We like what we hear!

Many of us in the neighborhood and in this newsgroup have
expressed concerns with deviating from the original intent of a
neo-traditional Prospect. We?’ve been struggling with how to
put our thoughts into words.
Fortunately Duany has done this for us.

Here is an excerpt from the interview by Atlantic Unbound's
Sage Stossel with Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (Andre Duany?’s
wife and partner) and Jeff Speck (DPZ?’s director of town
planning). They are the visionaries for the new urbanism
movement and the people who master-planned Prospect.

SS: You suggest in Suburban Nation that you don't feel
strongly about what architectural style your planning principles
are clothed in. Are you hoping, though, to have the opportunity
to design a more modern-style development than those you've
done so far?

JS: I think it might be a half-hearted hope. I'd like it if we
designed something modern, because I love modern
architecture, and I'm getting a lot of pressure from my
architecture school classmates to prove it! But I'm losing
certainty over Andres's interest in ever building anything
modern again. Every day he seems to become more
convinced that classical architecture is superior.

SS:Why do you think that is?

JS: We keep coming across problematic evidence. Andres and I
were just in Berlin a week ago, and we visited a new town by
Rob Krier that's in Potsdam. It's exactly what we advocate.It's
a traditional town plan, but it's with modern architecture.
And it looked horrible. We asked ourselves how this could
be made better. We decided that if the architecture had been
traditional it might have been a fantastic project. The clashing
of all the different isms and attitudes and pyrotechnics that
modern architects do to get on the cover of the architectural
fashion press was just too much for one town to handle. Also,
a lot of it felt very cold. As an architect I appreciate it, but as a
pedestrian, I'm made uncomfortable by it.

This also brings up an interesting point, which is that
modernist architecture is itself now a historic, dated concept.
The flat roofs and the big cantilevers and all that -- that's
seventy years old. So in fact, perhaps it's all historicism of one
sort or another.

EPZ: We're living in a time in which the underlying urbanistic
principles are so neglected that that's what we must stress.
But as a designer I feel very strongly that the style is also
important. It doesn't really matter which style it is (although I
have my own preferences for styles that are vernacular to a
place), as long as there's a harmony and continuity of style.

In our time, establishing identity is a real challenge because
there are so many places and so many people.If you allow a
pluralism of styles -- if you say ''A lot of styles can go here, or
any style'' -- you lose the opportunity to establish identity.


For full article please check out:

href=http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba2000-04-26.htm

This article was originally referenced by Tom Evenson.
Thanks Tom. It is wonderful.

Finally, We would like to say that we like many of the modern homes in the neighborhood, and we love living here. We just think that Prospect should be careful of the balance so that we do not spoil it.



By Scott & Terri Musser

Beg to differ

Mark,
While I agree with your general philosophy, I beg to
differ with the details. ''Traditional styles'', by the very
nature of its meaning, implies that it has withstood the
test of time, it has been tested many times over, and has
established a means for expression within guidelines
that increase the probability of appeal. ''Modernism''
(or ''liberal design'') allows for greater freedom of
expression and provides for new innovations but has a
greater chance for loss of general appeal as time
progresses. There have been new innovations in
architectural styles that have emerged in the last century
which, so far, appear to have withstood the test of
several decades. So, yes, new styles continue to
emerge. However, far more of these ''new'' styles have
not and will not meet the test. Because liberal
composition does not have the established guidelines
for increasing the probability of appeal over time, the
designer must (or at least should) put much more effort
and thought into every detail. Frank Lloyd Wright, one
of the great architects of our time, has been successful
because, while he was innovative in his styles, he payed
particular attention to the way in which his structures
blended with the surroundings. Liberal styles which
have been created simply for the shock factor, I fear,
will not stand the test of time, particularly when their
contrast to the surroundings have been accentuated by
clashing colors and discord.

Kiki put a lot of time and effort into the layout of this
neighborhood. I think it was done right from the
beginning. The least that could be done is to give the
same meticulous consideration to every detail of the
liberally designed building which will be here for many
years to come, irrespective of whether the style passes
the test of time.

Sincerely
X-man

By X-man