Historic Eastside Neighborhood Assoc.

X-Man's Originial Op-Ed

I don't know who X-Man is. A search on his address (tnemmocattog@juno.com) led to 0 hits. Below is his original email:

Perhaps is time that we have an open forum to discuss the current
trend of architectural styles in Prospect. While what we say can in no
way dictate the direction of those styles, perhaps our comments may have
some influence. Kiki has a great vision for this development; there is no
denying that. And he is also in control and has the final decision.
However, there have been a lot comments flying around for the last few
years about the architectural styles - the most common source of
conversation. These comments come both internally from Prospect
residents and from people who are simply visiting, walking through, and
sometimes looking for a purchase. The most common expression I hear is:
''I love this place but I can't say much for those modern looking houses
that are being building now.'' I've probably heard this expression
repeated a hundred different times; in fact, it is almost unanimous from
everyone I have talked to. Do I have a distorted view of what is being
said? Are there others of you out there who are hearing the same thing?
When I first came to Prospect, I was told that these residences were
not necessarily going to be frilly, Victorian style houses but that they
would be characteristic of the types of traditional houses build in this
area of the country. Therefore, it came as somewhat of a surprise when I
started seeing the beach style structures showing up on a regular basis.
I realize that we have been informed for some time that more modern
styles would be integrated into the community. In fact, there are a lot
of modern style houses that have been integrated very well into the
environment throughout the Western U.S. - I like some of those styles.
However, in my own opinion the modern style house currently being build
in Prospect do not integrate at all well with the rest of the community.
They sharply contrast with other styles, they break up the natural flow,
they are not characteristic of the styles seen in this part of the
country, they are boring, repetitive (with a few variations of the main
theme), and they look cheap - made of flimsy materials. I realize there
are no absolutes when it comes to style, but there is public opinion.
When the majority of public opinion (for those who live in the community)
say that it looks bad, then it is a resistive artsy- fartsy attitude that
is forcing itself against the prevailing opinion of whom it matters the
most. Am I wrong in my opinion? Are there others out there who feel the
same? We cannot dictate the direction of this development but we can
give our artistic opinion.

Sincerely

X Man

X-Man

X-Man's email address is tnemmocattog@juno.com, which is 'Gotta Comment' spelled backwards. I assume this ISP account was created specifically to ensure X-Man's anonymity. :-)

Diversity

Hi all,

I'm posting X-man's latest email to the messageboard. (What can I say? I'm bored). :-)

Tom

Xman:
''Well, it appears that I may have been very wrong. I was of the
assumption that because so many people had expressed a dislike for the
shed-roof beach houses that the opinion was prevailing. It appears that,
from the e-mail and web-site responses, there is a following for this
modern trend. Yes, economics do tend to set the direction of things. In
fact, because this is such a wonderful community - well planned, well
thought out - with the basic tenants of new-urbanism still very much in
tact (thanks to Kiki), we could plop some very ugly houses in our
community and they would probably still sell. However, I will still hold
to my opinion about the artistic qualities of the shed houses. I still
think they are out of place. They break up the continuity and visual
flow. To me, they are boring, lack originality, and look cheap. Yes,
diversity is good, but to what extent? Diversity just for diversity? If
we want diversity, perhaps we should start bringing in 70's style ranch
homes, track shacks, V frames, geodesic domes, and energy efficient
ground- submerged houses lined with solar panels. Not one of these would
be inconsistent with the basic tenants of new-urbanism. Remember, it is
how the community is laid out that is important - not the style of the
buildings. Where does diversity stop and good taste begin?

Sincerely
X-man (yes, I am a coward)''

Diversity and Originality

Hey X-Man,

I'm a bit suprised that there aren't more people who are up in arms about the different houses, too. From a few conversations that I had when I first moved here, I thought it was a much bigger deal than it loks like it is. (Or maybe not everybody knows were talking about it on the Internet). At any rate, I'm glad there are others out there who rooting for the contemporary houses. :-)

Anyway, aside from the fact that many of them just plain ''look cool'', I like the contemporary houses for one of the same reasons that you don't like them: originality. From my perspective, I don't see why New Urbanism has to be tied to traditional house design. (And, in fact, I think we're all in agreemnt that it doesn't). Given that, I think it's nice to live in (from what I can tell) one of the few From-The-Ground-Up New Urban communities that is stretching its architectual wings. I'm confused why you would think that a contemporary house design is un-original, but a colonial-style house is original. That seems a little flip-flopped to me.

I do take your point about diversity for diversity's sake. I don't think anyone wants (for that sake of argument) a Buckminster Fuller/Geodesic Dome type house going into Prospect. But I think that there's a considerable difference between the contemporary houses we're seing going up and a geodesic dome house. Aside from the fact that most of us seem to like the new homes, and (I assume), most of wouldn't like a dome house, I think there are other things that make the beach style houses work in Prospect where a round house wouldn't:
1. The beach houses still face the street front.
2. They have an obvious and well-defined ''front''.
3. They are multi-story.
4. They are basically rectilinear.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that it's not ''diversity for diversity's sake'' that I'm supporting, it's ''diversity within a set of generally pleasing architectual guidelines'' that I like.