The Problem With Buildings That Just Fit In 

It's not that the Gallery House doesn't try to fit it, it's that it shames itself by being so bland and sterile. The neighboring houses are rich in detail, while the Gallery House can be drawn in detail on a napkin.

I believe this modern design undeniably looks more commercial and less approachable than the traditional home s surrounding it. Mostly due to the details, like lack of visible porch, operable windows and any kind of trim or highlights to create design hierarchy.

The only thing that bothers me about that house is that it kind of overbears the house to the left of it. From that angle it looks a bit too industrial or even like a prison.

I think the architect failed on integrating it. A few more design changes that wouldn't affect the actual blueprint of it would have made it easily fit in.

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm from Chile and is really a normal practice to see people remodel old houses for modern purposes. Some respect the old characteristics, while some redefine the house completely. And I love to see the mix of having Spanish, English, French, and Contemporary houses in the same block. But, at the same time, I like to go to a beautiful and fancy beach town in Chile, called Zapallar. The oldest houses are from the early 1900s and the town has beautiful houses and mansions with different styles, some really creative and fun, with different colors and materials, all surrounded by trees and endemic flora. But now, people are making these copy-paste modern and minimalist houses, that contrast too much with the eclectic style the town has, and making everything concrete and grass (when the town barily uses grass because is in the mountains and has no practical use). I feel like these houses are slowly killing the town's personality. I don't hate modern houses, but I hate them when they don't add anything interesting or, on contrast, takes from the beautiful and picturesque composition the other houses built.

I just don’t understand why, generally speaking, architects tout “blending in with the natural environment”, then blatantly defy that creed when building next to any historical architecture.

As an Architect trained as a modernist, that house is a missed opportunity and a bit of a mess. Just because it has brick, a porch and windows, doesn't make it sympathetic to the neighborhood. It is clumsy and lazy. Scale and proportion play a larger role than just the materials and the elements of the house. The scale is completly out of whack with the surrounding houses. The windows are big punched holes in a random pattern with proportions that don't align with the typical windows of the older homes. This would have been bad second year work when I was studying Architecture 40 years ago. My critique has nothing to do with a modern house next to traditional houses, it has to do with bad design. I don't think this would be good design even if it sat alone in a field with no context. The randomness of the fenestration is clumsy and has no order or rhythm. The "porch" is not a space that anyone would want to sit and talk and have a drink. It's just a dark tunnel leading to the door. I feel it is my duty to spend my clients money in a responsible manner and give them a building that has value, and isn't going to be a nightmare to maintain or constantly explain why it looks the way it does. Even people with no training in design have an innate sense of when something is good design vs bad design, or at least makes sense. They may not be able to identify what makes something good, but they recognize it at a deeper level.

I'm sorry, but merely "taking elements" of the surrounding environment and "reimagining them in a contemporary context" isn't good enough to declare that a building fits into its location. Some architect could use that same vague architectural jargon to justify an angular, Deconstructivist shard made out of brick with textural elements, big front windows and a deep entrance in that same location. It literally doesn't reflect ANY of the aspects of a bungalow, and no average person looking at it would ever think "Oh wow! Look at how it took elements from the bungalows around it, how clever!", because even the "elements" the architect added look nothing like those from the bungalows around it. Using a brick facade, having big windows and a porch isn't even the minimum criteria necessary to justify this building's relationship to its environment. The European buildings you've shown at least share SOME of the same elements of their surrounding environment verbatim, without "reinventing" or "reimagining" them because of some undefined need to make things "contemporary", this literally does nothing to complement the environment. Speaking of "contemporary", what does that even mean? Minimalism? Weird, misshapen windows? Asymmetry? What is the philosophy behind it, because at this point it feels like dogma that every single new building must follow this hideous, soulless pattern. Please, I want to know - because I want to know why designing buildings in classical aesthetics is not considered "contemporary", and who gets to define what "contemporary" means? This house is designed purely for function, and is aesthetically mute and bland, in addition to its wildly unbalanced, disproportionate design with misshapen windows and strange massing there's hardly any ornament or other signs of humanity on it - it looks like a boring, soulless tan cube and what makes people angry are people saying that this unbalanced mess is valid architecture and that we should respect it. How is this creative in any way? How is this worthy of admiration or respect? Just because a small handful of people may enjoy it doesn't validate it or make it good architecture, what matters is what the community as a whole thinks. Nobody wants their community to look like Minecraft. Sometimes HOA groups are fully justified in preventing things like this from being built, after all, the community should have a say in what they have to live with, and shouldn't have to suffer from staring at an eyesore everyday just because some individual wanted to impose their eclectic taste on the community, because that just ain't democratic.

I'd argue, at least to some extent, that it's less a matter of "fitting in" and more a matter of "not clashing" (or at lest, it should be). Which sounds like the same thing from the other direction, but isn't really.

Fitting in is overrated, yes: But the frontside of that Gallery House distinctly reminds me of a mausoleum when placed in between those bungalows. Buildings in a neighborhood don't have to repeat, but they ought to at least _rhyme_ somewhat. This, being where it is, is an expletive.

Sorry but in this case I don't agree with you at all. Aesthetic feeling is also very dependent on habitus. I believe that many of these architects design houses that are recognized as great art in their social environment, but simply do not correspond to the habitus of the people from the neighborhood where the house is ultimately located. For me, the house shown is just an ugly shoebox, like architects build all over the world. If I must have studied architecture to find a building respectable, then something is wrong with it.

I accept that something doesn't need to look exactly like its surroundings. I still hate the house you used as an example. I'm not an architect and I don't necessarily have the vocabulary to describe what exactly I hate about it, but it is incredibly ugly and soulless to me. Edit: I think I have identified one point that explains my anger at this house: I usually don't like it when people get offended by modern art. If you don't like it or don't understand it, don't look at it. But this is a house which imposes itself on its neighborhood. You can't just ignore it if you don't like it. I usually don't mind if art is not appealing at first sight, and needs some more thought: If people don't see the hidden beauty of e.g. minimalist paintings, they can just go on with their lives. But with a house, I just don't accept the argument that "there are some small design ideas that we took from the neighborhood, so *actually* this fits in perfectly". As a neighbor or a passer-by, all I see is an ugly brick cube. In something that shapes the streetscape as much as a house does, it is not okay if it can only be appreciated by architects.

Calling the gallery house fancy words like "critical regionalism" because it has a porch and its made out of bricks is no excuse for the poor neighbour who has to wake up and see such an eyesore every day. "Fitting in" is more of not being an asshole to the people around you.

When we designed our house , many of our neighbors had progressed to a newer style which we didn't like. The way we fit in was we adopted an older style that made it stand out but was consistent with a style that would have matched the age of the neighborhood. So now people think our house is the older one even if it's one of the newest, and people don't mind the difference. Love your videos.

As a city planner and landscape architecture student, I think this is a subject I am qualified to talk about. Fitting in and the concept of genius loci don't mean that everything needs to be the same but indeed that the context needs to be fitting. With that I completely agree. But this doesn't mean that you can just use some features of the neighborhood, build a house that uses those features and expect it to adhere to genius loci. It needs to fit the space, visually and story wise. The house you give as an example, imo, breaks genius loci and just uses some features from homes around it while completely disregarding the soul that the housing around it has. Soul is very subjective, but I feel that the house doesn't have the same soul as the surroundings

I'm not entirely convinced, and frankly, the front of the Gallery House would be ugly in any context, especially because of those big, dead windows. The harsh rectangularity could have been softened by windows that had some attractiveness.

"Architecture is frozen music," said Goethe. But many architects are tone deaf. They don't feel their designs, they think them. They don't feel harmonies (scale, proportion, material, light and shade, color) within their buildings, much less within the neighborhood. Without Wright's feel for harmonies, what results is frozen ego -- the novelty du jour.

In addition to the others commenting negatively about the Gallery House, I would like to add that the building also lacks a sense of warmth and invitation. The gentle approaches to the doorways of the old bungalow style are intentionally more inviting to residents and visitors. While the Gallery House has a dark tunnel, lacking even a minimal attempt at use of greenery, that is simply designed to make visitors unwelcome. This sense of being 'unwelcome' definitely contributes to negative opinions from those who pass by.

If the Gallery House had slanted roofs, it would fit in perfectly. The rest of the look is already good, but the flat roof stands out a little much.

I find variation in buildings to be part of what makes a city interesting. When you go for a walk in any decently nice downtown, your day is brightened by the surprises of interesting little things that stand out, and buildings can be a large part of this. In addition, they can be useful for wayfinding, you aren't bound to get lost in a seemingly endless and unfamiliar single-family neighborhood when you have something that is memorable for being different.

The gallery house simply does not fit in with its context. The surrounding bungalows have depth and texture both created by the shape of the houses themselves and the ornamentation and design elements on the pillars and the rest of the house. The gallery house has a flat front face with only a rectangular hole for a door way and three cold naked and wide windows that do nothing to help the depth or design. The robie house on the other hand does fit in, it has an amazing amount of texture from the elongated bricks and stacked roofs and windows. It fits in with the detail and texture of its surroundings while being lovingly distinct through its shape and architecture. Fitting in is a matter of keeping the soul of a place intact, the canal houses of amsterdam make an excellent point out of this. Each one of them is individually distinct but they all follow a color pallet that blends well together, that all share similar design elements and sizes. Using your metaphor of clothes the gallery house is like a celebrity fashion show outfit, it screams "look at me, look at me, look at how outrageous i am" but has nothing to it when you do look at it. The robie house is a dress or a suit that both brings eyes to it and looks good. Attempting to be unique to just be unique and different will more then not end up in the failure of a design. Being unique should be a side effect of good design, not a cause for it.

Steve Vice accurately described the problems of a bad compositional design, a sketchy definition of fitting in with its neighbors resulting in basically a clumsy box. It's a real stretch to call the entry a porch. There is nothing inviting to the entry. A dark hole with some open brickwork to one side. I have no idea how the interior works because there are no clues. Big window = big space? No delight from details because there are no details. Similar bricks are the only attempt at relating, much less having a conversation with those structures around it. No one has addressed the breach of the linear rhythm of the street. Two houses were demo'd with a large empty lot next to the new house. A car is parked in the "front yard" A curvy fence defines a side yard. Why that fence which seems so out of place. This open view of the side of the house is even less appealing from a compositional standpoint. I doubt those window shades are ever open, and I doubt I'd ever want to look inside. If there is some architectural delight inside, it would be surprising. I try to give an architect some credit. She/He may know something I don't. But I don't understand this house, and even more, I don't care. Fertilize those trees and make the whole thing go away.

When it comes to the Gallery House, the problem isn't (just) about fitting in; you can put it anywhere and it will look unappealing, except perhaps for a Minecraft world, where it might at least fit in

The problem that you have with abstracting a form down to a box is that; anything you do to the box is going to be the most noticed feature. If the most noticed feature is not similar to the box next door, then your box is going to stick out. (IE; Contextualism). So, matching the windows and doors, and bricks can be a way to blend in, but when your box shape has changed so much that it is obviously different, no amount of matching windows in the world is going to 'blend' the shape into the neighborhood. This is because the shape of a box has been abstracted down to it's most basic form. If you take a 1965 Ford Mustang and park it next to a a 1968 Ford Mustang, you will see slight variations of the form. If you take a 2020 Ford Mustang and park it next to a 1965 Ford Mustang, you will still be able to tell that it is a Ford Mustang. It has not moved from the form so much that it appears to be a complete different design. Not all forms belong in the same space. At a car show, the a pink Ford Pinto, doesn't really belong between a Ford Model T, and a Ford GT 40. (My initial thoughts). To actually fit in with the neighborhood, you probably need to start out with the actual design shape, and then modify it, instead of building it backwards with matching windows.

There's levels of fitting in: One doesn't have to just match the surrounding architectural style, but it's hard for a building to be beautiful if it doesn't attempt to take into account the space surrounding it. Take, for instance, the Congress Palace Building in Oviedo, Spain, built by Santiago Calatrava. The building itself is not bad in a vacuum. I imagine it, say, in the middle of a very large park in Chicago, and it'd be an icon. But when you look at its surrounding space, whether from a few hundred feet away, or all the way from the mountains surrounding it, and it looks as if a giant enemy crab had just landed on top this terracotta city. All the wonderful diagonal lines make it feel even bigger than it already is. When one compares this to, say, the wonderful transitions the city has near its medieval core, when we switch from an ancient cathedral, a university finished in 1608, to the wondrous Casa Conde and Campoamor theatre, both built in the late 19th century, in a few hundred feet. One could teach a class just on the differences in transition quality, and see where the architect did their best to be innovative within what surrounded it, and when they thought that the world ended at the edges of their plot.

One of the problems I see with the gallery house example, is that the only element it takes is the building material. The rest just contrasts too much. The houses surrounding it are full of detail, masonry by crafstmen, and tiled roofs. The gallery house is a bland box with three mismatched windows and an incredibly dark portico. The contrast is just too great. The Robie house however is a great example of hat you're talking about, in my opinion.

I graduated from UIC in the late 80’s and contextual meant much more that just the brick match of the neighborhood. As many comments noted the scale, proportions and fenestration is all off. There doesn’t appear to be any acknowledgement of the horizontal banding of a bungalow with the half basement, main level and attic. A “modern” design/ building would be perfectly acceptable if there were some detail and relief from a box with punched windows. It would have been a great help to see the stages/ concepts that the architect ran through to arrive at this final design. At least the U of C building opposite the Robie house reinterpreted what Wright had done. Unfortunately this house wasted the opportunity to do the same. As always your videos present a valuable conversation. Thanks.

The profession of architecture imploded when they decided that ornaments are a sin ‘because it's not necessary’. This is why this condo stands out. It is as if I (not an architect) just protruded a box in SketchUp and made a few holes for doors and windows, and done. The older buildings have varying decorations like window sills, colour accents. The doors stand out due to the patios, instead of just being a dark rectangular hole. (This effect of entrances shying away from the streets is a hallmark of Modernism, and a main reason why it feels so cold and alien.) Now beautiful buildings are like a Roman concrete, or Damascus steel. We no longer know how to make them.

Many modern houses look as if no one actually lives there, as if the structures are actually neighborhood dentists' offices. My biggest complaint about structures like the one in this video, though, is that the owners pull down existing structures that are part of the neighborhood's fabric in order to replace them with something completely new (as opposed to building on empty lots). Once the process of pulling down begins, it's hard to stop, and within 50 years, the old neighborhood is gone. That more than anything else is what historic neighborhoods are fighting against.

I really don’t like the “cookie cutter” neighborhoods (i.e. subdivisions) where the houses look nearly identical. My prior house was in an old neighborhood and there was a ride range of styles and sizes in the area. Some were built 100+ years ago and some were more recent. Mine was new, brick, and fit in well with the mix of styles.

I still think the gallery house doesn't fit in. I don't disagree with the argument, though; the other structures mentioned here are very appealing, but the first one... it's just too simple for me. Compare the fronts of every other building shown to that of the gallery. It's just a square, with 3 asymmetrical windows. Once the side view is shown around 8:08 the added complexity makes it more interesting in my opinion.

A good supplementary video would be to further define "hideously designed atrocities" and "bad architecture". Acknowledging the poor qualities of these buildings could be more constructive than justifying the shallow method of applying contextual materials to help a building assimilate to its surrounding. Still - a very well-rounded video for such a subjective and controversial topic. Nice work as always.

Hey, I can see my house from there! No, seriously. I live two blocks from this house and have walked past it many times. I've often remarked at how unfitting it is for the neighborhood. I loved this video and the opprtunity to learn more about my neighborhood and my city. Thank you!

tbh I hate this house you're showing. The way that the windows don't align with themselves or anything else, that big, dark, unwelcoming entrance, the weird, seemingly random brick pattern on the side, that white material contrasting the brickwork like it was glued together as an afterthought. the more I look at it the more I ask "why?", but not in an intrigued, interested way, more like as a general sense of disappointment. It seems like nothing fits in an unsettling way. I agree with you that the problem is bad design, it just so happens that the majority of houses trying so hard to stand out end up being bad designs almost on purpose.

I’ll be honest, my dream home has a flat roof with easy access. Likely a greenhouse on top, and the stairs would lead into the greenhouse when going up. Then, you can step outside the greenhouse, and see the area around you from the view.

Stewart Hicks, you are a great architecture educator, you're videos are interesting and spark conversations. Would love to share a coffee and a couple of hours of your time, but I live in Chile, hahahaha, hope to meet you some time in the future... maybe when I visit Chicago... Thanks for your work on RU-vid

I agree that it is okay, or even important to break with ongoing patterns in such settlements. But why does modern architecture seem to have this obsession with ugly cubes without any interesting details? Everyone with a ruler could design this. "It uses the same material" is also no idea that someone would have to study for. In the netherlands there are much more creative examples for efficient and innovative buildings breaking with their surroundings. Please stop this ugly cubification!

Hello Mr Stewart, let's hope you'll maybe read my comment. I wanted to share my opinion on neighbourhoods : your video was very interesting, and to be honest, even though I don't like contemporary architecture, this home you showed did fit in. Critical regionalism however, isn't in my opinion a good-bad idea. Sure, it makes new buildings more discreet, which is great to my eye, but they are still very ugly and lack personnality. There is a difference, as you said, fitting in and being beautiful. However, you talk about neighbourhoods in a very, very American way. You say in the end of your video that every neighbourhood was built at a particuular time in a particular style. However, for example here in France, it is not always the case. Modern neighbourhoods are done this way, but it is not rare to see buildings that have centuries between themselves, a building from the 17th and a one from the 19th can stand next together. lots of neighbourhoods in Europe have been built in centuries, with changes being brought every period. A typical French city usually has a ton of different styles blended up in a single neighbourhood. Yet modern buildings are the only ones standing out of all this, mostly by their uglyness. There is a problem in modern architecture, critical regionalism uses local materials, but to have the style and the indentity of a place, a building has to be more than materials

That's exactly the problem with modern architects and architecture. No amount of context and knowledge can make anything more beautiful. Beauty is a primitive cognitive phenomena and not a result of logic and reasoning. You can make something more interesting by explaining, but not more beautiful.

The problem with the Gallery House isn't that it doesn't fit in, it's that it is a dull, sterile, inhumane design. It is hard to imagine people either living in it or building it. Would make a good neighborhood store or community center, though, with a little work.... As it is, it seems to be pointing towards a future of urban blight, a modern Bronx with buildings that look impressive if you read about them first.

See my problem with that house isn't that it doesn't fit in, it's that it's fucking ugly.

if i bought a house on a street full of older well kept homes from a similar time, id be pretty dissapointed that my neighbor apparently wished he lived on a different street but insisted on building that near me.

I love the fact that you go against what many average people would say about architecture from an outsiders perspective. When in reality the answer is always more complicated. I especially liked the video about the flat roofs

I really love your videos. But when you stand in front of a house and speak of it having a porch, when it so clearly has no visible porch, you reveal the problem with architect's proclivity to play fast and loose with terminology. It makes it hard for many to take the argument seriously. I for one don't mind this building, but I wouldn't waste time attempting to claim it fits in or is in relation to it's surroundings when it clearly is not. You do yourself a disservice.

I love a well designed house that stands out. However, large boxes with sharp angles and sheer vertical two story walls, when set alongside homes with set backs and gables isn’t really my idea of contextualism. If the architect was to set back the second story a bit, I think that would really go a long way toward reducing the jarring juxtaposition. I understand they’d lose some square footage, but it would help add balance to the home in its context imho.

I work in los angeles’ west side real estate. The flippers mostly destroyed old homes exterior and interior to build modern looking homes that double the size. Very few owners and architects are into preservation (remodel and enlarge with respect to significant architectural merit of original structure).

I do see that in some situations a new building standing out from its surrounding structures can be very beneficial to a neighborhood and it’s growth. However I do believe it needs to be done properly. Sadly with the home you have shown in this video I don’t believe it has been done successfully. Firstly, a previously existing home on that lot that could have simply been updated to produce less waste was instead torn down for a more contemporary structure which I will never support. Second, while the new structure does use brick like the old bungalow style this really can’t be considered as a call bad to the neighborhoods architecture as most homes in the Midwest use brick. This home Simply has no connection to the neighborhood or the climate of Chicago like it’s older neighbors. The lack of any pitch to the roof or any details in the windows and even the color of the brick makes this home stand out like a sore thumb. I also believe that this home also shows the lack of true creativity and passion put into contemporary design. Why do no modern home have any detailing or different materials used on their exteriors. It’s always disappointing. I also believe scale is important when bringing in new construction into an older neighborhood. A giant square box in a neighborhood that is full of homes with step backs on the second floor and irregular shapes in the floor plans just looks very out of place and imposing. Scale is something the Frank Loyd Wright home did successfully and is why it does not look out of place in the neighborhood. Sadly many architects fail to understand how their designs will truly effect the area surrounding their designs. This home looks like it has drained the life out of the street it is on and I found myself looking at the homes surrounding it more than the home you were discussing.

I agree that "fitting in" doesn't need to mean "the same" and that there can be broader criteria for cohesion. I think that in general we can benefit from broadening our acceptance of more modern styles. Expecting a whole neighbourhood to remain as the 1920 suburb isn't healthy. Good architecture can be appreciated, and that will inevitably bring diversity - especially good for a long-term. Saying this, I think this is a matter of tact. There are people being picky and reactionary, but I can think of times when we inflict "good architecture" on the people across the street. When you're joining an existing neighbourhood, it isn't only a case of architecture being a representation of personal identity or modern standards. The prairie house you showed looked beautiful in part because it also had some space around it to help generate its own context; it wasn't in the middle of a bunch of city- and period-specific houses on a residential street. The call for moderation, accommodation, and compromise can also be reflected back at contemporary architecture, too, especially in the less considered applications of design. Your example is good in that the design is trying to do that where it can. Thanks for the video!

I just adore those bungalows. I spent an inordinate amount of time studying, restoring and documenting them during my 30+ years as an architect. (I had a feeling you’d use the Robie House as an example of neighbors not liking a new design not fitting into context. It always works in that example.)

This will always be a difficult subject. adhering to the local context without being to historic while still respecting it. And depending on the function you can experiment some more. Some buildings are built to be an icon or in an extreme contrasting manner, as to draw attention. And when done well, this creates the bilbao-effect. However there are enough examples that failed in this regard and alienate both locals and tourist. For dwellings however I feel people should feel at home and these extreme contrasts damage the local identity. On the other hand, you cannot replicate the current buildings due to numerous factors (buildings code changes, costs of labor and materials, change in desires, etc). The awnser is somewhere in adopting some elements and trying to alter them to the modern context. Which Stewart rightfully adresses, though it think the example of the galleri house is quite weak. The building across the robby house is a nice exemple though. Nevertheless enjoyed the video and I would like to see you make more examples of good architecture integrated into the context.

I think the new house lacks in contours compared to the the rest of the neighborhood. I'm not a fan of those bungalows, but I think the level of detail on the street side of the buildings is overlooked by the architect of the new house. Anyway, great video Stewart!

I think the reason people think that the new house doesn't "fit in" with the rest of the area, is because of the house's profile. All the rest of the houses have peaked roofs, while that new one has a flat roof, making it look a lot more blocky. Even though the new house uses brick, the lack of a peaked roof gives it a more hard edged, Brutalist feel, which has always been off-putting to most people.

I think this house would fit in very well in Cold War-era East Germany. It also reminds me of the Social Security Building back in my hometown.

Love that the tone of discourse on Stewart’s channel is, by and large, respectful and curious. People are animated by what they find interesting in the subject and just behave themselves well. Makes it so much easier to come back to the videos and stretches the mind more. My appreciation for a community that, hopefully, one day, will be far more common on the internet ☺️

“cookie-cutter” neighborhoods, remind me of the “cookie-cutter” computer case trends that end up with every computer case for a few years all having the same exact flaws. Transformer-Voltron style plastic fronts with fake vents that can't cool the guts, to tempered glass convection ovens, then "all mesh" cases that let air from fans immediately back out without cooling anything, to vertical GPU mounts that starve the graphics card of air while blocking all the other expansion slots on the motherboard, cases that support large motherboards with 6+ SATS plugs that have less than 3 hard drive bays, etc. lol.

It might be that the design behind the facade is fantastic, but the focus of this video is how this house presents itself to the street. Given that, it is hideous design failure. My comment has nothing to do with context either. The street elevation is a failure and placing it next to a row of other modernist buildings would not change that. Why? Because the proportions of the overall structure, the relationships between the punched windows, The alignments of the windows, the materials used, the dark foreboding recessed entry are all ill conceived - so much so that if this were presented in an architecture crit at any architecture school it would be deemed a fail. I agree with the premise of this video, but this is the wrong project to use to make the argument because the design of this particular buildings street elevation itself is a fail so no matter what you put it next to, the only thing that people will see and react to is this poorly designed elevation.

Personally I am opposed to the modern square "office building inspired" homes. Not a style that I can get behind, but I can appreciate adapting to the modern style to something older.

8:03 You're lying to yourself here. This porch doesn't create layers. The whole face of the house is one flat plane. Even the porch is framed in by a wall that runs out to join with that flat plane. There didn't have to be a privacy screen on that porch wall, but even if there did, it didn't have to be flush with the left wall as well. The whole house is a box, optimized to have as few layers as possible.

Let me just say, the way your videos are narrated feels an awful lot like one of those architecture tours I've always wanted to take in the city. I enjoyed this video sir. Thank you.

Another very interesting video, many thanks. Valid and important points on "fitting in". I rather suspect that much of the "problem" with the Gallery House is not actually about "fitting in" but simply the design of the house itself. I'm sure its mother loves it dearly but most of us have to try hard not to wince. Also the other examples you gave showed hetrogenous looks but did show respect of proportions and rhythms, which this one doesn't seem to. I suspect many other modern(ist) designs would have been much more accepted by locals. Having said that... I suspect it would grow on me the more I saw it, strangely...

Architects like to pretend they know whats up but they are basically drawing.

In the context of urban sprawl that you talk about, I agree with you. However, we should bulldoze urban sprawl and make actual cities.

Thank you for this video. Though not your intent, my take-away was the context you provided about the bungalow style. I just moved to Tulsa, and there are a lot of, my guess, Craftsman-style bungalows here. Even newer construction in some of the older neighborhoods mimic this style. I enjoy this type of home's appearance. (I am renting one that was divided into a duplex.) Once I started to explore the floorplans on Zillow, I began to realize how, as you mentioned, they are not really suited for a contemporary lifestyle, without a lot of modification. Thank you, again!

My wife is from Chicago and she grew up in one of those Bungalow Homes. In my professional opinion that style has a unique charm and character and that is very well expressed throughout the neighborhood that the Modern Home dropped in the middle of the neighborhood simply lacks. I do not think its a matter of that modern home not fitting in as much as its lacking any kind of character. If it had that it would not stick out as it does now.

I'm not an architect so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but I still have an immediate distaste for that house - it feels like it doesn't have a soul.

I think the problem is that modern architects are designing ONLY to be odd, clashing and different. There is the problem of materials, the ugliness of glass, and sharp, discordant buildings (such as one sees in London). The pre-WWII designers understood the nature of context. If there was something "revolutionary" such as modernism, the underlying philosophy was to introduce light, lack of ornament, or logic into designs. Since Frank Gehry arrived on the scene there is the presence of the starchitect who partners with extremely wealthy entities to create buildings that stand apart and in opposition to everything around them. Whether this improves the urban fabric is a matter of debate. On a much lower level, modern architecture is hampered by a lack of adherence to classical standards of proportions and materials. Ugliness seems to be the result. It is hard to find, (in Chicago, for example) a good looking townhouse, an admirable shop front, a nice commercial building in a middle class area like East Rogers Park. Much that once anchored that neighborhood has been demolished or replaced. I once went to a doctor on the SW corner of Devon and Sheridan, who practiced in a two story 1920s terra cotta structure that has now been replaced by a parking lot and fast food. This is what has taken the heart out of the American city: demolition, mediocrity, crassness, and now ostentatious frivolousness.

It doesn't look like a house. It looks like some kind of commercial building, where if you go inside you'd find offices, or a warehouse. It's hard to imagine anyone living here.

A key aspect is the integrity of the mature neighbourhood that likely drew most people to buy there, as opposed to it being a cheaper location to buy, tear down and build up/out. What is good architecture and what makes for fitting into an existing setting is always debatable. I recently reviewed a 1950s house that used 1950s technology, but the exterior was designed borrowing elements of massing, window, brick&stone cladding and roof from the existing neighbourhood. It was not a clone of the neighbouring buildings, and had its own unique character. The architect could have designed the exterior in a 1950s Modernist style, and had used a Modern style for other projects, even the for the same client. The neighbourhood is now part of a designated historic district, but was not at the time with no obligations to design with a historic style. The building still fits in and is considered as one of the historic buildings, not looking like a dated 1950s insertion ripe for renovation and/or replacement. A perfect example of following the genius loci and not zeitgeist. Great video, and looking forward to more in 2022.

I don’t think the major problem with that house is that it doesn’t fit in, even though it doesn’t*. The problem is that it’s just an ugly house. If I saw a neighborhood of houses like this I’d head for the hills just as quickly as I’d run from a neighborhood with an HOA. *just because it shares some design elements with its neighbors doesn’t mean it fits in. If I went to a black tie event with a Hawaiian shirt, olive green cargo pants, sandals with socks, I wouldn’t fit in just because I was also wearing a shirt, pants, socks, and shoes of some sort. I’d stand out just as badly as if I was wearing a bathrobe, or a suit of armor, or something Lady Gaga has worn before. Dice and Dominoes may both be black and white rectangles with dots on them used to play games, but they’re still wildly different!

Man that poor house is hideous and not because it doesn't fit in, it's just ugly on it's own terms

I like it when houses are different with each other

That house is just plain ugly. Many times when looking at architecture, you can see the function of the design. Something commonly seen in this video is the 3-4x windows side-by-side, sometimes jutting out a bit from the rest of the house. It's almost immediately clear that the room behind those windows is either a living room or an open area of some sort. Moving on to the contemporary cardboard box, all you're able to distinguish from an outside perspective is this: Big window, Tall window, Wide window, Small window, 3m tall oversized doorway. There's 0 clues in here as to why the house was designed the way it was, because it doesn't show anything off at all. It looks neither functional nor inviting. As for how it fits in? It tries to be the black sheep, but became the red wolf. It's not an issue of color but of species.

I find this interesting because there was a new neighborhood that started developing behind my Aunt's house a few years ago. Almost all of the houses have different designs/styles/builders and they are are unique in their own right. The only thing is, there is a set color palette which allows a few dark colors, but mostly beiges and grays. Roofs can be made of any material but metal and also have a strict color palette. Now that most of the houses are built it's a very unique yet cohesive community due to the respect which the people moving in had for their neighbors and the rules of the city/HOA/community. Now if we look at my own neighborhood, all of the houses were built in the 70's and we have little restrictions for building and a much wider selection for color palette. As is, many of the houses are similarly built by only one or two different groups of people, however really anyone can build in the area at this point. Someone finally beat the wild flower restrictions and is building a new patch of houses in a previously protected area. They look overly modern, don't match our neighborhoods style or colors at all, and they stand out in a bad way, never the less the group is trying to expand and buy houses on my block to tear them down. There is little respect for the homeowners in the area, including personal experiences I've had with the builders taking biased surveys and trying to get our backyards taken away. Hell, take a walk down my street away from that clusterfuck and be confused at Susan, whose husband works for the city, and her lime green split level which dwarfs all of our single story homes by almost 2 stories. Or even the person one street over who somehow got approved to make their entire front yard into a concrete pad. It's not a "fear" of new designs or modern buildings and I could care less if it actually looked decent. My problem is, there is a right way and a wrong way. You can compromise with the people around you or you can push your way in and tell everyone else to deal with it. Yes, I do believe people have houses that match their personality, but I would rather some of them keep it to themselves so I don't have to see whatever is going on in their head- Susan's house looks like shit lets be real.

i think this also says more about our collective OCD as well, perhaps regular people feel it just as much as we architects do. and to be perfectly frank, even if i do agree with your assessments, it would still bug me to see a flat roof (or a parapeted one) i a neighborhood of gables. i would prefer a modern interpretation of the bungalow that still adheres to its (bungalow's) basic geometry. Great video as always.

I truly appreciate your videos. I feel uncomfortable when an educator uses the term “atrocities” lightly. Gallery House is indeed beautiful but it also costs so so much more than the desperate attempts to add in that extra bedroom on top of a garage or something. Future designers should be more sensitive to the whys of the public while the public needs to be educated on how good designs bring value to society, starting with the bank loan officers.

90% of the time, "critical regionalism" seems to come down to a standard rectangular unadorned modern building except it's got the same sort of stone or cladding on the outside as the traditional style. Frankfurt is full of these and you can just feel the architect smugly patting himself on the back for noticing that the city was built with red sandstone.

Great video Stew and very controversial. I applaud you for having the bravery to tackle this topic. I have to admit that it makes me very uncomfortable seeing a new home with that aesthetic, placed in such a time period, historic area. I can see your point on how the architect did a few things to tie into the other homes but it is so off the chart, those things don't help. Why not go with a new, cool bungalow that would fit in. There are many ideas to choose from. Certainly not as modern, but that isn't the flavor of this neighborhood. If I lived on that street, I wouldn't love it. If I was driving down that street, it would catch my attention but not in a good way. Personal preference.

Hello! I just came across one of your videos (the one on the building by Mies van der Rohe recently built in Indiana) and loved it. I've just started following and have watched four videos in a row. It's hard to find good thought-provoking architectural discussions here, and as a university professor teaching Architecture in Brazil, your videos have inspired a series of reflections I'll definitely use in class. Thank you so much, and congrats!!

Outside of historical context, I find most neighborhoods where the houses look alike to be boring and unimaginative. We need more neighborhoods to be a mixture of both shared functional features and glaring dissimilarities in style, materials, texture, and presentation. I am beyond tired and bored with cookie cutter neighborhoods full of replicant homes with dull architectural features, which I refer to as Generic America or "Generica" for short. Builders aren't providing the American dream with their limited design style options in stuffy HOA neighborhoods. Builders are creating boring objects using ancient materials that they sell at significant markup, and make covenant deals with municipalities so that cities can find places to store families and individuals. I love this RU-vid channel.

i think the major problem is that none of the new architects have the ability to actually design things. everything is a square on square on another square.

In Belgium all the houses on a street have the same form (doors and windows), but they are built in different styles and every house is unique

again, very refreshing to see someone explain why or focus on the positive of these things, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of complaining about everything especially because it gets more attention, views, clicks, ... positive feedback/comments from foreigners with zero context.

Love the passion in how you deliver your concluding thought. About creating a new context, in the style of a groundbreaking building. But doesn’t this apply to all groundbreaking structures? Not just those as stark as the Ellis House? A starkly sh!t building is going to inspire other, sh!t projects. And surely that’s the housing associations’ whole point. Whilst I admire your effort, there’s no convincing these communities to change. It’s time, to reshape the suburbs

“We don’t get all up in arms just because someone dresses a little differently” I’m sorry, which country do you live in? Because I’m not sure it’s the USA. People *absolutely do* get all up in arms over that.

Standing out is way, way too easy. Just because of that as a general rule standing out should be discouraged by default. Being different for variety's sake is more often than not used by hacks and incompetents to legitimize their lack of ability and to "express" their "personality". Yeah, nah. What people hate about buildings that stand out is that they borrow from the neighborhood: if you have a homogeneous style, the subtle differences between houses are what differentiates one from the other, and that is enough. Once you put in a building that is wildly different, the whole spectrum of difference changes and suddenly all the other houses seem to kinda look the same. Like a guy using a bullhorn in a debate club, this is what is selfish and hostile. You hijacked the context and retroactively changed what it means by your ham-fisted insertion. What was once a visual harmony with subtle variations on a theme is transformed it into a featureless backdrop for the one thing standing out. It only stands out because everything else conforms to the norm, therefore it borrows from the context for it's exclusive status. It's a legitimate burden to the neighborhood and people justifiably complain. With all due respect to the colleague John Ronan, Gallery House is not an example to be followed and a rather poor excuse to employ the label "critical regionalism". Yes, he uses brick and yes there's a deep portico but these are frankly irrelevant. As far as Frampton's 7 points go, the house flaunts several of the criteria but most importantly it disrespects genius loci in a crucial way by setting the house's scale way, way off. Never mind the flat roof, the single volume should have been broken down into several smaller ones to at least fit the scale of the neighboring houses. Even the windows seem needlessly tone-deaf in terms of scale, position and lack of rhythm. Robie House, though not a Chicago Bungalow is an example of respecting scale, materials and elements while still making the design your own. It's an example how even conforming to the norm you can make a masterpiece. Generally, if you don't wield that kind of talent, do the safe thing and respect the norm, for everyone's sake. Of course, maybe ignoring the norm with he Gallery House was the intention. But being dickish inadvertently is bad enough, so I'm not sure how doing it intentionally makes it any less offensive.

The issue of this building isn't that it doesn't fit in, it's just a fucking cube with no depth and no beauty at all. It just looks like a 5 year old drew it.

This house is an awkward compromise between fitting in and standing out. It does neither well. I'm also sad that Bungalows were never a sustainable form of housing to begin with. You're not going to fool me into thinking this is a vibrant neighborhood. These houses don't use space efficiently and don't bring people together. I'm all for pedestrian streets with ground level businesses and parks. This neighborhood is built for cars and individual lawns which just look pretty and serve no function. If anything, this house highlights why the neighborhood is boring by sticking out.

Imagine living next to a tofu block and having to look at it everyday.

My neighbourhood was also mostly built in the period 1900 to 1940. We currently see many of the original houses demolished to make way for “architectural” boxes for rich new residents to move in. Socially these houses say a lot to the neighbourhood about who the new residents are - and are not. It is a visual representation of the social tension dividing our neighbourhood. The familiar, middle class families that live in homes that may not be perfect but have stood the test of a century of community. Against the ever more wealthy and exclusive people moving in that have no connection or awareness of the history of this place - people that need a sentence to order a coffee. Of course the future is clear. The old will give way. For those of us that love our old neighbourhoods - the emotional response to these changes is visceral as it puts the conflict in your face - at all times. It’s a complex issue and good architecture should also recognize the social issues inherent in the setting in the same way architecture needs to consider orientation in the physical landscape.

Nobody is complaining because it’s different. We’re all fine with different so long as it isn’t ugly. This is ugly. It’s a box with some windows in it. A kindergartner can draw a house with more shape than this. Not to mention the lack of an angled roof. That’s not modern, it’s just bad design. We have those for a reason. The angle prevents rain, snow, leaves and other debris from accumulating on top which would get heavy and could weaken it overtime which leads to needing to repair and replace the roof way sooner than you’d need to if you had an angled roof. Those shingles might be expensive to repair, but at least you don’t have to touch your roof again for 20-50 years. With a flat roof, you’d have to get up their and clear all that debris away yourself. Nobody likes cleaning out their gutters, So imagine having to do that, But your ENTIRE roof every fall and everytime it snows during the winter. No thanks! I certainly agree that homes built in the early 1900s aren’t really ideal for modern families, I grew up in one built in 1950 and still live in it today. We’re constantly finding shingles in our yard after every storm and the state of the siding has left us with a constant yearly battle with wasps and carpenter bees (Too many loose siding and stuff to fix, Can’t afford to move so we stuck with it) and i’m 99.9% sure there’s asbestos in several places in our home because it lines up so well with dates and everything. There’s nothing wrong with new and modern but there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

I just don't see why you'd undermine your otherwise very valid arguments here...by showcasing the Gallery house. That thing is hideous. Inasmuch as it does find any similarity to its surroundings (the brick) it really just serves to come off more as mockery than homage. The visual weight of its masses are all wrong, the blank voids are haphazardly placed and give a sense of unease, it's imposing, it attempts to dominate. This is all *horribly* at odds with the neighborhood. It's definitely possible to make a nice, more modern, even flat-roofed house (and even 2 floors at that) complement rather than clash with that older bungalow neighborhood. I have an image in my head that does it nicely that I kind of want to draw (or more likely build in a sims game) now. But holy crap, this just doesn't. I just can't get over the horribly off-balance masses (especially in the context of the neighborhood) and the slapdash voids. Yes, bad design is bad design. This is bad design. It'd be bad on its own, but it's especially awful against the context of that neighborhood it's sticking a giant middle finger up to.

"it was designed in 2004 by rafael viñoly" is the single most terrifying sentence in architecture. That man was a death ray designer

It is interesting for me that in a society where individualism seems paramount, there is such a degree of importance placed on ‘fitting in’.

Just because we no longer have former restraints, that doesn't automatically mean we eschew anything from the past. It is like food. Most speciality food we love today evolved due to former constraints - cheese, pickles, condiments and dried meat - evolved in times when we didn't have refrigerators to preserve food or food couldn't be produced in winter months. Just because we don't have those restrictions today, we shouldn't stop eating cheese, bacon, ketchup or pickle. Those are products we love and enjoy and have stood the test of time. Every regional speciality food has some history behind it, and some original intent which is no longer relevant today, but we still love those kinds of food. It is possible to incorporate modern elements while still retaining the spirit of the older buildings and their cozy atmosphere and vibe. There is a reason historic buildings with character sell for a lot of money, or become Air-Bnbs or event spaces or boutique hotels. People have loved them EVEN AFTER their original purposes and restraints no longer existed. In this case, the form has transcended the original function, and now plays a different role in being aesthetically pleasing.

I often tell my students, "If each of you owned a lot on a street and designed an iconic house, the risk of the street turning into a theme park would be too great." So, each case is unique and the idea of ​​“fit-in” must be contextualized.

That particular building looks so much like the one I work in that I would be depressed walking into it after work.

This is clearly a controversial video and I admire your courage for making it. It is one of the reasons I love your channel. Please keep up the good work.

I have complicated feelings on this. I will say, for the Gallery House, I don't think its sin is in being a box in a street of bungalows, I think its sin is in that God-awful contemporary fence. Yes, its cool gray color scheme matches the neighbor's roof, but the context of that roof is that it's on a warm red house. Maybe once the trees grow in it will blend in a bit better. But then I'm also the owner of one of the oldest houses in an eclectic neighborhood, and I understand the pain of having a house that doesn't work for you, or nearly anyone, but people will riot if you tear it down. My house is a single story full brick Tutor, and the only one on the street. It's not in code anymore, it's 1,200 sqft, but is hampered by its layout, making it feel much smaller, and there's nothing I can do to fix it. If you ask people they'll talk your ear off about how you MUST find an architect to build an addition to match its style! You must! How could you not? How DARE you consider anything else? The house is 90 years old, after all, and that gives it some inherent value that's not reflected on its tax value. There's no equity in the neighborhood's sentimental value on my property, and they're certainly not donating to its repairs. Yes, it's a very cute house. It is. It's a very cute house whose brick was painted and is now is disrepair. Where can I find a mason who will strip the paint and repair this for me? There is one in Houston, a single one in the nearest large city to me, and they have responded to none of my emails. Okay. It's a very cute house that has no porch. Where can I find a mason to build me one to match the house? How much will that cost me? It's a very cute house that has no grounded outlets, meaning I need to find an electrician to completely rewire it. Have you tried to find an electrician to work on anything but new construction lately? Have you priced it? It's a very cute house whose windows all need to be replaced, but I would settle for resashing and reglazing, which I will have to do myself. Can you tell me who can make me double glazed windows in its style? Can you tell me how much they would cost? It's a very cute house whose layout and size will only fit a single older couple or a very young couple with no children. Can you tell me how long that will be feasible? How long after I sell it will the new owners die, go into a nursing home, or outgrow it? Who will they sell it to? Will it be protected? It's a very cute house that needs an addition. Can you find me an architect to design a tutor addition? Can you tell me how much they will cost? Can you find me the contractor who will maintain its pier and beam full brick construction? Can you price that for me? Will I even be able to get a permit for that in south Texas? Now, can you tell me why you think it's my moral duty to preserve this house? To keep it in the "style of the neighborhood?" To spend half a million on making it livable for another 90 years? On a house worth $120k? When I could tear it down, build a house that's impervious to rats and flooding, a nice ugly box that uses its space and its energy efficiently, for $300k? Of course, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to fight tooth and nail to preserve this house. But I really want everyone who thinks it's a mortal sin to tear down an old house to fully realize what you're up against when you own one. "Why don't you" and, "Why didn't you" are not helpful. Become a mason. Become an architect. Work for people who don't have a million dollars to preserve these old houses. Sell plans for houses with multiple stories and modern layouts that fit in a row of bungalows for cheap. But stop acting like it's feasible to protect these houses for the majority of people who own them just because they look nice and you want to see them. You can't borrow against intrinsic value. So I find myself in the possession of a house that I got because it was cute and cheap, that needs more money to restore than not only I, but most people do not have. And I get offers from developers on it constantly, because it's on a double lot. It's also made of solid oak under the brick and drywall. It's literally worth more than the sum of its parts. So if I sell it, it's gone. Maybe that buyer won't tear it down, but the next will. I will have to keep this as an income property if I wish to move, just to ensure its safety. This house is no longer economically viable, and that's the hard truth. Now, back to the Gallery House. I would guess that its owners were faced with many of my same struggles, with the added benefit of having money and living in Chicago. They bought two lots and hired an architect that's well known, they can't be totally broke. Then Chicago has architects the rest of us could only dream of. I can't find anyone who builds things other than Country, Farmhouse, or Spanish style homes, and they're not even good at those styles! I wonder if that's not where a lot of the dissatisfaction lies. They probably had options that many old home owners do not have, and we dislike that. I do find it frustrating that they have money, live in Chicago, and DIDN'T build an homage to the FLW prairie house. But it's not my money and it's not my land. Personally, I don't think the house is entirely objectionable. The profile from the side is decently interesting. I don't hate a nice box, though it is not my kind of box. Truth is, they would have to do something amazing to compete with the house to its left. That house is gorgeous. But it's frustrating to people to see that, with all of those resources, a box was still what was created. I get that. I agree completely with Stewart that we can't keep these strangleholds on how a neighborhood looks. And why would we? Why do we resist change so much? Why do we, living in a capitalist society with a housing crisis, think that intrinsic value is above anything else? It's not realistic. Remember, I'm saying that as someone who's doing that very thing. But I'm also saying it as someone who doesn't think everyone should be forced to. If you want to save an old house, buy an old house and save it. That's completely within your purview. But telling everyone else that they can't do what they want with their property in their neighborhood is not.

I'm all for the "natural" evolution of neighborhoods.. OK it's easy for developers to start out with the same styles, but in my mind.. that doesn't mean it's the way it has to stay

This video is brilliant, not so much for its comment on architecture (though it is spot on), but for the fact that you can swap in whatever cultural construct you want and take meaningful lesson from it. I love this.