

The Best House in Paris - jcwentz
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/arts/design/26ouro.html?ex=1345780800&en=dc37d3a9801645f5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

======
gibsonf1
First off, I really want to visit this house, mainly to see what sound like
very original and clever ways to modulate the space with movable elements.
Also, the use of these movable partitions to change the use of the space from
business to private sounds intriguing. For architects (and for users who may
not realize how it works), differentiating between private and public use of
space has always been a fascinating aspect of both life and the architecture
that contains it.

As much as I love the use of glass block, the main space looks to have no
human scale at all - no attempt to enable the visitor to understand clearly
the size of their environment with respect to themselves. The salon looks like
a big spatial box - I am not impressed with that. From the article, it sounds
like the architect used the surrounding spaces to give human scale, but to
understand the full effect, one has to visit it.

On the principles of preservation trumpeted in the article, I disagree. As an
architect, a hundred years from now I would love to have my buildings restored
to their original design, complete with non-broken and unblemished floors,
polished elements that were intended for polish, painted elements intended for
paint. The point of architecture as an art form is not to show how old it is,
but to immerse the visitor in a world that is both real and idealized.

~~~
asdflkj
While the "essential character" stuff sound like a thinly veiled attempt to
show off that the building is old and therefore valuable, I can see a
different argument against full restoration. Gentle signs of aging, as long as
you don't erase them selectively, show how well the house is able to withstand
age. If it quickly turns ugly without costly maintenance, it's a bad house.

~~~
gibsonf1
I agree with you that a good house needs to withstand age, but "showing off"
that your house withstands age while denying the full enjoyment of the
aesthetic experience of the house seems like a foolish trade off to me. I
argue that the experience inside the house is the top priority in this
context, not the sub sub feature that it ages well.

~~~
asdflkj
It is a trade off, but it doesn't seem foolish.

There is no full enjoyment, just varying degrees of almost-full enjoyment. A
house that somebody lives in will always look worse than a house that has been
prepared to look its absolute swankest, with every dust particle removed and
every pillow fluffed. It makes more sense to talk of "full enjoyment" as a
range rather than a point. To me, things like dulled metal surfaces would not
be out of that range, if the house is designed well. If minor things like that
put it outside the range, then it's a bad house.

Maybe there is something to that "essential character" business after all.
Worn things are pleasant, and I think there is a reason. They put you at ease
because they tell you that they've been used, and it's OK to use them. Shiny
things seem fragile and distant.

------
rokhayakebe
what is this doing here?

~~~
pg
I thought it was good. Modern architecture is very close to hacking in spirit.

~~~
dfranke
Well, occasionally it is. There are a few pioneers like Wright and van der
Rohe whose fame is well-deserved, and then hoards of half-conscious imitators
shouting "let's make Facebook for, uh... iguana owners!". But I suppose that
makes it just like anything else in life.

