Style vs. Design

I've been thinking about this concept for some time...and don't know if I've yet fully formed the thoughts. Maybe this will be more of a "thinking out loud" exercise. And Doug's comments help frame the discussion.

Redefining words to mean what we want them to mean seems to be in vogue these days. So, I'll provide my own definitions. I don't think that they're that far off from the "official" meanings. First, style. For the sake of this discussion, style is the "decoration" applied to design. Design would be the arrangement of the elements to accomplish the intent. These might be a bit awkward...so I'll give an example from a different field. In music, we have many styles...rock, jazz, country, western, blues, classical (with its many sub categories), etc. These are independent styles of music. Within each style there are an infinite number of compositions, or "designs." The "design" is related to the style, but in many ways independent. Or, better put, the style provides a framework for the design.

Using the example above, a design is dependent upon the style its derived from. You could also have a lack of style (I don't mean bad taste, but being void of style) and still have a design.

I think that one of the problems we have with residential architecture is that style has been divorced from design. Things are designed without an understanding of the rules imposed by a particular style.

Before I go to far with that idea, I want to discuss that some styles impose strict design rules. Classical proportioning systems are very particular about how things work. New England Colonial architecture has certain design elements that are required by the styles. A southwestern adobe house has different arrangements than a center hall colonial. These design rules are typically driven by the climate and geography of the land where the style originated.

What styles are currently popular? Arts & Crafts, Prairie, "traditional" (a word that seems to have no real meaning), craftsman. These are the types of houses that people seem to want. If we look at the original structures designed in these styles, we'll see that they have common architectural elements...and these are more than just the "decorative" elements. Plan and function are important to these designs. When somebody wants an "arts & crafts" house today, there is little thought to what that means. Is that a craftsman bungalow? If so, which sub-type?
But I don't think we can be too picky... I think one of the things post-post-modern architecture has given us is the ability to think through the design on more than a superficial level. As Doug pointed out, our house was designed to reinforce certain living patterns and create new ones. So far, it appears to be successful at this. But the "style" of design I chose for didn't really exist. The lot precluded certain common formal arrangments. I knew the feeling I wanted was a "Scandinavian modern." What's that? Something I've made up. It's a my mix of Alvar Aalto, Eero Saarinen, what I remember I liked when I lived in Finland and the influnce of my father (and to a lesser degree my mother). It's a "modern" sensiblity with the warmth of Wright. The style was made up out of whole cloth. In this case, the style was created to match the design. I could have trimmed it out in a more "traditional" way...dressed it up with elements that might have evoked a different feel, something more like our neighbor's house. We can dress up designs that work for today with just about any style.

So, we've turned the rule upside down...or maybe is an associative rule (A=B and B=A). The design was a framework for the style to be worked out.

So there it is...style is not design and design is not style, but they are related and need to be considered in light of each other.

Thanks Doug...but!

I appreciate Doug's comments regarding design and life patters. However, I want to take exception with one thing he said. He said I wouldn't care what somebody else's opinion of my house is. This isn't entirely true. I do want to here critical thought about what other people think. I recognize that this our house is designed for us. I also realize that the style of the house may not be to everyone's liking (more about style in a different post). I also am aware of mistakes and defects in the house...some design problems, some related to the challenges we faced during the construction of it. And, there are things that are related to the budget...I'd like to have done this or that but knew I didn't have money for this or that.

I do care about thoughtful critique, which is different than criticism in the typical use of the word. I want to know what could have been better so next time (probably not on my house), it will be better.

Why the google links?

You may ask why the competitor links with the Google ads? Well...because, we know you're out and about surfing the 'net looking for interesting stuff on residential design. We also know that not everybody is a good fit for our firm (but we'd like to think so). And we know that if we can help you in your quest, including Google links, then we'll help you out. So, enjoy the blog, and the links.

The joys of living in good design...

A couple of months ago, we moved in to our new house. This blog was going to chronicle that process...but like most best laid plans, it didn't happen. It did get chronicled at a different site, the Mäkilehto site. The construction occured over the winter and into spring. We learned a few things. First, the contractors and subcontracts that are selected are most important. I was the general contractor for our project and I probably wouldn't do it again for the first time (let's see if I can explain that a bit better. I'd never do it if it were my first or second time general contracting my own project. I might do it if I have done it before. But, since you can't have experience until after you've had the experience, I'd not do it again).

When designing a home, there are things you can plan for...like specific views, functionality and flow. The hope is that these things actually work as designed. I think most of these things worked out pretty well. One regret is the garage isn't any bigger, but that was more a funcition of site limitations and budget than a design problem. There are few other things, too...like the window at the master bath tub needs to have an 8" lower sill and if we'd had the money, the living room would have had another bank of windows looking west (essentially, the entire wall would be windows). The last thing is that I'd have put communications wiring conduit everywhere.

But the things I've been pleasantly surprised about is just how much the outdoors is part of the house. There are great views of the woods from each window. And each level has a different view of the woods. From the lower level walk-out we have views of the forest floor. From the main level, we look through the canopy...a view that I've found to be rare. It's a great view, too. We have a wood pecker that visits a tree outside our dining room window, we see the squirrels in the trees. We also have a view above the canopy and above the trees (can see about 20-25 miles out). Where I grew up, I was used to seeing sunsets. It's been a long time since the sunset was a daily part of life. In this house, they are again. The last view which I don't think I expected, is of the stars from the living room. On a clear night, we can look out at the stars from our living room sofa. That, I do think, is rather uncommon.

We're looking forward to seeing how winter looks...