Saw this just list for sale in Springfield
1553 Hubbard St (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1553-Hubbard-St-Jacksonville-FL-32206/44476707_zpid/)
(http://photos1.zillow.com/p_f/IS-ogu6shg8rlgd.jpg)
How does that awful attempt at mimicry exist (garage front and center, house rotated 90 degrees away from the street), but this (http://www.contentdg.com/walnut-house-modern-historic-district/) doesn't?
(http://www.contentdg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Street-Elevations-copy.jpg)
Or how about this (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4573-Merson-Ln-Jacksonville-FL-32205/44472015_zpid/) entirely out of context McMansion in Murray Hill?
(http://photos2.zillow.com/p_f/IS-19mzl4lk1r0pp.jpg)
What would your picks be for bad architecture/design in the urban core?
If someone has the money and wants to build a well designed house, let them. The Klutho house isn't too far off from that design anyway.
the 90 degree rotated house is in the Charleston style...I see nothing wrong with it
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 27, 2013, 07:10:50 PM
the 90 degree rotated house is in the Charleston style...I see nothing wrong with it
The door should still be facing the street.
It's a bad design for a corner lot. It would be improved by a Charleston style wall and landscaping to hide most of it from the street.
Nothing that Bob Vila couldn't handle :)
I'm fine with the first 2, not sure where they were going with the 3rd one, but whatever floats their boat, right? Now that second one in Murray Hill? I'd jump on that beauty in a heartbeat, I love ultra modern, post modern and arts deco.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 27, 2013, 09:21:12 PM
I'm fine with the first 2, not sure where they were going with the 3rd one, but whatever floats their boat, right? Now that second one in Murray Hill? I'd jump on that beauty in a heartbeat, I love ultra modern, post modern and arts deco.
The rendering is something I would absolutely love in Springfield, just bemoaning that there are new builds like the poor Charleston imitation (link 1 and picture one) instead. The Tudor revival with it's out-of-scale size and prominent garage belongs in some cookie cutter McMansion suburban subdivision, not an urban neighborhood.
To be fair 1553 Hubbard only takes up a small lot. This architectural atrocity consumes city blocks and nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1918148599_FNd2BCq-M.jpg)
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 27, 2013, 07:10:50 PM
the 90 degree rotated house is in the Charleston style...I see nothing wrong with it
The garage departs from Charleston style. They would be charged taxes for the width of the garage too. Have to put a short side to the street. Likely would have not had a garage in Charleston or hid it behind the house. Charleston style does not have the front door to the street necessarily.
The first "Charleston type" house was approved because there are I believe two others in the community already of that style. One may be original and the other, as I have been told, was a infill from I believe the eighties. In any case, it was also approved in the days when you could easily knock down a historic house just because you wanted the empty lot. As it is on the corner, I was very surprised when it was built. Garage facing the street and no significant windows on the side makes for a very out of place appearance.
The modern take on the Klutho/ Wright style of house fits into the current thinking in many Historic Districts where the new infill should stand apart from the historic housing stock and yet blend in. And yes, the house designed was obviously influenced by the Klutho house on 9th st and would have been a great addition to the community.
The third house pictured is reminiscent of a house in Springfield at about 6Th and Liberty. It was built CA. 1908 and was designed by a pretty well known architect whose name escapes me at the moment.
Urban areas need to be a bit eclectic so that they appeal to a wide range of potential residents. And who wants a boring look anyway?
Just to clarify I absolutely adore the modern design. If that house existed, I would buy it. With the other two, I despise new construction that's supposed to look old, *especially* when it's not done well. I've seen new Craftsmen-style builds that aren't criminal, but no one is going to look at the Charleston imitation or Tudor Revial and think "that fits in with the neighborhood fabric" simply due to their anti-urban design principals. If you're going to build new, build something new, especially if you're not going to make an earnest attempt to be authentic (nothing says late 19th century mock Tudor like a street-facing modern garage. But look! There's a wooden barrel! Very rustic.).
When we built two infills in Springfield, the only thing they would consider approving is something that looked old. So we did that. To the point that many thought we had rehabbed old houses. I now feel that is wrong.
Today, the climate is shifting towards the idea that infill needs to be it's own style and so be obviously new while blending in with the structures around it. I take this to mean it needs to match the scale of the surrounding structures, have the right setbacks, proper porches and not be so radically different as to be an eyesore. So, while a dome house would obviously be new infill, it would stick out a bit much. The proposed ( and HPC approved, I might add.) prairie influenced new construction in the Original post certainly fits today's thinking.
We have decided to do a new one or two again and I just gave our architect the specs today. The style is all on him though. I gave him total freedom to design a house for today. He trained under Mr. Broward who in turn actually trained under Mr. Wright so I suspect the style will be just fine.
Quote from: strider on January 28, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
When we built two infills in Springfield, the only thing they would consider approving is something that looked old. So we did that. To the point that many thought we had rehabbed old houses. I now feel that is wrong.
Today, the climate is shifting towards the idea that infill needs to be it's own style and so be obviously new while blending in with the structures around it. I take this to mean it needs to match the scale of the surrounding structures, have the right setbacks, proper porches and not be so radically different as to be an eyesore. So, while a dome house would obviously be new infill, it would stick out a bit much. The proposed ( and HPC approved, I might add.) prairie influenced new construction in the Original post certainly fits today's thinking.
We have decided to do a new one or two again and I just gave our architect the specs today. The style is all on him though. I gave him total freedom to design a house for today. He trained under Mr. Broward who in turn actually trained under Mr. Wright so I suspect the style will be just fine.
That's quite encouraging to hear. I'm curious if that design or something designed from the same principals would be permitted in Riverside/Avondale.
(http://s14.postimage.org/6pb01ilil/2012_11_11_T13_40_16_33.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/6pb01ilil/)
(http://s7.postimage.org/k23hkzjnr/2012_11_11_T13_40_16_34.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/k23hkzjnr/)
(http://s9.postimage.org/p7i26eunv/2012_11_11_T13_40_16_31.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/p7i26eunv/)
Fist Baptist Church and it's 11 blocks are a prime example of bad urban design.