Opinion of modern houses

[RR1997]

You guy should be familiar with these type of houses. If you're not, then search them up. They are basically homes with a modern-arts design with a lot of glass on the exterior.



Discuss

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

If this is what I think it is, absolutely FH. There was one CoD map I was obsessed with because of something like it - I think in Black Ops 2. Came out right after I saw an unbelievable one in Hollywood on HGTV.

Admittedly, I think I would only ever live in one if I were to live in Arizona or a fairly rural part of SoCal. Those are the parts of the country where they work best and fit in with the culture though maybe the Rocky Mountain region or outside Las Vegas too? (Doubt I'd live in the latter).

The flat roof just belongs in the region. Windows let the beautiful sun in and allow you to have a beautiful view of the vast nature preferably on a mountain. Having one part of the house completely flush with the ground and then the rest built into elevation is a modern miracle of art. The only problem I see is that they almost all have pools which I would not be able to bear so hopefully get rid of that feature on my own personalized dream.


The only type of house that I'd truly prefer would be a wooden house in the Poconos like a 3 floor cabin filled with reclaimed wooden furniture. I know, complete opposites, but maybe I'll win enough gambling to own both (plus like the other 5 properties I would consider owning - I can be indecisive).

[Lief 🗽]

Modernism is good (normal).

[Indy Texas]

Freedom House if you can afford to appropriately furnish and maintain one. (Run-of-the-mill furniture and fixtures from Home Depot aren't going to cut it and a lot of things will probably have to be custom made.)

[Torie]

Depends on the house, the location, and the setting. Some I like very much, some I loathe. It's all about good design, and part of good design is to be in harmony with the surroundings.

[angus]

Voted FF before I read your description.  Of course by "modern houses" I assumed that you meant houses built recently, as opposed to those built long ago.  By that definition I would definitely say preferable.  One can be assured that no dog ever lived there, and no cats, and that no one ever smoked in there, that no gangsters have any vendettas against anyone who ever lived there, etc.

Your question seems to regard a style, though.  You mention lots of glass.  I can honestly say that I'm not a big fan of that.  We have lots of glass on ours, for example, and it really wigs me out.  One reason, in fact, that I'm glad that it's nearly the Year of the Goat is that it gives me an excuse to hang lots of red tassels, ornaments, and unfurled silk scrolls on what would otherwise be glass exteriors.  

Other than the glass, however, I have no complaints.  A recently built house, ceteris paribus, is definitely preferable to me than a house which was not recently built.

[patrick1]

The ones you posted as examples give me a mix of a Brady Bunch meets gas station mini mart vibe.  Hate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Better than the crap they were throwing up for a lot of the twentieth century, but I still wouldn't want to live in one.

[checkers]

I'd prefer an older house, but as modern houses go they're not too bad. I think it depends on the environment you're in -- if I lived in Southern California or the Desert Southwest those sort of houses seem to really suit the vibe, but anywhere else I'd probably prefer something older.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I find then aesthetically pleasing enough. 

[Simfan34]

Modernism is good (normal).

Modernism is terrible (normal).

Those houses are an utter pain to maintain and all that glass is an absolute energy sink. It's why all these modern glass buildings that want to be energy efficient have to include expensive active systems that require heavy maintainance. Of course a modernist house is also often uncomfortable to live in, all those straight lines and flat surfaces require everything to be in place and ordered. You have to adopt a certain way of living in them-- which you'll note was the precise goal of several modernists' ideas on housing (most notably and wretchedly Le Corbusier).

[memphis]

All those 60s/70s houses are super ugly. I'd also prefer that all my neighbors not be able to see inside my home. A picture window is one thing. A glass box is something else altogether.

[Lief 🗽]

They're not the worst kind of construction, but they're utterly out of place in the Northeastern states.

Nah. There are plenty of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, for example, in the Northeast that look perfectly in place.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I like some examples quite a lot, though I agree I wouldn't like so much glass unless it was in a secluded private setting. Also, some of the examples in the photos are ridiculously oversized if they are single-family houses.

[bedstuy]

Why are you guys so afraid of people looking into your house?

1. Nobody cares enough to spy on you.
2. What are you hiding!?

[DemPGH]

Have to vote HH.

Those don't really look like houses to me. They look like small office buildings. And no, I would not want all that glass. Or big, huge open areas, which modern houses tend to have.

I prefer 1) Tudor, 2) Colonial, 3) Cape cod (which is the basic design around here and can be of nearly any size), and 4) Victorian, in that order.

I have relatives who owned a modern house for a while (not quite as modern as those, but modern), and I have to say it was the most strangely laid out house I had ever been in.

[traininthedistance]

They're not the worst kind of construction, but they're utterly out of place in the Northeastern states.

Nah. There are plenty of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, for example, in the Northeast that look perfectly in place.

The problem is not in how they look. Wright devoted a great deal of effort to appearance... unlike virtually every other aspect of house design.

I'm reminded of how, for Fallingwater:

a) Wright originally wanted to coat the house in gold leaf, which was totally practical and cost-conscious, and
b) the engineer warned him that there wasn't enough structural support for the house and it'd fall over as originally designed, to which Wright said "nuh-uh" do as I say, and then the engineer secretly disobeyed him and added more supports anyway- thank heavens.

Also worth noting that Wright and Corbusier's ideas on urban form were both utterly atrocious in different ways (basically, Wright was an apostle of exurban sprawl, whereas we all know what Corbu's towers in a park did to our urban areas*).  It was a two-pronged assault on the city. 

Compared to them, Mies Van Der Rohe's gleaming glass CBD towers were a godsend.  I find them functional and contextual in a way that most of his contemporary masters couldn't manage.

I'm actually quite a huge fan of Modernism (and postmodernism) in most of its forms, but mid-century architecture- for all that it can be quite pretty in the right context- did a lot of damage.

*Though I will say that Corbu's late style, with brise-soleils for passive cooling in tropical areas, started to demonstrate a sensitivity to local conditions that I must acknowledge and applaud.  Those conditions are of course not the Northeast, but Chandigarh does "work".

[traininthedistance]

A couple other things:

1) There's a house somewhere on a side street in Center City Philly that's decorated to look like a Piet Mondrian painting.  I mean, it's just a rowhome like the rest, but the color scheme and window treatments are very De Stijl.  I would think that's a Modernism we could all get behind.

2) I think this is the right place to share with y'all one of the most gloriously strange (and strangely glorious) songs ever written, which asks the all-important question: "Why do villains always live in houses built by modernist masters?"  It is the greatest meditation on modernist mansions and Die Hard you will ever have the pleasure of listening to.

[bedstuy]

I love old houses.  I live in a 1890s Brownstone and I love it.  At least in my part of Brooklyn, the design work that went into these houses is amazing, most of them are true works of art.  Old houses actually suit some of my design tastes as well.  Many modern American houses are way too big and waste tons of space for no good reason.  Old houses tend to waste less space, by having smaller bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms. 

That said, if we're talking about new construction, I'm on board with a more "modern" style 100%.  It comes down to the fact that I'd rather have someone execute a modern look than utterly fail at creating a Spanish style or Colonial or whatever.  And, that's often what happens.  It's almost impossible to recreate the magic of an older home and people tend to use things like vinyl siding and faux brick.  That looks like garbage.  With a modern look, it's just easier because the design is simpler and doesn't rely on amazing craftsmanship.  If you just try to make a modern design look simple and clean and don't skimp on the contractor, it's going to look decent at least.  So, something like this is a pretty sensible design:

[H. Ross Peron]

Horrible Housing. Revival architecture if done tastefully is far superior.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Horrible Housing. Revival architecture if done tastefully is far superior.

In fairness, that's a pretty big 'if'.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I like it when it involves rustic-esque wood/stone.