9th & Hover

What Matters to Me

Dear Homeowners, Tenants (that word again!) and Builders of Prospect:

I do care, a lot, about how each of you feels about the design of our community, and it moves me to see the strength of your feeling expressed here. I wouldn't trade this hothouse for the vacuum of a development like Creekside for anything, and neither, I'll bet would any of you. Please believe that Kiki and I are working hard to give form to as many of your hopes and needs and desires as we possibly can.

The challenge that we all face together as Prospect grows larger is how to best accomodate the ever increasing range and variety of those desires. I believe that a healthy community can, indeed must, seek to do so always. It is unavoidable in a plan this dense that some of our needs will manifest themselves in too sudden architectural adjacencies. Although I personally welcome this a sign of vitality, rather than disharmony, I do try to reconcile opposing, adjacent desires as best I can. I hope we can all agree that the most important thing, though, is to not discount any of them.

You, x-man, might not choose to hang your Michelangelo next to your Klee, but how lucky you would be to have both. And were your neighbor equally lucky she might well want to do just that. The Denver Art Museum, which displays its permanent collection thematically, juxtaposes wildly different works on a regular basis. Likewise it's not unusual in established neighborhoods to see distinctly different house types immediately next to each other, to happy effect.

I think that some of the frustration expressed here comes from a failure on my part to adequately explain what Kiki and I are hoping to achieve in Prospect. We are both eager students of many historic building types. Counting townhouses individually, I've actually designed more historic homes here than modern ones, and I look forward to doing some more. We are very concerned, though, that when we do design or review a traditionally styled house that it be excecuted correctly, which is to say its form and details and materials must be convincingly consistent with its intended style. This is quite difficult to pull off, particularly on a spec house budget. Even so, there will always be a significant number of traditional buildings here because there will always be a significant number of people who want to live in them, and can afford the privilege.

It is increaseingly clear though, that there is an equally significant group who are interested in an alternative, and we hope to accomodate them as well. One option is to formulate a more modern type of building, one which utilizes current materials and construction systems and mechanical technologies on their own terms, rather than forcing them to look or work like something they are not. Furthermore, the way we all use our homes has changed profoundly since the 19th century. Why not express this as well?

These are extremely complicated and engaging issues for me and I expect to be pondering them forever. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them further with any or all of you, in any sort of setting. Our motives in suggesting a symposium are not Machiavellian, Charlene (Albertian, maybe, and come to think of it there are a number of lessons from Renaissance Florence we might apply here). And yes, Keith, I expect it might get a little heated, but as long as we can separate our wives we should all make it home in one piece.

Sincerely,

Mark

Thank-you

It is true that ''Men can do all things if they will'' (Alberti). And emulating Renaissance Italians who were ''self-consciously aware of their singularity and therefore unafraid to be unlike their neighbors'' is an exciting concept. I, for one, appreciate the fact that creativity should evoke a response. In that respect, you and Kiki have hit your mark.
When the three of you (Kelly included) choose to communicate with us (the residents) you do so with refreshing candor and eloquent style. It's simply unfortunate that you are unable to do so prior to the point where negative emotions rear their ugly heads.
Perhaps the solution would be a public relations person for the time being until enough of the development has been established for everyone to rest their anxieties.
The issue at hand doesn't really concern the public at large. Instead, the initial residents - those who bought the traditional concept - need to be eased into this transition and reassured that ''modern'' doesn't mean cheap.
I have to admit that, although I'm not a ''modernist'' per se, I find the lines of the gray house at the Kristy Court entrance appealing.
Thank-you for paying attention and responding.
Regards,
Charlene

Prospect: Community or Museum?

Mark,

Thanks for your response. If we can have this kind of discussion at the symposium then I think it would be a fine idea. However,I still have some reservations.

As for your comments, I'm with you that this development -- no matter what type of architecture is used -- is vastly superior to a place like Creekside. If I was buying a house today I would still purchase here with no reservations. In short, I love living here. Having said that, let's get on with it:

I'm not opposed to ''modernism'' per se, in fact I really like some of the modernist buildings in the neighborhood (and I really dislike others). Like Kiki and yourself, I to had fears of Prospect turning into a Disney-like creation. However, I think there is considerable diversity within those styles we have been refering to as ''traditional''. While some experimentation with ''modernist'' design is okay with me, nevertheless, I think it may be leading us down the path of visual disharmony. The problem as I see it is that by building so many ''modern'' buildings at one time it upsets the asthetic flow of the neighborhood. While each house may be visually interesting (and good design), nevertheless, by having two competing styles we lose a sense of place. By a sense of place I mean a sense of visual harmony and unity which can easily be expressed to others. By having two competing styles (''modern'' vs ''traditional'')we lose something.

While it may be acceptable for the Denver Art Institute to mix styles, Prospect is not a museum it is a neigborhood. The Denver Art Institute mixes styles to evoke a response -- to get people to react emotionally to the visual contrasts between the pieces of work. Not surprsingly, I don't think most people desire to have that same type of experience when they mow their lawns or walk thier dogs. Most people want to feel ''comfortable'' in the place they live not emotionally unsettled and intellectually challenged at every turn.

This is not to say that I believe that modernist architecture should not be permitted in Prospect. The problem I have is with the balance. By building so many ''modernist'' dwellings in the second phase we now have ''competing styles'' in Prospect. While I would be content with a 85% ''traditional'' (broadly interpreted) and 15% ''modern'' (narrowly interpreted) mix, it is when these two styles begin to rival each other that I begin to have a problem. It is not the architecture itself that I have a problem with (okay, I have a problem with some of it) but the fact that the juxtaposition of this architecture creates a sense of disharmony and discontinuity. While I think a predominantly ''modernist'' new urban neighborhood would be visually appealing, nevertheless, if you were to throw in, say, 35% Victorians in the middle, we would have the same type of problem. While extreme diversity may work in a museum, it does not work (and has never worked)in designing communities. As you said, in more established neighborhoods a modern house can sit next to a traditional one in relative harmony. However, the fact remains that there are usually only two or three such contrasting houses in the entire community. There is a reason for this. At least that is my opion.

Spelling Police

I'm turning myself into the spelling police. I should never try and compose a letter at 12:30 at night without the aid of a spell check. I plead ignorance (on many levels). Here is a list of my infractions:

asthetic = aesthetic;
opion = opinion;
refering = referring;
surprsing = surprising;
thier = their.

I blame these infractions on a bad diet growing up and phonics. Please have mercy.

Keith Jaggers