A Bathroom for Guidos

We have an interesting half bath in the new house.

This just makes me want to fistpump upon entering.  The best part: to the right of this picture you see a toilet.  Next to that toilet is a designated urinal.  Just took the classiness up a notch.

Fugly Architecture Thursday - Hot Hot Hot Las Vegas Style!

Today's spotlight isn't on the form of the building (we al know Vegas sure has some fugly "winners" in that category), but more so a particular building's "effects" on its visitors.

The Vdara hotel in Las Vegas is a brand spanking new luxury Hotel that is a center piece of the Vegas CityCenter.  Its actually a very sleek, simple looking building, covered entirely in glass curtain walls.

(source)

But in an unfortunate case of an architect not paying attention to context (the fact that this building is in Las Vegas) and conditions (once again, that this building is in Las Vegas) the design has been found to have a major flaw.  Luxury does abound at this hotel... unless you make the fateful decision to relax by the pool.

Apparently guests have complained of receiving severe burns from a 'death ray' of sunlight caused by the unique concave design of the building.

'It felt like I had a chemical burn. I couldn't imagine why my head was burning,Within 30 seconds, the back of my legs were burning. My first though was, 'Jesus, they destroyed the ozone layer!" - guest Bill Pintas (source) 

This illustration does a great job of explaining the issue:

(source)

Not only does the insanely hot Nevada sun cook the guests "bathing" next to the pool, but it also moves as the sun moves -- There's no escape from the most luxurious "death ray" ever!

The article I first read about this design "dilemma" mentions that the designers, RV Architecture, LLC & Leo A. Daly (AOR) knew about the problem before anything was built, but figured that a "protective film" on the glass wall would help fix the problem.  Ummm, I may not be a licensed architect, but maybe flipping the building so the concave side didnt face south OR not designing a building entirely clad in glass in NEVADA would have fixed the problem.

Architects are taught in school and reminded regularly that their designs should always keep the "health, saftey and welfare" of the people occupying their buildings first and foremost in any design.  I'm guessing that doesn't  really apply to those outside of their buildings.  A HUGE Tsk Tsk designers.  Lesson: Cool design isn't always the most safety conscious

Fugly Architecture Thursday - when bad renovations happen to good homes

This post hits a little too close to home.  Its not really the architecture that's heinous -its merely an early 1990s addition to a Victorian shotgun.  However, its the manner in which an addition was done to said Victorian shotgun and what it has created that is the criminal act.

What makes it worse is that it is our house :-(

I highlighted some water issues that had created a bit of a situation when we initially moved in back in this post.  Mr. Bama, being super handy man that he is, fixed the asthetic ramifications of the problem, but didnt solve the root of problem.  Our awesome landlady got on trying to find the problem and after calling some contractors, found out that we needed gutters and it would help, at least a little.  Gutters installed, problem still not fixed.  Nothing was happening to the problem spot (damage semmed to be contained), but it was evident something was continuing to be wrong at the front of the house.  Here, in the early 90s they added a section for the bedroom to bump out onto part of  the front porch that once spanned the whole front of the house.  Great solution for more added square footage, if you do it right.

Turns out, someone forgot to install the flashing from the old roof to the new roof correctly and brace the bay window properly.  Therefore, while the bones of the original house are in great condition, the "new" construction was not waterproofed correctly and therefore has allowed the introduction of awesome things like water and wood eating bugs into the house.  The actual wood siding had holes in it from where water had just bore down on it.  It was apparent that the construction company that did the addition had NO business putting new additions on old buildings.

So our land lady decided to make the call and have the siding replaced (I truly dont think she knew the extent of the damage that was only showing a little bit on the outside).  When I walked outside to talk shop to the really great workmen tearing off our siding, it went something like this:

nice man working on the house: "well really, a lot of the damage seems due to the age of the studs and that they're just old wood "  

me: "um, actually this addition was done in the early 1990s"

Nice man: "oh.................wow"

Needless to say it was pretty bad -  The sill plate on that addition had almost disappeared and the water-repellent membrane was torn to shreds (note: if you're not architecturally/construction savvy, this just means the structure was compromised and the elements that kept water out were pretty much gone). 

Pardon the crummy picture, but this is the front of our house after they removed the
siding 3 days ago.This is NOT good!
The wall studs were whittling away  to nothing.

If our huge tree in front of the house wasn't in the way, you'd see the holes in the

siding about 5-6 planks of wood-siding up.

Yay new studs!  Yay new felt water-repellant membrane! yay new WOOD siding!

I was also pretty nervous that they would be puting something cheap and terrible for the building, like vinyl siding, onto the house in place of the old wood siding.  Vinyl is unattractive, completely inappropriate for historic homes, temporary and a totally NOT green building material.  Image how happy I was when they pulled out pretty wide board WOOD siding! It had the same form, but isn't as decorative as the siding on the original part of the house.  This is completely fine, since the new materials shouldn't even attempt to mimic the original house (it is an addition... after all) but its is still complimentary to the original siding.  

So far they've finished putting up the siding and they should be painting it in a day or two.  The awesome workers also reinforced our porch banister in addition! Moral of the story, if you are a construction company who agrees to do renovations and additions to historic buildings, PLEASE keep in mind that old and new construction techniques are NOT the same and odds are, the older techniques are hands and feet more solid than anything constructed now a days.  You need to know how to properly match up the old and new construction so that you do not allow the elements in and that your new construction does not compromise the integrity of the original structure  Because if you don't think of that, the result isn't just fugly, it's expensive and very damaging.

Fugly Architecture Thursday - Cinema Style

This is a heart breaker of sorts.  For those who don't know me / are new to this blog, I will fill you in on some of my background - I have a Master's in Architecture.  However I also have an Undergraduate Degree in Historic Preservation and a Master's certificate in Historic Preservation.  This means, in short, that I am obsessed slightly with historic buildings.  I love their construction, their decades/centuries of stories, the feeling you get when you walk into a historic building, as well as an overwhelming sense of their infinite possibilities.  I despise the modern idea that old = useless, context is there only to be ignored and the only possibilities for a historic building is as a home or a museum (Fact: I also despise house museums.  Useless waste of awesome potential).  Adaptive reuse design is a passion of mine and something i absolutely loved doing back in grad school.  To hell with new buildings, bring on the old stuff.

So this brings me to today's post.  In New Orleans, we have a bit of a shortage of theatres that are within the city (minus the new canal place theatres).  But located in the Garden District, nestled next to small homes and boutiques, is a quaint little theatre that dates back to 1915.  The Prytania Theatre  is the only single screen theatre left in the state of Louisiana and really is a treasured establishment.  While it specializes in playing art films and movies from Hollywood's golden age, it is equipped with 3D technology, so you can see Inception in 3D right next door to your little shotgun house.  

The only problem?  Urban renewal and the idea that "old is ugly" that plagued the country in 1960.  So this quaint little theatre went from this lovely Italianate building:

to this:

Look mommy, a brick box!  I half expect to walk through the archway entrance and hop in a boat for a ride through the "tunnel of love" rather than going to see Toy Story 3.   This building has absolutely no character and, like last week's feature, NO respect for context (its in the Garden District for heaven's sake!!).  On the plus side: at least it isn't clad in steel or vinyl siding or, heaven forbid, turned into a museum. *shudder*

The return of Fugly Architecture Thursday

I had a blog post all ready to go last night, and then I recieved a challenge on twitter by one of my best friends from grad school to resurrect my "Fugly Architecture Thursday" series.  I hadn't thought about it since I left grad school, but I had definitely seen my fair share of nasty looking buildings here in New Orleans. and one automatically jumped to the front in my mind. 

When people think of what lines the shores of the scenic Mississippi River, usually the image of stately antebellum plantations, bustling ports and sprawling parks come to mind.  That's semi-true in new Orleans.

Enter the Army Corps of Engineers.  Yes, yes, I know they have a terrible reputation post-Katrina (which they are working tirelessly to redeem themselves in current work), but NOTHING will redeem them for this abomination of a building.

Does anyone else think it looks remarkably just like a bunker?  Stretching four blocks in the VERY historic uptown/Black Pearl area, it is constructed of  steel panels and glass.  Those materials can be beautiful if used in an appropriate way.  BUT, this is what happens when an engineer is brought in to do an architect's job.  My husband's an engineer and loves this building because it is "practical."  He makes my case for me.  Granted, it can withstand hurricane force winds, but so can most of the gorgeous historic New Orleans buildings that have done that very task for centuries without looking like a building from Soviet Russia.  And just so you don't think it is only the back that looks horrid, here's the view from the Mississippi:

What a view!  At least they incorporated curves on this side as well as that fancy little fanned portico over the entrance.  So now it has gone from looking like a Cold-war era bunker to a Soviet designed cruise ship (which come to think about it, wouldn't be a fun cruise at all...).  Oh engineers, when will you learn that yes, form should follow function, but form should also follow CONTEXT!

I would LOVE to hear your comments about this particular fugly piece of architecture (do you agree or disagree with me?).  Also, if you have your own peice of fugly architecture that you pass every day, I'd love to feature it on what looks like will be an every Thursday feature.  All hail ugly architecture!

Fugly Architecture Thursday

Introduction of new weekly (ok, probably bi-weekly) segment entitled : Fugly Architecture Thursday.

On Wednesday myself and the girls in the research center I work at were horrified and then just astonished by this horrendous 20 story luxury apartment development proposed for Gramercy Park, NYC. Yup those two little colorful blocks in the midst of that glazed mess are historical apartments that are being built around with NO consideration whatsoever.

vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com

But then you say: well at least those considerate developers are taking account of whats already there and building around the existing historical context. Oh contrare! I say in return. Check this more recent rendering out of the SAME proposed development looking up the other side of the road:

NYTimes.com

Yup, you guessed it: they've created different schemes based upon the amount of existing tenants (in those lovely little apartments) that will give up their homes and businesses so a faceless, region-less, once again - glazed mess of a building would go in their place. Note: the original scheme was to cantilever the new building over the existing collection of unique buildings... an actually very attractive, human in scale and historically sympathetic scheme (seen below)

but NOPE.. once bullying one resident out of the area was successful the cantilevering was nixed and the buildings were planned to come down and have glazing put in its place. Now note that i am NOT against development... communities thrive on it, and I hope to enter the preservation associated part of the field after graduation. But honestly, there are SOME responsibilities that need to be assumed when anyone purchases a property or properties: if a historic building is on the property, assume the responsibility of taking care of it and being respectful of something that existed long before you ever held a deed. If you don't want the responsibility, then awesome... sell the property and move on. The most successful spaces are those that are pre-existing that daring developers take on and create a unique live/work space for people to live their lives. Humans do not want cookie cutter sterile environments. Why do you think that studio apartments which have been converted from historic warehouses are in such high demand?

Okay, rant over, but you best believe more will be coming down the road.

oh, and just if you're wondering, this is what that block looks like right now. I want one of those quaint little balconies.