Carner House Frank Weise

He solve the problem by adding other buildings to the property

The client actually disliked the house

Same neighborhood as the Esherick House, I think.

From limited personal experience I have learned that having the architect involved is important to ensuring that the the furnishings are 'true' to the whole.

My reaction is that in the first and last examples the furnishings take away from the experience of being in the home. In contrast, in the second and third homes the furnishings contribute to the experience of being in the home. They seem part of a coherent whole instead of distracting from what is there.

Ineffable, it is interesting that you have chosen a user name that is related to one of the fathers of Modern architecture but you state that Sochi's architect is "setting up an inflexible set of parameters".

Le Corbusier stressed that harmony and unity must be an aim in works of art (including architecture) and that art must have its own special character. He said a "clear statement, the giving of a living unity of the work, the giving it a fundamental attitude and a character: all this is a pure creation of the mind."

His creations were made to manipulate views, create interior/ exterior relationships, create subtle hierarchy with spacial volume, focus on the play of light, etc. Each structure would have to be created with what may be seen as inflexible parameters to create the ineffable spaces that he so desired.

To be clear, this is not meant to be rude and not meant to restart any of the past discussions directly relating to Sochi, it is only in response to the statement in this post.

I think the house is going to be beautiful. Modernist architecture is of a piece (unity), and I am in agreement with Sochi's architect that even the color must be carefully considered and perhaps "controlled".

I don't mean "inflexible" as a pejorative term at all. The parameters are part of a complete and finished vision. So complete that the envelope itself can never be altered. Furnishings and art can change, the rest often can't

However, if it aint broke, why fix it? I like all the houses above to varying degrees. I don't like one of them much, but which one isn't important--it's still a masterwork.

My point is, that to do one's own think on the inside of modernist house doesn't really work like it does in the typical traditional house because it Is about harmony and unity. This isn't so important in typical architecture that can bear a certain amount of alteration.

To me, the question is, are you creating a work of art or a home for someone to live in? Not that someone can't live in a work of art, but it comes at a price that includes the unalterability of the work of art the artist, or in this case the architect, has created. And this can come with many different styles of architecture....I'm thinking of Theodate Pope's Hillstead or Isabella Stuart Gardner's museum in Boston, neither of which are modern. Both were left as museums with the understanding that literally nothing be altered inside or out. That the architecture and decor surrounding the interior works of art must remain as is.

So from that point of view, regardless of style, the more tightly a single style is defined by the interior and exterior architecture and finishes, the more difficult it is to bring in disparate styles and still have them look appropriate...not that it can't be done, but it is harder to do. (Though I admit, I can't ever see how one can make a barcalounger work in Sturbridge Village.)

I don't know the intent or the budget in Sochi's case, but in my case, we were building a home that we wanted to look nice with a certain air and character. Eventually the architect and I worked our way to a common vision, but it was not without a lot of reminders that our house was not "open wallet architecture" and that if he wanted a house that was strictly his vision, it would have to be with another wealthier client, or on his own dime.

I think plenty of people live in works of art or particular visions that weren't theirs.

Anybody who lives in an intact or restored antique house basically does, and those groups of people make plenty of sacrifices that they would not make if they lived in a brand new house in a development somewhere.

My aunt an uncle lived in a house that my uncle could not walk upright in on the upper floor, happily, for many years because they wanted to live in a very old log house. People who live in big Victorians often deal with expensive utility bills, expensive repair or restoration of most details, and there are usually lots of limitations as to what you can do that looks "right".

But I think people understand this better because those houses are the basis of traditional as opposed to modernism, which was the first completely different form in a long time. I also think, since modernist houses are stripped of details that they are even more rigid in terms of what looks "right".

And there were (and are) architects that will build to their vision only and the reason you commission them is to build their vision for you. Frank Lloyd Wright dictated to clients all the time. The architect of one of the houses above, regularly lost commissions because he had a difficulty letting the client have input. With modernism I think you both have to be of the same mind.

People who live in modernist houses that are featured in magazines often talk about the sacrifices they make to live in such a house.

"With modernism I think you both have to be of the same mindset' - but isn't this true of any collaboration between architect and client, ideally?

Annie, my architect is making countless concessions to our budget. Our budget is limited which makes building modern a challenge for sure. We were very up front about the budget and I believe he has taken the project up as a challenge - the challenge to have a beautiful modern home that doesn't cost the world. It isn't easy and guess what - it will cost us more than we originally wanted to spend. But not insane yet, there is still a chance that we might get our money back if we ever had to sell.

On sacrifices - at first I thought that seemed harsh, but I guess it isn't unreasonable or unexpected. We make sacrifices for art, beauty or other things that matter all the time. We will no doubt make some sacrifices too for this house (other than the obvious financial one). Frankly if my biggest problem is kitchen cabinet colour I think we're probably doing pretty well.

This post was edited by sochi on Wed, Nov 6, 13 at 23:32

I think much more compromise is possible in traditional architecture so the architect and client may actually not be on the same page, at least to start, and they can still have a good outcome. With modernism I think the architect and client have to start out at a much closer point.

It's an interesting question applied to paintings and sculptures, too -- items we more easily identify as works of art. Plenty of people buy art because it's the right color for their walls and interior, not because the piece has a unity of vision or really speaks to them. Or commission a piece from an artist and then dictate its contents. And if the artist is amenable to that, then I see no problem. I do think that a piece that has been commissioned to include (or not include) specific elements dictated by the client is unlikely to be the artist's most compelling piece, though. And I think architecture would be the same.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a commission where the client and the artist agree ahead of time on a general subject and style. I'm talking about when a client commissions a piece, and then says: "But I notice you put a lot of spiders and insects in your work -- could you not include that? Maybe something pretty instead? And I don't really like dark colors too much, and brights would clash with my sofa..." And so on. Then you're asking for sub-par work, in my opinion, because you're asking the artist to execute a muddled vision. And I think that (unless it was clear from the beginning that this sort of detailed involvement was envisioned) the artist would be perfectly justified in refusing to continue to produce the work, even if you were willing to pay him.

The only person I know who actually supports themselves by their art no longer takes commissions. Toward the beginning of her career she took a commission from a band with a major record label, and they dictated a lot of the content of the work. When it was finished, they didn't like it, and decided to buy one of the pieces that had attracted them in the first place, and she was stuck with a piece that nobody else wanted either, because it was atypical of her work. So she got paid only Sorta, because they paid for a piece she could have sold Anyway and didn't get paid for the piece they commissioned.

I don't think you are going to be able to work with an architect if the architect doesn't understand Your vision either, but hopefully you don't commission someone who can't really deliver. I think this is an easier mistake with traditional architecture than with modernism. I am working on a project where, in retrospect, the architect wasn't really the most qualified for the specifics of the project.

There were a few threads on the building forum that discussed how to choose an architect, at least one quite lengthy and thorough. It is a worthwhile read and I found it quite informative. In fact I think it was Mtn's thread, when they were thinking of building new.

In that thread a number of people mentioned the importance of the relationship between the arch and the builder. I would think that this relationship is even more critical with modern builds, given the technical difficulty. We put quite a bit of weight on our arch's recommendation for the builder, and choose the one he was most comfortable with.

The relationship between the architect and builder must be an interesting/ complex one. The architect's artistic vision, but the actual work of art is crafted by another.

Sochi, "it will cost us more than we originally wanted to spend..."

That's probably true of most any build or remodel. Best advice we got was to design for 30% less than we wanted to spend so an allowance for the inevitable cost overruns was already built in.