Urbanity
“Beneath that cultured veneer, is Ann Arbor still fighting a frumpy Midwest image?” asks Talk About Town, in reference to Dwell magazine’s article about a local solar home whose neighbors don’t all approve of its metal facade. The Dwell article calls the home “one of the most urbane in the suburban town.'’
We had a skewed mis-conception when we moved here that we’d be able to build the modern house of our dreams because a) surely you can get a piece of land in a midwestern town, right? b) housing costs can’t be *that* high in a town of 100,000, can they? and c) surely a city as “liberal” as Ann Arbor and with a good architecture school (I’m thinking Austin, TX here) will welcome progressive modern building.
Ahem. Needless to say, we were soon to be met with that an other sad realities.
I’m an avid Dwell reader and I hang out on the livemodern.com boards often and someone floated a great idea in either the mag or the website of building subdivisions of modern homes so that people interested in modern homes could build without the scorn and anger of neighbors. The reality is that if you want to build in A2, you are stuck in a crappy subdivision with cookie cutter mchomes (but you get “so much more for your money out there”). I think it would be an interesting and cool prospect if any of you radical developers are out there waiting for another idea. And I suspect there are many of us modern urbanites who sorely miss our big-city digs and who would love to live in a modernist ghetto. Yes, it would be another A2 ghetto, but I wouldn’t mind it!
I still don’t get the “cultured veneer” thing either…
posted by transplant on November 21st, 2005 at 2:09 pmModern is overrated.
posted by Dave on November 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmYes, especially when you think about energy-efficient building materials, functional use of space, low-impact landscaping systems, and the like. Definitely overrated.
posted by transplant on November 21st, 2005 at 2:23 pm“c) surely a city as “liberal†as Ann Arbor and with a good architecture school (I’m thinking Austin, TX here) will welcome progressive modern building.”
You can buy a lot and build a modern house here–nobody’s going to stop you. Will your neighbors like it? I dunno, but there are neighborhoods here with quite a few modernist designs (Ann Arbor Hills, Barton Hills). Cheap? Well, now, that’s a different issue.
posted by mw on November 21st, 2005 at 2:55 pmReally? If you bought an empty lot (if there was such a thing) in the OFW, you could build a house with a contemporary design? The zoning there allows it? Don’t mean that as a challenge, just an honest question.
posted by Anna on November 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pmZoning in Ann Arbor is a nightmare, and the inspections can really get out of hand. If you’re willing to build it yourself and drive a few miles into town, you might find you have more options. None of the builders we spoke with a few years ago were willing to combine a geothermal collection system with in-floor radiant heat distribution–they hadn’t done it, wouldn’t take the risk, even though we had a contractor lined up who was willing to take on the project. We acted as our own builder and ended up with something much more satisfying.
posted by anno on November 21st, 2005 at 3:51 pmModernism has tended to be bad for urbanism. Modernism can suck it.
“c) surely a city as “liberal†as Ann Arbor and with a good architecture school (I’m thinking Austin, TX here) will welcome progressive modern building.”
“Good architecture school”? UM architecture students can make masturbatory doodles all they want, but they still don’t seem to design anything that would be a) functional or b) stand-up under the force of gravity. Nor can they write a coherent sentence most of the time. I hope they have fun upon graduation realizing that they’ll spend the remainder of their days building shitty suburban strip malls or else vomiting because everyone STILL want tradtional urban neighborhoods with front porches and cornice details instead of egoist projects based on “theory.”
posted by Junkitechture on November 21st, 2005 at 3:56 pmSnap! Who is that, Brandon?
posted by Dale on November 21st, 2005 at 4:09 pmWhat Junkitechture said.
posted by Dave on November 21st, 2005 at 4:46 pmTransplant, modern does not necessarily mean efficient and/or “green” - there are plenty of glass and steel masturbatory doodles (thanks Junkitechture for the term) turned structures out there wasting natural resources. And for the record, it’s quite possible to build a traditional, timber frame, off-grid, solar powered home from reclaimed or renewable materials.
posted by FAA on November 21st, 2005 at 4:56 pmYes, I am fully aware of how any variety of building styles can benefit from green building, and certainly that the modern movement has its issues. But, I think that the modern movement, overall, has been influential in moving the discussion of green building and the like forward.
Anyway, not to move this discussion to the relative merits or failings of the modern movement.
posted by transplant on November 21st, 2005 at 5:23 pm“Really? If you bought an empty lot (if there was such a thing) in the OFW, you could build a house with a contemporary design? The zoning there allows it?”
What about the zoning wouldn’t allow a modern home? Zoning controls setbacks, etc., not design of a new building on an empty lot.
posted by Anonymous on November 21st, 2005 at 5:26 pmThe Historic District Commission might have something else to say, however…
posted by Brandon on November 21st, 2005 at 6:20 pmthat’s the question, no? does the HDC have a voice on new building? i have the impression that it does not.
posted by peter honeyman on November 21st, 2005 at 6:27 pmThe HDC does review new construction inside a historic district, yes.
But Bob Johnson did have a valid a point about this. If you counted all the privately owned building lots within, say, a two mile radius of Main & Huron, I’m guessing that about 90% of those lots would NOT be under the HDC’s jurisdiction.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on November 21st, 2005 at 7:54 pmUrbane? Well, that’s the wrong word from New York. Maybe New Yorkers just have to say the word “urbane” whenever they speak.
What the house is not: eloquent or refined. Yeah, it’s “modern” but it looked like a mess for a year or more while it was being built. It definitely stands too high. It doesn’t blend in with the neighborhood and it projects “Hi! I’m rather out-of-place aren’t I?” feeling. The timber and stucco-style houses look like its old aunts and uncles. The well-kept older houses look a lot classier that Mr. Modern will ever look, even with age. In fact, Mr. Mod might look worse as it gets older. Yet, some of the conventional houses look ratty and trashed on that street (but that’s why I like AA neighborhoods for some odd reason). So–why not–this house? It’s eco. It’s about time, I say. (I would just hate it, though, if a lot of these went up and overshadowed the frumpy character I so dearly love in AA. Midwest frump that I am.)
posted by AJ on November 21st, 2005 at 10:03 pmThe HDC has jurisdiction over new construction in historic districts, yes. Would it approve modern designs? Absolutely yes. Two projects were recently approved that are quite different from their neighbors but are in keeping with the general massing and heights of the surrounding buildings. One is at the corner of Kingsley and Detroit –a new home for Paloma Gallery owners. It has not yet been built. Another is on Hill at Church which is set to begin construction soon (this on the site of an old house that burned down). The HDC encourages designs that are new but that don’t overwhelm the general ambience of the area. The HDC also approved the new Y building(after allowing the demolition of the old factory there) and the 322 Lofts on E. Liberty or whatever they are called after approving demolition of a Greek Revival house.
posted by swines on November 22nd, 2005 at 12:00 amUrbane? Judge for yourself. You can view any Ann Arbor property through the City On-line Assessment and Property Tax webpage at
posted by kjc on November 22nd, 2005 at 12:26 amhttp://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/FinancialAdminServices/data.html. Click “Continue to Tax Assessment Data” at the bottom of the page. Pull up the information for 1005 Brooks. Find the picture by clicking “Images.” Looks like a big tin shack to me. The date on the picture indicates that construction is complete, though it’s difficult to believe. You may want to compare to pictures of neighboring houses to see if you think neighbors have a legitimate beef. I do.
Hooray for Modernism! I feel so, like, freed by the democratic proletarian values inherent in that structure. I’ve been so oppressed by the uncultured patriarchal imperialistic front porches of the Old West Side.
posted by Brandon on November 22nd, 2005 at 1:59 amno couches?
posted by peter honeyman on November 22nd, 2005 at 7:12 amDefinitely looks like a piece of shit.
posted by Dave on November 22nd, 2005 at 9:31 amWould someone please go put a threadbare plaid couch in front of the house? I know I’m in AA when I see a couch on a porch. I bet even architecture students at U-M have one on their rental porch…even if they are urbane and from the east coast.
Then, please light it.
Oh, I forgot…the tin won’t burn. But the flames might create an expressive effect on the metal.
posted by Anonymous on November 22nd, 2005 at 10:50 amWow. That looks so modern it hurts.
And I’m sure it actualy does hurt to look at it during the summer.
posted by Jen on November 22nd, 2005 at 12:34 pmYikes. Isn’t that the kind of tin shack poor people in India and Rio live in? Shouldn’t there be orphan children chuffing glue around the periphery? Modern can be really beautiful; this ain’t even pretty. Pity, when they took a modernist stand they couldn’t come up with a better design.
posted by BlogLurker on November 22nd, 2005 at 1:39 pmCompare that to the modern house at 1320 Orkney, just a few blocks away. (Unfortunately, the city photographed the house on trash collection day, so you’ll have to hold your hand in front of that part of the picture.) Modern can harmonize with a neighborhood.
posted by kjc on November 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pmBelieve it or not, students lived in this house for a couple of years, so the basement is partitioned like a rabbit warren. Never had a couch in front — I guess you can’t have everything.
Swines:
“Two projects were recently approved that are quite different from their neighbors but are in keeping with the general massing and heights of the surrounding buildings.”
Question for the HDC chair: Why have you selected building size as the key determinant in building in a historic district? In other words, it doesn’t matter to you if a modern looking building which obviously looks nothing like other homes in the area is put in, but a large building is a no-no.
From my perspective, this practice reinforces the notion that HDC’s that are located in wealthy cities are there solely to increase home values. In other words, because Ann Arbor’s taxes/fees/land values continues to climb, it is near impossible for a developer to install any but the most expensive building in and HDC downtown, so this artificially decreases supply as it relates to demand…..leading to higher home values if you already live there. This is the main reason that you have homeowner’s jumping up and down to turn their area into a HDC. $$$$$$.
There are many ways to look at what a building’s historic worth is for a community. You pointed out that one of the features of the HDC on Huron St. was that it was one of the last bastions “of the working class”. Since a lack of new construction has pushed up home prices in Ann Arbor, would it not be in the HDC’s interest to try and keep the historically working class in town by building *up*, thereby holding housing costs firm? Or do you think that this working class is better served by building 3 or 4 story buildings with underground parking that start at $400K per unit?
posted by todd on November 23rd, 2005 at 9:31 amI like Todd.
posted by js on November 23rd, 2005 at 9:35 pmTodd: I have the best idea ever: wireless at your bar. I was writing a paper there last night and it was the only element missing.
posted by Brandon on November 24th, 2005 at 2:39 amI thought they were already doing that.
posted by Dale on November 24th, 2005 at 8:49 amLast time I checked (a few months ago) they didn’t have it.
posted by OFWinsurgent on November 24th, 2005 at 9:15 amI second the wireless call. I need more bars I can study in, anyhow, and I prefer Leopold’s to Conor’s hands down.
posted by Jen on November 24th, 2005 at 11:41 amConor Oberst’s?
posted by Brandon on November 24th, 2005 at 3:54 pmCheck out the criteria for new construction in the Old Fourth Ward historic district (and the other historic districts). You’ll see that what swines is saying just repeats what the criteria are.
posted by DaveCahill on November 24th, 2005 at 8:41 pmWireless is coming. We’ll be putting it in over the Holiday Break.
Still no response from SWines?
posted by todd on November 29th, 2005 at 11:12 am