** Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? **
View: thread | inline
-
Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Aug 13 2008 at 3:47pm by Welcome to the Discussion about ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL. We would like to know what you think about the series. Answer this question or post one of your own.
Do you think it's beneficial for young architects to build newly designed homes in low income neighborhoods?
- Sundance Channel
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Aug 25 2008 at 12:28am by As a fellow architecture student who had a very similar (only theoretical) studio project a year ago, I think that it is beneficial for the students to help rebuild, and help regenerate the community. Not only is it a great experience for the students, in the long term it will (hopefully) have a positive effect on the community and generate a deeper sense of pride in their neighbourhood.
I agree with other posts that the students need to get the residents involved more in the design process. I am sure if they could put in their 2 cents and feel like their opinions are actually valued, they would be a lot happier about the urban builds.
I think that no matter where you are, if you're in a neighbourhood (not even necessarily a poor one) and you're not from there, and you want to build new what could be perceived as "pompous" houses, of course you're going to feel some hatred. It's all a part of life. I agree with one student who said that at least they're out there doing something, that's way better than doing nothing at all.
As a student I think that this is a great learning experience and really helps give us an idea of how things really work in the real world.
I'm glad to hear about this series, me and my fellow architecture student friends have been saying for years that architecture school would make one of the best reality shows out there!! I hope the show does really well,
and please please put it in itunes CANADIAN store!!-
Episode #2: Various solutions? Posted on Aug 28 2008 at 1:16pm by I did not sense any variety in the solutions.
Nothing has changed from my design studio days of the 70's here at Auburn. They were told to come up with a powerful statement & they did just that, stopped, and did nothing more! Each went off to his little corner and came up with his/her little profound statement that they wanted to make.In fact, each design was clearly ignoring all context; focused only on the "designer" as artist. "It" was to be this or that and "concept?" was to be extracted after I get my initial idea down on paper....
Windows that were too high, unprotected and too many looked out where? Three storied was too much stair for a user to climb (this was never mentioned as a minus). Folding Plane looked too contrived and deliberate a feature as did the "Core" design. All were trendy "Modern" with only lip service to the user's suitability. Where was the context of it's locale shown or even addressed? Happy to see Kim had the long porch feature.
All failed as "affordable" solution. Humidity, ventilation and sun were totally ignored as passive design features. These boxy contraptions hardly look home-like or welcoming to any homeowner that I have known. I sense too much "expression" and very little understanding of what forces are at work to shape our idea of what makes a "home".RE: Episode #2: Various solutions? Posted on Aug 29 2008 at 3:32pm by I agree that the designs presented were all interesting but so out of context. I think the long porch design was the only one that took into account how the occupants would actually USE the space.
-
-
RE: Why so ugly and out of place? Posted on Aug 28 2008 at 9:50pm by Why are all the schemes so ugly? New Orleans has a great architectural heritage but you’d never know it by these designs. I’ve never had a client come and ask me to design them an ugly building, yet that’s what many architecture schools are still promoting. The winning solution may be a bold move, but what’s the point of the ‘S’. What makes that a great idea? How does that make someone’s life better? And why diamond plate for the stairs and corrugated metal interior walls? That’s just brutal.
The overarching guiding concept shouldn’t get in the way of good design. There was almost no client or potential client input. The whole thing seems to have been designed in a vacuum. How does this concept relate to site, context and the needs of the potential occupants? The house looks like an elitist slap-in-the-face in a poor neighborhood. The new house should have been an improvement to the neighborhood, not just some sort of weird architectural whim. It’s fantastic that the students have a chance to build something they’ve designed, but this house is so out of place.
And the choice of the winning design seems so arbitrary – just a popularity contest between students. The neighborhood and potential owners should have had a say in the design of this thing and in what will be imposed on their neighborhood. I’m sorry to say that an important opportunity has been squandered.-
RE: Why so ugly and out of place? Posted on Aug 28 2008 at 11:32pm by this is more or less what I was trying to say in my previous post... :S!
Very well put! I agree completely.RE: Why so ugly and out of place? Posted on Aug 29 2008 at 5:51am by These are all really good points. I don't think the show is shying away from those issues. Big Al in first episode thinks the houses are ugly. Other neighbors like them. But the kids clearly are not involving the community as they should.
RE: Why so ugly and out of place? Posted on Sep 23 2008 at 12:36pm by Obviously, the neighborhood is missing the attraction of "location, location, location" or more prospectors would be buying up properties and rehabbing the neighborhood for profit. The modern designs will get attention, even if not always positive. (As in PR, "any press is good press.") Someone looking for "location" will not buy these homes. But someone design-minded will buy for the design first and consider location second. The result, whether it's intended or not, might be a gentrification of the neighborhood, which is itself an issue. Regardless, homes are getting built. And that's a positive thing.
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Aug 29 2008 at 3:26pm by Great opportunity for the students to be personally invested in something from paper to production, and a bonus if they get to meet the homeowner who ultimately occupies the space. Interesting first 2 episodes. One criticism about the process: Why in the world is the project selected by the students themselves? There would be more credibility if the project were selected by a panel of professionals outside the school -- more akin to the real world, more practical, and doesn't create peer resentment in the classroom or on the job site. I'm looking forward to seeing the next episode!
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Aug 29 2008 at 4:00pm by The groups most effected by Katrina are, minorities, elder and persons with disabilities. How can you identify any space for occupancy if accessiblity is not included. These projects should use the principles of universal design. Assuming this is a show with real architectural students and instructors, universal design should be well established.
Dr. Robert Ardinger-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Sep 3 2008 at 6:42pm by Very good point. Low income is only one facet of the potential target market. RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Sep 20 2008 at 8:49pm by it is a house! A house someone in need will CHOOSE to live in because he or she loves it. It is not a civic building that needs to be voted on by the president of the united states. the job of the architect is not to please everyone. Some will like, some will not. That is natural. How does it hurt the neighborhood?? are you kidding? "OHH NOO, a different viewpoint on what a house should look like!"
-
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Sep 23 2008 at 12:55am by I think building homes in low income neighborhoods is essential in revitalizing our national infrastructure. But, I think Architecture School may have bitten off more than they can chew by designing a house in a community that has such a history of architectural traditions. I also think they could have done better in a partnership of a successful non profit. In Greensboro Alabama they have the Hale Empowerment Revitalization Organization (HERO) who's housing director will design and build 200 homes this year, working with Habitat, and Volunteers and under priveledged high school kids. Now that's where the show should go next!! RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Sep 23 2008 at 12:25pm by I respectfully disagree with the comment about choice of location for the modern architectural design. The neighborhood was destroyed by hurricane Katrina. What better time to introduce architecture that's very different? It's the perfect opportunity. Some have called it "ugly" (students, get used to criticism!), but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't have a problem with the style that's being introduced. (Although, I personally wish there would be some nuances added as tribute to the older architecture of NO - a genuflect to the neighborhood, if you will.) The bigger issue is affordability: Can a person/family with low to moderate income afford to buy it, move in, and maintain it for a long time? Home foreclosure is a symptom of the economy, the issue du jour in the U.S. The first measure of success for this project would be the (quick) sale of the house after its completion. Architecture School is a good show. It sheds some light on the American Dream.
-
The neighborhood is not that historically kept Posted on Oct 13 2008 at 8:44pm by I have been to this neighborhood, and believe me: it's NOT full of beautiful shotguns from a long-held NOLA tradition of architecture. The place is a wreck from homes destroyed by storms and/or neglect. There are several new homes being put up by charity organizations -- and they are pleasant enough -- but they are hardly coming from any historical context.
Many of the homes, even in their prime, could not be considered beautiful. Several are clearly from the 1970s, slab-on-grade -- not historical in the least.
My point is that the new houses put up by the Tulane kids are fun, different, exciting and do nothing but add to the neighborhood.RE: The neighborhood is not that historically kept Posted on Oct 15 2008 at 10:19am by Agreed, this section of town doesn't look like it was adhering to any particular architectural style or standards. It's not exactly the Garden District. What better time and place to introduce something new and different? The biggest concern is whether or not it can be sold to a low income buyer. (I understood that to be among the criteria for the project, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) Does anyone know if it has been sold yet? Securing a mortgage will be tougher now than when the project began.
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Sep 24 2008 at 10:16pm by In answer to the question...ABSOLUTELY YES! Every student seeking a professional degree in architecture should have the practical, hands-on experience of building something they have designed. I was fortunate as a student in the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin in the '70s to have designed and built several houses. These were not school sponsored projects...it was how I put myself through school.
I applaud Tulane University and their School of Architecture for this design/build studio project. What a great experience for those students. You could watch them grow and learn through each episode. Did they make mistakes. Of course. We all do. That's how our most valuable lessons are learned. This experience will be a defining moment in many of their careers. For some it will confirm their passion for the built environment and propel their careers forward. For others, it may make them examine their commitment to the architectural profession and perhaps redirect them elsewhere. Both are positive outcomes.
As to building homes in low-income neighborhoods, my hope is that the school and housing authority will begin to involve the residents of the neighborhood more in the programming and pre-design phase of future projects. Perhaps a planning charrette to develop the program would be beneficial.
I hope to see another series on another house on Sundance. Great program!!
Bronson Dorsey
Austin, TXRE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Oct 1 2008 at 11:51pm by To the students who built that house. Wonderful job. Don't worry about negtive commons. Frank L. Wright faced the same negtive common. Looking back today he built art and beauity. As you are doing today. I hope the new owner will understand this.
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 2 2008 at 5:07pm by I enjoyed the show. I applaud the effort. I agree with the intention to improve impoverished neighborhoods.
I don't agree with the design however. The people in the neighborhoods don't really like the modern style of architecture. The style however is only in part the credit/blame of the students. In the first episodes the Instructor is leading them towards modern styles. Pushing them to embrace new ideas and be cutting edge. They are dictating the building materials. Then a panel of experts on architecture, not a panel of neighborhood residents, picks out a winning design. The direction of the styles is being laid out for the students and I think most of them did a very admirable job. I saw at least four designs I thought were really neat concepts. They fit the need. They fit the budget. They fit the edicts of the competition. I don't feel they fit the environment and apparently neither do the residents of the area.
I'm not even talking about architectural history, which another post here has pointed out that the neighborhood is lacking. The modern design snubbs its nose at the culture of the neighborhood in general. The homes being designed aren't designed to fit into the neighborhood. They are being designed to be showpieces. Gilded towers among the offal. How does the panel think this benefits the people who live there?
To stand above others when surrounded by the impoverished, is to ask for trouble. Anyone who moves into the home I saw, is a likely victim. They bought a nice house. So, they must have nice things. Right? The home is full of windows that will allow easy access with just a brick or a stick.
I think the students did a really good job. They worked hard. It was a nice house. I think they were led in a direction that many people were unhappy with, by people that are a bit out of touch with the community they wish to help. And that is sad, that so many would work so hard to less than cheers from the community they wanted to help. What is also frustrating is that the house from the earlier season was still unsold. It isn't puplar. Why? The cost ratio (for those that can afford it) and the location of a crime ridden neighborhood.Some had already said the modern design was ugly...so sure, give them more. Would you do that with food? "Here have some Strawberry ice cream! No thank you, I don't like strawberries. Great!, I'll get you some more!"
I hope the show gets picked up. Even though I didn't agree with that one aspect of what was being done, I did enjoy watching the process and the peoples stories.
Good job to the Producers and crew.-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 2 2008 at 11:51pm by There's a catch 22 going on, an inherent contradiction that makes this show so interesting. If the students simply built a house that matches the other houses, it would not be Architecture School, but rather a documentary on Habitat for Humanity or some group along those lines. The whole premise of the program (both the academic one and the televised one) is to allow students of architecture to practice their craft in a benevolent and altruistic manner.
The program states time and again this duality: the kids are not there to re-create the neighborhood (which is a kin to Disneyland), but to progressively change it (which in some weird sense is the only "authentic" way to build something new).
Furthermore, only one neighbor (1!) says it's ugly. Everyone else seems to like it. Some absolutely love it. Should the neighbors have been more involved? Hell yes. But the resulting house need not be treated like the castle on the hill. Let's hope it inspires the decent people who live in the neighborhood to continue their daily fight for more decency.RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 3 2008 at 12:17am by Well, you could still have a show that is entertaining. Just put more stress on the design competition aspect. You don't have to derive the conflict in the show from interaction with the neighborhood. You can get it from the students.
And I think there was more than ONE person who doesn't like the houses. Low interest in the sale of the previous season's home is an indicator. It isn't like there was this huge line of qualified buyers being turned away or a bidding war. The show merely showed one person voicing the words "it's ugly".I believe the woman who had a daughter denied the house said something to the tune of "I wouldn't want to live there." But she did want her daughter to have a nice house nearby. That was the one her daughter wanted.
Like another poster said, the level of architectural integrity of the neighborhood is low. That is probably the only way most of the residents could afford their own homes. They either inheirited the homes or bought "fixer-uppers" that never get fixed.
I mean the program of trying to build affordable housing for these people is admirable. I would love to see these working class people be able to return to New Orleans. They are what perpetuates the history and culture there.
When the clean up there started, I was completely convinced that the poor wouldn't be able to afford to rebuild and that New Orleans was doomed to be taken over by developers. Then these people would priced out of returning. And the town would be the poorer for it.
What is the greater good? For the architecture students and program to make a few spotlight pieces that may turn out to be "white elephants" or to rebuild a neighborhood? You can't tell me that community planning isn't part of the program.
Plus there has to be a need and govt. funding available a multi-family housing project.
I don't know. It just seems there are better options than the course they are choosing.
-
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 3 2008 at 4:35pm by Who ever deemed modern architecture to be the only form of residential architecture to be artful? Good (practical, workable, livable, beautiful) architectural design is art. I guess a craftsman style bungalow wouldn't have received the same attention, and probably wouldn't have made as interesting a TV show. I agree that the students met the challenge set by the producers and by their professor, and did a great job. I'd like to see another season of this show where they (school & producers) include the needs of the existing residents (potential buyers), too. -
RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 3 2008 at 5:07pm by Wow,It just occured to me that this show is like a micro-cosm of Iraq. I support the ideals. I applaud and support the efforts of those doing their part to benefit the downtrodden. But I think they are being sent to do something that isn't in keeping with the goals and ideals of the majority of the community in which they find themselves.
Yeah, I know I'm reaching.
A question came to me. I live in a neighborhood with a Home Owners Association. If this neighborhood were even middle class to lower middle class, do you think they would allow extreme examples of architecture? Or would either by Association or by concerted effort choose to attend political meetings to protest these homes? The poor often feel helpless, or are ignorant of their rights to impact changes on their community.
I like that the home from the previous season finaly sold. It didn't sell to someone who seemed to be a returning victim or be representative of the neighborhood. But at least the guy was committed to helping rebuild the community. Many of the people depicted in the show seemed more passive about the rebuilding. It was good to have someone who seemed to want to take an active participation in improving things.RE: Building Homes in Low-income Neighborhoods? Posted on Dec 3 2008 at 5:32pm by I completely understand your point. It's very well taken.
I feel you may be confusing (understandably) what is TV and what is reality. Architecture School is not a competition reality show created and cast by TV producers with some nifty idea to re-build NOLA. It's a documentary of an actual program with actual students who would be doing what they're doing whether a camera was there to capture it or not.
The fact that you can criticize the house and still admire the effort is what also makes the TV program all the more real. It's not a clean and happy little show. It has an inherent sense of conflict that is simply not resolvable.
These are not kids out to make NOLA a better place (at least, that's clearly not their first intention). Their goal is to design and build a modern architectural residence. The fact that it may actually help a neighborhood is icing on the cake. I also understand that several people think it may actually be HARMFUL to the neighborhood. That is a valid point, and only makes the show more interesting -- as it doesn't seem to shy away from that notion.
There are OTHER building programs that address building standard, affordable, NOLA-style homes. This is just not that program, nor is it even trying to be.
The entertainment value isn't coming from competition (which isn't really the point of the academic program at all) but rather from these explorations of poverty and priviledge, progressive taste and nostalgia. These are all given a lot of weight in the show.
If you go into the extra videos on this site, there is one about a former neighbor who grew up in the spot that the second house now resides on. She said the place used to be middle class, but fell into disrepair, and now no one takes care of it. The addition of these new homes doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem seems to come from NHS making them affordable to actual neighbors.
-
-
-