3 ms·
Case in point: Eichler houses. When I was young, they were cheap and cheerful and derided as "little boxes made of ticky-tacky". Now that they're going for a
by 082349872349872 3y ago
Case in point: Eichler houses.
When I was young, they were cheap and cheerful and derided as "little boxes made of ticky-tacky".
Now that they're going for a million+, they are "mid century modern" and cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Eichler#Eichler_Homes
- mturmon 3y agoSome of that perceived value is the (wonderful) original Modernist attributes of simplicity, manufacturability, and form-follows-function, which are integral to the design philosophy of those homes. The design work of the Eamses is another case: https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-chip-chair https://www.vitra.com/en-me/magazine/details/eames-potato-ch..., it’s just a magnificent use of the material. Even the original Case Study homes were intended to be affordable, not made as mansions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_House_(Los_Angeles)#Des...) Needless to say, I think OP is just not well informed about design. Just as it might have been hard to make an ornate street lamp, it’s also hard to make a clean modernist home. There are reasons (personal, practical, philosophical) to prefer one or the other for a given use, but the author isn’t seeing those nuances.