posted 04-12-2002 02:56 PM            

Ironically, I would guess that the bold house built by the Wyatts in Louisville could not be built in Prospect for precisely the same reasons the Wyatts' neighbors oppose their house: existing covenants would prevent the development.

Although I have not seen the underlying legal documents, I must assume that Prospect depends apon a fairly comprehensive(though innovative) set of private covenants to regulate development in the subdivision (even progressive communities can hardly avoid using such covenants). Fundamentally, these covenants are not unlike those relied on by the Louisville neighbors to oppose the Wyatts' house. I would wager that the covenants and guidelines for Prospect would prohibit the use of of all or some galvanized metal, cementitious shingles and polycarbonate, at least in the ways used in the Wyatts' house.

Restrictive covenants are generally very wise approach for economically rational developers and residents. They are employed to ensure that future development does not diminish the value of existing property. Developer's like them because covenants allow them to charge a premium over other comparable properties. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with this?

Certainly some covenants, such as those used to restrict the sale of property to members of a racial or ethnic class, are found, appropriately, to be so repugnant as be a nullity under our laws. Most covenants, however, are not so obviously invalid or obnoxious.

One poster suggested that the presence of the "dead hand" of a long-forgotten developer is irrelevant, and covenants should be disregarded. Assuming that such covenants could be disregarded (and the outcome of the lawsuit against the Wyatts should instruct us), it that necessarily a smart result?

dwell's article on Prospect suggests that these tools can be used in an innovative way. Keep in mind that many of covenants when first employed in the early 20th century were perceived as equally innovative.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with them?

posted 04-12-2002 09:38 PM               

It is hard for me to decide if I like them or not. Part of me feels that they are more of a tool for the developer to ensure that they can control the outcome of the work of others. It becomes a marketing tool, in that you can sell on the basis that "it will not change". It seems that soon after the developer leaves it does begin to change, and you are kidding yourself if you think it does'nt, covenants or not. The current residents are always determining and changing the character, exerting control over it, and why not. How does an image created as a marketing tool become a utopia - sometimes it is valid, most I see are not.

posted 04-22-2002 12:07 AM               

I agree with design being a symbol of the freedom of speech format.

In a hundred years come back and tell me what the results of all those people hollering about a well built house in Kentucky are saying. Nothing because like them they will be too busy complaning about How the grass over their grave was not mowed to their eternal satisfaction or perhaps is not green enough.

Futhermore ( Yes it's my fav-o-rite word )
Ignorance breeds lawsuits and will also give me job security. I hope the people who are being sued Win and have to fork over their properties to these I can't say that here so I will just say poor people who dont know what it is to see beauty when they live right next door to it.

Sincerly
Keith W. Kemp
Kalamazoo,Michigan

posted 04-25-2002 02:47 AM               

I read this stuff recently about the Nazis before WW2, about how they so successfully capitalized on this fear Im talking about, this fear of anything different, how they lumped anything different all together under the big umbrella of "Degeneration". they convinced the masses that anything or anyone who was different was a "degenerate", a "jew", a bolshevic, a communist, a red, a homosexual, a pervert, a child molester. Amongst other things, they confiscated all the modern art they could find, buffooned it in a big show they put on, burned a bunch of it, and ran all the artists that produced it out of the country, or killed them in the camps (unessentials). Right across the street from the big show , Hitler built a glorious museum filled with his huge collection of classic art which he proclaimed to be the "True" art. I say what we are dealing with in Kentucky, there, is a lesser version of the same deal. Hitlers war for a great part was a war against the modern, a yearning for a return to a classical sense of order. Modern times are indeed frightening... I've been thinking about this for a couple of years now, reading a lot of books, trying to put my finger on this "modern" thing, trying to figure out where the line is between what is old and what is new. Im still searching because it evades me. This is no small battle being waged in Kentucky, there. Look right here on the Dwell page and see that this is the biggest, longest running discussion. Somehow we brave modern souls have got to get over our arrogence in regard to the old guard. we've got to stop feeling better than because of our grand vision. The modern world has not been a better thing for many folks. It has been a mixed bag at best. We must carefully wield our vision. Banging simple folk over the head with it is no way to further our cause. We must use instead our thirst for the new and the inovative in ways that bring our communities together rather than break them apart... Ours is a razor sharp sword but those who would slay us are more than equally armed. This is NOT folly in which we engage. It is a contest of siesmic proportion, most surely... please comment.

posted 04-25-2002 11:44 AM            

Lakeside Swim Club keeps the neighborhood close knit. From Memorial Day through Labor Day, the old quarry is operated as a 3.5-million gallon pool. Hundreds of people gather on a typical summers day to tan, swim, play basketball, workout in the gym, have barbercues at the picninc tables lining the pool, etc.

I find it laughable that people could consider it a closed-off clandestine operation. As described in previous posts, the pool is controlled by a board made up of elected "certificate" members -- people who live in the immediate area and have to deal with the traffic and noise the club brings. To join, a family must be sponsored by a certificate member. There are about 200 certificate members. Those who sit on the governing board can sponsor more than one family during the year in which they serve. Altogether, about 250 families can be added to Lakeside's membership each year. As described in a previous post, certificate members will sometimes take your name and pass it along to someone else in the neighborhood who hasn't sponsored anyone yet. Far from being a weird, clandestine, underground railroad experience; this illustrates just how non-exclusive Lakeside is. So, you were sponsored by a total stranger? I guess that shows just how eager we are to screen the membership! If we've already used up our sponsorship (often, understandably, on a friend, co-worker or family member), and know a neighbor who hasn't sponsored anyone, we'll pass your name along. We want people to join, we just don't want Lakeside to be a public pool because it already creates enough traffic and noise problems as is.

Some posts have also insinuated that the neighbood isn't very diverse and is racist. A lot of people who grow up in the neighborhood -- myself included -- think it's a great place to live. You see a lot of second and third-generation families in and around the Lakeside subdivision. That certainly cuts down some of the neighborhood's diversity, but it hardly seems a fair to criticize a neighborhood as backward because it is so loved that it keeps it's residents.

The lack of racial diversity in the neighborhood is a real problem for Louisville and the Lakeside subdivision is not immune. When I was little, I don't remember there being any black kids at Lakeside -- or for that matter, much of anybody who wasn't white and often Catholic. German Catholics settled the neighborhood and have largely never left. Because of the way people are sponsored into the club (often we sponsor our friends, family and co-workers), the pool has been slow to diversify. But I don't know of any instances of someone being turned away because of thier race. Over the past 10 - 15 years, Lakeside has added several of black, hispanic and asian families. I hope the membership continues to get more diverse. If I send my kids to Lakeside I want them to meet and play with a diverse set of friends. Louisville is a self-segregated city, and in that environment it's easy to grow up fearful and suspicious of other races. I suspect that's why Lakeside doesn't get more applications from minorities than it does.

Lakeside's neighborhood is an outdoor community. While the houses may be small by the standards of people who read Dwell – and I'll take exception to that in a later post – most houses reserve room for a porch where people sit out to enjoy pretty days and talk with friends. Unlike so many crappy new developments, the neighborhood is lined with sidewalks and the expectation is that people will WALK, or at least CAN walk, to wherever they may want to go.

The subdivision is a five-minute walk to Bardstown Road, which serves as Louisville's cultural, commercial bazaar. It's a street filled with fine dining and a few local dives, neighborhood bars and several local bookstores, art galleries and antique stores, used record stores, more churches than you can shake a stick at, and a coffee scene that arrived and grew up in Louisville well before it was foisted upon the rest of the nation by Seattle and Starbucks. There's a theater that shows foreign and art movies. There are several large gorgeous parks. And there's that much-maligned Walgreen's, too, along with a few American staples -- McDonald's, Taco Bell, KFC, etc. From the Lakeside subdivision, I can walk to any and all of these places during a leisurely afternoon stroll. In fact, parking on Bardstown Road is so blessedly inadequate, that it's often more convenient to walk than to drive.

Although interested, I admit to not being well-educated about the intentions of modern architecture. One of the themes I have picked up on – and please correct me if I'm wrong – is the paramount importance of comfort WITHIN the home. The design emphasis is overwhelmingly concerned with the homes interior design and function, and less concerned with what a house looks like sitting on its lot in the context of the neighborhood. Since the neighborhood has an outdoor culture, can you see how the neighbors would be offended by having tto constantly stare at or walk past something alien to their surroundings?

I can understand why the neighbors are so upset, even if they have resorted to extreme measures in an attempt to make the Wyatts conform. The lawsuit should be dismissed; it has no merit – the deed restrictions in the subdivisoin have been ignored by too many for too long. I hope the Wyatts eventually find themselves more welcome in the neighborhood, but can't help but wonder about their naivete or arrogance. Either they didn't realize that creating something so radically different within an older community would create a backlash, or they didn't care. I hope that others with a passion for modern architecture will think twice about the designs they plan to introduce into a more traditionally-designed neighborhood. If you want to be hated and ostracised by your neighbors, by all means, follow the Wyatts example. Take the attitude that these people are simpletons and luddites who have, perhaps through a miracle, found themselves smack dab in the middle of a nice neighborhood. Then try to slingshot them into a new sense of artistry without regard to the fact that many will get whiplash.

Perhaps I AM a simpleton, because I think one of the aspects of good design is that it fits beautifully within its surroundings, augmenting the whole rather than garrishly ignoring context. As a work of performace art – bravo, people are pissed off and paying attention. But within as a work of modern architecture, I think the Wyatt's house in an abject failure.

posted 04-27-2002 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fallingwater:
Here's the VERY latest... http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/04/27/ke042702s195587.htm
There REALLY are hot links to yesterday's and today's Louisville newspaper stories in my last two posts... just move your mouse over the blank spots until it turns into a hand.

[This message has been edited by Fallingwater (edited 04-27-2002).]

---

posted 04-28-2002 09:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mneuschwander:
About three blocks from the Wyatt house in the Belnap addition, on Gresham Road, there is a house with corrugated metal on the side addition of a garage to the house. My wife and I made the garage addition in 1987.
It is still there today.

---

Still there after a whopping 14 years in a 100 year old neighborhood?
Impressive... not.

P.S. I've heard the neighbors HATED the metal but lacked the wherewithall to do anything about it at the time.

I want to re-post Russ Weikel's comments here... given that - to paraphrase the immortal James Carville - it's the DEED RESTRICTONS, Stupid!

Russ said:
Unfortunately the current debate in Louisville over an apparently rather non-conforming house is not whether you like it or not, but, rather: 1. Are the deed covenants enforcable; 2. Have they been properly applied, and; 3. Are they written in such a way that they are clearly changable by a certain vote of the property owners either on a time certain basis or on a non-specific basis.
These deed covenants are legal documents, enforcable as municipal law the same as zoning code if they are properly written and properly applied.

Any court that would say that "if you let others go, then you can't enforce these" is hell bent for overturn on appeal. What that court is saying is that because you failed to prosecute one murder suspect, then all other murder suspects subsequent to that one you didn't prosecute would not be subject to law. It just ain't so.

The real opportunity here is for a court to define what and how deed covenants, or deed restrictions, must be written.

For 20 years in Florida I represented both homeowners and developers in cases of enforcing restrictions and writing new ones for current development.

I expect that those written for the community seeking to enforce them are well behind a current language. It may make them ambiguious...hence unenforcable. But they should be treated as law by the court unless there is some overriding evidence to show them unenforcable.

So here is the chance for the court to make a real decision: Clean up language and make all those covenants clear, without undo hardship and make all conform to current zoning ordinance. Since Louisville and Jefferson County will soon be a metro government make it for all these groups in the whole county.

Daunting task. Yeah. But you will soon find out that 95% of the people affected by those restrictions will welcome those guidelines and this type of situation will be a thing of the past.

As for the current issue: Unless there is a legal reason for those covenants to be set aside, the homeowners lose. They were advised by the real estate agent or closing attorney that there were restrictions on the land and further advised by the admistrators of the covenants. They chose to go ahead. This wasn't a mistake. They deliberately violated what is essentially law. They got caught. They lose. Sorry. But if you invest when you know you are wrong the old adage of "Its easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission" will only work in a political forum, not a legal one.

Well said, Mr. Weikel. Thank you.

posted 05-09-2002 08:59 AM            

I'm not seeing her answers, either and appreciating your pressing the point. But I don't think you can reason with her (Allison) regarding this. She's a classic case of a person who talks out of both sides of her mouth.

posted 05-09-2002 09:25 AM            

"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."

posted 05-11-2002 09:23 PM               

Okay, Neil. I'm going to take a shot at this. Despite its inevitable limitations and the impossibility of answering any of these sorts of questions with a sense of difinitiveness, I'll provide my thoughts on a few of the very good questions you posed.

1. Why does modern design not go with traditional Americana? Why does it offend the sensibilities of more traditional folks?

At its root, I believe that many people -- most or all of us perhaps -- have strong associations with various things that color our opinions. Our senses are alive with memory -- we smell a baking pie and immediately think of our grandma; we bash our finger with a hammer and remember that first time we bashed our finger helping our dad; etc. Colors, smells, tastes -- everything can carry strong associations which grab us emotionally. Some of these responses we may not even be able to connect to their sources, yet our reactions are strong and real. I suspect that this may be part of what is going on. Many people have strong associations with certain building materials or shapes ("that isn't a 'house', that's a factory"). If our mental library of visual symbols have been one-to-one, i.e., each symbol corresponding to only one type of association, it can be difficult to shake that. It can require conscious effort, which many people don’t see any good reason to expend. On the other hand, living in the city, my kids will have a very good chance of spending lots of time in homes of all shapes and materials. They will have friends who live in converted factory lofts. So, for them, the vernacular of an industrial building will have multiple associations. This is just one angle on the whole thing, and it is certainly only one of many possible ways of getting at the problem.

2. What does "traditional americana" symbolize aesthetically that conflicts with "modernism"??

I guess we’d need to define modernism to address this properly, and, as you pointed out, that can be thorny. Steering around that question for a moment, though, I think that there are real differences which cause real anxiety in folks. For example, people that have been trained from birth to see balance and symetry as virtues can have a hard time accepting that asymetry looks right. It is the same reason why so many people get frustrated with the postmodern notion that there are no standards or rules of logic and understanding; that it is all personal, subjective, and experiential. This philosophy leaves very little room for any rational dialogue. With no ground rules, no common set of standards to bump against, the discussion is meaningless.

It is the same with some modern architecture. When I see a poorly done traditional house, I can tell you WHY I think it isn’t right, because I can talk about the proportions or the shoddy materials or the position of the windows or the roofline or the ridiculously overdone fake plastic fretwork or a hundred other elements. There are standards which have been established over a long period of time from which to evaluate the house. On the other hand, this vocabulary is only partially true in modern design, and, whatever standards may be ‘universal’, people just have less exposure to it and ability to apply them. So, I look at a modern house and I can still think about the quality of the materials (though I’m likely much less familiar with them), the proportions, etc. But then, what if the architect jumps up and says that he is trying to be IRONIC and build something with bad proportions (from a traditional sensibility) ON PURPOSE. What am I supposed to do with THAT? This is where the postmodern thought can enter the scene, and where my patience fades quickly. I would argue that, if we are going to have any meaningful discussion on this subject, we must be able to agree on a set (it can be small) of standards by which to evaluate things. I think people have a right to evaluate anything however they want by any standard (or non-standard) they like, but if we are going to talk about it intelligently, it has to go beyond "that’s just ugly / no it’s not, you’re just ignorant" and move on to real things that we can think about and measure.

Why does some modern design move me and others just makes me roll my eyes? Two case studies that I will share:

- My alma mater, Drake University, had a Mies that they were really proud of, a 'flagship building of the campus' built in the late 60s and housing the journalism department. Everyone was of course really impressed because of its asteemed architect, but I for one found it oppressive and rather totalitarian in its look. It felt like an East German water treatment plant. It was hard to find the door. The net effect of this -- to me -- was that it elevated the building to a place of dominance over the people that use it, which I will get back to in a moment.

- The Getty Center in Los Angeles. As may be apparent in my assessment of this Mies building, I am not a big fan of modern architecture, as the term applies to the movement. So why was I so transfixed with the Getty? I was really awed by it. It seems to respect, though not blend in with, its surroundings. Also, the surfaces, though very clean, are also tactile and natural. Giant slabs of stone, some with rough edges, others smooth as glass. I can’t describe what it did to me when so many other modern buildings leave me cold.

Maybe that’s it. I find much of modern architecture to be cold, dehumanizing, and impersonal. Some is better than others. I don't hate the Wyatt house, for example. This is my biggest problem with a lot of modern architecture. Sure it is often clean and simple, but it makes me FEEL insignificant in its presence, as many Meis buildings do. They celebrate all that is mechanized and machined, which I don’t find to be a high virtue. I respond much more positively when I sense the hand of a person -- an artisan, a mason -- on a structure. Whether it is a Byzantine cathedral in Venice, or a post-and-beam barn, or the handcarved, not-too-ornate bannister in my 1915 Victorian house in Chicago, I sense the hand and soul of craftsmen in these places which I do not normally sense in modern architecture. I did not sense any of this in the Mies – it felt like the whole thing had been constructed by robots in a gigantic assembly line and dropped into place. And I sensed the hand of people all over the Getty Center.

Maybe this is a place of qualification for me. Though I inherently lean toward more traditional forms, I can fall in love with a modern building if (a) I sense that it respects rather than disdains the people who live there, and (b) that the soul and hand of the builders is present. Not very scientific, I realize, but there are measurable elements. Does it possess thoughtfully and beautifully designed built-in furniture? Are at least some of the materials not machine-made? Does it have natural wood, stone? Are the shapes echoed in nature or are they all hard square edges? I can even love something metal if I can sense the hand of the artisan as she welded the bannister or railing.

I guess these are a few places where I draw my lines and make my judgements. Not incidentally, there is a seamlessness in these standards which can be applied (and which I do apply) to any house of any style or vintage. There is fake and there is real. There is fake woodgrain pressed into plastic and there is real wood. There are cheap, artificial elements that suggest Victorian design, but which instead become cartoons of it because they are so artificial and machine-made. I respond to that which is authentic and to that which has a soul, whatever style it is in.

Steven Slaughter
Chicago

posted 05-12-2002 04:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 11UNCLES:
one more thing!
Look at all the thought and time that has gone into all of these messages.
I see that a lot of you have a lot of free time. Maybe you guys should work on the comunity and your own families as hard as you are trying to wear down this whole situation.
There are a lot of you who could make positive change if you would demonstrate this same kind of energy in making things right for the greater good/ vs just yourselves.

---

11 Uncles,

I'm a little bit confused...who are you talking to exactly? You refer to people writing long messages, and I've written the most recently-posted long message in this folder. So do you mean me, or are you refering to some thread further up? Just wondering, since you were the same guy who just talked about not casting judgement on others. Surely you wouldn't be judging complete strangers -- making inferences about how they spend their time -- based on the length of their postings, since of course, you would have no idea about all of the ways we are involved in our various communities. One final comment, since keeping it brief is important to me: some, though not all, of this discussion has been about exploring and thinking through larger issues, not just "trying to wear down this whole situation", as you said.

Since you aren't into judging others, I must have misunderstood your post.

Warm Regards,

posted 05-12-2002 06:59 PM               

Since you aren't into judging others, I must have misunderstood your post.

Warm Regards,

Steven Slaughter
Chicago [/B][/QUOTE]

Steve
1.I was told by a friend who lives in England that they were talking about the neighbourhood where I did much growing up.

2. I am frequently at the swim club from which the neighbourhood "revolves" around.(It is the NAME SAKE)

3. I am amazed at the people who had to take the "LEGAL" route just because they were Freaked out about the house.

4. I know many people in that neighbourhood, and many of the older staff at the CLUB.
I have seen first hand how these "good" neighbours treat the Club and The workers at the club. (of course not all of them but many of them that raised the biggest stink over all this)

For those of you in the Lakeside Neighbourhood let me give you a minor example of "Clean up your own yard before you complain about your neighbours".
When you head towards Bardstown road take a Right onto Lakeside drive (first right the one that connects with eastview)
About 4 houses up you see the house with the NAVAHO security sign. There is a Bag of mulch (yellow and black bag)that has been sitting at their front steps for over a year now (14 months).
And you guys are complaining about the WYATTS! People who ride bikes, walk and talk to their neighbours, Smile and act friendly wven when they know for some reason you hate them..
Give me a break!
Go live in the over priced Condos up the street!

posted 05-12-2002 07:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WyattBacker:
Lisa,

Lakeside has discrimated against blacks as well. The neighbors have trully opened a can of worms with this ridiculous lawsuit.

---

I extend the Challenge ...
Tell me when LAKESIDE has discriminated against blacks?
Please tell me and give a concrete example.
Most of us know about the OLD bylaws. But Discrimination is not something that those of us in the neighbourhood can inherit.
It would be funny though if Lewis Coleman got involved he always makes it fun..

posted 05-13-2002 09:19 AM               

Part1: Mies seems to have made a great impression, although I think of his work as a pretty narrow extreme of where modern architecture can go, or I should say "went". Modern architecture in this context is nothing but another historical style. I like to think what we are talking about here is "contemporary" architecture - this is something I think of as a moving target, what ever may be in the range of cutting edge to popular with designers (distinct from say developers or the general publics taste). An ever evolving standard that leaves historic styles in its wake.

So if you will consider my new term I think that this is where the Wyatts house falls, and it really is no more "modern" than the other houses in the neighborhood. This does'nt lend any clarity to whether or not you like it, but I think it should cut your strong association to the likes of Meis and that kind of cold extreme inhuman modernism. The Wyatt house is a different animal in my mind.

Part2: has to do with materials, man made vs machine made, authentic vs contrived. This is a real grey area and it is so easy to fool yourself here and rationalize a material ethic that fits your comfort with images. Lets start with something basic - victorian woodwork. We may deride the cheap plastic or machine made woodwork that is used in an attempt to give victorian flavor to houses built today. One thing that we have to remember is that the victorian style, at least the carpenter victorian that we have made reference to here, was driven by the sudden availablity of complex woodwork at relatively cheap prices provided by the breakthrough of machine made standard parts. It was a machine made style - formerly such elaborate and decorative woodwork would only be afforded by the very rich, it became a middle class commodity, and they got drunk on it I'd say, went way overboard! But the bottomline is they were using expiditiously the materials and methods they had on hand (including the state of labor as part of the overall cost). Doing the same today is still possible but it will never be a commodity.

You can look at modernism the same way. Of course a mies style house was never a commodity, but you would experience the same cost burden to try and replicate it.

Look at any historic house, any style, and you will see this relationship to materials and methods. The precious brick town houses of Philadelphia - in their time they were crude replicas of European city dwellings built with the rough materials available in a new frontier. Brick was the rough masonry usually covered with stucco or stone back home.

And how about real wood siding instead of grain embossed vinyl. What do you think they would have choosen way back when if they had something that did not rot and did not need to be painted as one of thier choices! But they used the best and most expedient materials that had on hand. Maybe that meant cedar instead of pine. Maybe that meant mill cut boards instead of handsawn.

Where do you draw the line - is wood always ok, even when it is sawn in an automated factory, or must it be a water wheel mill, or hand sawn is the only authentic wood siding. Well maybe its what ever method used in the time typical of the style - ok, so then you draw the line where other types of siding material became available. Or maybe whats really going on here is just an assocaition of materials and images of houses that are comfortable or familiar.

SO how does modernism look out of place - it can be a very superficial assesment. It looks out of place. But I think just the opposite. The one who builds most expediently, who uses the best materials readily at hand, who does not pretend to be doing anything else, is the one building in the strongest tradition. In that context most of what is built residentially is on the grandest, most self indulgent, and most artificial trend that history has ever seen. Whole industrys built up to produce modern materials that look like something else, from asphalt shake shingles to vinyl wood siding, in order to serve a dream, an image, of the way things were built years ago in a completely superficial way. Have we ever been so misguided, so off track, out in the woods not seeing the forest for the trees!

I think a general rule of thumb is materials should not pretend to be something else. It does not mean you can't paint them, it does not mean you can't wrap wood trim in aluminum. But you don't paint wood grain on top of wood, you don't use aluminum embossed with wood grain. You don't wear flesh tone socks! Everything in its own nature. Adolf Loos had a principle of cladding that is similar to this:

From the principle of cladding, however, I have derived a very precise law which I call the law of cladding.

The law goes like this: we must work in such a way that a confusion of the material clad with its cladding is impossible.

That means, for example, that wood may be painted any color except one—the color of wood.

Adolf Loos

posted 05-13-2002 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 11UNCLES:
one more thing!
Look at all the thought and time that has gone into all of these messages.
I see that a lot of you have a lot of free time. Maybe you guys should work on the comunity and your own families as hard as you are trying to wear down this whole situation.
There are a lot of you who could make positive change if you would demonstrate this same kind of energy in making things right for the greater good/ vs just yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 11UNCLES:

For those of you in the Lakeside Neighbourhood let me give you a minor example of "Clean up your own yard before you complain about your neighbours".
When you head towards Bardstown road take a Right onto Lakeside drive (first right the one that connects with eastview)
About 4 houses up you see the house with the NAVAHO security sign. There is a Bag of mulch (yellow and black bag) that has been sitting at their front steps for over a year now (14 months).

---

posted 05-13-2002 08:42 PM               

Lavardera,

Thanks for your well thought-out comments. This is where a discussion of this sort really becomes enriching (and fun) for me. You've brought up some things I hadn't thought about in quite that way, and it is really food for thought. My thoughts on all of this are not fully formed by any means -- as my post betrays, I'm sure -- and I just hoped to get the ball started. Thanks very much for keeping it moving forward. I'll mull over your thoughts before I respond...though of course only while I am doing something useful and virtuous for my community. (What a loser I would be to squander my time thinking and dialoguing uselessly with people about the deeper meanings of things like art, home, and community.)

L.O.: Thanks for bringing a smile to my face as I shut down this machine for the night. Mulch, indeed.

Time to go turn on the heater for the basement sauna I just completed. So...do you think it was morally permissible for me to retrofit my Vicorian's old root cellar into a serene cedar-lined sauna? Maybe this is the act of modernist-at-heart after all.

Good night, everyone.

posted 05-14-2002 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagny:
I have been familiar with the Wyatt house controversy for some time (I've visited the house, too) but only recently discovered this forum. I would simply like LakesideObserver to know that, despite your apparent doubts, Allison@dwell did indeed interview Michael Barry (a former professor of mine) regarding the lawsuit, and that he is not a friend of the Wyatts; but is, however, a well-respected local architect with quite valid and relevant opinions. After all, he, too, has built a 'modern' addition in a traditional Louisville neighborhood (but without all the consequent hooplah).

And to Allison@dwell, are there any plans to publish photos of Mr. Barry's addition in the magazine in the near future?

---

I have never expressed any “doubts” that Ms. Arieff interviewed Mr. Barry - he is referred to and even quoted in her April 2002 DWELL “article.” Any implication of “friendship” with the Wyatts comes from Ms. Arieff herself through her inclusion of Mr. Barry in her list of “neighbors” and supporters of the Wyatts she spoke with.

As for your request for a photo of the modern addition Mr. Barry designed for his sister - had you read the DWELL article - you would have observed that Ms. Arieff has already provided the photo you are asking for on page 51.

I find it interesting that even though you "have been familiar with the Wyatt house controversy for some time" and "visited the house," you took the time to post here to correct my comments without bothering to actually READ the article you are posting about.

posted 05-14-2002 10:27 AM            

First of all let me assure you that I do live in the Lakeside neighborhood and can use a hammer.