ARCHITECTURAL TOYS

I looked up "architectural toys" on the net and was surprised at how many I found. Christmas is coming and if you know someone who's interested in architecture then maybe one of the items in this post would make a good present.

Hmmmm, come to think of it....this Robie House toy wouldn't work because you can only see the whole layout when it's down at waist level. If you put it out of the way up on top of a book shelf, which is what I'd do with it, then you wouldn't be able to see it. 

This "Wright Blocks" kit was actually sold for a while. It was conceived and designed by Frank Lloyd Wright's son, who was also the inventor of Lincoln Logs. He only got a measly $800 for the Log idea so he figured he'd try again with a new set based on his and his dad's ideas, and this (above) is it.

It looks like an interesting toy that would have good top shelf visibility. It didn't sell well, though. 

I bought my kid an old-time erector set (above) and he never used it. He's an adult now so maybe the set has reverted to me. I'm tempted to build it myself, but where would I put it? 

I also got my daughter a nice Lego Victorian dollhouse and she never used it. Maybe it looked too old-fashioned. Probably she would have liked it better if the design had been more modern, like the one above. 

It would have been an ideal house for a new, updated cubist Barbie (above). I can imagine a situation where she's on the other side of town when Ken calls and invites her to the beach.

She gets in her cubist car and drives to her new cubist house to meet him.

And there's (above) Kubist Ken now, looking dapper as usual!

Apparently there's a whole subculture of adult block enthusiasts who build modern architectural toys. This guy (above) displays his blocks on shelves. He doesn't even have to build anything. The parts look good all by themselves!

While I'm on the topic of architecture I think I'll change the subject a little and hazard a guess about what houses will look like in the near future. My guess is that homes are heading for a new look something like the one in the picture above. Yep, that's what we'll all live in 20 years from now. You can take that to the bank!

What will the interiors look like? Mmmmmm....maybe something like this (above).

THE EVOLUTION OF THE MODERN HOUSE

Here's (above) a 1950s-type Cliff May-influenced ranch house. They're not uncommon in Los Angeles, in fact they're so common here that they hardly raise an eyebrow. That's a pity because this city's ranch homes are much underrated. They so effortlessly combine modernism and tradition that we forget how hard won that synthesis was.

A little history is in order: 

  

Europeans created modernism but they couldn't make it work. Look at this bleak design (above) for a reconstructed Paris by Le Corbusier. Parisians can thank their lucky stars that he was prevented from putting this into effect. 

Here's a factory-style house by ex-Bauhaus teacher Walter Gropius. What was he thinking of? Who wants to live in a factory?

The public liked the modern look but only for business buildings. They didn't want to live in it. The race was on to tame modernism and make the new style fit for homes, and affordable. The first American efforts (above) were hideous.

Haw! So were the second efforts (above).

Sure, Frank Lloyd Wright (above) could make it work but he built for the well off. How do you make this sort of thing available to the common man?

Eventually a potentially low cost Wright-influenced look was achieved (above) but the look required a house that was big enough to spread out a bit, sympathetic building codes and readily available pre-fab parts. I'm also guessing that the designs, as good as they were, were perceived by the public as too drastic. 

  

During this period faux modernism proliferated. In the kind of small houses most people could afford it sometimes looked shoddy and tacky...something built for the convenience of the contractor rather than for aesthetic reasons.

The guy who finally made it work was Cliff May (above). His smaller houses weren't exactly cheap and they still required a certain amount of square footage, but they were simultaneously modern and traditional, conceptually simple, and they left the door open for further simplification.

Here (above) there's a gap in my knowledge. Some genius...was it May or one of his disciples?...created the synthesis known to Southern Californians as "The Yellow Ranch House." It's affordable, Cliff May savy, modern, comfortable, compressible, can be built on a small lot...and it's low priced! No reliance on esoteric materials; every component is made of parts that can be had at any large lumber store.

It's the perfect realization of the maxim: "it doesn't have to look modern to be modern."

Boy, Cliff came through for us! He was the Bob Clampett of modern housing!

I'm amazed by the versatility in the interior design of these yellow ranch houses. You can furnish them almost as modern as you like without contradicting the house's design.

A less modern decor (above) works okay, too.

In fact, I'll bet even funky furniture like the kind in this TV set would work in those yellow ranch houses.

Thanks, Cliff! You 'da man!!!!

MY RANT ABOUT MODERN ARCHITECTURE

Where would you rather live? Here (above).........

....or here (above)?

Which is easier on the eye? This (above)..........

....or this (above)?

Listen to my rant against modern architecture on the latest ASIFA Archive podcast, link below:

http://www.ahaapodcast.org/ 

And on another subject.....

Holy Cow! It's time for The San Diego Comic Con!!!!!!! 


In a few hours all the LA cartoonists will have migrated to San Diego. Almost none of our ilk will be left in the city. The studios will be dark and empty. Computer screens will flicker aimlessly, and automatic urinals will flush needlessly. Here and there a lonely and unloved curmudgeon will do his miserable work in silence, believing that his absence down South is somehow making a statement.

To everybody else: may you find what you're looking for in San Diego! Good hunting!

This blog will resume after the convention, on Sunday night, July 25th!

YALE'S CONTROVERSIAL ART & ARCHITECTURE BUILDING

What do you think of Yale's Art & Architecture Building (above)? People who don't like it call the style "brutalist," which is a good name for the kind of bleak, concrete boxes that were built from the 50s to the 70s, but I'm not sure that name applies here. I concede that the building has a lot of brutalist aspects, but it's simultaneously innovative and imaginative, don't you think?

I like the idea of an indoor village (above) where the offices are like raised houses separated by grass. It's not very practical and it wastes space, and it must inhibit communication between the workers, but it's kinda fun and that counts for something surely.

This interior (above) looks like Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" house. Did he invent those long, concrete balcony railings coming off brick-shaped vertical supports?

I like the way the interior is on different levels. This must drive handicapped people nuts, but it's fun for the rest of us. 

It's weird to see a whole building made out of what looks like kids building blocks. You can buy natural wood building blocks with most of these shapes, including the flat planks. They're great to keep in a basket next to a coffee table, but you need to buy more than one set to build anything decent. 

These horizontals and verticals are interesting in small doses, but a bit hard on the eye over time.

The Greek statue (above) is simultaneously out of place, and not out of place in this modernist library room.



The Yale arts building is done in a kind of vertical/horizontal modernism that's out of fashion now. Everything now is diagonal, chaotic, and deliberately disorienting. That's OK, I don't mind being dis-oriented, it's fun, but I hate obsessively blank walls and wind traps like some of the facets on the building above.

This building (above) looks like a cubist bird. It's weird, and inadequately lit on the upper floors, but I'd still like to live in it.

Back to the Yale building: some of the spaces (above) succeed in being wide and tall at the same time. That's a neat trick. You can see how he does it with the lights. Wide rooms with bright, flat-colored carpets are appealing at first glance and tiring after that.  

The LA County Art Museum has steps like the ones on the Yale building above. It's odd to see steps, which imply power and grandeur, tucked away in an almost claustrophobic crevice. I think this is the main entrance.

Boy, you feel like you're walking along ancient Egyptian temples, except everything is obsessively clean and straight, and lacking in detail.

Modern architecture (above) has its good points, but it sure wastes space. 

You can see why the building (above) is regarded as brutalist.  Outside it's a concrete wind trap. 

The interlocking concrete rectangles are definitely interesting. Looking at them makes me aware of the marvelous design possibilities that concrete makes possible, but it also makes me aware of its limitations. The look is intriguing, but cold as ice. 

These balcony railings look like they're made of wood, but they're done in the style of flat, modernist concrete railings. It looks OK, but it's a waste of good wood to use it to copy minimalist forms made for concrete. 

I have to admit that I'm conflicted about this building.  What do you think?