Why hasn't residential architecture changed appreciably in the last hundreds of years?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Ok, I know we now have indoor plumbing and heating and air-conditioning, but aside from that, houses today still look pretty much like what they looked like in the 1700's.

How come we're not living in concrete igloos? They would be solid, deflect wind, be strong in hurricanes, etc.? Could be partially buried, could be energy efficient, etc.

Do we just not have the will for change and innovation? Why not build new prototypes in Katrina ravaged areas? Are we doomed to brick faced or stucco McMansion architecture for the next 2 or 3 generations?

The Dutch are building houses on hydraulic lifts that can compensate for rising water levels.

[rosesaylavee]

1. Here, tell it to these guys...

http://www.aia.org

According to their website, 'Good design makes a difference.' (No argument there!)

[jeff30997]

2. Come take a look over here in Canada and see..

how hour houses are ugly.

[Swamp Rat]

3. Yeah, I've seen those Dutch, hydraulically lifted houses.

We NEED them in New Orleans!

[Demeter]

4. Inertia, Cost and Custom

Not sure that one can build safe, submersible housing suitable for hurricane-prone areas!

My next house will be earth-sheltered, passive solar, off the grid, etc.

The advantage with stick construction is it is adaptable--and one can add to it easily. Repairs are cheap and easy, too. And the cost isn't so much that tearing it down when it's past it's point of useful life and reparability hurts.

Houses in the 18th 19th, and part of the 20th centuries in the US had no insulation, plumbing, wiring, etc! Things were much worse!

[tridim]

5. Building codes and lawyers.

They're the reason I quit my job as an architect after only 3 years. The codes are written to be as conservative and strict as possible as to not piss off any of the neighbors. All the great architecture I learned about in school was a pipe dream, and unless you had money and influence your structure will be cookie cutter, by law.

[mod mom]

6. My husband is an architect (although not residential) and we live in a very modern

house in an area with many costly 1900-1920's built houses. Our house was designed by an architect who trained under Frank Lloyd Wright and had worked on Falling Water. It was the architect's own home, but when we purchased it, it felt trapped in the 1970's. We totally modernized it and made it energy efficient (my husband specialzes in designing green buildings) but kept it very open. Most people would rather have many small rooms than open spaces. That said we have renovated 2 previous homes and had realtors tell us they would be hard sells since they were modern. The first sold hours after we put up the sign for the full asking price and the second took 5 days but also for the full asking price.

The trend is coming where we will see recyclable partitions (think of a lego building) that can be changed and re-used to fit the need. There is a great magazine-Dwell, that has sections on pre-fab modern partitions (nothing like those ugly country trailers that ruin the landscape).

[mod mom]

17. Dwell prefabs (in case anyone is interested):

http://www.dwell.com/homes/dwellhomes/3053916.html

[kineneb]

19. now wait just a moment there... I live in a "trailer"

actually a manufactured house. Yes, it was built in a factory, and came in on wheels, but it doesn't look bad. It is a bit boxy, but the interior layout is better than many stick-built houses. We had to buy what was in our budget, and this was the only thing we could afford.

We were lucky and purchased 1/4 acre and ordered the house for under $110K- in California (2003).

[angrycarpenter]

7. from a carpenter

most commercial building materials are square in shape so the shape of house is square. The greeks invented the house as we think of it and no one has ever come up with better. I have built round before and this is the problem.It takes as much material to make a round house 50 feet in diameter as it does to make a 50 foot square. The square has a higher ratio of floor space to material than round. Furnishings are also square, thanks to the greeks, so they are difficult to arrange in a round structure. To put it simply to build round we would have to cut all the corners off of the squares and throw them away, wasteful.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Architects Need To Lead The Way

From what I can see, architects over the last 70 or so years have produced either weird ugly "HOUSE OF THE FUTURE!" stuff that nobody wants to live in, or hypertraditional stuff that's perfectly safe - nobody would ever reject it for being weird. Nobody really wants to live in something out of "Sleeper" - we want comfortable spaces above ground with lots of light and windows that open.

Frank Lloyd Wright had some nice designs, but they had a lot of rough edges - they were made to be beautiful, not comfortable, and they fell apart very quickly (Wright was an awful engineer). I particularly like his usonian houses - I've had thoughts of using the design of one as a starting point for designing a house of my own.

[tridim]

12. Oddly, I like the Sleeper house and don't like most FLW designs

Although I do like his windows and his roof lines.

Architects would love to lead the way, but the building code, lawyers and conservative residents block them. See my post above.

[NashVegas]

9. I Suspect Partly Because Cities Became Less Involved In Planning

As the burbs spread out, there were areas where there were homes before there was government. Developers are less concerned with an overall look and civic values than whether or not something will sell.

[Ilsa]

10. The new houses have good insulation, but I think that is about it

for energy conservation. None of the new houses are zoned inside for AC and heat. Bedrooms are separated as if the parents are swinging from a trapeze after bedtime. Gray water should be captured and recycled in places like Texas, lawns should be xeriscaped and solar panels should be used here as well, but no. Everyone wants a Scarlett O'Hara McMansion with a Da Vinci interior or some other bizarre mixture of styles.

[mondo joe]

11. Because people haven't changed appreciably in the last hundreds of years.

The things that made a house appealing in 1800 and 1900 still do the job.

[blues90]

13. We have in america , cardboard boxes are the next craze

[BlooInBloo]

14. Scale, and because we don't live in sci-fi books.

[MindPilot]

15. Because there are only three architects in the country and two of them

live in Southern California. At least that's the way it seems.

What bugs me is the fact that homes are very inflexible inside. If you want a door in a different place, that's a major renovation. Even moving or adding an outlet is a significant project out of reach of most homeowners. (Are builders ever going catch on to the fact that people who live in houses plug things in?)

When I walk into a new home and see a garage lit with a single 60-watt bulb, one outlet and the freakin' water heater in the corner, I sometimes think the codes should require architects to actually live the houses they design.

[GreenEyedLefty]

16. Most houses are not designed by architects...

Because builders can design houses under a certain number of square feet without needing the services of an architect. It's more profitable for them to do, design-wise, what they've always done - so out they churn, one after another after another, ad nauseum.

[Possumpoint]

18. I Disagree

Houses built today look nothing like what was built in the 1700's. Houses of that era usually used post and beam construction. They had thick walls but were uninsulated. There were fewer windows and the house footprint was smaller. Closets were unknown. Post and beam construction maintained properly (kept dry) will last for hundreds of years. Modern homes are not expected to last that long.

Modern construction for residential homes is called balloon construction. The thin exterior walls are expected to carry much of the load with interior load bearing walls needed where material in sufficient lengths would be difficult to obtain. Balloon construction is a much cheaper method of construction and is more flexible in doing house design.

I love post and beam construction but if I ever build another house it will be underground with one exposed face. With underground temperature being a constant of about 53 degrees heating and cooling costs are greatly reduced. The concrete igloo is a valid comparison but it is then water proofed and buried.

[jmowreader]

20. They don't use balloon framing anymore

A balloon frame is where one stud runs all the way up from the first floor to the roof system--if the house is a two-story job, you're looking at 18-foot or 20-foot studs.

There are four MAJOR, MAJOR problems with balloon framing. There's also a relatively rare major one.

Problem one is supporting the floor system for the second floor. It hangs off the sides of the studs.

Problem two is getting straight lumber that long.

Problem three is the danger to the workers of building 20-foot-high walls. They're heavy and they like to fall over on the workers before you've got them secured.

Problem four--the actual reason balloon framing is no longer allowed by code--is that if you don't fireblock the hell out of a balloon frame, the stud gaps make really nice chimneys to take the fire straight up through the walls.

The fifth problem is if you're dealing with a three-story house: studs don't come that long, so you're not able to build a three-story building.

Modern construction is "platform framing." You can frame this in one of two ways: either 2x6 or 2x8 all the way up, or use small studs--2x4, 2x6, whatever--then add one size for each lower floor. Example: if you're stepping your studs and you used 2x6 on the top floor of a three-story, the middle floor would be 2x8 and the bottom floor 2x10. Jeld-Wen and Andersen both make extension jambs long enough to deal with a 2x10 stud wall.

To answer the OP's question: homes haven't changed much in 300 years because people want to live in the kind of home they grew up in.