posted 02-13-2002 08:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sam@dwellmag:
In Louisville, Kentucky, a young family who built a Polygal clad shed is being taken to court by their neighbors.

---

I live in Louisville (where we're not all hillbillies, and there's actually some interesting architecture around), but I have not seen Word One in the local media about this.

posted 02-15-2002 02:28 PM            

This situation marks a sad day in our society. Not merely for the architects and designers of the world but for everyone. This situation is a micro condition of a macro problem. Simply put the Wyatts have become a "spokesfamily" for individuality and freedom of speech. Yes, I said it freedom of speech.

Design in all its forms is an expressive art and in turn is used to "speak" to those around you. The Wyatt's used this home to express their beliefs and values toward urban living, home, family, community, social interaction, neighborhood, etc. They have a right to this speech and to anyone who interupts this voice has, in my opinion, hindered their amendment rights. Our world is composed of an extremely complex matrix of people and beliefs and I believe that the very fact that the design of a house can even make it into our court system shows the extremely powerful voice design may bring to the table.

As a member of our American society, I only pray that the neighborhood may open their arms to the Wyatts and accept them for who they are and the ideals that they represent. As an architect, I only pray that all designers begin to acknowledge our POWER and work to turn this situation into a turning point in design, public involvement, and community building.

posted 02-18-2002 04:34 PM               

Being knee deep in footings, rebar, styrofoam cement forms, and well into our budget I really felt for the Wyatt's. However being active in our neighborhood watch I completely understand the beauty of saying as little as possible about your new construction. While we have made every effort to be within our zoning laws and building codes we take free reign after that. While I know that everyone that looks at the property after we are done will have a very strong opinion I also know that it is 100 times harder for a repressive community to do anything about a completed project as opposed to a project that is under construction.

So make sure your within the confines of the local statutes and then you never really have to work with the local neighborhood (hopefully). We made every effort to not have to meet with a zoning review board. Sometimes that's not possible but I can promise you that if there is a way to get around the issue (be creative!) without working for a zoning release you'll thank yourself in the end.

posted 02-20-2002 02:43 PM               

To the neighbors in Lakeville, two things:

1) There is precedence for sound modern design in the midst of traditional domestic architecture. Funny that my husband and I were walking back from an afternoon at the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan when I stopped to pick up the April 2002 issue of dwell. Does anyone out there know how its neighbors took to that building when it was first proposed and built? Does anyone know how much the Guggenheim was paid by that car company for the rights to make an ad featuring a sporty sedan driving off the loading dock and onto Fifth Avenue?

2) Cedars. They grow fast and are quite low maintenance.

posted 02-20-2002 05:47 PM               

thanks!
-sam

temerson
Junior Member
posted 02-20-2002 01:24 PM

posted 02-21-2002 11:05 AM               

However, that's not the only side of the story. Dwell acknowledges that the Wyatt house to too big for the neighborhood. Modernistic McMansion would probably be the best term for it, if it were legal to mock pretenious modernism in the pages of Dwell. This is an all too common problem in established neighborhoods. Full of houses that by contemporary standards and tastes are too small, poorly laid out, and with all the problems of older buildings, these neighborhoods are seeing teardowns right and left in places like suburban Chicago. All too often with a 5,000 footer thrown up where a modest ranch used to stand. While the Wyatts did not tear down an existing home and used a modernistic style, they fall squarely into this trend: people with lots of money to spend plowing into an established neighborhood without caring about the people who live there or the existing feel of the neighborhood.

Their outsized home is also not just too big, it is clearly out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. The exterior of the Wyatt home, so far as I can tell, relates to its surroundings in no significant fashion other than being built square to the lot line. It does not draw on the neighborhood's history nor, rhetoric about Southern vernacular architecture aside, greater Louisville's rich traditions as a whole. Well, perhaps if you count allusions to aluminum pole barns. Indeed, the property tramples all over the legacy of the Fredrick Law Olmsted designed subdivision. (I can only imagine the shrieking from the Dwell crowd if I re-designed the lobby of a Mies van der Rohe skyscraper with some frilly art nouveau motif). This contextlessness of so much modern architecture is, IMO, a big reason why it so often engenders such opposition. Too many people do like the Wyatt's and take the easy way out, putting in something trendy w/o making an effort to truly make modernistic architecture work with the neighborhood instead of just landing there like an alien artifact. I think this is the key to bringing more inventive architecture to established neighborhoods.

But what I find most disturbing about this story is the attitude that the Wyatt's and Dwell have taken towards the people who live in the neighborhood. I think it's pretty clear that even before starting work on the house, the Wyatt's had already judged their neighbors and found them wanting. Like many other superior forms of life, the Wyatts have decided to bring a little "civilization" to a group of people they feel are uncultured rubes. They didn't just come into the neighborhood looking to be accepted for who they were. They came in actively looking to change the neighborhood and the people in it to be something they think is "better". Can

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

On the whole, I would have wished that the neighborhood be more open and accepting of newer architectural styles. OTOH, with the elitist and condescending attitudes of the Wyatt's and Dwell, and the lack of respect paid by the home to the neighborhood, one can begin to understand why the neighbors are not quite so understanding.

posted 02-21-2002 01:15 PM               

Thank you for your observations. In my article, I made a point to stres not only that the house was too big for its lot but that many of the changes the Wyatts made after pressure from the neighbors resulted in a home that was far less sensitive to its surroundings than architect Coleman Coker's original design would have been. The decision to change the exterior from grey to green, for example.

The Wyatts were not out to "bring civilization to their neighbors" nor are they irresponsible trust fund babies. They are solidly middle class, creative people who chose an architectural firm known for its affordable housing projects to build their dream house.They found land in a neighborhood they liked and built a house on it. There was no ulterior motive.

The Wyatts made mistakes and I have no doubt that they would have done some things differently. But the neighbors made mistakes, too. It was irresponsible of the Wyatts to not take their surroundings into account in a more responsible manner. But no one deserves the amount of harrassment and protracted litigation that they've been forced to endure for the last two years.

posted 02-21-2002 01:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison@dwell:

The Wyatts were not out to "bring civilization to their neighbors" nor are they irresponsible trust fund babies. They are solidly middle class, creative people who chose an architectural firm known for its affordable housing projects to build their dream house.They found land in a neighborhood they liked and built a house on it. There was no ulterior motive.

---

I quote from your article. "But as much as the Wyatt's loved the neighborhood as it was, they were also keen to bring new life and vitality to it. Though many young families had moved to the area in recent years, the place seemed frozen in time. Diversity - racial, cultural, religious, or otherwise - was a non-issue." Seems to me that the Wyatt's did have some problems with the neighborhood, including a problem with the social attitudes of its residents. You also quote them later in the article as explicitly "questioning tradition", which seems confrontational.

Your mention of the lack of diversity is what I find most interesting. You seem to be using the neighbors' lack of tolerance for the Wyatt home as a metaphor for other intolerences the neighbors might have, such as racism. I should also add that we're given no evidence of this lack of diversity, nor any portrait of the neighbors at all other than as caricatures (e.g. "the nosy neighbor from Bewitched") or spectres haunting the Wyatt's. Naturally we're not going to have much sympathy for them. I'd speculate that the neighbors wouldn't be interviewed by you. Still, it would have been nice to try to learn more about the neighborhood and the people in it and truly get their perspectives instead of relying so much on the Wyatt's side of the story.

Hey, I read Dwell because I like modern architecture myself. I certainly think the neighbors are over-reacting and this whole episode is a black eye for the city of Louisville. But I also suspect that the Wyatt's probably bear a great deal more blame for this situation that was conveyed in your article. Once these things get started, unfortunately there is rarely an end to the neverending cycle of escalations and recriminations, leading to some of the absurd claims we've seen in court.

posted 02-21-2002 02:17 PM               

I think that more at the core of problem is the individuals right to expression via the architecture of their home. It certainly within the Wyatts rights to question tradition via architectural character. Some communities restrict this by explicit architectural rules. The long ignored deed restrictions here seem to address materials more than style. An even more incongruous result could be made within the terms of the deed - what would the neighbors have done then? The neighbors gripe is not the deed, it is the Wyatts self expression, something they have no place trying to manipulate. The fact that they are trying to leverage the deed to that end is what paints them in a negative way to me, and I think that same sentiment is what arenn is reading in the article.

posted 02-22-2002 12:48 PM               

We will of course let you know when we hear the outcome of the Wyatts' suit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjmidnight@yahoo.com:
Dwell,
Could you keep posting to this msg board progress on this story. I'm sure all of us are interested in the progress of the lawsuit.

Thanks,
Justin

---

posted 02-22-2002 12:49 PM               

Best of luck with your architectural pursuits...

quote:

---

Originally posted by j3mbeck:
What a timely article. My wife and I have been wanting to do the same thing the Wyatt's have done, building modern in an older established neighborhood, lord knows a house like the Wyatt's would not fit in a newer "cookie cutter" subdivision. Where else could they have built? Land ain't cheap! But why all the problems? Perhaps someone could have built a home that meet all of the 83(?) year-old requirements and parked cars in the yard, let the grass go to seed before mowing (and then blow the clippings into the street when they do mow) among other neat thing.

Anyone know how to get a hold of Coleman Coker? I've got a job for him.

---

posted 02-23-2002 11:54 AM               

From outside the situation it appears that the neigbors are being selfish and inconsiderate. Some welcome to the neighborhood! Your new neighbors attempt to impose their aesthetic judgment on your house!

posted 02-25-2002 12:03 PM            

I once owned a home in a neighborhood that had a single striking home that did not 'conform' to the rest of the houses that surrounded it. I thought it was ugly and that the architects had been remiss in executing their ideas. Ten years later, I think about that neighborhood and what first comes to mind is that home. Not 'ugly' or 'fish-out-of-water' but "I wonder if they still LOVE that house as much as they did then."

LikewiseI also recall an article in the New York Times about several buildings that were coming down to put up a new D. Trump property. The columnist pondered the changing of the city...recalling when the buildings being removed had first been erected. His thoughts then were "Why do they allow ugly bulidings like that in our city? Damn steel and glass monstrosities...." The passage of time ensued, and twenty five years later, he decried the destruction of the venerable older buildings....'Why must they take those down?'..... The most wonderful part of his story was not about the buildings, but about human nature....his memorable thought "When did those buildings become beautiful?" summed up the flow of tastes and cultural mores that will always be fleeting.
Design, or any other medium for that matter, that is outside the norm has been under attack for as long as humans have been around. How controversial was the Wright design for the Guggenheim? How safe would automobiles be today if there had not been an advocate like R. Nader screaming for years about safety issues (See "Unsafe At Any Speed")? What would be the position of women in this country if not for zealots like G. Steinham leading the women's movement?

posted 02-26-2002 10:05 AM            

Whichever side of this discussion you support - thank goodness there is a place to discuss it.

My wife and I recently bought a 1947 mcm-home with plans to 'recreate its magic.' Reading first the original article and now the follow-up has given us many things to consider that I'm sure we would have missed without the 'warning.'

posted 02-26-2002 12:43 PM               

Whichever side of this discussion you support - thank goodness there is a place to discuss it.

Precisely! So glad you believe as we do here at dwell, that these are issues that need a forum.

Thought I'd also share this article on the Wyatts and Prospect, CO, with the discussion group. It was published in the Sunday, March 24th issue of the Chicago Tribune newspaper:

GIMME SHELTER
New manors are trying Southern manners

Karen Klages reviews the upcoming month's shelter magazines and steers you
toward issues worth your time and money
Published February 24, 2002

And you think your neighbors are a problem. Ruth and Kevin Wyatt of
Louisville, Ky., are surrounded by folks who have filed legal papers that
claim the Wyatts and their new house have "annoyed them, intimidated them,
scared them, caused them mental and emotional distress and/or physical
illness and financial hardship [and] kept them from getting job
promotions"--among other things. The neighbors would love to see the house
demolished but probably would settle for changes to the exterior.

You see, the Wyatts' new house is of modern design. And this--in a leafy
subdivision where Southern minds and manors have not changed for the better
part of a century--is cause for a brouhaha.

The April issue of dwell (on newsstands now) carries the story, which is
almost comic, to the credit of dwell senior editor Allison Arieff, who wrote
the article and clearly is not unbiased. She likens one of the complaining
neighbors to "Mrs. Kravitz, the nosy neighbor from 'Bewitched' " and
describes the plaintiffs' attorney (there are 12 neighbors in the
anti-coalition) as "a sturdy man who favors short-sleeved shirts with ties."

At the heart of the feud is the Wyatts' notably different house, sheathed in
corrugated metal and opaque polycarbonate plastic that allows it to glow
from the inside at night--a major objection of the neighbors along with the
choice of materials. In fact, the neighbors are using old subdivision deed
restrictions, written about 80 years ago, to make their legal case. The
restrictions stipulate that homes be built with brick, brick veneer, stucco
or stone--a k a traditional materials.

Arieff is quick to point out that deed restrictions are not law.

There is no end to this story. A court date had been postponed as of dwell's
press time. But the staff at dwell certainly got the last word by following
this story with another one about a neighborhood that celebrates its
eclectic housing styles.

posted 02-26-2002 01:31 PM               

i think the wyatt's house is recklessly irresponsible. i love good design (i'm a grad. design student and married to an architect), but "modern aesthetics" applied regardless of context is an embarrasment to all that good design should stand for.

i dream of living in a hollywood hills, glass-walled modern masterpiece (lautner, maybe? hodgetts and fung?), so certainly, i find the innovative use of materials and space in the wyatt house appealing. it would fit in great here in the hills of north east los angeles.

but, just like that hoax of modernism called "international style," the house in no way attempts to respect the environment it is a part of, both in terms of size and aesthetics.

so maybe that's not illegal. it shouldn't be illegal. the lawsuit is a pretty extreme step. however, i don't blame the neighbors for being upset. the wyatts --and their architect-- have pretty much given them the middle finger with this entrance into the neighborhood.

for modernism that respects its surroundings see lake/flato in san antonio.

posted 02-26-2002 02:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kleeki:
Hi
I live in a relativly non decript 1950's neihborhood in southern california, and we are about to break boundries with a beautiful design by a local firm known for their extreme modernism and we are debating wether to inform the neihbors of our plans? Of course afraid to start any hinderance before we even get started. We have shown the plans to close friends and family and have gotten very mixed reviews, Just wondering what you all would do knowing the potential Wyatt effect.

---

That's a tough one. On the one hand, working with you neighbors might help reduce any opposition. On the other, by informing them you might just whip up a hornets nest of opposition. If you are concerned about a backlash, I would consult a local real estate attorney before doing anything.

posted 02-26-2002 02:49 PM               

oh, lake/flato info at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1564962334/qid=1014778090/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8877998-4975007

posted 02-27-2002 03:56 PM               

Thanks for your posting. I do agree--as the article pointed out--that had the scale of the house not been what it was that this whole thing might never have happened. In truth, the design is not all that unconventional but the
size of the house and the use of the green rather than grey corrugated metal certainly help to give that impression. No doubt this was a huge learning experience for all concerned.