Sometimes a modernist house plays well with traditional surroundings. When Edward Durell Stone's widow removed the breezeblock facade on this house, the city made her put it back.

Totally inconsistent with the neighborhood and surroundings. Perhaps it had been designated as a historic landmark, based on Stone's reputation.

I think the answer is, Something Else. Neither a Georgian nor a Modern. Modern Farmhouse is all the rage. :eyeroll: . Not.

But. Maybe an interpretation of a Prairie Style, 2020, that has enough use of natural materials to appeal to the Traditionalists, yet also enough interesting massing and volumes to appeal to a Modernist. Use some Corten, and Cedar, and tinted concrete, and do open concept, with large internal public volumes, but keep the private spaces smaller scale to bring the overall massing down to connect with the earth, as a proper Prarie style should.

India Hicks’s new place, America Farm, is pretty plain and simple. I think it lacks charm and finishing touches, but it is better than what was posted here. The interior is great. I can’t post pics. Google India Hicks architectural digest America farm. AD did a piece on her place in Harbour Island too.

Red state or Blue state?

Ford Nation!

As the Mrs. Worthy in my marriage, I recognize a builder's itchy desire to build something new and different : ) .

First, let me wipe the manure from my riding boots.

Here are two typical new builds in the neighbourhood, both selling for a tad under C$5m.

One of two new homes being built directly across the street from us by
the same architect. Do we really want to be consistent with them?

No, I would not try to emulate that. In fact, definitely aim for something of higher quality. But being contextual can be broader than simply matching whatever the neighbors are doing. It's about looking at the materials, scale, size, and general feel of the neighborhood, and doing something that feels like it belongs. It can be a completely different style than all the neighbors and not feel like a spaceship has just landed if it's tied in by the other factors I mentioned.

I would vote against neighborhood consistency if it had to look like what is being built across the street.

"Totally inconsistent with the neighborhood and surroundings. Perhaps it had been designated as a historic landmark, based on Stone's reputation"

Which house in the neighborhood should Stone have been consistent with, in 1956?

The remaining Italianate facade to it's West? The Art-Decofied facades to it's East? The large Beaux Arts apartment building closer to Park Ave? The Colonial Revival 11-story further East? The tenements closer to the river? The Gothic Revival across the street?

It was only later, under new owners that a donation was made to the Trust for Architectural Easements ensuring that the front and rear facades will not be altered.

The neighborhood is more consistent in condition now, compared to 1956. This is not necessarily what one would do today, but 60 years ago the context was different.

India Hicks's "plain and simple" costs big bucks -- in fact, the plainer and simpler (like the UK kitchen design company Plain English), the more expensive : ) .

Her partner David Flint Wood describes the house as "something traditional, probably white stucco, a cross between a Danish farmhouse and a Georgian rectory". The architects were Nichols Brown Webber, and I'm delighted to find them on Houzz UK lol.

And they're lucky to have not only her family's design and society connections (and some fabulous old family furnishings), but a country that still has good craftspeople, for example, for the sitting room's Portland stone mantel and the study's marble mantel.

Some more inspiration for worthy: India Hicks's builder, Stuart Barr Construction / BarrJoinery.

"...One of two new homes being built directly across the street from us by the same architect. Do we really want to be consistent with them?..."

Of course not. In settings like that, one has to decide if one's own design and construction skill and reputation are important...or not. IOW, what to you want to be known for?

In the case of those residential neighborhoods, we can be sure that the houses will sell at their price points. After all, there's a butt for every house.

But if one makes their living at design or construction, what does one want for a reputation?

Edward Durell Stone was known for his concrete screens and arcades on the exterior of his structures, beginning with the U.S. Embassy in India. After that, he repeated his design motif endlessly.

Here is the U.S. Embassy:

Here's the Palo Alto city hall:

As a kid going to school a few blocks from Stone's townhouse in the early seventies, I always assumed that he ordered too many breezeblocks for his Columbus Circle project and so used up the extra on his house lol.

When I was older I learned the townhouse project came first : ) .

You missed Stuart Pharmaceutical

Meh, these buildings were all designed within a short enough period of time (1954-1958) that these are really more of a leitmotif of a particular period, than they are an endless repetition until the end of his career.

And he was a formalist during a period when modernism ruled, and Ada Louise Huxtable's own obituary contained two short paragraphs dedicated to how much she hated his buildings specifically.

He isn't particularly inventive, creative, or original on many levels, and because of that I don't think he occupies the same pedestal of a number of modernists, and that's fine. But his work is still quite a bit above many prolific McMansion architects, the type of which the OP is hoping to avoid.

I think sometimes only time will tell what is "responsive to the neighborhood". These houses were considered by many to be inappropriate for the neighborhood at the time they were built:

and something like this was preferred, because they looked "more colonial"

I know which one I'd rather live in.

"...Ada Louise Huxtable's own obituary contained two short paragraphs dedicated to how much she hated his buildings specifically..."

I always liked and respected her commentary.

Knowing she wasn't a Stone fan reinforces my admiration.

"...But his work is still quite a bit above many prolific McMansion architects, the type of which the OP is hoping to avoid..."

Worthy is pulling our legs...all of us.

He has a very good sense of architectural history and architectural design. As a successful builder he knows full well what sells in his area and for how much.

I'm betting he has long ago made up his mind, and he's just sitting back and enjoying the chatter...

What a lot of interesting ideas!

Actually, the [updated Prairie Style mentioned[(https://www.houzz.com/magazine/getting-it-wright-todays-prairie-style-stsetivw-vs~587948) by "Sophie" is clear in the first example I posted. I spoke to that firm this morning. Here's a different view:

**************

I'm not exactly a devotee of Stone.

The only reason I posted the house at all was because I don't think new construction has to be a Cartoon of whatever the historic fabric of the neighborhood is to "fit in".

As for knowing what sells in a particular neighborhood, I believe or hope that he has better taste than that. Banal and hideous rule the day in many expensive neighborhoods.

Should I borrow my neighbour's Bentley convertible and some Hugo Boss casual wear before we meet?

Nah... My uncle is the wealthiest man I know, and he rocks Tommy Bahama while driving a small-ish, used Ford SUV and a two-day beard. It's all in your swagger, not what you're wearing. ;-)

And they're lucky to have not only her family's design and society connections (and some fabulous old family furnishings), but a country that still has good craftspeople, for example, for the sitting room's Portland stone mantel and the study's marble mantel.

Sigh, whimper ...

The Toronto, 1990s. arch. Kirshenblatt, Korman home reminded me of all of the strip malls around here!

You're building something to SELL, right? Talk to a realtor in the area.

Yes...that's really the question...Worthy knows very well what he is going to do. He's simply enjoying this thread!

I've always appreciated Post Medieval English Revival and the Shingle Style so lately I've been looking at the houses of Bobby McAlpine.

EEEEK! A Shed dormer! Does a short knee wall lurk within? haha

Hobbit hole underground?

Or a Mullet? Traditional on top and Modern below?

Sophie has coined a new style house to go with Modern Farmhouse. Now we have a Mullet house.

Business up front, party out back!

I've always appreciated the berm house. This one's early and it's eco friendly.

As a real property appraiser, finding berm house comparable properties for comparison purposes fills my nightmares.

It's definitely easier to dismiss styles than choose them.

Architect number two pointed out that the modernist style was quite intricate and expensive to build--all steel framing to enable the long expanses of open volumes within. Plus, when you have more than 22% glass exteriors, special approvals and energy-savings measures are required in Ontario.

She liked the updated Prairie style suggested here and even said she could refer me to an architect with more experience in that style. (Wow, such honesty impresses me mightily when I've become accustomed to trades who are ready to take on anything for money--experience or expertise be damned.)

Supporting Anglophilia, she said that clients commissioning such moderns typically plan to live in them forever. At my stage in life, "forever" has a short threshold!

I'd agree with Sophie (which hasn't always been the case on these boards!) - what she was referring to was more of a design process and vocabulary that fits you rather than jamming a specific style down onto your tastes like a straight-jacket.

These styles have evolved from practitioners who do good design that others can appreciate. that work slowly gets emulated because it was good design (for example the horrible stucco-y messes that are trying to consider themselves modern and popping up all over toronto are great-grandbabies of great work being done by firms like shim sutcliffe 15 years ago).

I guess what I'm saying is you're going to have the best luck choosing an architect that wants to do good design for YOU. The style will follow into that discussion and can be elegant and beautiful in many styles/vocabularies when it is created and tailored to you. Definitely don't put the cart before the horse - the horse being good design, style following accordingly.

Georgian vs. Brutalist...?

Well, have you considered a brutal Georgian...I know some...great neighbors...

For a greater Georgian influence, this looks like a promising direction...

Or, if your prefer a more "do-it-yourself" approach, there's always this:

Maybe if you reference the work of John Haviland, you can have a Brutalist (broad definition) version of neo-Classical. He really stripped the forms to their essence:

Classical

Gothic

Egyptian

Classical

If you really don't care for visitors and company, the second photo of Penitentiary Egyptian is definitely the way to go...

Signed the contract and retainer cheque last Friday. Other than providing the basics of required rooms and size (minimum of 5,000 sf) and style ideas (FLW Mayan and some "soft" Brutalists), I'm leaving it to the architect. I very much appreciated that the firm works with developers and recognizes that cost is very important. This is not a dream project. (In fact, I'm looking forward to the one after...should I beat the mortality tables.)

@worthy - I'd be very interested to know who you chose.

and nice work on simultaneously giving loose requirements and freedom to work - great architecture comes from great clients!

Is it a real architect or one of those almost architects that some people call an architect? I hope they work out well, very well.

First-time splurge with a high-profile licensed architect with decades of experience. My previous builds were re-worked subdivision plans done by architectural technologists, some talented, some not so much. The large irregular lot and projected selling price seems to justify the cost.

@worthy - I'd be very interested to know who you chose.

No sense promoting them in advance. (Especially if I made a mistake.). PM for an answer.

Haha, very good. I guess you need to also follow me prior to me being able to PM...but I'd made a pretty good guess already either way as I don't believe your initial meeting is a registered architect (just a really talented "almost-architect" that the real architects turn their nose up at (despite the fact that his body of work eclipses most in both quantity and quality of architectural design!)). And I'm sure you didn't make a mistake, all the ones you referenced are very respected firms!

Now I'm curious.

Sophie has coined a new style house to go with Modern Farmhouse. Now we have a Mullet house.

Not quite.

The phenomenon described in that link is *not* my cup of tea at all. I felt cheated, lol, much in the same way that I feel cheated when I see a house from the street that has brick/stone/whatever and then siding across the back. :-/

After seeing more examples of Mullet houses, I'd rather see a comeback in the men's hairstyle, to be honest. Haircuts aren't nearly as permanent. Or as large.

"...Sherwin-Williams "Pure White" was painted on all interior walls..."

Thank heavens for this.

(...it's sarcasm...)

I don't mind the modernist additions to the traditional houses. The additions are of good quality and were well-considered whether you agree with the concept of making additions apparent or not.

What bugs me is all the design and materials on the front, and blankness and cheapness on the sides and back. ETA Not on the houses shown in that link, I like those. See below to see what I mean.

Well...I think many architects may like to play the little shell game where the front façade of a house may be one (often historic) style, while the interiors and rear façade are something else entirely (often highly Modern).

It's a game which requires a good working knowledge of architectural history, with a blend of sleight-of-hand magician tricks of an architectural nature.

Of course, there are a number of situations where this may actually be a requirement, i.e., designated historic structures; historic zoned areas, architectural and HOA requirements for a given area, etc. In such cases, there may be little option for new construction, remodeling and improvements involving the front façade of a house, but for which the owners may have a much more Modern taste. So blending "old" with "new" is not unheard of at all.

Whatever, the photos did display strong design talent and accomplished construction techniques. I'd disagree with palimpsest about the "cheapness"...the interiors and rear exteriors, especially the major glass ones, look extremely expensive.

This approach to design and construction is clearly an acquired taste and not for everyone.

Of course, there are a number of situations where this may actually be a requirement, i.e., designated historic structures; historic zoned areas, architectural and HOA requirements for a given area, etc.

Which is why the Brits seem to do this quite well, IMO.

“Which is why the Brits seem to do this quite well, IMO.” And some Canadians not so much, i.e. our poor chateau Laurier ):

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-addition-design-1.4695744

And of course the ROM Crystal : )

Oh I think the above examples are great and finely crafted. I did not explain myself clearly.

I am talking about a completely different kind of house:

"Fancy" up front:

Note the backs of similar houses.

Whatever, the photos did display strong design talent and accomplished construction techniques.

Absolutely! They were all beautifully crafted, I just became sad looking at old house facades "improved" with unrelated (to me) backsides. lol