Thinking about a new home in 2004? Maybe you’re among the brave few who might consider a really new home–a cutting edge model so out there it stands well apart from its neighbors.
Rick Phillips has the courage it takes. He built a very modern house in Chicago at 1306 N. Cleveland Ave.
A gutsy architect, Phillips now has what he titles his “Tower House.” It’s a four-story structure that doesn’t quite look like a house.
Perched on long steel legs, it doesn’t resemble an office or apartment building either. It looks like a building you might see, well, somewhere else. It certainly doesn’t take after anything around here.
The house is small and vertical, shoehorned on a tiny triangular lot. Phillips describes it as an “upside-down” house because the outdoor space is on the fourth level–better to catch city views.
The first level is an open carport. Before Phillips decided to rent it out and build a similar, but bigger place next door, passersby would ask him what it was.
When he told them he lived there, they’d usually respond: “That’s a house?”
Not many are bold enough to build, and live in, a really new looking house. Most of us are content to buy a traditional house with a well-accepted design.
Anyone can relate to the standard colonial, the two-story Tudor and the nostalgic Victorian.
Then there’s the practical issue of resale. Real estate agents are always telling us that modern-looking homes are hard to sell.
Though cutting-edge home designs may never be the rage, there are indications they’re gaining acceptance among home buyers.
Architects are coming up with new ideas that have real appeal for those looking for a different kind of house.
There are houses with walls of glass and undefined rooms. There are houses made of shipping containers; yes, shipping containers.
Some new houses come in amorphous bright-colored shapes. And there are prefab, factory-built models in the works that bear no resemblance to their trailer-park cousins.
“I don’t think people who like modern architecture will ever be the majority,” says Allison Arieff, editor at Dwell, a San Francisco-based magazine that showcases modern residential design. “But there is a larger segment of the population interested in modern design than builders and real estate agents think.”
She cites as evidence the growing popularity of the magazine, with a circulation that has grown to 200,000 from 50,000 in just three years.
There’s also increasing media interest in modern homes. (Arieff’s interview for this story was her sixth of the week.)
Though modern homes may now at least be on the radar screen, what actually constitutes a cutting-edge design is open for discussion.
Many points of view
Architects get philosophical when asked to describe modern home design. Though each has his or her own take on the topic, they seem to agree that today’s new home should reflect current times.
Forget the knock-off Victorian with a wrap-around porch. Ditch the production-built colonial with the front-facing garage.
Chicago architect Joe Valerio designs modern houses, though he mostly works on commercial projects.
“I laugh when people say architecture is timeless,” says Valerio at Valerio Dewalt Train Associates. “Architecture is really the ability to record at a moment in time, the world view of the culture and the architect and the owner.”
Valerio provides an example. Two years ago, he designed a house to be constructed in Chicago’s North Side Ravenswood neighborhood.
On the outside, the single-level house looks something like a steel fortress. There are no markings on the exterior to identify it as a house. The interior is a private high-tech retreat with access to courtyard gardens.
Valerio says that the house plays off current themes of anonymity, privacy and high-tech culture.
“If I did a good job, people in the future will say that’s a house from 2000,” he says.
Among the boldest home designs are being created by Chicago architect Douglas Garofalo at Garofalo Architects Inc.
He favors blob-like houses, though he says he’s not locked into that look. Some are colored bright green or red.
“I think our houses combine contemporary form and technique without sacrificing livability,” he notes. “For as much as our houses seem different, they are wonderfully functional.”
Cutting-edge architects hunger for daring clients, though they’re hard to come by.
“I can tell within five minutes whether a (new) project is going anywhere,” says architect Valerio. He knows it’s hopeless when the client asks where the big-screen TV goes.
“What does that have to do with anything?” he asks.
Two years ago, Susan and Allison Davis built a modern house in Chicago’s South Side Kenwood neighborhood. The couple had been living with their young daughter in a high-rise condominium just off Michigan Avenue.
Like so many urban couples, the Davises wanted their daughter to have a house and a yard.
They bought a vacant lot in Kenwood’s historic district.
“We didn’t know what kind of house we wanted,” says Susan Davis. The couple interviewed five architects, without providing much direction–an architect’s dream assignment.
The Davises hired Chicago architect John Vinci at Vinci/Hamp Architects Inc. Vinci is well known for his modern design of the Arts Club of Chicago.
Instead of specifying what kind of house they wanted, the Davises told Vinci how they lived and he designed a house to match their lifestyle.
“The first time he showed us a plan, it was a on piece of paper the size of a cocktail napkin,” says Davis.
“The house is kind of a cross between a Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe. I don’t know if that’s what you think when you see it, but it works for us.”
The house, of course, will never be confused with the historic homes around it. It is contemporary, the kind of design that can rile the neighbors as well as preservationists.
Davis says the house design went through several levels of approval because the lot sits in a historic district.
Initially, the design passed muster without much fuss. But winning permission from the Chicago Landmarks Commission proved more difficult.
“It was a contentious meeting,” Davis says. “It’s like modern art — some people understand it and others don’t.”
The main worry was that the house would look too big. As a concession, the Davises agreed to move the house back five feet from the street. The height of the house was also redone to match its neighbors.
Architect Vinci, ironically also known for his historic home restorations, says he wouldn’t do anything to harm the neighborhood.
“It’s a very striking house and it has created a lot of attention,” he says. “But there is nothing avant garde about it. It’s a strong piece of architecture in a historic neighborhood.”
In most cases, people can generally build what they want. Houses must meet local zoning requirements. Houses in historic neighborhoods, or places with architectural review boards, must also receive approval from those bodies.
“We are not opposed to modern design,” says David Bahlman, president at the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a Chicago-based group that defends old buildings. But he wants a contemporary house to have a character that’s sympathetic and compatible with its historic neighbors.
He also prefers contemporary designs over bad replicas from another era.
“We don’t do reproductions,” he says.
Modern houses can present other challenges too.
Architect Phillips, principal at Frederick Phillips & Associates, needed a zoning variance from the City of Chicago to build his “Tower House.”
The variance wasn’t for the design, even though the zoning commissioners were scratching their heads at the plans, Phillips says.
Instead, the variance was needed to allow a house on the tiny 1,651-square-foot lot that had no alley access. Phillips also had to modify building techniques because the design called for exposed steel columns on the exterior, a violation of the city’s fire code.
Then there’s the cost. Phillips acted as general contractor for the house to help reduce the pricetag. Still, he hasn’t had the nerve to total up the bill.
“I have no idea what it’s worth,” he says, though the house has won several design awards.
Even so, for the new and bigger “Tower House” he plans to build next door, he’ll probably hire a general contractor.
Employing general contractors and architects can be expensive, but there’s hope on the horizon for those with a limited budget who yearn for a cutting-edge house.
New York City architect Joe Tanney wants to bring modern houses to the masses the same way Ikea put hip furniture in our living rooms.
Tanney plans to build prefab modern houses in factories to reduce costs. So far, he has commissions for eight homes.
At about 2,500 square feet, the houses aren’t particularly big by today’s standards. But they do look different.
“Our goal is that the houses look modern,” says Tanney, partner at Resolution: 4 Architecture. “We do not want to perpetuate the graveyards of complacency found in the American suburbs. We are creating a new option.”
The designs have a standard formula, but each house is customized for the client. The houses are built, in pieces, in a factory and shipped to the construction site.
The houses cost about $125 a foot (not including land costs). According to Tanney, that’s much less than someone would pay to hire a good architect and find a competent contractor to build a modern marvel.
Psychotherapist Chris Rosenthal bought a Tanney house. She owns 70 acres in the Catskill Mountains of upstate New York where she and her business partner plan to open a psycho-spiritual retreat center.
Rosenthal will hire a local contractor to install the prefab house on the property. She plans to move there from her current home in Florida in August.
Rosenthal figures she’ll pay about $350,000 for the 2,800-square-foot prefab house. She says she could not have afforded a custom house like it.
For her, it’s a small price for what she’s getting.
“However you view the house, wherever you stand inside or out, you see exquisite design. Every line is in harmony,” she says, echoing the passions of modern home lovers everywhere. “The design is like a piece of sculpture.”
