posted 03-25-2002 10:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:
Factual errors? Not that we're aware of. The Chicago Tribune gave coverage to the Wyatt story on Feb. 24th. That paper found no fault with my reporting.
***
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.
***
I spent nearly a week in Louisville where I visited everything from the Kentucky Derby Museum to a cocktail event/lecture presentation of the Louisville graphic design community. I spoke with several people who live nearby or at least in the area including Michael Barry, Barbara Banta, John Gilderbloom, and John Neuschwander. I also spoke at length with Brenda Burchett who refused to be quoted "on the record" in the story.
***
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.

---

I believe Ms. Arieff’s fan at the Chicago Tribune was far too busy giggling at the “almost comic” look at what is actually a serious legal issue and breathlessly quoting Ms. Arieff’s snotty little schoolgirl put-downs of the neighbors and their attorney to critique it for factual errors. But even more remarkable than the errors in fact - “pine” baseball bats, interrogatories vs. “depositions,” the timeline of the litigation, Ms. Burchett as the Rasputin of Ravinia Avenue, etc. - is the OMISSION of the majority of the facts about the conflict and the lawsuit altogether.

It is my conclusion that Ms. Arieff came to Louisville on a crusade to “spread the gospel” for the Wyatts by vilifying the neighbors and discrediting the lawsuit. Any facts, comments or opinions that did not support these goals were avoided and/or ignored. Why else are there NO quotes from the “many neighbors, local architects or professors of architecture” she says she “interviewed?” Sorry, merely living “at least in the area” and being friends of the Wyatts does NOT qualify Ms. Banta, Mr. Barry, Mr. Neuschwander or even the pretentious Professor Gilderbloom as “neighbors.”

Why are there no pictures of the “numerous” violations referred to repeatedly in the article? Why bother to include a large photo of some of the offending neighbors, only to wuss out and print it uncaptioned? And, the most intriguing question - given that DWELL is supposed to be about architecture - why has DWELL allowed Coleman Coker to just walk away from his act of architectural malpractice?

It must REALLY piss off Ms. Arieff that the neighbors used her quotes from the Wyatts against them and that the Wyatts have repeatedly DENIED making ANY of the comments attributed to them in DWELL. That would explain why she devoted so much ink to defending the quotes, and why she went out of her way - and out of the plastic house and across the street - to seek out and speak “at length with” Ms. Burchett (who had respectfully declined to be interviewed, just like Mr. Coker), then ridicule her in print as the “talkative” driving force behind the lawsuit and liken her to the “nosy neighbor from Bewitched.” Paybacks are hell at DWELL.

In my opinion, Ms. Arieff has aligned herself with the Wyatts to the point of zealotry. Of what benefit to the article was it to attend a “graphic designer cocktail event,” apart from being one more Wyatt-choreographed opportunity for Ms. Arieff to schmooze with uninvolved Wyatt “supporters?” And her whining on the Wyatts’ behalf about any financial hardships caused by the lawsuit is downright laughable. Check the DWELL photos of the Wyatts’ 4,500 square foot, $350,000 polygal palace for the new automobile in the carport, purchased AFTER the lawsuit was filed but - coincidentally - just in time for the photo shoot.

posted 03-25-2002 01:23 PM            

Comments have been made here about who is “right” and “good” and who is “wrong” and “bad” in this conflict, and I have NEVER been deluded enough to think that I could change any DWELL poster’s opinion about the Wyatt house or the neighbors. My intent was merely to respond to Ms. Arieff’s “article” with what I know to be the facts and with my own opinions the same way everyone else has. Posters much more eloquent than myself have expressed their feelings and opinions about this situation, and I have enjoyed reading them enough to endure the rantings of posters who would have supported the Wyatts even if their house had been built out of duct tape and lime jello.

posted 03-25-2002 03:07 PM               

- Because Louisville is a city and cities need diversity of all kinds, including architectural diversity, to thrive

- Because this is the Wyatts property and I believe they have the right to build what they want within the boundries of the law

- Because a city does not belong to one group of neighbors...it belongs to the whole city and the Wyatts and others who may or may not live in the neighborhood are part of that city

- Because I believe that new ideas are always met with resistance and I believe that new/challenging ideas are for the most part good for society as a whole whether or not I (or you) like them...

There is an interesting similar case going on here in San Francisco right now involving our Fine Arts Museum (the de Young). It was damaged in the '89 earthquake and now is scheduled to (finally) be rebuilt after years of political wrangling.

The Pritzker Prize winning firm of Herzog/De Meuron was hired to design the structure which they quite handily did. The design (finally) was approved by the city council who represent the whole city and after years and years, the building was finally scheduled to take shape.

However, a group of "concerned" neighbors has now pressed charges alleging that the design will blight Golden Gate Park (where the museum stands) and are bringing a lawsuit. Apparently this is a group of 13 people. 13 people are holding up the building of a museum for a city of 900,000! The lawsuit is estimated to cost the Museum $500,000.00! The whole situation just seems sad to me...sad because we are missing out on not only what I see as great architecture but being able to have a great cultural amenity in our backyard. And sad that people can't figure things out without going to court - the same reasons that the Louisville story makes me sad.

Here is an editorial that was written recently about the situation by a columnist who is none to fond of the new design and one who I normally disagree with. I thought it was very insightful - I hope you all might too:

Fusco factor a real pain in the tower
Tiny dissident group out to thwart de Young

Ken Garcia   Tuesday, March 19, 2002

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

San Francisco -- The kind and generous people who are trying to build a world-class fine arts museum in San Francisco won't be getting weepy that demolition of the old de Young began in earnest yesterday -- seeing as how aging, empty museums tend to lose their cachet.

The teary-eyed sentiment will be left to the four or 14 residents who call themselves the People for a New de Young, which, in fact, they are not. They are actually not for anything, certainly not for art and certainly not for the people. And as for being for the de Young, the benefactors who have raised more than $150 million for the new building would no doubt disagree.

But the People for the New de Young, which consists of consultant Joe Fusco and -- well, hardly anybody else -- have shown that it only takes a few zealots to thwart the public process. It proves once more that San Francisco should never again be called the city that knows how, because it seems to have long ago forgotten.

For those still recovering from the initial binge of March madness, here's a refresher on a little civic nuttiness of our own. The trustees of the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, turned down in their appeal for public funds to rebuild the earthquake-damaged structure, decided several years back to raise the money privately and construct a state-of-the-art museum on the same site in Golden Gate Park. All told, it's now been nearly eight years since the museum's board began trying to get a new museum for the city.

The museum hired renowned architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron to design the new building, and although the architects won the 2001 Pritzker Prize -- the highest honor in their profession -- they could not satisfy the keen tastes of some local rabble-rousers who moonlight as design critics.

I must say that the great tower concept of the new museum didn't exactly have me jumping out of my seat like the Little Man, but my leanings are toward more classical designs that are decidedly out of vogue. A good number of architects, however, found the new building rather marvelous, and the de Young folks went through more than 2 1/2 years of public meetings, planning hearings and regulatory hurdles in which the design and plans were approved.

Unfortunately, Mr. Fusco did not like it that every city agency including the Board of Supervisors (by a 10-to-1 vote -- way to stand out, Matt Gonzalez) approved the plans despite his constant objection that he knew better than everyone else. So he did what any self-respecting egocentric gadfly would do and filed a lawsuit saying the plans had not undergone adequate environmental review.

That issue is still in court awaiting a hearing this summer, but I'd suggest the chances of it winning are about as good as stopping the demolition of the old building from taking place. And since that process started yesterday, the odds are not in Fusco's favor.

As someone who often takes stands on controversial subjects, I can appreciate Fusco's efforts in trying to stand up for his beliefs. But what's difficult for me to accept is his -- or anyone's -- insistence on fighting it beyond all reasonable expectations, long after the court of public opinion has spoken. I personally prefer a district attorney who actually enforces the law, for example, but the voters elected Terence Hallinan instead, so I have to accept it along with the knowledge that the D.A. will provide me constant column material.

But Fusco and his fledgling band of negative nabobs refuse to give up and have now cost the museum close to $500,000 in attorneys fees for a campaign they're all but destined to lose -- and all for the single reason that they don't happen to approve of the new museum's design.

I might be inclined to give Fusco more slack if he had not told San Francisco magazine last year what building he really does admire. At the top of his list was none other than the Marriott Hotel at Fourth and Mission, which our discerning former architectural critic Allan Temko dismissed as an ugly, giant concrete jukebox -- without the hits.

The de Young charade is all too familiar for residents who endure 10-year battles over things like the fate of the Central Freeway. Do we need to debate and discuss and vote on issues 16 times? Shall we sit by forever and watch as the likes of Gonzalez continually try to circumvent the will of the voters on issues such as Saturday road closure in Golden Gate Park?

Even if I were totally opposed to the design of the new museum, I'd still take it over the possibility of no museum at all. And that's especially true when you consider that the money for de Young was privately raised by art patrons desperate for a showcase in a city that allegedly loves and nourishes the cultural arts.

"We would love to convince everybody to like the design of the new museum, but we know that's not possible," said Harry Parker, director of the city's Fine Arts Museums. "But at some point, the will of the vast majority of people should prevail."

The new de Young is scheduled to open in 2005, barring more setbacks and delays. A word to the wise: Don't write the date down with a permanent marker. Not as long as discerning art critics such as Mr. Fusco are around to tell us what's good for us.

That's what seems to set San Francisco apart from most major cities these days. Some towns get the Eiffel Tower. We get the Sutro Tower. It's all a matter of taste.

You can reach Ken Garcia at (415) 777-7152 or e-mail him at kgarcia@sfchronicle.com.

posted 03-25-2002 03:12 PM               

Across the country people who are designing and building homes are confronting issues similar to those of the Wyatts and the Wyatts' neighbors. We wanted to present a microcosm of that reality and the Wyatts' case was a good vehicle for that. We've received numerous letters in support of, against, and solidly in the middle. All in all the response has been overwhelming and very instructive. It has been quite rewarding for all of us at Dwell that people have been taking the time to offer their thoughts and opinions on this article and other article in the magazine.

What this discussion has clearly demonstrated is how emotionally charged the issues on the table are. A decision from the court re: the Wyatts is expected in the next week or so. I sincerely hope that the interested parties accept the decision handed down with respect--whatever the outcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:

Lavardera, I have decided after reading your postings about this subject over the last year that you must be a thoughtful and intelligent person. Please go back and re-read my last post and tell me why the questions I ask there are not valid or worthy of reply. In truth, I am not any more one-sided than the individuals who have posted in support of the Wyatts... I just happen to be on the OPPOSITE side of the issue.

Comments have been made here about who is “right” and “good” and who is “wrong” and “bad” in this conflict, and I have NEVER been deluded enough to think that I could change any DWELL poster’s opinion about the Wyatt house or the neighbors. My intent was merely to respond to Ms. Arieff’s “article” with what I know to be the facts and with my own opinions the same way everyone else has. Posters much more eloquent than myself have expressed their feelings and opinions about this situation, and I have enjoyed reading them enough to endure the rantings of posters who would have supported the Wyatts even if their house had been built out of duct tape and lime jello.

As for the accusations of defensiveness, the DWELL tag-team of Ms. Arieff, Andrew and Sam have little, if any, room to talk. They have done their share of “defensively attacking” posters who dare to disagree with DWELL’s pro-Wyatt position, not to mention their continuing negative comments about the neighbors.
No wonder so few people post here.

---

posted 03-26-2002 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:
...what have you presented that anyone could actually reply to?

---

Well, since you asked so nicely... here they are again:
Question #1:
Why are there NO quotes from the “many neighbors, local architects or professors of architecture” she says she “interviewed?”
Question #2:
Why are there no pictures of the “numerous” violations referred to repeatedly in the article?
Question #3:
Why bother to include a large photo of some of the offending neighbors, only to wuss out and print it uncaptioned?
Question #4:
Of what benefit to the article was it to attend a “graphic designer cocktail event,” apart from being one more Wyatt-choreographed opportunity for Ms. Arieff to schmooze with uninvolved Wyatt “supporters?”
Question #5:
And, the most intriguing question - given that DWELL is supposed to be about architecture - why has DWELL allowed Coleman Coker to just walk away from his act of architectural malpractice?

posted 03-26-2002 12:52 PM               

I'll ask my question again because I am truly interested:

What makes this neighborhood so special architecturally that it should never be touched and remain frozen in time - excluding new architecture and hence new neighbors lifestyles?

posted 03-26-2002 01:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:
Well, since you asked so nicely... here they are again:
Question #1:
Why are there NO quotes from the “many neighbors, local architects or professors of architecture” she says she “interviewed?”
Question #2:
Why are there no pictures of the “numerous” violations referred to repeatedly in the article?
Question #3:
Why bother to include a large photo of some of the offending neighbors, only to wuss out and print it uncaptioned?
Question #4:
Of what benefit to the article was it to attend a “graphic designer cocktail event,” apart from being one more Wyatt-choreographed opportunity for Ms. Arieff to schmooze with uninvolved Wyatt “supporters?”
Question #5:
And, the most intriguing question - given that DWELL is supposed to be about architecture - why has DWELL allowed Coleman Coker to just walk away from his act of architectural malpractice?

What are the answers to these "on-topic" questions, Ms. Arieff? We're "dying to hear."

---

posted 03-27-2002 08:10 PM               

Anyway, if people are not posting they are loosing interest because there has been little new to think about. Criticism of the article or not, it does not change the nature of the questions raised.

But I must say, your beating to death of the same questions, and ignoring responses to those same questions reminds me of - dare I say - politics!

posted 03-28-2002 03:19 AM            

ANYBODY on what to do with the wyatt house?

clearly it doesn't belong in mayberry, i mean louisville.

my thought was to airlift the thing to a lake lot or a gravel pit... (now that would be edgey). you know, someplace where it doesn't feel shoe-horned into a box.

love,
jettison

posted 03-28-2002 09:58 AM               

Your post also opens the door for me to ask again what makes this neighborhood so special and unique (this is not sarcastic - I know messages here have a way of being misinterperted)? I am most interested in how it is special architecturally. How has the architecture helped (or hindered) to create this special place? Or has it? Does the architecture even matter?

Personally I think it does but in what ways I have not been able to nail down...this is a situation I believe that might shed some light.

posted 03-28-2002 06:20 PM               

I live about a half-mile from the Wyatts and drive past their little street several times a day. I've lived in Louisville for ten years. After my first year here, I said "I am being held hostage in Louisville," to anyone who asked where I live. My children are happy here, which is the only reason I stay. Well, that and Bagel Grounds, but that's another story.

To truly love Louisville, one must be born here. Some Louisvillians do venture forth to other exotic, faraway cities like Lexington and Cincinnati, but most of them eventually return. I call this "boomeranging," which is what my husband did, which is how I ended up here. Louisville is undeniably a great place to raise children. I dispute how suitable it is for the rearing of adults.

My experience in this river city is as follows:

1. Louisville natives have made all the friends they will ever need by the time they enter kindergarten. The folks in Louisville are friendly and cordial to non-natives, warm even, and always polite, but outsiders remain as such. [Note: This rule does not apply if the outsider is a VP at one of the tobacco companies, or is a former UK basketball coach.]

2. Things are done a certain way in Louisville because that's how things are done.

3. Nothing much changes in Louisville because "that's the way it's always been." To change something, I suppose, is to acknowledge that it wasn't right in the first place, and Louisville can't have that.

4. The only reason this place hasn't changed its name to "Nirvana" is that it would require change.

5. If something exists in Louisville (like the Junior League Cookbook), then it should be available anywhere on the planet (like in Nigeria). If it's not available in Louisville, then it does not exist, even if you swear you saw it once in Cleveland.

I was intrigued when construction began on the Wyatt house. In the bucolic "Highlands," new construction is rare. The few new houses that have been built are made of red brick and have a front door smack in the center. Generally the door is white unless liberals live in the house; then the door is bright red. In either case, brass numbers are affixed to the door along with a brass doorknocker, and a pot of geraniums is positioned at either side of the door.

A house at the top of my street was sold by the heirs, and the adjacent lot was sold separately. A young couple built a monstrous red brick home on the site. This house is very obviously new and huge, falls away three stories in the rear, and has a cavernous three-car garage (unheard of!) But no one made a peep because of the red brick exterior and traditional styling.

The Wyatt house is different, yes, but it is not obnoxious, and it is not too big. In fact, its profile is quite modest. The design is fascinating, and the use of materials ingenious. After living in my one-and-a-half-story stone house with its rabbit warren of rooms, the Wyatt house is my heart's desire. It is my dream to build a house that suits my family's needs, to employ a design that makes the best use of space, and to use materials that make sense.

What goads me most about all this is the lofty reference to the "Frederic Law Olmsted designed subdivision." The residents make it sound like the Wyatts are living in a battered travel trailer smack in the middle of an exclusive enclave of multi-million dollar antebellum homes. This is not the case. Of the five or six houses on the tiny cul-de-sac, not a single one is going to be featured in Architectural Digest or even Better Homes and Gardens anytime soon. They all show signs of wear and tear and postponed maintenance, and they all could use some attention to landscaping. Mr. Olmsted is probably spinning in his Hartford grave.

The Wyatt house is a fascinating, bright spot on the otherwise dreary little lane. There is nothing "nightmarish" about it. I used to love to walk my dog past the Wyatts' in the evening when the house glowed all amber and warm. It made me want to knock on the door and ask to be invited in. I haven't seen the house lit up at night for some time now. The neighbors griped about it, so I assume the Wyatts are careful not to turn on too many lights in the evening.

This matter was featured in the local paper a while back, and the Wyatts have attempted to embrace the community. They have opened their home to anyone interested in seeing it, and have tried to be good neighbors all around. The sad fact is that the Wyatts have bucked convention and it is unlikely that anything, short of a bulldozer, will ever console the neighbors.

It is with great conviction that I tell Dwell readers that it's not about the Wyatts, and it's not about their house. The issue here is about the neighbors needing to feel good about themselves. If the Wyatts build a house that is different than the house across the street, the Wyatts in effect say, "Your house is all wrong." That's how it seems to me anyway: people here look for approval and validation because otherwise, they have no way of knowing if they're doing things correctly.

Codependency is defined as a dysfunctional relationship with self, one in which the individual makes a "continual investment of self-esteem in the ability to influence/control feelings and behavior in self and others . . ." This is what's going on on the Wyatts' street. The Wyatts aren't doing their part to make the neighbors feel good about themselves. The Wyatts are busy tending their own business, taking care of their children, and being good citizens. I find that when I mind my own business, I have little time to meddle in the affairs of others.

The sister of a woman I know lives in a similar neighborhood a few blocks from the Wyatts. This woman is not participating in the lawsuit, but has signed petitions and taken up the cause against the Wyatts. I asked my friend why her sister was doing this. My friend said, "Well those people have rights too!"

When I inquired as to which rights she was referring, and which of her sister's rights had been violated by the Wyatts, the woman said, "I don't know. Just rights."

My friend from Memphis said, "Those neighbors need to get a hobby." Indeed.

Allison Arieff: Thanks for the fine article.

posted 03-29-2002 08:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LakesideObserver:
I believe Ms. Arieff’s fan at the Chicago Tribune was far too busy giggling at the “almost comic” look at what is actually a serious legal issue and breathlessly quoting Ms. Arieff’s snotty little schoolgirl put-downs of the neighbors and their attorney to critique it for factual errors. But even more remarkable than the errors in fact - “pine” baseball bats, interrogatories vs. “depositions,” the timeline of the litigation, Ms. Burchett as the Rasputin of Ravinia Avenue, etc. - is the OMISSION of the majority of the facts about the conflict and the lawsuit altogether.

It is my conclusion that Ms. Arieff came to Louisville on a crusade to “spread the gospel” for the Wyatts by vilifying the neighbors and discrediting the lawsuit. Any facts, comments or opinions that did not support these goals were avoided and/or ignored. Why else are there NO quotes from the “many neighbors, local architects or professors of architecture” she says she “interviewed?” Sorry, merely living “at least in the area” and being friends of the Wyatts does NOT qualify Ms. Banta, Mr. Barry, Mr. Neuschwander or even the pretentious Professor Gilderbloom as “neighbors.”

Why are there no pictures of the “numerous” violations referred to repeatedly in the article? Why bother to include a large photo of some of the offending neighbors, only to wuss out and print it uncaptioned? And, the most intriguing question - given that DWELL is supposed to be about architecture - why has DWELL allowed Coleman Coker to just walk away from his act of architectural malpractice?

It must REALLY piss off Ms. Arieff that the neighbors used her quotes from the Wyatts against them and that the Wyatts have repeatedly DENIED making ANY of the comments attributed to them in DWELL. That would explain why she devoted so much ink to defending the quotes, and why she went out of her way - and out of the plastic house and across the street - to seek out and speak “at length with” Ms. Burchett (who had respectfully declined to be interviewed, just like Mr. Coker), then ridicule her in print as the “talkative” driving force behind the lawsuit and liken her to the “nosy neighbor from Bewitched.” Paybacks are hell at DWELL.

In my opinion, Ms. Arieff has aligned herself with the Wyatts to the point of zealotry. Of what benefit to the article was it to attend a “graphic designer cocktail event,” apart from being one more Wyatt-choreographed opportunity for Ms. Arieff to schmooze with uninvolved Wyatt “supporters?” And her whining on the Wyatts’ behalf about any financial hardships caused by the lawsuit is downright laughable. Check the DWELL photos of the Wyatts’ 4,500 square foot, $350,000 polygal palace for the new automobile in the carport, purchased AFTER the lawsuit was filed but - coincidentally - just in time for the photo shoot.

What we have here is a symbiotic relationship - the Wyatts are on a never-ending quest for publicity, and DWELL needs a cause du jour to sell magazines.
Interesting…

---

Most of the homes that violate deed restrictions look like sh*t. Most need painting and haven't been kept up. Bravo for the Wyatts. They will win the suit. Once Rev. Louis Coleman gets involved the disgruntled neighbors will be very very sorry.

posted 03-29-2002 11:17 AM               

Thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent response. Your graciousness and sense of humor is greatly appreciated!

posted 03-30-2002 12:35 PM               

Lakeside is a terrific use of land and a super convenient oasis. My kids have spent a lot of time there, but they have not been encouraged that it is "the place to be." It's dreadfully crowded and raucous; the noise level is deafening.

I can't take it; it literally makes me sick. Huge, dense swarms of kids gather in the water and out, and the moms line up on chaises and chairs to gossip about who is too fat or too misshapen to be wearing a bathing suit. [These debates are ongoing each summer and are carried away from the pool to Krogers, the video store, Subway, and finally fizzle at the first PTA meetings in the fall.]

Since my orientation tour of Lakeside, I have been on the premises twice. The first time was to retrieve my injured teen from the first aid room. She cut her finger on a piece of equipment that wasn't working properly. It was a minor injury, but the primary concern of Lakeside was whether I might sue them.

The second time I set foot on Lakeside's hallowed concrete was to deliver my youngest daughter to a birthday party. The host-mom greeted us wearing a bare midriff top with long, see-through sleeves of chiffon dotted with gold sequins; a gold lamé bikini panty over which she had pulled a pair of harem pants, also chiffon and see-through and sequined; and pointy gold evening slippers. Except for her long, slender, pearlized cigarette holder, she looked like she had escaped from "Arabian Nights." All I could manage to say was, "Who dresses you?" [That was the last invitation we got from that family.]

Lakeside is surreal, sort of like "The Truman Show."

It is a "neighborhood" swim club, though people from other parts of the East side do join. One must find a "sponsor," an individual who is willing to make the recommendation that the petitioner be allowed to join. It is not exactly clear whom these "sponsors" are; you must know somebody who knows somebody who can call somebody because they might know somebody. It put me in mind of a sort of Underground Railroad operation; the various players are not openly linked.

It's all sort of dark and clandestine. And creepy. During our quest for the Holy Lakeside Grail, people were phoning and saying things like, "You don't know me but so-and-so told me you were looking for a sponsor. A man who works with my neighbor might know somebody whose son-in-law can help. Call Mr. X and tell him that someone who knows his daughter called you and . . . ."

We made its way through the labyrinth of somebodies, and found a sponsor. We were told to wait for the phone call, and thanks to my husband, we did so with the anxiety of a family waiting for a kidney donor.

The call came around suppertime. We were instructed to drive up in front of a specific house (around the corner from the Wyatts, in fact) and wait in the car. We waited at the curb, and after several minutes, a man came out of a house about three doors from the address we'd been given. He walked up to the window of our car, and held out his hand to collect our application papers. He said, "I'll take care of it."

A few days later we received word of our acceptance into Lakeside, and the invoice for the fees came in the mail. I have no idea who the man was that "sponsored" us, and until the day he stood next to our car and took our papers, none of us had ever seen him. He didn't know anything about us. It was as if he just wanted to have a look at us first.

Just about everyone we know belongs to Lakeside. Not being able to buy a Lakeside membership for your kids is right up there with not being able to put shoes on their feet. There is pity, but there is also a bit of disdain that you must not be living right.

The folks who live in the neighborhood are granted "certificate" membership to Lakeside because they put up with vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise, litter, and parking problems from shortly after dawn until after 9:00 p.m. all summer long. It's not a privilege or bonus; it's a bribe. If it weren't for the promise of the membership, no one would buy those houses because of the accompanying annoyance.

The "certificate" members always announce that they are "certificate" members, as though this status is more enviable and special. Of course they all serve on the board. It's not about civic duty; it's about maintaining total control of the facility. You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a "certificate" member who is or was on the board at Lakeside, and all of them are eager to talk about the prestige.

Use all the folksy monikers you want, the place still has all the bearing and atmosphere of a country club.
Newer "associate" members (recent transplants to Louisville) join Lakeside and then refer to it as "The Club." "Do you belong to The Club?" and "Will I see you at The Club?"

I agree with "Neighbor" that Lakeside is "a family place." But it is an exclusive "family place." I am grateful to have this facility just up the street, and my kids have enjoyed it. But it has always been clear to me what's going on.

This is a southern town that raised holy hell about the busing issue and to this day remains noticeably segregated. There are literally tracks (and highways, and the airport) and a right side of them to be on. Go to the link provided by Neighbor, and count the number of persons of color in the photographs. Where's Waldo?

As for the comment about "living in a summer vacation," I say this: Good for you, Neighbor. All any of us wants it to be happy, and it is wonderful that you are. It does, however, make me wonder where you've been vacationing. The only "summer vacation" I see around here is the one lampooned in the movie with Chevy Chase. It's absurd, ridiculous, and bizarre, and on a good day, downright funny.

posted 03-30-2002 01:47 PM               

The house is very different, clever, inventive, and out and out fun. I don't understand how anyone can look at that house and not smile.

Here's what I want to know:

1. How is it that the Wyatts were able to secure building permits if they are in violation of so many codes?

2. Do people honestly believe that the Wyatts conspired to build their house in order to upset the neighbors?

3. Do the neighbors truly believe that their ratty little houses are devalued by the Wyatts home?

I am sick of hearing about how "accepting and diverse" this community is. Please. It's not diverse. It's white, Catholic, middle class, and homogenized to the max. Yet to hear the locals tell it, it's every bit as cosmopolitan as Cincinnati, the booming metropolis and cultural mecca where they go to buy their prom dresses because the mall there is bigger than the two here.

I am not from Louisville. I have two more years left on the contract that brought me here. My wife and I can't wait to get out of here.

posted 04-01-2002 01:01 PM            

You had questions about Lakeside sponsorship. Any Lakeside certificate member can be a sponsor (including the Wyatts). If you think finding a sponsor is strange, you should try being one. People knock on your door with their children in tow, or have their kids write anguished letters about how they can't swim with their friends and instead have to belong to the JCC. When you meet someone new and they find out where you live, they ask if you have sponsored yet. You get calls like "Hello, rememember me? I stood in line behind you at Kroger last month. I got your number off your checkbook. Have you sponsored anyone for this summer?" That's life in Lakeside

posted 04-03-2002 10:34 AM               

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Your characterization of Lousiville is helpful to those of us who haven't been there. (And before an yother locals get offended, I realize that this is one person's persepctive; I promise not to base my entire view of the city on one person's bullet points.) That said, using Pattic's description as just one admited generalization, I am brought back to the fundamental question of architectural contextualization and why the Wyatt's wanted to live in this particular neighborhood. I could imagine them fitting in in that eclectic Bardstown area, but it is so strange to me that, as locals, they wouldn't have anticipated this backlash, even a backlash without the legal action.

I am not happy that things escalated into this lawsuit, some or most of which seems legally frivolous (e.g., how on earth could a neighboring house cause one to lose a job promotion??). But, as another poster rightly pointed out, there are many things in this country that are legally permissible but are simply unwise, inconsiderate, and even hostile to do or say to other people. Yes, we have the legal rights to do all sorts of things, but there is a lot more to building one's "dream house" then the house itself, especially when someone is raising children and desiring to be a part of a community. From the author's glowing description, it sounds like the Wyatts' are a wonderful civic-minded family, and have a lot in common with my family (graphic designer, two little kids, community garden-minded, etc.), which is why it surprises me so much that -- esp. in a culture like Louisville, and particularly this neighborhood, as it has been described -- they wouldn't have seen trouble brewing when they began design and construction with complete disregard for those future-neighbors. Isn't this just common sense? Can't each of us think of scores of neighborhoods which would get completely bent out of shape if we did what the Wyatt's did? This does not seem at all unusual and should have been anticipated.

There are many places in this country that do not eagerly welcome change of many types. It is an easy thing to create an us-and-them dichotemy. 'We' can look down on 'them' or call them provincial or backward or all of the other names I've read on this board or in the article, but the truth is these people love their neighborhood, they have a particular culture that has eveolved which, true, they do not own, but which is a real thing to be taken into consideration when one moves in. Howwelcoming, I wonder, would a bunch of ultra-hip modernists feel if someone wanted to build a piece of crap fake-colonial McMansion in the midst of their vibrant diverse neighborhood. Don't think they would wleocme it with open arms. Legality aside, if one chooses to build or renovate a house amidst other people -- in a neighborhood rather than on a mountainside or in an edgy factory district) -- you are not an island. Don't bitch about it or seem shocked when people get offended.

Had the Wyatt's been described as loner arsty snobs, I could see why they made such a blunder, but they seem interested in connecting with their neighbors (which, BTW, I would infere, means that they don't see them as particualry backward or provincial), which is why I was so perplexed about their not checking with their neighbors about their plan ahead of time. Did they need to do this legally? Again, no. But that is not my point. I am more interested in building real neighborhoods and respectful relationships. (For my description of a vital neighborhood, you can see my reply to the article on Prospect, CO in the other folder, which I contrast with my northside Chicago neighborhood.) I made the conscious choice to buy a house in the city, where dynamic change and diversity is a given. I didn't build in my suburban hometown because I desired both community and diversity, and diversity was in low supply there.

I would argue that cutting edge design, or even personal freedom of expression, is not the highest virtue. If this is someone's highest value, that is fine, but if it is, you have several choices which are fairly predictable: 1.) you can create to your heart's content in a remote location, 2) you can create in a place that celebrates diversity, or 3.) you can disregard your context, create, and suffer the consequences. Actually, maybe there is a fourht option which has merit: 4.) you can recognize that, in your daily life, your freedom of expression impacts those around you, so if you CHOOSE to live around people, you can try your best to do things that will promote living in peace. (As an aritst, can I build a gigantic phallic statue on my little 6 ft. front yard? Legally, yes, but I better not be surprised when the local kids vandalize it. If this result bothers me, I should should put my statue somewhere else. Freedom of expression has consequences and, like some of Richard Serra's work, often offends people. This is fine...just don't impose it on unwilling people and then call them bumkins when they resist it.)

I sympathize with the Wyatt's because I do not believe they are evil in their intent. But I do not sympathize with the hailstorm they seem to have brought upon themselves by dragging their neighbors along on their creative journey. And they have done this, despite the arguments about freedom of expression. Let them do what they like with the interior of their home -- line the floors with an inch of mud, cover the walls in tinfoil, attach all of the furtniture to the ceiling, etc. -- but the fact is that the neighbors are the ones who must look at the exterior. Though not illegal, it is unkind to force people to look at something they hate on a daily basis.

One more thing and then I'll shut up. About the writing...Allison, I just read the article, it is fresh in my mind, and it is clear to me that this was not simply 'reporting on an unpleasant situation' (to paraphrase one of the defenses of your story). It is plain that you had your clear perspective. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't have had one, but please do not suggest that this was a straight story that you wrote in a balanced way. I have no problem with someone editiorializing, but please don't suggest now that you were being evenhanded, or that some of your choice descriptions where not ad hominem. I found myself rereading aloud a couple of descriptions -- half smiling, half shaking my head -- to my wife as she brushed her teeth. From my perspective (as one who generally likes the magazine), these came off as mean-spirited and fueled the perception of artsy elitism that have been levelled against dwell. Why else would you describe the lawyer as the Andy Cipowitz-esque "sturdy man who favors short sleaved shirts with ties". Even if this is, in fact, an accurate description, you can't honestly say that this was strictly factual reporting, can you? Come on...admit it, you liked the subtext that that turn of phrase evokes, especially along with the now famous Bewitched busy body charachiture created earlier. Combined, us readers got a tasty description of an almost Dukes-of-Hazard like small town group of people. This was especially evident when, only a couple of paragraphs up from the short sleave-tie guy, you adoringly describe the Wyatts as "the kind of people who organize potluck picnics, paint kid's faces at neighborhood festivals, and tend to their orgnic garden." Some of my favorite writing is satirical by design (David Sadaris, P.J. O'Rourke, etc.) -- I wrote satirical newspaper columns for years -- but to do satire and insist that it is straight journalism seems disingenuous. Okay, enugh finger-wagging. :-)

Finally, as with the Prospect story, I would love to hear a discussion about what folks think make up a vital community, a true neighborhood. Would this be something for a new topic folder?

Regards to all,

posted 04-04-2002 12:27 AM            

maybe try getting some architects to write for you.

more function; less form.

posted 04-04-2002 08:23 AM            

I grew up in a much larger city. My husband's job brought us to Louisville over 9 years ago. We make decisions so that we can stay here. This is the first place I have ever felt a sense of community. It is priceless. I agree with "neighbor" - my home in the lakeside neighborhood feels like a summer vacation home in the summer and a winter cottage in the winter. It's hard to explain why but it is a lifestyle choice. We choose to live at a slower pace - in a smaller home -- yes, even with less closet space (which is a choice to have smaller wardrobes). What makes a good community? People that get connected -- Like the picture in dwell of the neighbors hanging out in their front yards. Family friendly gathering places like the Lakeside Swim Club, various parks, and neighborhoods where you can walk to the grocery store, drug store, video store, ice cream shop, coffee shop and even a neighborhood tavern with good bar food.

posted 04-04-2002 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:
We've received numerous letters in support of, against, and solidly in the middle. All in all the response has been overwhelming and very instructive. It has been quite rewarding for all of us at Dwell that people have been taking the time to offer their thoughts and opinions on this article...

---

The next issue of DWELL should be out in a couple of weeks and I for one am really looking forward to reading all the letters "in support of, against and solidly in the middle" that all those loyal readers took the time to write.

Also:

posted 04-06-2002 07:17 PM               

I guess the people who don't like it may never understand why somebody may like that situation - building a contemporary house in a traditional neighborhood. It has great appeal to me. I have not been able to do it with my home (yet) but I did manage to have my office built in a traditional downtown in a contemporary style. It is discouraging to hear it suggested that there is some kind of error in this approach, that this is so incorrect that it should not be considered, to suggest that such a house is only appropriate hidden away in the woods, where it won't "offend" anyone - yikes.

I have been looking for the roots of the difference here and I think this is where it lies. Up till now I thought the whole lawsuit was a darn shame, but now it all makes sense. I believe the Wyatts have a fundamental right to like a contemporary house in a traditional context, and to build so. And if anybody disagrees, well then theres gonna be a fight.

posted 04-08-2002 09:09 AM               

Lavardera,

Thanks for your note. Just for the record, I do not personally have anything against building different styles of architecture near each other. I don't believe that a different style house (modern in this case) is "only appropriate hidden away in the woods". My concern in this case is simply the notion of respect for neighbors and neighborhood dynamics. This not only includes the architecture, but the character of the people and community.

I guess I place the primary responsibility on newcomers when they enter into a community. If their neighbors are the sort who would welcome architectural diversity -- or if the newcomer can gently pursuade the neighbors to grant their "blessing" (a word I hesitiate to use here) -- then great. I for one appreciate the sort of culture which is open to diversity, which is why I've chosen to live where I do. I don't think it would be fair or reasonable of me to move to and build in a community I KNOW will be hostile to my style (which there are plenty of around here) and then get indignant when I am not welcomed with open arms. In my post above, I set aside legal issues -- which seem very flimsy in this case -- and want to discuss the ethics, wisdom, and common sense of what has happened here.

Warm Regards,

posted 04-08-2002 02:14 PM               

I don't see that as an imoral stance or antisocial, or inconsiderate. A house exists in the public realm and nobody can expect that their neighbors actions will always be designed to please them, particularly when it comes to personal matters such as the style of ones home.

posted 04-08-2002 08:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavardera:
I am not sure what signals would have made it clear to Wyatts that this neighborhood would contain individuals that would go to the extreme of a lawsuit. I don't imagine that the objection of a few was unexpected, or that some might not like the house vs be indifferent or pleased with it. I don't think it is unreasonalbe to brave a few objections to build your dream home in a neighborhood you like.

I don't see that as an imoral stance or antisocial, or inconsiderate. A house exists in the public realm and nobody can expect that their neighbors actions will always be designed to please them, particularly when it comes to personal matters such as the style of ones home.

Can you imagine your neighbor giving you a hard time because you bought a red car. And they don't like it when its parked in front of your property. Sounds preposterous, does'nt it. Now imagine they sued you over it.

---

I completely agree with you that the lawsuit is an extreme measure. I don't think that we must cater to our neighbors whims, or ask permission to build our dream house. That said, if I were going to build something as dramatically different from everything around me as the Wyatts did, I think I would carefully weigh the costs and benefits. You are absolutely right that anticipating a lawsuit would be silly; who would ever have guessed that the neighbors would become this hostile and go to such measures?! I would have expected it to stop at some mean-spirited gossip, head-shaking, and generally un-neighborly behavior, hopefully followed by a warming up once they got used to it and discovered how nice and charming the family was.

But again, if I were going to do something like this in such a traditional neighborhood that does not necessarily welcome change, I would anticipate antagonism. First, I'd really think hard whether I loved this neighborhood so much or whether I could buy land in a more welcoming neighborhood. If I still wanted to do it, I think I would try to invest the time to go visit each of the surrounding neighbors, ask them about the neighborhood, chew the fat, drink some lemonade, and eventually show them my drawings. As I read this story, I had to wonder how much of their anger is based on the actual house and how much is based on a perception (rightly or wrongly) of arrogance, high brow-ness, etc. that they have about the Wyatts? Oftentimes, even if people object to an idea, letting them know ahead of time that you are concerned about their feelings and want to honor them is the best way to avoid problems. They are often willing to live in peace if they believe they are being heard and respected. All of this said, I still agree with you that the lawsuit is extreme and really an ugly thing to do.

On a lighter, though sort of related note, I live on this narrow, 25 ft. city lot. I have a vintage 6-flat on one side and a newer 3-flat on the other. I have a tiny yard which I've made into a garden, filling it with loads of climbing vegetables on the fences, strawberry and blueberry plants, tomoatoes, fruit tree espaliers, etc. I've thought it would be fun to have a hen or two for eggs. They aren't loud, like roosters, but I wonder if the neighbors would mind. If I wanted to build a little hen house and keep a few, I would definitely talk to them about it first, give them an article or two about how quiet and well-mannered they are, and of course, offer them a regular supply of eggs. You can see where I'm going here. Yes, I could just go ahead and do it and hope for the best, but isn't it more sensible and considerate to talk to them first? Aren't my chances of success higher? And this is just a couple of quiet ducks. A whole house is a much bigger deal. I suppose it all comes down to how connected one desires to be with one's neighbors. The thing that is so perplexing to me is that in all other regards, the Wyatts appear to be the same sort of folks who do want to cultivate good relations. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. Maybe they just didn't anticipate this at all and were blindsided by it.

Warm Regards,

posted 04-09-2002 11:01 AM               

Steven, I think you are much too nice, if that is at all possible! Seriously, if my neighbor was going to have their house painted and the painter had to put ladders in my driveway, they might alert me. If they got chickens, probably not, heck their dog invites himself over at times, no warning! Of course we have a little bit more room than you as far as chickens are concerned.

posted 04-09-2002 03:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavardera:
nsfra - you are kind!

Steven, I think you are much too nice, if that is at all possible! Seriously, if my neighbor was going to have their house painted and the painter had to put ladders in my driveway, they might alert me. If they got chickens, probably not, heck their dog invites himself over at times, no warning! Of course we have a little bit more room than you as far as chickens are concerned.

Well good luck there, everybody I have known that got chickens ended up with many more eggs than they could eat, green ones no less. Hope you like quiche, and watch your cholesterol!

---

Lavardera,

Thanks for saying so, but I don't really think I am being especially 'nice' in my approach. Part of it, as you said, certainly is the fact that our houses are much closer than many people's. Surely, this amplifies any problems, since there is no way to really hide away from one's neighbors. For better and worse, you are much more in each other's faces.

But we too have inconsiderate neighbors down the block who thoughtlessly let their dogs do their business on my little patch of parkway (25x7ft. strip of grass, trees, etc. between the sidewalk and street), and I just believe that each thing we do supports either congeniality or hostility (or simply ignoring each other completely). Would I HAVE to talk to them about the chickens first (actually, I am more thinking ducks)? No. But if I do, there is much less chance that they will a) grumble about me, or b) call the cops. I'm not living to please everyone and keep them from grumbling about me, but I do desire to build some level of trust and friendship with them. Having your own little dream house where your family does its thing is great, but it ups the quality of life considerably when you have neighbors who snowblow your walk without asking, call the cops if they see something shady, keep an eye on your kid when she's out on the sidewalk, etc. (all real examples).

My approach is as much self-interest as it is in trying to foster greater community. Also, there is that matter of eggs, which you rightly point out I should not consume myself anyway. What better way to win them over, as well as teach kids about nature and ecology, than by sharing the harvest of "farm fresh" eggs right from their neighbor's yard?

This brings up an interesting thread in this whole discussion. As much as it is merely 'nice', what are some of the things all of you do to promote healthy connections with your neighbors and community?

Warm Regards,