12. WHAT’S NEW? 2000–PRESENT
We shape our dwellings and afterwards our dwellings shape us.
—Winston Churchill
We’re already almost two decades into the new millennium and we ask, “What’s new?” What’s new in the way of style in general, and in residential design in particular?
There was a recent article in a leading New York newspaper with the heading: “What Do We Wear? The chaos of women’s fashions leaves us with no clear ideas.” Who would have thought twenty years ago that there would be a market for pre-mud-stained jeans with pre-torn knees? And who could have imagined a price tag for these jeans of over $1000? Well, they are considered “stylish” today—at least by some. It also seems that unshaven men with too short jackets that barely button in front and trousers that are way too long are “in style.” Evidently, there is a chaos of fashion in our new houses as well that leaves us with no clear ideas in residential design. The phrase “good taste”—once understood as a cultural norm—has clearly disappeared from our vocabulary.
There are innumerable shelter magazines that feature “summer style,” “mountain style,” “cottage style,” “barn style,” and simply the “latest style,” without really defining just what they mean. The emphasis is on decor—cheerful colors and fancy accessories but few, if any, floor plans. There also seems to be a trend for a hodgepodge of surface materials in both builders’ spec houses and in designs favored by architects.
Perceived luxurious “necessities” and electronic devices are more important than how basic plans relate to the site and the community. The general public doesn’t seem to care so much what their houses look like anymore, as long as there’s a giant TV screen, reliable Wi-Fi, and an impressive kitchen outfitted with all the latest gadgets. A majority of market-built houses have double garage doors as the dominant feature, while the main entry is almost incidental as you approach the house.
With all that said, there are encouraging signs that all is not totally lost. We can still find houses that express the specific character of various regions of our country that have nothing to do with size but everything to do with good planning and a respectful consideration for the locale.
But before examining the current trends in residential design, let’s review some of the historic and popular styles from twenty years ago. How relevant are any of them today? I have grouped the various designs into historic styles, as well as those that are generally promoted by spec builders and ones that have been featured in architectural publications.
HISTORIC STYLES TODAY
There are five styles I considered “historic” in the first edition of this book that I believe are still influential. The first three are grouped as “Indigenous”: Shingle, Prairie, and Craftsman (see pages 89–97). The fourth, the Pueblo style (pages 110–11), is appropriately still very much in vogue in the southwest and the fifth, Neoclassical (pages 38–40), is still evident in the South. These five styles influenced five of the six new styles I illustrate in the next section.
Mountain Rustic is simply a continuation of the principles established a century ago in the Craftsman style. The same can be said of Wright’s influence on the Modern and the Midwest styles of today. The Shingle style has to some extent influenced the way today’s Cottage style appears. However, the Cottage style owes more to early Colonial Revival and the Craftsman styles than to any of the basic principles of the original Shingle style. The latter only flourished toward the end of the nineteenth century. One can’t ignore the persistent influence of the Neoclassical style on some of today’s houses—particularly in the Southern Classic. The Barn style adapts the characteristic simplicity of vernacular rural structures to comfortable dwellings.
The Spanish or Mediterranean styles (pages 108–15) are still evident in the southern and southwestern states, and vestigial examples of other historic styles will pop up from time to time. But, clearly, they are not prevalent “popular house styles.” The Minimal Traditional style I mentioned at the beginning of the Popular House styles group (see pages 128–39) was really a non-style, and was indeed a no-nonsense building type that served its purpose in the lean years of the Great Depression and the first couple of years following the end of World War II.
BUILDERS’ STYLES
I recently heard the mother of a millennial daughter remark that, “None of the young people today want anything brown.” What she meant was that young married couples don’t want Granny’s old mahogany dining table or the antique chest of drawers that would have been considered a valued heirloom a generation ago. The young marrieds generally buy more practical furniture from sources that cater to their generation. Consequently, the taste for houses that replicate anything “colonial” have lost their appeal to many.
Builders’ Contemporaries and Builders’ Shed, popular from the sixties through the eighties, were largely based on architects’ prototypes that have become passé—so they are no longer popular.
Of the almost endless choices of designs available in the market or online that might well have the prefix “neo-,” most don’t have the same appeal that they did a generation ago. England and France no longer set a standard to be emulated here anymore than our own colonial past, so there are fewer Tudors and French Eclectic houses built today. The eccentric “Victorians” (Queen Annes) still hold some appeal but often with shocking boutique colors that would have been anathema to our great-grandparents.
The houses commonly referred to as “McMansions” now seem to be out of style. They are not as popular as they were before the subprime mortgage crisis a decade ago. However, Thorstein Veblen’s theory of “conspicuous consumption” is still a component of our culture and ostentatious display is unavoidable in an affluent society. The shelter magazine Ocean Homes (June/ July 2017) noted that “Giga-Mansions take decadence soaring to new levels.” But even they can be in any architectural style. What does seem to resonate with young people today are buildings that owe more to the Arts and Crafts movement than anything else. This is evident in the popularity of trellises and pergolas associated with both the Craftsman and the Shingle styles. The six examples I show in the following section illustrate what I mean.
With the exception of the second example, which I simply call Modern, the other five have the same DNA as either the Craftsman style or what is considered Neoclassical. Porches are ubiquitous in the South, even if no one sits on them. (People are more apt to gather in a screened porch at the back of the house or in an air-conditioned room inside.) If the proportions respect the classical standards illustrated on pages 22, 23, and 167 this style can be appropriate. Unfortunately, most examples on the market demonstrate no appreciation for the proportions of the true classical prototypes which are seldom taught in architecture schools today—if indeed they are taught at all.
ARCHITECTS’ STYLES
The vast majority of houses today are not designed by architects for individual clients with a checklist of specific requirements. Though house plans available on the Internet may have been produced by “architectural designers,” they rarely meet the aesthetic standards one would expect from a licensed architect.
So, let’s review the styles I included in Chapter 10 as Popular House Styles generally favored by architects.
The first one I mentioned was Miesian. Philip Johnson (1906–2005) was Mies van der Rohe’s most avid proponent. Johnson’s own 1949 Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut, is now a historic house museum and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It attracts many visitors every year but it never triggered a popular fad for glass boxes. One problem is that it could never meet the requirements of today’s energy codes.
Brutalism (1960–1980) was never a popular house style and architects have found few takers among their clients. Supermannerist (1960–1970s) was always a form of Pop Art and was never destined to impact residential design. Then we have Deconstructionist (1980s–1990s). One still sees examples of houses that look like they are about to fall down. But until the law of gravity changes, it is not a direction to be explored architecturally.
Finally, we have Postmodern (1960s–1990s). As Tom Wolfe stated in his 1981 book, From Bauhaus to Our House, “Post-Modernism . . . told you what you were leaving without committing you to any particular destination.” This book was not popular with avant-garde architects but proved to be accurate. The capricious whimsy of the proponents of Postmodernism pretty much reached a dead end. A less iconoclastic version of Postmodernism, Neo-Shingle (1960–1980s), has been superseded by shingled houses that owe more to Colonial Revival styles than they do to the late nineteenth-century prototypes.
So where do we go? I included American Vernacular Revival as a direction to be explored. The term American Vernacular is a bit misleading, however, and I would now stress the importance of regional styles—styles that relate to the regions of the country where they are found.
CURRENT TRENDS IN REGIONAL STYLES
As I said at the end of Chapter 10, homes that express the various regional characters of our country are still the best hope for contemporary houses that will never seem dated. With that in mind, let’s now examine a few places that have retained a sense of regional character. One can assume that these are “comfortable, livable houses that express the character of the region, the site, and the people who live in them” that I pleaded for at the end of the previous chapter over twenty years ago.
Though the emphasis in this book has been on style as distinct from building types, I have made three adjustments to the basic floor plans because of trends in the way we live our lives in the twenty-first century. Work habits have changed and an increasing number of people work from home, at least part of the time, even if they are employed by major companies. This has led to a need for a home office complete with all the communication devices that are ubiquitous today and are an inherent part of our culture. So the space in the earlier version of the floor plan indicated as a separate dining room is now shown as a flexible space that may be used as a home office. With an en-suite bathroom this space may, of course, also serve as a first-floor bedroom.
In response to a trend toward privacy, I have shown all the bedrooms to have en-suite bathrooms. Some might consider this an indulgence, but I believe the extra cost is worth the expense over the years.
Lastly, what was shown before as a family room adjacent to the kitchen is also now a more flexible area for family meals but also as an informal sitting area. The main living room will always be a part of the everyday living and entertaining as well. With the fireplace backing up to the entrance hall, the living room and the area next to the kitchen can be merged into the now popular “great room.”
Revised Plan
1. Kitchen shifted to the corner
2. Great room
3. Home office/study/guest
These changes to the basic plan don’t really affect style, as such, but do inform the layout of the floor plan, which in turn will undoubtedly influence the way the houses evolve in mass and scale. Whatever variations are illustrated, note that the original basic plan has not substantially changed.
These are still the same basic plans illustrated on page xiv of the Preface. They include the attached garage as shown in Chapter 10, and now include the full bath on the ground floor and an additional bath on the second floor. The fireplace can still be placed either between the sitting area of the kitchen and the living room or between the great room and the entrance hall, as shown on the previous page. (I tend to avoid placing them on an outside wall as I showed in the original illustration.)
MOUNTAIN RUSTIC
Rustic cabins served as the progenitors of these informal houses. Whether log houses in the Rocky Mountains or the “camps” in the Adirondacks that are sided with rough sawn boards, the character is compatible with the mountainous terrain. They can be modest in scale or, in some instances, extravagant in their expansive layouts. Even in the 1890s, the exclusive compound Tuxedo Park set the tone for such houses with the Club’s gatehouse constructed with enormous boulders.
MODERN
Extensive glass and flat roofs characterize these houses. They generally have smooth siding—either flush boards or often stucco. The crisp details derive from the International style and Wright’s playful use of planes but the general public would tend to simply call houses like this Modern. It is an imprecise term but perhaps conveys an image that is generally understood by the public.
MIDWEST
Though reminiscent of the original Prairie style houses, the Midwest style can be considered as distinct in its own right. These simplified versions of the original houses of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Midwest a century ago can still seem right at home today. They may complement existing houses in many communities whether rural or suburban.
COTTAGE STYLE
These shingled houses are common in the northeast—particularly eastern Long Island’s summer communities. The gambrel roof has often been a principle feature of these houses. Although sometimes referred to as Shingle style, they derive more from the local colonial revival houses. Original Shingle style houses didn’t have corner boards or prominent roof overhangs. The trim complements the houses when painted earthy tones or mossy greens rather than the more common stark white.
SOUTHERN CLASSIC
Americans have long had a love affair with porches. This has been particularly evident in the southern states. The Neoclassical Revival style has continued to the present day. Unfortunately, the current examples rarely honor the standard proportions of classical orders (pages 22–23), but still complement their settings.
BARN STYLE
The elemental simplicity of rural barns has in many instances been adapted to build comfortable, livable houses. The basic form of American barns may vary somewhat in different parts of the country, but all share the commonality of simple barn-like shapes. They may be actually timber-frame structures or “stick-built” but share the same simplicity of form.
PUEBLO STYLE
This is the same basic design as the example on page 111. However, this version has been updated to reflect the modifications to the plan that appears in this chapter.
REGIONAL STYLES REVISITED
These six new designs, as well as the Pueblo, demonstrate the ways an architect can develop multiple variations of a single basic plan. As an architect, I would be comfortable working in any of the styles given the appropriate setting. Mountain Rustic would work in most rural settings, not just mountainous areas. Contemporary houses with flat roofs and large expanses of glass are no longer seen as “different.” They no longer jolt the passerby the way they did a generation ago. So, houses in the Modern style are certainly suitable today in most communities.
The other examples all have regional prototypes of familiar styles. Though it echoes the Prairie style, the Midwest has its own character and might well be suitable in other regions. The same could be said of both the Cottage and the Southern Classic. Lastly, the Barn style would be appropriate in most rural settings—particularly if it reflected the scale and forms of the local vernacular structures.
McKim, Mead & White’s 1877 tour sketching New England vernacular structures pointed the way to looking at regional precedents for creative inspiration. I have always been intrigued by the traditional New England saltbox.
One of my first commissions was a 1,400 square-foot house for a young man named Joey Stakes who was tired of renting and wanted to build a house. The result was a small “contemporary saltbox” in Remsenburg, Long Island. The house was first published by Better Homes and Gardens in 1969 and then many times over several years. It was featured in a special edition as “Our Readers’ Flexible All-Time Favorite” and described as “one of the most universally accepted houses they ever featured.”
Joseph Stakes House in Remsenburg, Long Island. Built with a ten percent architect’s fee for less than a spec builder was going to charge for an undistinguished “Cape” with a shed dormer on the second floor. So Joey used to tell people “You can’t afford to build without an architect!”
Another issue of the Better Homes and Garden’s magazine Home Plan Ideas featured their “Ten Most Popular Houses of All-Time.” The Stakes House was number one but two others were also mine—and both were also saltboxes! One I designed for Mad magazine cartoonist Paul Coker, Jr. in Weston, Connecticut, and the other was a house my wife, Liddy, and I built in Katonah/Bedford, New York, in the 1970s. Our two older children were reading Tolkien at the time and named the house Rivendell—“elfin refuge of the Middle Earth.”
Since all three houses were variations on the basic saltbox, the traditional vernacular building type obviously resonated with the magazine’s readers. I make this point to illustrate what I mean when I urge prospective homeowners to explore regional building types that appeal to them and then encourage their architects to do the same—either vintage vernacular prototypes or newer structures along the lines of my seven examples in this chapter.
My closing thought: I hope the next generation of young adults will enjoy looking at architecture—particularly houses—with a new interest in the way we live and how the study of architecture can enrich our lives. If I can encourage my readers to view residential design with an informed and critical eye, I will have succeeded in my goal in writing this book.
Paul Coker, Jr. bought property on the Saugatuck River in Weston, Connecticut. Since he was a freelance cartoonist who worked at home, we first converted a small two-car garage that was already on the property into a guest house with a studio on the second floor. Paul lived there until the main house was completed.
Rivendell was completed in two phases in the 1970s. This photo shows the house in its completed form with my studio/guest room to the right on the ground floor and the master bedroom above.
It pleased me that this house was considered an iconic example of contemporary design in an educational coloring book. A. G. Smith’s The American House Styles of Architecture Coloring Book (Dover Publishing, 1983) includes representative examples of a range of American houses styles. The cover text notes that “the dwellings reveal a variety of styles and approaches—ranging from the Taos Pueblo (pre-sixteenth century) to a striking contemporary design by John Milnes Baker.”