LAND OF THE FREE?

October + November 2019

At the climax of the Star Spangled Banner you can sense the goosebumps in your vicinity as the performer elongates the last syllable of ‘Freeeeeee’. This moment captures a country that believes itself to be a land of opportunities and unrivalled potential. Which for the most part, with a touch of luck, this can be true.

After the Second World War the US economy boomed. This prosperous period allowed the inherent creed of the US anthem to find full momentum, leading to one of the most innovative eras of architectural housing ever built. It was these houses scattered across the Hollywood hills and in the Palm Springs desert that incentivised my move to the US. I arrived keen to gather a deeper understanding of how these houses were designed and also the setting in which they were able to be realised.

These houses had a sense of design freedom and vigour that drew the excitement out of a talented generation of architects looking to make their mark on the new western frontier of the US. These architects were able to execute their ideas in a manner that I have unfortunately started to recognise is now very difficult to achieve in present day California. This post will explore how through the increased regulatory systems at numerous levels of government has created a restricted state, within a country still trying to convey unparalleled opportunities.

The underlying success of my favourite projects in mid-century California all have the same thing in common – an ambitious concept executed holistically. Projects such as the Stahl House, Eames House, Kings Road Residence, Frey House II and Edris House, are simple pavilions that embrace the warm and dry climate of Southern California. These houses are often epitomised by a simple expression of their structural systems and the elimination of anything that restricts the connection between inside and out. 

Mid-century design embraced several new inventions simultaneously - prompting countless revolutionary designs to spawn. These systems, such as residential structural steel and reinforced concrete, allowed for concepts like the open plan to be fully realised. These innovations were adopted nearly without restriction. This created an ability to design and execute concepts without limitations, leading to an era of design that is still envied.

Australian bureaucracy funnels down from the top, with the Federal Government and National regulations taking precedent over most items down the political and regulatory system. In the US, the power dynamic is flipped. The States and Counties have the power in implementing regulatory measures. This leads to vast differences across geographic and economic areas - simultaneously unlocking interesting opportunities in some sectors and impediments in others.

California is on the more heavily regulated end of this spectrum, California’s desire to be progressive and innovative has led to measures that whilst good intentioned, impedes the brash and unchained image of the stereotypical ‘American’. In the face of these hurdles an aesthetic mediocrity is sadly beginning to evolve, due to the effort required to manoeuvre through the requirements.

The Californian construction industry has seen these regulations steadily growing since the near guideline-free existence of the mid-century modern designers. California feels as a wealthy, progressive member of the world-stage, that it should make an effort to ensure that construction is executed at the highest quality for future generations. These measures are being implemented in a manner that looks to raise the lowest common denominator, through restricting the baseline of various design categories. This strategy works well to ensure that ‘poor’ outcomes are avoided, but regrettably does little to inspire excellence above the restrictions.

The main area that began to catch my attention as I delved deeper into architectural design in California are the sustainable design measures (CalGreen). These measures are enforced at the Building Permit phase and the reviewed for correct implementation at the end of construction. The manner in which CalGreen is enforced generally is dictated by the County. Generally it looks to make substantial improvements to the building envelope, electrical usage, water fixture consumption and reliance on mechanical systems through setting minimum requirements for these items.

The lowest common denominator strategy works really well in ensuring that all houses do not fall below certain focused elements. This works effectively in ensuring that housing development generally meets agreed upon quantitative levels.

These measures have undoubtedly improved the overall housing stock in California and reducing both its carbon, pollution and water usage footprint. These changes have also greatly restricted the ability to design freely. In this paradigm of little compromise the design excellence of bespoke architectural outcomes seems to be dwindling. Whilst this may seem like a frivolous comment, I feel that the regulatory measures are narrowly focused and disregard other opportunities to create a built outcome with a low ecological footprint.

Last year I had the pleasure of hearing Leo Marmol of Marmol Radziner present and discuss a range of their firms work across California. Most interesting was their restoration of two iconic projects of the mid-century era. The Kaufmann Desert House and the Harvey House, both located in Palm Springs.

Marmol commented that the research required to restore these Landmark buildings necessitated deep levels of research to unsure the original design of the homes were maintained. Both of these stunning homes are exemplary illustrations of mid-century design. I envy the role of Marmol in renovating these homes at an academic level, to ensure the vision of the original design was maintained.

As Marmol rounded the final bend of his talk he focused on their recent new residential work. As he talked through several of these projects I was confused. Why is the firm who intrinsically understands the lightness of the Kaufmann or Harvey house designing such chunky dwellings? The simple answer is that the CalGreen insulation requirements, coupled with the ever-present fear of being sued due to waterproofing issues, leads to ‘fat’ assemblies.

The image of the thin roofline sliding past Neutra’s iconic spider leg column detail is no longer feasible in California. Marmol presented a recent project located in Truckee. After seeing their mid-century Palm Springs work, it was hard not to feel a little disheartened. The required assemblies of both the roof, walls and openings negates the freshness innate to the houses that originally lured me to the US.

The CalGreen measures are intending to create homes that can function climatically without the need for mechanical systems. No one can argue that this is a desirable thing and that a good way to achieve this is through bulk insulation and high-performance glazing systems. I imagine that there are zero complaints from Marmol’s client in Truckee at the heart of winter when the temperatures are consistently well below freezing. However, for the majority of California these weather extremes are not the norm.

There are strategies to mitigate the visual implications of the CalGreen measures such as staggering the exterior thinner canopy assembly from the interior thicker roofing assembly. These strategies do limit the aesthetic impacts of the regulations, but inherently limit the execution of the holistic vision.

I understand the incentive to reduce any need for mechanical heating or cooling. Although I wonder if these concerns are valid in San Francisco where it rarely ever gets intolerably hot or cold – a city where it is pretty much 17 degrees Celsius every day of the year. Unfortunately at a macro level the most effective way to eliminate an over reliance on mechanical systems is to implement the current CalGreen strategy of strict minimums for all aspects that affect a houses thermal performance.

In this code check system it is impossible to not comply with each item of the regulations, even if the proposal has ecological merit through other means. Every project must meet these restrictions first. This ignores any commitment to living in a home free of mechanical systems, in a paired back, minimal design focused manner. A CalGreen non-compliant compact dwelling, designed to function passively free of mechanical systems and elaborate electrical systems can quite easily have a substantially lower ecological footprint than a large sprawling CalGreen approved villa. Sadly, for now the computer algorithm says no.

Hopefully there will be a future system that takes into account the complete ecological footprint: from material sourcing to the longevity of the design. A system that looks to emphasis the ‘carrot’ of site appropriate ecological design, rather than the ‘stick’ of general catch-all regulations.

The early inspirations of my architectural career, such as Robin Boyd’s Walsh Street House, were focused on the connection with landscape and the act of living. These houses understand the primal necessity for shelter. They understand the environment where they are located. The architects behind these work, are the type of characters who camp out on the virgin sites to understand the rise and fall of the landscape, the movement of wildlife, the flow of wind and water and the textural qualities that make the site inherently beautiful. These Australian Masters such as Richard Lepastrier or Peter Stutchbury do not start from the brief of six bedrooms and a master suite. Instead they delve deeply into the the client’s lives and aspirations and how they can be maximised on the site. 

The outcome of this mindset develops houses that suit their site perfectly. These houses understand the angle of the sun across the landscape, the ventilation winds through the site, the warm outcrops and the cool niches. The results of these projects create wonderful bespoke shelters for living. Unfortunately there is a high chance that the majority of these Australian projects would struggle to meet the strict aspect based assessment of CalGreen.

The houses that CalGreen prompts naturally leads to thickly insulated wall and roof assemblies and reduced window and door openings. These measures are a key part of California’s goal of being Carbon Neutral by 2045. However, houses in their pursuit of these goals seem to be loosing their connection with the very natural landscape that they are trying to preserve. The increases in each buildings ‘sustainability’ is creating a sterility that I am concerned will continue to push the primal need of human shelter further away from our intrinsic past. The power that a innately site connected dwelling can have on a persons life should not be underestimated.

I don’t mean to seem too disheartened about the way in which regulatory systems are attempting to achieve a more sustainable built form. There are still exemplary designs being realised. My concern mainly lies in the fact that the threshold to achieving these designs seems to be getting greater. I fear that in the pursuit of achieving a carbon neutral built form we may without realising lose sense of the importance of one of the most important intrinsic needs of human kind - a shelter that understands its connection to its natural surroundings.

The quandary of these two streams of thought is something that I am struggling to rectify. I agree with the need to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint and I applaud what California is doing and I hope it flows through to other states. I also feel that it is important to be able to design houses that perfect the act of site appropriate living.

These are concerns that architects need to continue to explore and investigate. It is crucial that we continue to develop the maximum potentials of the regulatory systems. More importantly we need to look to shape these guidelines in a direction that maximises both the design of homes and their ecological footprint. The architectural industry needs to champion the importance of design and creativity, rather than simply ticking the boxes of the CalGreen checklist.

It is an exciting time ahead for the profession. We need to embrace the desire for innovative design in a more sustainable aware era. Hopefully we can find a way to harmonise the current disconnect between ‘sustainable’ design regulations and site sculpted built forms.

Image Sources:

1. Edris House, Curbed

2. Frey House II, Dwell

3. Sheats Goldstein Residence, CNN

4. Pierre Koenig Stahl House Perspective, ROST Architects

5. Kaufmann Desert House, Mid Century Club

6. Harvey House, Marmol Radziner

7. Singleton House, Dwell

8. Schroeder Court House, Marmol Radziner

9. La Quinta House, Marmol Radziner

10. Cabbage Tree House, Peter Stutchbury Architecture

11. Sawmill House, Olson Kundig