Comments on: Trend watch: Great Rooms again http://cultureby.com/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: I Love Everything http://cultureby.com/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html/comment-page-1#comment-6746 I Love Everything Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:35:23 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1022#comment-6746 <strong>"The Great Room" WTF?</strong> This guy keeps thinking about great rooms: http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html “The Great Room” WTF?

This guy keeps thinking about great rooms:

http://www.cultureby.com/trilogy/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html

]]> By: jack Callahan http://cultureby.com/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html/comment-page-1#comment-6745 jack Callahan Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:28:39 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1022#comment-6745 In my (limited) experience with great rooms, which have been located in moderate-sized suburban homes, it seems that activities in the such spaces tend to be flawed. That is, the privacy and isolation required for reading, working and studying and the noise and interaction that are generated by conversation, play, television or music tend to collide, reducing the quality of both. An attempt to combine dinner for Dad and homework for Offspring while other Offspring watches Donald Trump fire people results in mediocre results for individual activities and no actual group activity. The choice between formal living and dining and Great Rooms is a false choice. A selection of casual options can be designed, in which noise-generating activities and private activites each have their place. And with regard to your end question, am I too cynical in suggesting that, rather than the trend setting in train construction expeditures, the desire for construction expenditures is a driver of this (and other) design trends? In my (limited) experience with great rooms, which have been located in moderate-sized suburban homes, it seems that activities in the such spaces tend to be flawed. That is, the privacy and isolation required for reading, working and studying and the noise and interaction that are generated by conversation, play, television or music tend to collide, reducing the quality of both.

An attempt to combine dinner for Dad and homework for Offspring while other Offspring watches Donald Trump fire people results in mediocre results for individual activities and no actual group activity.

The choice between formal living and dining and Great Rooms is a false choice. A selection of casual options can be designed, in which noise-generating activities and private activites each have their place.

And with regard to your end question, am I too cynical in suggesting that, rather than the trend setting in train construction expeditures, the desire for construction expenditures is a driver of this (and other) design trends?

]]> By: liz http://cultureby.com/2005/02/trend_watch_gre.html/comment-page-1#comment-6744 liz Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:47:42 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1022#comment-6744 I don't know about "great rooms" -- I do however have a clear memory of my dad (who was a small scale subdivision developer in the land of Eichler) squeezing every inch into the "family rooms" of the tract homes they were building in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hmmn. I haven't been inside an original Eichler in a long time, but I think they were marked by the open plan --read, great room -- as a selling point. (more on Eichlers here www.eichlernetwork.com/FAQ.html very popular on the San Francisco peninsula) You know what is striking me about teardowns? One of the things I wonder about is the trend (again on the SF Peninsula) of squeezing a house onto the maximum square footage of a lot. This seems to be a clear value shift to me from the late 1970s/early 1980s (and earlier) -- there IS no side yard or back "yard" -- the distance from the house to the back lot line is about 20 feet maximum. Why would you buy a single family home if your privacy from the neighbors is so compromised? Why would you buy a single family home if there is no room for the kids to play? I can understand why a family would want more square footage of living space, but it seems to make the advantages of suburban living disappear. The spacing between houses is on the urban model, without any of the urban conveniences (like convenient shopping, walking distance to other amenities, etc.). I don’t know about “great rooms” — I do however have a clear memory of my dad (who was a small scale subdivision developer in the land of Eichler) squeezing every inch into the “family rooms” of the tract homes they were building in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hmmn. I haven’t been inside an original Eichler in a long time, but I think they were marked by the open plan –read, great room — as a selling point. (more on Eichlers here

http://www.eichlernetwork.com/FAQ.html

very popular on the San Francisco peninsula)

You know what is striking me about teardowns?

One of the things I wonder about is the trend (again on the SF Peninsula) of squeezing a house onto the maximum square footage of a lot. This seems to be a clear value shift to me from the late 1970s/early 1980s (and earlier) — there IS no side yard or back “yard” — the distance from the house to the back lot line is about 20 feet maximum.

Why would you buy a single family home if your privacy from the neighbors is so compromised? Why would you buy a single family home if there is no room for the kids to play?

I can understand why a family would want more square footage of living space, but it seems to make the advantages of suburban living disappear.

The spacing between houses is on the urban model, without any of the urban conveniences (like convenient shopping, walking distance to other amenities, etc.).

]]>