's the entire point of good architecture? If you had cared to read the article without blinders on you could have seen that the writer did in fact point out that the house is too large for the site --that it does have flaws. We are not preaching from some lofty place on high... merely reporting an unfortunate story.

---

posted 03-18-2002 05:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fallingwater:
Whoa! Calm down, Sam. Go stabilize your blood sugar with a healthy lunch so you can translate your first statement quoted above. I think you and Allison are kind of defensive considering everybody you've heard from agrees with her.

---

posted 03-18-2002 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sam@dwellmag:
Such are the woes of reading the message board upon arriving at work after a week's vacation...

---

yep.

for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

posted 03-18-2002 06:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jettison:
yep.
for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

---

posted 03-18-2002 06:36 PM            

yep.

for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Its pretty insulting that you think our whole basis of architectural opinion is based on your perception of San Francisco being cute and liberal. Now it looks as though you are employing "completely gratutious innuendo."

no hissy fits.

I suppose bland and layed out by the staff of Kinko's would be much more to your liking?

well, it's just so obvious. like, i need to see a serif font or something. or maybe a flourish. how bout a ______ing doric column?...

e.g., the wyatt's grotto...dude, they're mired in brand (uh, the designer kind). is there anything from walmart in their place?

it's just so self-congratulatory.

now, if they had plastic deer on the lawn, then, that would really irk the neighbors.....think about "that" juxtaposition. an ultra-contempo, high design space with _____ing REINDEER on the lawn! that would actually show a great sense of humour. they may even have to make a trip to walmart! the horror!

like, you should showcase a bag-lady's space sometime. i bet she does a better job with the layout.

And that's the entire point of good architecture? If you had cared to read the article without blinders

chill.

on you could have seen that the writer did in fact point out that the house is too large for the site --that it does have flaws. We are not preaching from some lofty place on high... merely reporting an unfortunate story.

with unfortunate bias.

all things cool and bitchin' at dwell...right?

i get it.

p.s. i'd like to see more views of the lake, ocean, mountainside, cityscape, neighborhood, whatever... from the in-exterior spaces you showcase, so we can see how well the structures are integrated into the overall site. i mean, if i see another eames plywood chair in the....

p.s.s. don't get me wrong. you have a cute magazine- i enjoy reading sometimes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 03-18-2002 07:22 PM               

But their home ,their choice. Just as long as we don't get a late storm that would turn the things into little pink projectiles aiming at my porch.

posted 03-18-2002 08:29 PM            

I TOLD you this was going to be entertaining...

posted 03-19-2002 01:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:

Personally, I would prefer plastic reindeer over the polygal - they weather better and reflect a little warmth instead of just sunlight.

I TOLD you this was going to be entertaining...

look, it's a cool ass house. just air-lift the thing to a lake lot. no, seriously, if the house glows in the dark, think of the synergy created when a full moon reflects light off the water. the glowing house with sparkling water.

how cool is that?

need an architect?

just kidding.

[This message has been edited by LakesideObserver (edited 03-19-2002).]

---

posted 03-19-2002 02:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:
If this were indeed true, at least one of the posts on this board inquiring about Ms. Arieff's "interviews with many of the neighbors" would actually have been answered by now. My conclusion? For every action (here), there is an equal and opposite INACTION.
Interesting...

---

posted 03-19-2002 03:04 PM               

re: #1 The materials used in the Wyatts' house are not substandard. They were used appropriately. These materials are widely used in residential architecture throughout the world. They are different from what the neighbors are used to. That does not make them illegal or subject to early decomposition.

re: #2 Several people have done surveys of the houses in the neighborhood and have reached different conclusions as to the adherence to deed restrictions. One example, houses made of stone brick or stucoo which have vinyl siding added a later date apparently fit within the restrictions for the claimants but is not in line with the deed restrictions as written.

re: #3 The Wyatts used the terra cotta tile in an attempt to appease the neighbors' desire for brick. It was an unfortunate aesthetic choice on their part but one I believe that was somewhat forced on them given the pressure from the neighbors.
Since you claim to know, what is the "true motive" of the Wyatts? I'm dying to hear.

posted 03-19-2002 03:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jettison:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jettison:
[B]

yep.

for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Its pretty insulting that you think our whole basis of architectural opinion is based on your perception of San Francisco being cute and liberal. Now it looks as though you are employing "completely gratutious innuendo."

no hissy fits.

I suppose bland and layed out by the staff of Kinko's would be much more to your liking?

well, it's just so obvious. like, i need to see a serif font or something. or maybe a flourish. how bout a ______ing doric column?...

e.g., the wyatt's grotto...dude, they're mired in brand (uh, the designer kind). is there anything from walmart in their place?

it's just so self-congratulatory.

now, if they had plastic deer on the lawn, then, that would really irk the neighbors.....think about "that" juxtaposition. an ultra-contempo, high design space with _____ing REINDEER on the lawn! that would actually show a great sense of humour. they may even have to make a trip to walmart! the horror!

like, you should showcase a bag-lady's space sometime. i bet she does a better job with the layout.

And that's the entire point of good architecture? If you had cared to read the article without blinders

chill.

on you could have seen that the writer did in fact point out that the house is too large for the site --that it does have flaws. We are not preaching from some lofty place on high... merely reporting an unfortunate story.

with unfortunate bias.

all things cool and bitchin' at dwell...right?

i get it.

p.s. i'd like to see more views of the lake, ocean, mountainside, cityscape, neighborhood, whatever... from the in-exterior spaces you showcase, so we can see how well the structures are integrated into the overall site. i mean, if i see another eames plywood chair in the....

p.s.s. don't get me wrong. you have a cute magazine- i enjoy reading sometimes.

---

You're repeated use of "_________ing" and phrases like "cool and bitchin" seems counter productive. If you'd like to make a point, please make it.
I appreciate your comments re: affordable home products and contextualization of houses. We do our best to incorporate both into the magazine. The Wyatts, incidentally, have plenty of stuff from stores like Target and Walmart. With the money they've spent fighting this lawsuit, they won't be buying any designer anything for years.

posted 03-21-2002 12:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:
You're repeated use of "_________ing" and phrases like "cool and bitchin" seems counter productive. If you'd like to make a point, please make it.
I appreciate your comments re: affordable home products and contextualization of houses. We do our best to incorporate both into the magazine. The Wyatts, incidentally, have plenty of stuff from stores like Target and Walmart. With the money they've spent fighting this lawsuit, they won't be buying any designer anything for years.

oh, come on. you laughed. i know you did.

jettison.

p.s. have you thought of a new/young designer's section in your rag? expose the designer (furniture, graphic, industrial, architect, whatever), showcase a singular piece, then point the end-user to your site for the full body of his/her work...

[This message has been edited by allison@dwell (edited 03-19-2002).]

---