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.
The use of stucco became widespread in England years after the 13 colonies separated and became the United States. The reference for colonial architecture in New England is the colonial period, that is before 1776.
This is true and a good point - late 1700s and early 1800s was when stucco became in vogue in Britain - and has remained a very common building material since.
However, stucco in Britain was largely a replacement for stone to enable a smoother, more uniform finish and cheaper construction. Some stucco buildings have simulated stone pointing. Stucco did not radically change the look of British architecture, it was just an evolution. Anyway, my point is simple and I stand by my view that saying stucco is not in keeping with New England because New England architecture is British rather than Spanish in origin is not logical since stucco is a standard British building material and has evolved from long standing British architecture practices and preferences long before the colonial period. There may be other reasons to argue that stucco is not a fitting style for New England, however, being out of keeping with the region's British influence is not one of them.
Remember this is New England which is home to many colonial style homes covered in clapboard and shingles. They may not be to your liking but they are what gives New England its character. I do not go by what a style magazine like Architectural Digest recommends. To me they are just to trendy, going with whatever the current style trend is and ignoring the history and character of the regional architecture of the area. Trends come and go but regional styles are timeless so I would not dismiss something that has been around for hundreds of years. Jay
Architectural Digest is simply a reflection and chronicle of what's going on today in the world of the top global architects. It's like Vogue magazine for international high fashion - you don't read it expecting the same old clothing or a history of clothing, you read it to understand what the world's top designers are doing today. Likewise, AD is not meant to be a history book of what was built 250 years ago.
Criticizing AD for "ignoring the history and character of the regional architecture of the area" sounds very bizarre to me. Good architects ALWAYS consider the building's surroundings and aspects of the community in which it will fit - e.g. surrounding architecture, landscape and trees/plants, lifestyle, climate, etc, etc. That's just architecture 101. He or she may decide to challenge the surrounding architectural status quo, closely mimic it, create a twist on the surrounding styles or any other many reactions to the environment in which the building will fit. All of these are valid and good architects consider them all but they never ignore local factors of where they are building.
Right in CT you can see examples of towns that were internationally oriented and vibrant enough to have examples of great architecture styles - West Hartford is just one example. There you will find colonial homes, victorian homes, tudor, arts and crafts and other traditional styles. But you'll also see many cutting edge mid-century modern designs and other departures from traditional new england style. FFC also has a lot of well known and vibrant modern architecture - New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, etc. Litchfield County also has some. In these kinds of places, you'll find bold examples that encapsulate the most iconic concepts from the eras and styles in which they were built.
In contrast to these more cosmopolitan towns, there are boring parochial, pedestrian towns which typically do have a small number of houses built in the colonial period - and these are always interesting if they are well preserved. They are part of the history and fabric of the region so they are very important. But beyond that however, these kinds of towns only have bland and watered down copies and iterations of colonial and other traditional styles -e.g. ranches and raised ranches adorned in colonial style trimmings, etc. This is lazy and 'safe' architecture designed for the masses - first generation middle class, less educated, less internationally minded people. Sorry if that sounds like a crude depiction but I suppose that is the reason why some places are nearly devoid of any bold architecture.
I may be misunderstanding your post but I read it as you do not think bold architecture and change in architectural style and fashion have a place in new england and the fine examples of mid-century, for example, in FFC and WH are blemishes. Pushing the envelope with bold home design has no place in New England?
Architectural Digest is simply a reflection and chronicle of what's going on today in the world of the top global architects. It's like Vogue magazine for international high fashion - you don't read it expecting the same old clothing or a history of clothing, you read it to understand what the world's top designers are doing today. Likewise, AD is not meant to be a history book of what was built 250 years ago.
Criticizing AD for "ignoring the history and character of the regional architecture of the area" sounds very bizarre to me. Good architects ALWAYS consider the building's surroundings and aspects of the community in which it will fit - e.g. surrounding architecture, landscape and trees/plants, lifestyle, climate, etc, etc. That's just architecture 101. He or she may decide to challenge the surrounding architectural status quo, closely mimic it, create a twist on the surrounding styles or any other many reactions to the environment in which the building will fit. All of these are valid and good architects consider them all but they never ignore local factors of where they are building.
Right in CT you can see examples of towns that were internationally oriented and vibrant enough to have examples of great architecture styles - West Hartford is just one example. There you will find colonial homes, victorian homes, tudor, arts and crafts and other traditional styles. But you'll also see many cutting edge mid-century modern designs and other departures from traditional new england style. FFC also has a lot of well known and vibrant modern architecture - New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, etc. Litchfield County also has some. In these kinds of places, you'll find bold examples that encapsulate the most iconic concepts from the eras and styles in which they were built.
In contrast to these more cosmopolitan towns, there are boring parochial, pedestrian towns which typically do have a small number of houses built in the colonial period - and these are always interesting if they are well preserved. They are part of the history and fabric of the region so they are very important. But beyond that however, these kinds of towns only have bland and watered down copies and iterations of colonial and other traditional styles -e.g. ranches and raised ranches adorned in colonial style trimmings, etc. This is lazy and 'safe' architecture designed for the masses - first generation middle class, less educated, less internationally minded people. Sorry if that sounds like a crude depiction but I suppose that is the reason why some places are nearly devoid of any bold architecture.
I may be misunderstanding your post but I read it as you do not think bold architecture and change in architectural style and fashion have a place in new england and the fine examples of mid-century, for example, in FFC and WH are blemishes. Pushing the envelope with bold home design has no place in New England?
Sorry but I work with architects and many of them are egotists who blab on about fitting their buildings in with the surroundings when in fact they do not do that. How does a strikingly modern addition to an old building fit into the original building it is attached to? It doesn't. Architectural Digest just promotes this kind thinking by displaying trendy buildings and designs. I am not say it is not nice to look at but it does not necessarily promote traditional design and the concept of preserving history.
There is nothing wrong with towns that "only have bland and watered down copies and iterations of colonial and other traditional styles -e.g. ranches and raised ranches adorned in colonial style trimmings, etc." Not everyone can afford to build or live in architect designed homes. Those ranches and raised ranches provide good housing with ample room for a growing family. You may not like the style but many people do and that is what is most important.
As for bold architecture, it does have its place, even here in New England. It is just that people really need to temper their desire for the bold with the values and surroundings of New England or else we will look like any other place on the planet. Jay
Remember this is New England which is home to many colonial style homes covered in clapboard and shingles. They may not be to your liking but they are what gives New England its character.
Wood is the prevalent siding material in New England to this day because the US from Maine to Minnesota down to Georgia was originally covered with dense forests and people used the most readily available and hence cheap building material when building their houses. Arizona and New Mexico had sparse forests so those people made adobe and stucco from components in their readily available soil.
That being said, as a lifelong New Englander I do not like wood siding. I have owned homes with cedar shakes and clapboards. Both of those homes were high maintenance due to the wood siding but if I had to go with one over the other, the cedar shakes with stain would win hands down over clapboard. Cedar shakes with a good quality stain will give a homeowner a good ten to fifteen years of life between maintenance whereas clapboards will require painting every five to seven years to look good. Clapboard is high-maintenance garbage siding. If I ever had to buy another home and it was perfect in every way except for clapboard siding, that siding would be the first thing to come off and be replaced with something better (which is almost everything if installed properly).
Wood is the prevalent siding material in New England to this day because the US from Maine to Minnesota down to Georgia was originally covered with dense forests and people used the most readily available and hence cheap building material when building their houses. Arizona and New Mexico had sparse forests so those people made adobe and stucco from components in their readily available soil.
That being said, as a lifelong New Englander I do not like wood siding. I have owned homes with cedar shakes and clapboards. Both of those homes were high maintenance due to the wood siding but if I had to go with one over the other, the cedar shakes with stain would win hands down over clapboard. Cedar shakes with a good quality stain will give a homeowner a good ten to fifteen years of life between maintenance whereas clapboards will require painting every five to seven years to look good. Clapboard is high-maintenance garbage siding. If I ever had to buy another home and it was perfect in every way except for clapboard siding, that siding would be the first thing to come off and be replaced with something better (which is almost everything if installed properly).
Like cedar shakes, clapboard can be stained. I have seen this done and it lasts a similar length of time as stained shakes. Paint is just a coating and will peel with time while stain is absorbed into the wood. The only thing is stain will fade with time and the wood can deteriorate faster. Jay
Sorry but I work with architects and many of them are egotists who blab on about fitting their buildings in with the surroundings when in fact they do not do that. How does a strikingly modern addition to an old building fit into the original building it is attached to? It doesn't. Architectural Digest just promotes this kind thinking by displaying trendy buildings and designs. I am not say it is not nice to look at but it does not necessarily promote traditional design and the concept of preserving history.
There is nothing wrong with towns that "only have bland and watered down copies and iterations of colonial and other traditional styles -e.g. ranches and raised ranches adorned in colonial style trimmings, etc." Not everyone can afford to build or live in architect designed homes. Those ranches and raised ranches provide good housing with ample room for a growing family. You may not like the style but many people do and that is what is most important.
As for bold architecture, it does have its place, even here in New England. It is just that people really need to temper their desire for the bold with the values and surroundings of New England or else we will look like any other place on the planet. Jay
Everyone has their own tastes so all I can say is that placing a strikingly modern addition on an old building is not proof that the architect ignored the style of the original building. For every architecture decision to extend an old style building with an ultramodern addition, there are probably 100 that extend an old style building with a replica of the original's style, often destroying the original buildings shape and scale as there is no visual separation between old and new. But it's the obvious choice, easier to do and less risky.
I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that there are both good and bad examples of both approaches to extending a building.
Everyone has their own tastes so all I can say is that placing a strikingly modern addition on an old building is not proof that the architect ignored the style of the original building. For every architecture decision to extend an old style building with an ultramodern addition, there are probably 100 that extend an old style building with a replica of the original's style, often destroying the original buildings shape and scale as there is no visual separation between old and new. But it's the obvious choice, easier to do and less risky.
I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that there are both good and bad examples of both approaches to extending a building.
If an architect placing a "strikingly modern addition" on an old building is not "proof enough" then I do not know what is. Let's just agree to disagree at this point. Jay
Like cedar shakes, clapboard can be stained. I have seen this done and it lasts a similar length of time as stained shakes. Paint is just a coating and will peel with time while stain is absorbed into the wood. The only thing is stain will fade with time and the wood can deteriorate faster. Jay
If the clapboards are made from cedar then what you say would hold true but not all clapboards are made from cedar. Cedar is unique in North America as the wood species most highly resistant to insects and rot. Historically the majority of clapboards have been made from oak, spruce and pine. Nonetheless I would never bother with them, cedar or not.
While I respect the tried and true status of many old, traditional methods (ways of doing things) I do not hold the same view on materials. There are too many products out there now which are capable of being far superior to wood.
This is true and a good point - late 1700s and early 1800s was when stucco became in vogue in Britain - and has remained a very common building material since.
However, stucco in Britain was largely a replacement for stone to enable a smoother, more uniform finish and cheaper construction. Some stucco buildings have simulated stone pointing. Stucco did not radically change the look of British architecture, it was just an evolution. Anyway, my point is simple and I stand by my view that saying stucco is not in keeping with New England because New England architecture is British rather than Spanish in origin is not logical since stucco is a standard British building material and has evolved from long standing British architecture practices and preferences long before the colonial period. There may be other reasons to argue that stucco is not a fitting style for New England, however, being out of keeping with the region's British influence is not one of them.
New England's architecture is of British origin, because Britain was the colonial power that owned the 13 colonies until 1776. At that time, stucco wasn't used in Britain and as such, its not the reference for the origin of New England's architecture. Had it been a reference, most homes in New England would have stucco, as most homes in the parts of the US that were part of the Spanish Empire do.
You can try to rationalize your stance, but none of that will change the fact that the British colonial period for the US ended in 1776, not after.
New England's architecture is of British origin, because Britain was the colonial power that owned the 13 colonies until 1776. At that time, stucco wasn't used in Britain and as such, its not the reference for the origin of New England's architecture. Had it been a reference, most homes in New England would have stucco, as most homes in the parts of the US that were part of the Spanish Empire do.
You can try to rationalize your stance, but none of that will change the fact that the British colonial period for the US ended in 1776, not after.
We're violently agreeing - Obviously design patterns were heavily influenced by Britain (in fact Britain's were heavily influenced by Greek, Italian/Roman, etc anyway). But to the main point where we both agree - British building materials and building practices were not copied for early New England homes because readily available materials were different. That's why early colonial homes are largely wood shingle and Britain's are largely masonry in construction. It doesn't matter when stucco became widely used in Britain because masonry construction was largely not used for homes in early New England anyway. Had British masonry construction been adopted by early New Englanders as the primary building method, then stucco may have evolved as a popular exterior material for masonry construction just as it had in Britain (to reduce costs and provide a smoother finish which became in vogue). Stucco is not a compelling finish for wood construction as it is for masonry construction where it evolved as a popular external surface from generations of masonry construction heritage - it was a natural evolution of the style.
Since early New England very quickly took a clear turn away from British masonry construction practices due to better availability of wood, the answer to the question over why stucco wasn't used is obvious - they did not use masonry construction and stucco is closely associated with masonry construction. This has nothing to do with Spanish vs British influences and any view that stucco is mainly for Spanish style villas is not aligned with reality. In New England architectures that have masonry construction - e.g Boston's Back Bay, stucco/render was widely used.
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.
