April 21st

In “The House as Symbol of the Self” Clare Cooper touched upon the societal and cultural taboos regarding mobile and trailer homes. She said that mobile home parks are,” somehow looked down upon by the Average American home owner as violating the true image of home and neighborhood.” While reading “Mobile Homes” by Allan D. Wallis, I thought of this excerpt for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I noticed that while Wallis discusses the unforeseen complexities of the interior design, modifications, and layout of these dwellings, he also uses somewhat sarcastic and mocking language.  Could this mean that while he is legitimizing the mobile/trailer home (kind of), he also holds this stereotypical, stigmatized perspective of these homes and their owners? Or is he simply just being critical and expressing his professional opinion?

an example…

Borrow a window detail here, a roofline here, and before you know it Mr. potato head is starting to look like a house. (395)

I really liked Tuan’s piece. I thought that this sentence, ” Home is at the center of an astronomically determined spacial system. (409)” His analysis of the home in cosmic terms was extremely refreshing and gave me a new perspective on how I view my own house. It truly does seem like “the focal point of a cosmic structure.”  The fact that the stars are always under your home, no matter what, supports this subconscious and obviously false ideal. We know that our homes and houses are not “the center of the world,” yet we still view them in like that in some ways.

In “Making Housing Home,” I realized that there is a significance  in having a front door to call your own…”Entering through her own front door, Ethel’s house truly seems her own.”  Not having to walk through hallways or walk up flights of stairs, as Ethel stated, is obviously a very settling, comforting, beneficial addition in creating a home. It is so simple, but often something that is taken for granted. Front doors, I believe, can be very telling of one’s self, style, or ideology. I remember during the midterm projects, hearing about how various front doors were presented, some with protective bars to aid against crime and others with more personalized, inviting decorations. I also found it extremely interesting how better housing for families translates directly to better, healthier families. This is not only true with urban but with rural, suburban dwellings as well.

I really enjoyed the Fuerst piece. I think that the contradictions explored between the architect’s perception of high-rises compared to the actual residents’ revealed how many developers fail to understand what the dwellers truly desire and how they proceed to occupy the building. It seems that the developers stay ignorant to the resident’s own perceptions of their homes because they themselves are not actually experiencing what they have built. Although it is claimed that high-rises lack “spiritual qualities” it is apparent that the aesthetics are not nearly as important to the residents as the actual space and how it functions to suit their lives. Clearly, it are the aesthetics that are many of these developer’s/architects priorities.

Mass Housing-the Post War American suburb

I wish I had read this week’s readings before I did my midterm presentation because so much of it, especially the Keats, Miner, and Teyssot pieces, relate directly to the 1950s mass development of Birchwood Knolls in Long Island, NY. The similarities between the description of Rolling Knolls and Birchwood Knolls (beside their name) was evident. I realize that these names are given to communities to attract residents, but the names themselves aren’t necessarily reflective of the actual landscape of the neighborhoods. Naming them with such appealing, utopian-like names is definitely a branding process-and it continues to be very popular into modern mass developments.

I have to disagree with Keats’ assertion that, “It is true that the dwelling shapes the dweller. When all dwellings are the same shape, all dwellings are squeezed in the same shape.” In essence, I feel that he is trying to say that developments like Rolling Knolls, “mass-produced human beings.” Although it is true that these 1950s mass suburban neighborhoods produced similar if not identical houses, I do not think its fair to generalize the residents of the houses. I agree that the dwelling shapes the dweller to a certain extent, but the dweller also shapes the dwelling. Certainly, from my research, the families in Birchwood Knolls, though they dwelled in similar houses, were not “mass-produced.” I do understand that for many women, these developments did feel like “communistic”, female barracks.

I thought that Teyssot introduced some interesting concepts surrounding landscaping, lawns, and fences in terms of boundaries and community.  The homes at Birchwood Knolls, I now realize, had very little man-made boundaries between yards. There were practically no fences-only bushes or trees to separate lawns. The “visual openness” of the yards endured even the renovation phases of the houses, and I’m surprised because now privacy is taken even more seriously. Using “natural boundaries” helps sustain the front yard as a semi-public area and the openness of yards enforces the idea that these neighborhoods were actual communities. While interviewing my mother and grandmother, both stressed the fact that their yards were open to others and vice-versa, and were a major aspect of their home. The street they lived on became one big yard, where all the neighborhood kids could hang out freely together.

I’m interested in what inspired any changes made in modern suburban neighborhoods regarding privacy and landscaping. Why aren’t yards semi-communal spaces anymore? Nowadays it seems like people are obsessed with defining lines and building boundaries between their property and their neighbors.

In this week’s readings, I thought it was impossible to not relate your own experience in home while analyzing and reading the texts. Afterall, this week’s theme is “Home as a means to negotiate: self, others and public culture.” Anyways, in “Home as symbol of the self,” Cooper discusses how home owners use the exterior of their houses to express something unique or different about themselves..a “premium is put on originality.” This is especially true for those who are struggling to maintain “personal uniqueness.”  While I do agree, I also feel like this varies for people with different levels of financial security. For extremely wealthy homeowners its seems that originality is usually a priority but so is impressing others–which is kind of a conformist act right? Also, Cooper states that,”an apartment is rarely seen as home, for a house can only be seen as a free-standing house on the ground.” I disagree with this because some people have never had the opportunity to live in a “real house” -but that doesn’t that mean that these people do not see their apartments as home.

I also liked Schwartzenberg’s claim that, “Every home is in sense a library,an informal archive of past and present intermingled.” Definitely true.

In his proposal, Walter Gropius discusses how his company’s mass-produced housing will decrease expenses and increase functionalism and solidity. Though the houses would have “artistic uniformity” they would offer individual variations through “form, material, and color.” This reminds me of certain US suburban mass housing where the basic structure and floor plans of houses are practically identical but the outsides vary in color or some other material. He acknowledges the importance of individualism, as long as it doesn’t  ”intrude on the principal of uniformity based on industrial production.” In places like co-op city or condominiums where the residents are not allowed to change the structure of their houses, I often notice that the people somehow attempt to express themselves in various ways, whether its painting the tops of their deck, or using some other type of decoration. Does mass housing reduce the house as an “extension of self” because it reduces the individualism of one’s home? Or in utopian housing, is this the point?

In A Revolution in the Woman’s Sphere, I questioned whether or not the Frankfurt Kitchen can be considered a “revolution.” Clearly, it seems like the “redomestication” of the kitchen was just an update in design, appliances, and the use of space. Introducing, “labor-saving appliances” and other advanced, efficient characteristics just tried to convince the women to be happier in the kitchen. Rather than pushing them out of that domestic role, it just reeled them in. But maybe this was an improvement in the cultural context of Germany where women were still behind any advancements US women had made.

Week 5 Readings

In “Privacy, Security, and Respectability” by Mike Hepworth, I was interested in the concept that as “home in its ideal expression was analogous to heaven, it was also the place where many people hoped to die.” (150) Bed death scenes were seen as an “essential link between the secular and the social.”  Obviously during this time period, medicine was not advanced and illness and death were prevalent. Though the death-bed scenes were private affairs, they were social ones, as the patient was surrounded by close friends and family. It is interesting to think that now, with our medicine and technology most advanced “the death-bed scene” has disappeared from occurring within the walls of our homes and into the walls of hospitals.

In “Home and Gardens” by Mike Hepworth, I noticed that for the second time in our readings, the structure of a house was compared to a tree in a metaphor. The first was by Wright, which focused more on the architectural style of a home. Hepworth concerns more with the location and enviroment in which a home is built; a country home “develops itself freely, as a tree expands which is not crowded by neighbors in a forest, but grows in the unrestrained liberty of the open meadow.” I agree that rural homes have more opportunity to be expressive of the resident’s identity and an “extension of self.”

Week 4 response

I was immediately struck by Cromley’s paradoxical title, “Alone Together.”  In striving to appear or obtain higher class status, it seems to me that the middle class people, “who could not afford to risk their new sense of social worth by mixing with people less prosperous than themselves,” sacrificed friendly communal living for social rank. I liked Cromley’s commentary on neighbors; that even someone who you live next to, may pass everyday in the hall, and is technically regarded as your “neighbor” can still be a stranger. I can imagine the anxiety and intimidation tenants may have felt while attempting to choose and try apartment life for the first time. I wonder how the most elite New Yorkers during this time treated their “neighbors?”

I was confused by the quote: “The Stuyvesant apartments, described by a contemporary, as somewhat grotesque but highly picturesque…” How can a building be both “grotesque” and picturesque? Does anyone agree/understand with this statement?

In “The Social meanings of Housing” I thought it was interesting that upper class valued the accommodation of their visitors over the comfort  of their own families. They invested so much in the public entertainment of their guests in back parlors and dining rooms but sacrificed a true home life. Funny that this lifestyle was considered the “proper” home life.

Week Three Response

The American front porch is described as a feminine,  ritual space. This is an obvious contrast to the use of the back deck, where the space has traditionally been seen as masculine and more private. Both spaces function as places for social interaction and as a “stage.”

I enjoyed reading Rybczynski’s analysis of intimacy, privacy, and comfort in “Home- A short history of an Idea.” In regards to houses in the Middle Ages, he makes it clear that the lack of comfort and “hominess” was due to cultural preferences and the lack of technology. The idea that homes during this time period were feudal and public prevented any sense of intimacy. It makes sense that these houses lacked personal/private space and therefore were not viewed as having a significant impact in terms of being at home. Rybczynski’s definition of  “comfortable” is interesting, as the word’s evolution throughout time is directly related to how the function of houses and their spaces changed. According to Rybczynski, people “camped” in their houses more than the “lived” in them. When I think of “camping,” comfort is the last thing that comes to mind. When you sleepover at friend’s house or stay at stranger’s home for the night, it’s almost like camping, and many times you don’t feel as comfortable as you would if you were at your own house (obviously). Rybczynski mentioned that all strict rules and customs of the Middle ages indicated the importance that  the “obsessedly ordered society placed on public expression and on formality. (33)” I also found it interesting that it wasn’t until the presence of children in homes in the 18^th century that homes became more intimate.  The presence of children changed the function of spaces and the customs of the home. Likewise, this is true in today’s world. A clean, organized, ikea-like home will mostly become transformed into a cluttered space filled with color, toys, and other infantile items when a baby arrives.

I liked Rybczynski’s statement that “Hominess is not neatness.” But is it possible for people who decorate their homes like museums, which lack possessions with personal value or family history, to actually feel “homey?” Or is “hominess” merely a subjective idea which people prescribe their own meanings too? Can Hominess and comfort be mutually exclusive?

Response to Saegert and Banham

I was interested in Saegert’s discussion about the dwelling as extension of self. Her theory that it serves as an accomplishment, a representation of personality or being through “an intense/intimate relationship with the physical world” was intriguing. I agree that homes reflect personal identities of inhabitants but this is more true when the inhabitants have the resources to truly have their space reflect who they are. However, personally, I seem to find that the most weathiest home owners use their houses as a sort of museum or showroom. More impoverished people, on the other hand, are too poor and distracted to care about having their home reflect who they are or what they value-they’re just glad they have one.  This would be an exception to the house being as a symbol of self.  Many people cannot afford to create a space that accurately depicts who they are or the lifestyles they wish they could live.

The studies on how children react to different environments in terms of behavioral issues was also fascinating. I wasn’t surprised with the finding that families who invest more meaning in their domestic environments have more closer relationships and are more involved in their communities. Creating a warm domestic enviroment is in essence, creating a community.

The only thing I got out of, “A Home is not A House” is that various mechanical and technological products are threatening to architects. I can definitely understand why this is referred to a “mechanical invasion.” The interior of Americans homes have become too integrated with various unnecessary mechanics. I also think that this has something to do with our increasing dependency and laziness as people. For instance, in place of real logs and fire, people have fake wood that lights up with a flick of a switch. People would rather spend resources than re-build and use homes that are economically and environmentally sound. Banham stated that, “it is the American Way to spend money on services and upkeep rather than on structure as do the peasant cultures of the Old World.”