I pulled this off Mr. Wight's blog:



Link

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I am so glad that some people are taking an interest in these buildings. We stand to lose a lot if we aren't careful.

I'm certainly glad people have different tastes, and that they're cataloging these buildings. But personally, of all the "mid-century Modern" places I"ve been, I've never actually wanted to be at or in any of them. They're architecture for the sake of architecture. Some of my anger stems from the horrible facades slapped on some beautiful buildings (in StL and others) during this timeframe. It seems that not only did this era of architecture deviate from classical form and function, but it didn't exactly respect it, either.



I'm not meaning to put them or their fans down by any means, or to go off on a tangent. But have been meaning to ask the question for a long time: does anyone else feel the same way about this period of architecture? If this is better of in a different thread, that's fine too. This just presented an opportunity to ask it here.

Shameless plug, and it may be against the rules, but I've just posted the nation's first suburban MCM subdivision historic district to my blog with some pictures. I don't think you can paint mid-century modernism with a broad stroke. There are more flamboyant examples and there are some that seem to be very minimalistic, or architecture for architecture's sake as you put it.

I just noticed this house recently. It's perched on a hill off of Chippewa just behind the Bread Co. There's not a lot of diversity of styles in most city neighborhoods which makes me appreciate something like this even more.





And I love the Ridgewood subdivision in Crestwood.

I wish it wasn't this way, but this style does absolutely nothing for me.

Only a few architects ever mastered Modernism, everybody else was a hack...just trying to copy the masters but never really succeeding.

Moorlander wrote:I wish it wasn't this way, but this style does absolutely nothing for me.

I think that may be the response of many, including myself. Few actually want to "be" in such a place for any length of time. They are good for architecture study, for architects to wax about, and discussion.....but they were not designed to be places that are pleasing to most people, or in many cases to be realistic or functional; think flat roofs, concrete "screens" on windows, no insulation.

The biggest problem with the houses in the above pictures are the squat windows. To paraphrase Kunstler, "vertical windows invite us to believe the inhabitants are standing; horizontal windows invite us to believe the inhabitants are asleep, having sex, or dead."



The white thing is a bit more interesting than those things with the prominent carports.

I love the houses pictured. Different strokes for different folks. That's OK. My taste has evolved over the years. I used to hate modern. I was too close to it. My dad loved everything modern. So I grew up in the 1960's with modern everything - it is funny how 'modern' can look so quaint in home movies. Of course, I rejected it and wanted Victorian or whatever. But, now I understand the appeal. Open sunny rooms, indoor/outdoor spaces, big windows, etc. As I look back, part of the appeal for my parents was the hope of a new world. A way to put WW2, the depression, etc. in the past. They were looking forward. Something very lacking in today's world. The modest Crestwood homes inspire me. Regular middle class people were trying to break free of the past, to be a bit bold, to open their minds. As a rejection of modernism, we are caught up in recreating the past. And much of the new-old is badly done, which will cause another rejection. Much of modernism was badly done, which caused today's rejection. But, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some of it was good, some of it was brilliant. It was a movement like Art Deco, Art Nouveaux, etc. Art, fashion, music, attitudes were moving forward. Now I understand the beauty and excitement of it. Also, on the practical side, many modest modern homes offer stairless living for people, important to some of as we age. It is easy to clean the gutters and paint the eaves. And there is something to be said for having a wall of glass to enjoy the snow in the winter and view of landscaped patio in summer. My biggest issue with modernism is the rejection of urbanism. But, that was an American mistake. Modernism can fit in urban settings. Sorry, I didn't mean to rant. I respect and understand people that don't like it, but just explaining a few of the reasons that I have come to appreciate modern.

^ My problem with those houses isn't the style. The problem is that these were "modest" houses. Applied to a larger house or building it's pretty cool. Like the old Parkmoor resturaunt in Clayton, or the house featured in North by Northwest near the climax of the film.

stellar wrote:
And I love the Ridgewood subdivision in Crestwood.

Oh wow I love that. Are those style homes primarily located on Ridgewood Drive north of Watson? (Using Google Maps as my source, as I'm not familiar with that area at all). I'd love to take a drive by there this weekend. I've had an impossible time finding a house that I like and works well with my budget, but it looks like one of those homes may work quite well. It looks like they would be great fixer-uppers.

Tysalpha wrote:^ My problem with those houses isn't the style. The problem is that these were "modest" houses. Applied to a larger house or building it's pretty cool. Like the old Parkmoor resturaunt in Clayton, or the house featured in North by Northwest near the climax of the film.

The fact that these houses are 'modest' is part of the reason I love them. I find it exciting that ordinary people had a chance to participate in a new movement. Not everyone can hire a architect and build a landmark house clinging to a mountain with a view of Mount Rushmore.



And to be fair, they may be considered modest, but they appear to be the size of a typical house of the day. I have never visited these houses and don't know for sure. It used to be normal to have 3 Bedrooms & one bathroom- maybe 1 & half bath. These houses have a few luxuries, such as fireplace, carport, and I assume, open sunny interior spaces, and ample yards. Compared to today's five bedroom, five bath, 3-car garage extravaganza's, they are modest, but they are suitable spaces for most reasonable people. And it is obvious, because they are so unique, this is a development with a story - someone's vision. The development will alway be set apart, maybe slightly above its peers, because they are different from the norm of the day, not to mention, a glimpse into a short window of time in style history.

^ I like your description, Expat. By the way, why don't you like to be referred to as Pat anymore? It's not clear what you'd like us to call you other than not Pat.

I agree with you, Expat. Sorry I wasn't clear -- I like these houses and would actually consider buying one. The point I was trying to make was that, perhaps if somone doesn't like these houses it's because they are confusing their evaluation of amenities for an evaluation of style.

Expat wrote:The fact that these houses are 'modest' is part of the reason I love them. I find it exciting that ordinary people had a chance to participate in a new movement. Not everyone can hire a architect and build a landmark house clinging to a mountain with a view of Mount Rushmore.



And to be fair, they may be considered modest, but they appear to be the size of a typical house of the day. I have never visited these houses and don't know for sure. It used to be normal to have 3 Bedrooms & one bathroom- maybe 1 & half bath. These houses have a few luxuries, such as fireplace, carport, and I assume, open sunny interior spaces, and ample yards. Compared to today's five bedroom, five bath, 3-car garage extravaganza's, they are modest, but they are suitable spaces for most reasonable people. And it is obvious, because they are so unique, this is a development with a story - someone's vision. The development will alway be set apart, maybe slightly above its peers, because they are different from the norm of the day, not to mention, a glimpse into a short window of time in style history.

There are some great mid-century homes in Crystal Lake Park - a tiny municipality off Bopp Road, nestled in between Des Peres, Town & Country and Frontenac. There's been a lot of infill in the area lately - some good, some bad - but it still retains a lot of the mid-century homes.



Here's an example: Link



A pretty good deal for Ladue Schools.

In response to Innova8ion: Expat is short for Expatriate. St. Louis is my home. My ancestors helped build it - I am a fifth generation STL. By living elsewhere, I feel like an expat, torn from my homeland. OK, I know that sounds a little dramatic. I have found St. Louis expats living all around the world. Many of us feel the same way. We have a strong emotional connection and never give up caring. I will let you in on well guarded secret. My real name is Steve.

Expat wrote:In response to Innova8ion: Expat is short for Expatriate. St. Louis is my home. My ancestors helped build it - I am a fifth generation STL. By living elsewhere, I feel like an expat, torn from my homeland. OK, I know that sounds a little dramatic. I have found St. Louis expats living all around the world. Many of us feel the same way. We have a strong emotional connection and never give up caring. I will let you in on well guarded secret. My real name is Steve.

Heh, of course I knew expat was short for expatriate but took my usual liberty in playing with words. Hopefully, Steve, you will once again be reunited with your native homeland. And perhaps even find and move into the perfect MCM for you...

Those homes pictured in Crestwood can also be found in Berkley, Ferguson, Florissant, Black Jack, and formerly Bridgeton's Carrollton Subdivision (airport expansion). They became popular in the late 1950s through early 1960s, but were succeeded by the more common ranch house with longer street frontage as opposed to lot depth. Also, carports were replaced with garages.

They do beat the hell out of ranch houses, that's for sure.



Still, I don't like anything that has an attached carport/garage in the front/side, the sole purpose of which is to display the fact that the people can afford a nice car.

Expat wrote:I love the houses pictured. Different strokes for different folks. That's OK. My taste has evolved over the years. I used to hate modern. I was too close to it. My dad loved everything modern. So I grew up in the 1960's with modern everything - it is funny how 'modern' can look so quaint in home movies. Of course, I rejected it and wanted Victorian or whatever. But, now I understand the appeal. Open sunny rooms, indoor/outdoor spaces, big windows, etc. As I look back, part of the appeal for my parents was the hope of a new world. A way to put WW2, the depression, etc. in the past. They were looking forward. Something very lacking in today's world. The modest Crestwood homes inspire me. Regular middle class people were trying to break free of the past, to be a bit bold, to open their minds. As a rejection of modernism, we are caught up in recreating the past. And much of the new-old is badly done, which will cause another rejection. Much of modernism was badly done, which caused today's rejection. But, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some of it was good, some of it was brilliant. It was a movement like Art Deco, Art Nouveaux, etc. Art, fashion, music, attitudes were moving forward. Now I understand the beauty and excitement of it. Also, on the practical side, many modest modern homes offer stairless living for people, important to some of as we age. It is easy to clean the gutters and paint the eaves. And there is something to be said for having a wall of glass to enjoy the snow in the winter and view of landscaped patio in summer. My biggest issue with modernism is the rejection of urbanism. But, that was an American mistake. Modernism can fit in urban settings. Sorry, I didn't mean to rant. I respect and understand people that don't like it, but just explaining a few of the reasons that I have come to appreciate modern.

As someone that's recently learned to appreciate modern architecture and embrace its value and significance, I completely agree with your take.

A very nice, small one in Webster. Different from the Ridgewood floorplan.



www.tarpleyhouse.wordpress.com

[/url]

"Premium vinyl siding".



Nice.

Price reduced to $185,000



www.tarpleyhouse.wordpress.com



Thanks!