Should we have more "architectural honesty" in new construction? (houses, price)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New construction is overwhelmingly full of faux building techniques. All I see around the new parts of my town is vinyl siding, cultured stone, giant beams that support nothing and windows with fake mutins. Hardly a building built after 1940 seems "real".
Obviously there are cost savings involved in the use of these materials, but who are they fooling otherwise?
Would it be reasonable to create building codes which encourage/require "architectural honesty" in new construction? Is there really psychological value in the idea of using real materials in construction, or does it just seem better to some (like me ) because it makes a property unique in a world of fake facades?
Why does it matter? People want to live in a house that looks fancy, but they don't want to pay for things like actual brick walls, or stone, or wood windows with divided lights. What a building looks like is generally more important to people than what it actually is--and the people who sell houses are just responding to consumer demand. There have been attempts at "architectural honesty" that shows the materials since the days of the Arts & Crafts movement and the rise of Modernism--the end result were Modernist buildings that used simple, unadorned pieces of metal, stucco or wood as decorative elements to suggest structural members that weren't actually structural.
Until someone figures out how to make OSB look good to a customer, I wouldn't count on it.
It is funny how people demand such architectural features long after their usefulness is gone. My first home had fake timbers on the living room ceiling. I remember a building in a park that had the Japanese style chimney in the center though it was otherwise heated. But I do not support changing the building codes, whose purpose is safety, to force "architectural honesty" in construction.
Changing codes would do nothing to "roll back the blight" of tacky faux tracts that have been rolled out everywhere since forever.
I mean even nice pre-war sections of many towns are filled with homes FACED with real stone that is not supporting the structure in an "honest" way.
You can't expect even "modern" loving home buyers to have limitless budgets to afford the often high prices that come with "cutting edge" materials. Mass production can make real good "fake" stuff that has better properties and lower costs... I personally like some of the "harder" looking authentic modern stuff but it is not mainstream and expecting others to conform is kinda silly.
New construction is overwhelmingly full of faux building techniques. All I see around the new parts of my town is vinyl siding, cultured stone, giant beams that support nothing and windows with fake mutins. Hardly a building built after 1940 seems "real".
Obviously there are cost savings involved in the use of these materials, but who are they fooling otherwise?
Would it be reasonable to create building codes which encourage/require "architectural honesty" in new construction? Is there really psychological value in the idea of using real materials in construction, or does it just seem better to some (like me ) because it makes a property unique in a world of fake facades?
Whatdayathink?
I think there is some psychological value to honesty in construction as in anything else. While we may not recognize it , every bit of eroded integrity in our culture contributes to our collective psyche, potentially to the point that much larger transgressions become accepted. I'm being completely speculative here- just a personal theory.
BUT should this be regulated? That is an even bigger question I think. I'm very leery of any kind of centralized building regs, beyond those related to life safety. I could perhaps tolerate such aesthetic-based regulations at a very local level (and obviously these are common in more urban environments), but not at a state or national level. I expect that among architects i would be in the minority with this kind of thinking.
"Every piece of furniture should be fitted for its purpose, truthful in design and material and not pretending to be something else or made of some other material. " He applies this standard to even staining or inlaying wood.
And he really means business. Our immortal souls are at stake here. "It may be absurd to say that truth in such small things is just as essential as truth in anything else in daily life, but surely anything that pretends to be what it is not, and seeks to delude the eye by false imitation of something else, is as immoral in its tendency as what are called "white lies" are in general life; shams and unrealities are but lies, equally to be avoided in the things we surround ourselves with as they are in daily life. All such shams and pretentious deceits should be repugnant to all morality as they are utterly at variance with all good taste and real art. "
Then you have got to love his "for the sake of the children!" argument
"'the shadow of unreality' must exercise a bad and prejudicial influence on the younger members of the house, who naturally are thus brought up to see no wrong in the shams and deceits which are continually before them, and do not understand the badness of taste, not to say morality, which there is in making our 'domestic surroundings appear something which they almost manifestly are not'."
"Every piece of furniture should be fitted for its purpose, truthful in design and material and not pretending to be something else or made of some other material. " He applies this standard to even staining or inlaying wood.
And he really means business. Our immortal souls are at stake here. "It may be absurd to say that truth in such small things is just as essential as truth in anything else in daily life, but surely anything that pretends to be what it is not, and seeks to delude the eye by false imitation of something else, is as immoral in its tendency as what are called "white lies" are in general life; shams and unrealities are but lies, equally to be avoided in the things we surround ourselves with as they are in daily life. All such shams and pretentious deceits should be repugnant to all morality as they are utterly at variance with all good taste and real art. "
Then you have got to love his "for the sake of the children!" argument
"'the shadow of unreality' must exercise a bad and prejudicial influence on the younger members of the house, who naturally are thus brought up to see no wrong in the shams and deceits which are continually before them, and do not understand the badness of taste, not to say morality, which there is in making our 'domestic surroundings appear something which they almost manifestly are not'."
This guy, Morris, Stickley and I would get along very well.
I'm surprised so see this old post of mine drug out of the abyss but I still believe there is a minor yet tangible psychological effect from living day to day among plenty of "real" things. It's how I've chosen to live and raise my family and what usually guides what I buy.
New construction is overwhelmingly full of faux building techniques. All I see around the new parts of my town is vinyl siding, cultured stone, giant beams that support nothing and windows with fake mutins. Hardly a building built after 1940 seems "real".
Obviously there are cost savings involved in the use of these materials, but who are they fooling otherwise?
Would it be reasonable to create building codes which encourage/require "architectural honesty" in new construction? Is there really psychological value in the idea of using real materials in construction, or does it just seem better to some (like me ) because it makes a property unique in a world of fake facades?
Whatdayathink?
Building codes are not where the solution(s) to this problem will be found (or created). The solution is with the customer who is going to buy and live in the house, and the agency (more specifically the department and the review committee) responsible for approving the architecture of the houses.
If the customer demanded the use of authentic materials, i.e. real wood, real stone, etc., and authentic construction, e.g. functional shutters, chimeys for a real fire place, etc., then the homebuilder would incorporate authentic materials and construction into the design of the house. Similarly, if the agency (usually the planning department) and/or review committee (such as an architectural review board) required the the use of authentic materials and authentic construction, then the homebuilder would incorporate authentic materials and construction into the design of the house.
However, the costs of the materials, engineering, and installation would be passed on to the customer or the homebuilder would have to accept a lower profit margin per house. The price increase would be undesirable to most customers and the lower profit would undermine a developer's goal for being in the business which is to make money. Note that this assumes two things: the customers knows what to demand and/or cares about it, and the developer knows how to design it and/or has building subcontractors who know how to build it.
I have observed that most customers do not know nor care about architecture. And, that high quality architecture is limited to the custom-build industry* and not mass production. Architects willing/able to design high quality houses and the builders willing/able to build them aren't going to work for the mass homebuilders who use the same models (floor plans and elevations) at various locations.
*I should point out that custom built houses aren't always better in quality or design - I've seen homes that were custom built to the homeowners' desires that were no better designed or constructed than a typical mass production home.
What does architectural honesty even mean? If you see something that looks like steel on a building it is going to just be a cover for what is underneath and wont be anything structural due to the issue of safety.
As for styles, we live in an era where there is no longer one defining style but rather a variety of ideas that effect architecture differently with each building.
What does architectural honesty even mean? If you see something that looks like steel on a building it is going to just be a cover for what is underneath and wont be anything structural due to the issue of safety.
As for styles, we live in an era where there is no longer one defining style but rather a variety of ideas that effect architecture differently with each building.
I would say architectural honesty is a mud hutt or a log cabin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) because it makes a property unique in a world of fake facades? 
Building codes?
