Literally.
Bill Carpenter, president of Lightroom Architecture, sent us renderings of the house he designed, which is currently being built at 329 South McDonough Street in Decatur.
Being part of the MAK Historic District, the house puts on a traditional face along the “right-of-way”, but a peek into the backyard (after the jump) reveals a completely different house style at the rear.
Latest from Decaturish
Rival
AMB
Daydreamer
theron wasson
theron wasson
AMB
Rick Julian
theron wasson
Heather S
AMB
Rick Julian
Keith F
Heather S
Robert Butera
SteveC
That is awesome. I was wondering why it seemed like a house on the set of a Western movie.
DM: sorry, you’re going to revoke my DM Frequent Commenter card, but please study the definitions and usage of peak/peek/pique! Thanks!
Yeah jeez, I do that A LOT!
ALOT!
Pretty sure “a lot” is two words.
I NO!
We could “allot” all posters one grammer error per week. That’d make a lot of us happy, me thinks.
So Steve, shall that post count as your one allowable “grammar” error?
It is easy to remember how to spell grammar. Your “grammer” is married to your “grandiddy”.
The MAK neighbors hated this house, by the way, and it barely got approved 3-2 by the HPC.
What are their objections?
Probably tradition does not like to be duped.
What a crock. It’s not like neighbors-to-be are trying to build crack houses, strip clubs, or tattoo parlors in their “uniquely traditional” neighborhoods. Nothing says welcome neighbor like, you can build your own house here, but it must, and will, look the way we want it.
Again, what a crock–where’s Teeruss when you need him?
The people with their very large houses up on the hill on Adams Street did not want to look at the flat roof on the rear of the house.
Really – that’s what they said and they got two votes.
Look up the minutes on the City website.
Okay, no surprise there (more’s the pity). Thanks for letting me be lazy and not look it up for myself. (Investing even that much time and energy is likely to make me indignant, and life is short and I have a more pressing list of things to fret about.)
That flat roof would make a terrific billboard space…
They could plant a garden on the flat roof!
Double bang: Say it with flowers!
If I ever get a shed, I’m painting a big ol’ smiley face on its roof for my “looking down” neighbors!
Also good for finding your lot in those aerial views of online map sites!
dang. Where’s spell check when you need it!?!?@?
Probably that it looks like a McHouse in the front and a McHaus in the back. An architectural mullet.
That’s pretty funny: tradition up front, innovation out back.
I wonder why they aren’t trimming out the windows and why they are using green lights? Is that traditional?
Well, the hybrid looks God-awful. Good luck on future resell of that Franken-house!
But maybe there is a blackhole in the middle where you pass from the 1920’s to the 2010’s? Nothing like curling up on a Corbusier lounge with Nana’s old handcrafted quilt…and a book on what makes for good design…and bad.
I pretty much agree. It’s hideous, but that’s my taste and if it meets district zoning regs, not my problem!
I must admit that my thoughts and opinions on this topic have evolved – if not outright changed – over the last couple years. I gave the Rainshine House a lot of unnecessary grief a ways back.
Anywho, I find this house a rather unique and interesting response to a local historic district. I’m not entirely sure if this is true, but it looks like a home owner who wanted a modern house with a lot of glass, but had a piece of property in a historic district.
So, you’d prefer double-hung windows, a traditional side gable, wood siding, and a bunch of other things to face the street. Fine. Here they are. Now since this a “visible from the right-of-way” district and not a four sides district (like Druid Hills), they’re more than welcome to build whatever they’d like off the back. (I’m not sure what the argument to vote against this project was, but it shouldn’t have been based on the rear building if it’s not visible.
Historic Districts in evolving cities and neighborhoods aren’t a perfect solution. They’re a band-aid. They’re a reaction to long-standing policies and legislative incentives that make tearing down an old house and building a new one easier and cheaper than renovating an old one. So instead of a community where change is natural, unhindered by policy or a commission, but still gradual (a bunch of rehab and a few, new contemporary houses here and there) we have rapid, thoughtless growth that makes a lot of people naturally uneasy. So we create these boards, which are tasked with applying consistent standards, to mitigate these overwhelming changes to our communities.
But while they may – at best! – be consistent, preservation commissions often struggle with allowing the individuality and variety within perimeters that is so easily accomplished when people are restricted, not by ordinances, but by costs and availability of supplies. So, the only real long term “solution” to this issue is actually higher energy costs and drastic changes to building incentives. Until then, many districts who hold their character in high regard, will make the trade-off of greater restriction for less dramatic, thoughtless change.
But folks should remember that this is INDEED a trade-off. There are things gained AND lost when you become a historic district, and when considering decisions, we should keep in mind not just the proper restrictions, but also make sure we don’t get any more in the way of allowing a community to evolve than is absolutely necessary.
Definition of PEEK
1a : to look furtively b : to peer through a crack or hole or from a place of concealment —often used with in or out
2: to take a brief look : glance
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peek
Uh…thanks?
Anyone with the means to build a new home in this economy (read: help the local economy)should be able to build whatever they want (within zoning and code regulations). Preserving an existing structure I agree with (a little), but to require that someone adhere to a outdated, bygone era of architecture on a piece of property is troubling (sentimental hogwash). Especially when the 2 vote opposition was due to what lofty well to do neighbors (who are not , I don’t think contributing any funding, yet oddly is generous with opinions ). That’s why there are property lines. I think it the design is a good, neighborly compromise.
It was an empty lot.
I don’t really mind the house at all. The back looks pretty cool, I wish the whole house had just been done in the style of the back as that would probably make the owner happier. I understand there are laws preventing tearing down old buildings and building mcmansions, and making crazy additions to old buildings. However, I think if a building is in very bad shape and has to come down (or a lot is already vacant), an interesting modern building is an excellent addition to our diverse neighborhood! I presume an interesting new building would always have to pass some general codes, so how bad could it get? I doubt someone who has the money to buy a Decatur City lot and the money to build a brand new large-ish house in Decatur will just build a cheap low-end place with no discussions at all with an architect etc…..
If they wanted to build that then they should have bought a lot that was not in an historical district.
Yes, so neighbors can decide what house they build–thanks!
THANK YOU for posting this — I drive by this house every day & was thinking I might need to do a (long) walk over & check around this weekend. You can see stairs going up from the front door — but it looks like they dead end into the back wall of the front part. It’s been driving me NUTS — where do the stairs go?
Do you think the architect would send over the floor plans? I may still have to go check it out.
He actually sent those to me as well. I’ll post them tomorrow for you!
Oooh! Are you taking requests?! *waving dollar*
can you also get the plans for the brick house going up a few doors down? they’re building that one in a crazy way — front porch & some weird fireplace in the back built first & then more brick stuff & now the framing… those two houses make that stretch of mcdonough a very interesting drive.
Here are the floor plans.
I stopped and walked into this house today. It’s absolutely amazing.
Seriously, this place is so cool inside that I could EASILY see this house profiled in an issue of Dwell:
http://www.dwell.com/
DM- The “Mullet” analogy fits perfectly on several levels. Just as the long locks in the back of a mullet wearer’s head mock any nod at tradition sported in the front, so does the theory/strategy behind this design. Furthermore, like the mullet, which has gained cultish cred for being so outlandish, it could be argued that this design is an intentional snub to the facade rules. Look at the rendering, the letter of the rule is followed ( each feature is ticked off in a sassy kind of way ) but the spirit of the rules are mocked. Is the architect trying to be cynically clever? Probably so. Hopefully the space will be nice and well constructed. Nothing is worse than being stuck with a bad thought experiment. “Joe Dirt” was funny, but I wouldn’t want to own it.
Don’t get me wrong- I support the owner’s property rights, and this will probably turn out to be an awesome space. I’m just commenting on the theory/motivations/causal factors behind the design.
I like it. It reminds me of the Tully-Smith plantation at the Atlanta History Center. Two side chimneys and a front guest room would be nice additions.
Looking around this AM, it looks like the open “modern” (is it really modern or a take off on mid-century styles??) glass walls are really glass walls. Just sort of a tail of regular house with larger windows being wrapped with regular siding.
I meant to say AREN’T glass walls. I can see
way too effort I am spending typing this…. and still screwing up :/