_thumb.jpg)
You’ve seen it, being built in the past couple of years along Lake Boone Trail, near the intersection of I440. Designed by Jessica Johnson Moore and Chad Everhart, this 4000 square foot house is sited on what builders typically call an “unbuildable lot.”
A tonish material pallette is offset by its busy contemporary modernist composition. The swank, light-filled interiors are dramatized at tall side of the house where a full glass wall looks out into the trees.
It’s nice to see it really finished. The AIA tour was disappointing, but largely because the building was nowhere near complete.
It’s nice to see NEW architecturally relevant modern design in Raleigh… but given the scale & style of the home compared to the context, I somehow doubt that all the neighbors have embraced the structure as wholeheartedly as the Metro article implies.
I’m also interested in seeing how the building ages, not all of the details appear to be especially forgiving… but only time will tell.
I took the above picture well before the project was done. At that point ground had barely been broken across Lake Boone for the claustrophobic McMansions. By the time this house was done the McMansions were largely finished and now offer quite a humorous contrast with the elegance of this structure. Too bad they sit right in the owners view.
For the curious, it’s on Google Maps and Street View.
And surprisingly, the McMAnsions are not selling??? REally, who wants to pay $750,000 for a shared drive, tiny lot, your neighbor 5 feet away and beltline noise????
‘Surprised I am, to see everyone so easily impressed.
I will not rip this apart subjectively like any idiot could do. However, as a designer, I’ll just say:
There really should be a lot heavier competition for this box assembly.
-CJT
As a designer, why not rip into it? If such ripping is appropriate. There ought to be room for legitimate criticism in here as much as anywhere else.
(The Metro, on the other hand, would not be the place to expect scathing architectural criticism… If it can be called ‘modern’ they’ll pretty much endorse it)
On provocation (thanks Rusty):
I will only comment on features I have examined through photographs.
(Aside from bathrooms, which are almost invariably horrifying in contemporary/modern architecture).
In most circumstances, all sides of a home should have balance and unique features. First off, street side: The home is completely garage oriented; e.g. a guest house to a much larger home. The garage weight could have been solved in infinite ways. The most simple would be to downplay the drive: by staining it a dark earth tone or through minimal paving allowing grass to infiltrate the pathway.
Kitchens! Kitchens should be integrated but disintegrated at the same time. Although I love to cook, I’d rather a primary lounge/living area take more aesthetic weight than a kitchen. So it seems this kitchen suffers from overused metal and glass. There is wood covering the exterior, why not the interior? Metal and glass, although attractive, are invariably cold; in a visual and tactile way.
So, on that note, I see exposed steel frame and more metal in a balcony. More chills.
Floor to ceiling glazing is great, it does bring the outside in, BUT, having too much brings on a subconscious discomfort. Having no visual barrier that extends up (from the floor) at least a few inches can remove all sense of cradle/comfort from a home. And, we usually do not realize it. I mean not to say floor to ceiling windows are never appropriate, but should be used in moderation. A better means of bringing outdoor in is to push walls in and out, giving a layering effect to the structure and out of doors together. The glazing separations were obviously not given much thought either; too much repetition.
The exposed steel and cable stays over-dictate the structure. The steel should conform to the space, not the other way around.
Soaring ceilings are striking but when not integrated into lower ceilings through the structure’s details, they become brash. Again, tugging at our subconscious comfort.
So: not enough tactile surfaces, lack of aesthetic warmth/invite, overuse of glazing, and over-dictation of space by materials. This home lacks the detail and attention to human factors that makes it great architecture.
-CJT
You’re welcome? I think.
You bring up some good points. I personally think the most glaring issue with the building is what appears to be an ignoring of the context. I’m not necessarily advocating some kind of North Carolina vernacular design as the only answer for housing here… rather I take issue with the scale of the building (despite attempts to bring it down to the scale of other buildings on its street by pushing the second story volume back.) I also don’t feel it engages the street at a pedestrian level… no doubt setbacks play a role here, but a combination of hardscape and landscape would do wonders for tying into the neighborhood.
It’s not really fair, but I think we (the design community) oftentimes hold modern buildings to a higher standard. We want them to accomplish so many things, and they rarely live up to our expectations.
...Higher standards because the modern movement is our ground for change and development. Why not hold it to a higher standard?
Additionally, modern architecture has not been poluted or diluted by the droves of tract home landscape terrorists that mow down our trees. So it has a chance in some sense.
A further simplification of my view on this home:
It is modern for the sake of being modern. An architectural style, whateverit may be, should be relative to a design that caters to the occupants.
-CJT
My issue is not so much the standard that we hold modern buildings to, but rather that we should hold all buildings to that standard. A new home in the same neighborhood should not get away with ignoring its context, failing to address the street and pedestrian entrance, scales of spaces picked based entirely on building materials rather than on the occupants and spaces themselves… simply because it ISN’T modern.
I’d like to put it out there that if Architects were to start analyzing non-architect designed buildings (especially houses) in the public eye to the degree that we see modern / architect designed houses, we might really be able to win people to the cause of well thought-out modern spaces. (Rather than the “modern” style for its own sake.)
Surely sheer volume would prevent us from picking apart every builder-house put up in the triangle… but why not the ones that get press coverage? Parade homes, etc. There are all kinds of things to critique beyond simply the “style” of these buildings. I’d like to see a community of designers interested in sharing these issues in a plain-language way for the public at large.
The house is modern, probably because of the owner’s (stated) preference for modernism.
“The home is completely garage oriented”
The house is accessed from a neighborhood street off of Lake Boone, where it takes its address, but this elevation clearly plays second or third in this scheme. The garage is where it has to be to deal with such a steep site. I personally felt the garage volume was detailed rather nicely, and serves as a fresh transition from the street back to the rest of the house.
“Kitchens should be integrated but disintegrated at the same time.”
I really don’t understand this statement, but from this one photograph, how can you even comment with such disdain for the kitchen? What little I could see looks good from here.
“A better means of bringing outdoor in is to push walls in and out, giving a layering effect to the structure and out of doors together.”
What are you critiquing here? The experience of the interior? The volumetric expression? Or are you literally saying that one means of ‘bringing outdoor in’ is ‘better’ than another? “As a designer” you should know that there are an infinite number of potentially good solutions to a given problem. IMO, the full height glazing simply takes advantage of this wooded site. Who wouldn’t want an unobstructed view of the trees?
“The steel should conform to the space, not the other way around.”
Is this an attempt to sympathize ‘form follows function?’ (We might as well throw every cliche in the book at it.) For someone trying to talk about modernism, I’m surprised to see such a lack of appreciation for an attempt at honesty in materiality.
Mark,
We all have our opinions. And I definitely appreciate your rebuttal.
Garages should never take so much aesthetic weight and neither should concrete pads.
Kitchens should not be a play on materials, but should be intensely tactile. They should appear part of the space, but not be highlighted by contrast.
Bringing the outside in means maintaining an aesthetic sense of structure. A wall of glass (a simple 2D interface) just doesn’t cut it; especially in a residence. The integration should be clarified by the shape of space…it should be playful. I want to feel as if I’m in the trees (but still inside), not looking at them through a giant glass wall, which could otherwise be likened to a television screen.
Steel is great, so is concrete, so are all building materials. But they have to be manipulated creatively. They don’t appear to be here. I would not look at this wall and call it “interesting”...I would call it “steel and glass.” The materials should never take that much weight.
This is an interesting home and I am glad to see someone making such an effort. I can qualify my appreciation even further: I could make very few and very simple changes to it and be completely satisfied (remember, that’s from an extremist). I certainly don’t expect to be asked.
-CJT
Christopher,
It is my opinion that design is the act of seeking a preferred state. When speaking in terms of ‘preferred state’ we begin to dismiss conclusions such as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ and start to consider things in terms of ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’—relative to initial variables. Determining a ‘preferred state’ for any designed artifact allows us to open up the current standards upon what good design is. We cannot say “good design is modern” or “good design uses good materials” or even “good design is beautiful and interesting.” By doing this we release ourselves from being suppressed by philosophies, styles, trends, and personal tastes. Of course, a design can incorporate any of these into a preferred state if it is responding successfully to the numerous variables defining a design problem.
So in response to the statement, “I want to feel as if I’m in the trees.. not looking at them through a giant glass wall,” I am glad you feel that way. I would agree with you because I personally want to be in the trees too. Although, I would say that this goal should rather be thought of as a pre-condition for a specific design—not a meta-law to govern all successful glass-facade spatial solutions. In this case the client may have explicitly stated that they don’t want to be in the trees—a pre-condition for this specific design.
Segregating the structure’s occupants from the trees with a giant glass wall ‘screen’ cannot be immediately disregarded as ‘bad’—it may be an initial goal that helps define the final design solution. It is the final execution of this goal that will determine its success or failure; rather than that goal itself.
Chad,
Great points,
I think I’ve been over analyzed though. And note that I never called anything bad; I just said it wasn’t good enough for me.
The pre-condition of being in the trees is a great point, but see it this way: The time and effort used to construct that wall of glass probably outweighed the time and effort it would have taken to put someone “in the trees.”
Instead of striving towards a goal and falling short(through compromise), stay the course. And if it means more down time or a smaller home, then so be it.
People get comfortable doing things a certain way and new ideas get based on these comfortable ways. This is intensely binding and preclusionary. Maybe this glass wall is just that because that’s the comfortable way to bring outside in.
Our capabilities in even simple materials and small budgets are limitless. (Not to mention our massive underutilized brains). It should just be done right or not at all…we’ve all heard that.
-CJT
Christopher,
The reason it is not good enough for you is because it has nothing to do with you and how you live your life.
Semantics are important when discussing design.
“Not good enough for me,” infers that your architectural standards are superior to those who own this house. I think what you are really saying is that this house is “not appropriate to my lifestyle needs and desires.”
In your arguments against this house you present a lot of personal taste as standards for good design. i.e. “Kitchens should not be a play on materials, but should be intensely tactile.”
The only point I’m trying to make is that things such as kitchens and windows cannot be qualified so precisely. The form of a house depends on the needs, desires, expectations, etc. of those occupying it and responding to external variables such as environment, cost, neighbors, etc.
I am with Chad. I would not like a designer who I paid to design my house tell me how things “should be”. I, personally, like their kitchen and like that it is an integral part of the house. That is likely the way they live. I like the solid walls of glass….looks very sleek from the outside, while making the inside very bright and simple….not jarring, like I feel different angles would. I find simplicity and straight lines calming. I would not want my house to be “playful” and would not like a designer telling me that I want a bad design if I did. I think one of the designers of this house was the son or daughter of the owner, so I am sure she/he was very careful to listen to the people that would live there and design to their needs/desires, which is what I hope all designers would do.
I work from generalities.. Otherwise, I have no livelihood.
The quoted statements apply to any human dwelling; they are absolutely general.
-CJT
I design because I see things differently than other people.
However, I find when I suggest something new or different, clients realize what it means and how far it can take something.
Designing too specifically for an occupant’s needs and desires does not satisfy our subconscious. If something is designed in a general way to start with, the end product usually accommodates any specific needs an occupant may have. And it takes care of the subconscious needs people don’t realize are there.
Find a designer because you want a different perspective, right? Maybe I’m not a designer. Perhaps I’m a crusader.
-CJT
That’s a pretty intensive analysis from all sides. I’m impressed that we’re able to ascertain the appropriatenes of forms, materials and finishes from photographs.
I agree that we’ve had quite a discussion based on photographs. I did my best to only comment on what I can see.
There is obviously a lot more to the home, and probably plenty of great features.
I’m critical of all design…especially mine.
-CJT
That is a beautiful home, i drive by it everyday on the way to work.
Who was the designer?
I lived several blocks away and watched this home being constructed from day one. Love the design. Would enjoy living in it. Don’t love the location in that the structure does not intergrate into the community very well. Stands out and becomes an eye sore. Another,more suitable, location and it is a winner! To see how a new home can ruin an established community go to the corner of St. James Rd. and Yarmouth.
I wonder - does a person who complains so vociferously against teardowns bear any responsibility or guilt for cashing in on the phenomena?
John,
It says in the post that it was designed by Jessica Johnson Moore and Chad Everhart.
^^ Correct me if I’m wrong here, but wasn’t this on an infill lot that had no existing structure on it?
You are correct Rusty; I was speaking to the issue in general. Although the “lot” was owned at one point by the next door neighbor (the lots are an Stillwater, BTW). And the builder paid $120K for that lot, which other than what may be an architectural marvel, was a worthless lot - meaning they overpaid.
They also did attempt to sell the home, and for a relatively high price ($750K or more)
As I said, it may be an architectural marvel - that’s to professional architects and lovers of contemporary construction to decide to their knowledge and desires. It’s a matter of taste. I know I wouldn’t want to wake up everyday to I440.
That IS interesting. I was unaware that there was an attempt to sell the house, nor was I aware about the lot being a subdivide from the neighbor. (I thought it was a true infill lot that had previously been deemed unbuildable… similar to Brian Shawcroft’s house on Melbourne Rd.)
It would also appear, that while they attempted to cash in on the phenomenon… they did not actually end up cashing in. 
and my point in all this is simply - well more than 90% of the teardown/infill activity is a matter of personal taste. I see architects here and other blogs speaking to the propriety of additions based upon an architect’s involvement (see Tom Crowder’s house, the house on Sunrise featured in the N&O;) - me, I don’t think these are “in character” with the neighborhood either.
As Russ Stephenson said in one of the hearings ... “Even the builders I talk to agree there’s 4 or 5 that are just awful” which was responded to by Isley with “we’re going to dramatically change the whole city” (when the 25% size limit and moratorium were being bandied about) “for 4 or 5 cases?”
As a capitalist, an econ grad, and yes, a Realtor - I prefer the market to handle this - within zoning restrictions. Case in point is across the street. As noted by others - nobody wants to share a driveway overlooking 440 and pay near $1MM for the “privilege”. The houses are actually quite “nice” from a standardized architecture standpoint (good layouts, quality finishes, etc). But that builder/developer is eating his shoes right now, and rightfully so.
I need to chime in here despite by increasing boredom with the “you say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to” type of banter on these issues:
As an architect speaking, I support ANY aesthetic agenda a homeowner my have. Do I have my own proclivities? Of course. But I recognize everyone’s entitlement in a free society to choose what is beautiful for them. Established Raleigh neighborhoods, as elsewhere were developed by builders who selected arbitrary fashionable styles and built one next to the other for variety and meeting the variations in market demand. Where they remained consistent, however, was in the general sizes of the homes and how far they were set back from the street. With maturation of the landscape and the inevitable “breaking in” of a neighborhood, these tracts took on a particular character but not wholly because of “style”.
The present, in-force zoning regs reflect a less complex time with Raleigh development because these neighborhoods were new. Depending on the neighborhood, these new “interventions” (teardowns, additions, etc.) do not have any precedent. The codes simply don’t reflect how to handle change in a neighborhood. Present zoning regulations do not provide adequate guidelines for a) how big a house should be, b) how tall a house should be, c) how to control increased runoff due to an increase in the building footprint or d) how to manage old-growth landscaping (i.e. shade trees) in established neighborhoods when new construction must be adapted to the conditions.
With the council’s wise decision to pursue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts as the mechanism for citizens to control the evolution of their own neighborhoods, we have taken a step forward in understanding that the issue is no longer about individual autonomy but, rather, community.
I’m all for capitalism, with appropriate boundaries. This rampant variety that has emerged over the course of the last 15 years shows allegiance only to an ethic of maximizing ones’ profit margin pared with an utter fearlessness of unconscionable action. There was a time wherein good decisions were made and people still made money doing it. What the hell happened?!?
JZ, thank you for explaining the problem so well.
Copyright 2007-2008 New Raleigh News Blog All Rights Reserved
New Raleigh 323 W. Martin Street, Raleigh NC 27601
Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.