While this article does make the valid point that a lot of the 'new' prefab architecture is probably more expensive than it needs to be (and how much architecture actually bearing a designer's name isn't?) it makes the error of trying to criticize Modernist prefab housing for not being something it is deliberately designed NOT to be; mainstream. In the past century Modernist designers did aspire to devise a mainstream prefab architecture and, yes, they did largely fail at the attempt. In North America especially, Modernism failed to become a mainstream aesthetic because it was so often physically relegated to the edge of wilderness or the corporate environment while the mainstream culture turned away from impressions of a future the Cold War made seem increasingly dystopian or apocalyptic, retreating into compulsive nostalgia and fantasy. Indeed, in the US even the science fiction stopped being about any plausible science or future, Disney's Tomorrowland turned retro-futurist, while EPCOT turned into Celebration Florida. Contemporary Modernist prefab is simply not intended to be 'world housing'. It's not trying to be the next Dymaxion House. It's about personal expression. Few if any of today's community of Modernist designers harbor aspirations of mainstream appeal. They understand full-well they are now designing for a specific segment of society with a different set of tastes and values. That this tends to be a more well-heeled community with more freedom of choice in housing is reflective of the demographics common to people who appreciate that aesthetic; highly educated upwardly-mobile professionals. Perhaps the only remaining segment of the Western society that still harbors some hope for a positive future while feeling personally empowered to some degree to realize it and thus inclined to an aesthetic that embodies that attitude. No surprise, this is the exact same demographic that dominates sustainable architecture, and that's a field of design that gets much the same kind of criticism. It's illogical to criticize Modernism for being unpopular when, today, it exists to be different. That's like criticizing a designer for being a non-conformist. His whole career is based on standing out from the crowd. Or like criticizing the Macintosh for not being a PC. Or perhaps it is more accurate an analogy to say it is like the A student in a class of C students who gets mocked by students and teachers alike for throwing the classroom's grade curve off! One must bear in mind that mainstream residential architecture is a kind of vernacular architecture evolved by the common system of real estate development to suit its own ends. It's not designed for people, it's designed for banks. It embodies a lowest-common-denominator composite in aesthetics for the simple purpose of liquidity which, given the nature of the mainstream culture today, is generally based on pandering to nostalgic memories -or idealized fantasies- of childhood and rather cartoonish impressions of 'luxury'. It is, to be blunt, doll housing. That's what bankers think most of us will 'settle for' and so that's all developers looking to make a 'safe' speculation build and that's all most middle-class people ever get because they don't really have any choice. When people have enough wealth that they can really be free of this trap and make whatever they want, without concerns for what bankers think or whether or not they have to sell a house in the future, the end result is very often very different from the so-called mainstream. One need only look at the diversity in vacation/retirement housing -much of it kit-based- to see this. Obviously, freedom of choice isn't a guarantee of good taste -as demonstrated by North America's wealthiest segment of the population who all too often seem to derive their sense of aesthetics from the same source as the late Saddam Hussein. But at least it's a free expression. You can't really say that about the so-called mainstream architecture. That's the product of a market system, not people's actual personalities -or for that matter even the practical demands of local environment.

Oh, and where did my paragraphs all go? Seems to be some kind of bug in this dodgy message editing software...

You probably sent this from a Mac running Safari. Slate just "fixed" the Fray, and did so in a way that rejects formatting from "nonstandard" browsers. you could try Firefox instead, or get used to writing one-paragraph posts. Think of it as an odd form of discipline.

Excellent post, by the way. Sure, we long for the People's House (the Volkshaus?) that would be a cross between the Sears&Roebuck kit house and the Eames house, maybe designed by the Mockbee students for affordability and DIY access. Those are all the names i want to drop into the discussion. Now I'm gonna reread your post, as I have a nagging suspicion you've already dealt with this...

Oh, but you have and yet have not. The issue is affordability, and you address it in terms of what the banks will finance. I remember Mockbee agreeing with you, saying that the middle class is pretty much screwed out of any hope of living in homes that are either aesthetically conceived or genuinely vernacular: instead they get crap with sugar on top. The rich get the housing they want and, courtesy of the Rural Studio, so do some of the poor. There was a nice time when artsy types could live in rehabbed industrial lofts and enjoy all that space for not a huge amount of money, but that ship has sailed unless you want to live in Pittsburgh (and maybe there as well). Affordability again! It's really more an impediment than an agenda item. Wright was committed to affordability, at least for the Usonian project, and Bucky Fuller had his own universal dream house, but for a hell of a lot of boomers, the dream has always been Eames and the case study houses: plywood, glass and lots and lots of space. Maybe not feasable as a prefab, but as a kit house from prefab units, quite doable: legos for adults.

I think you are both on to the central jist of the reality Americans face in aspiring for shelter that they can afford. Choice, or the lack there of, is a major component in what drives both design and cost of shelter in the market place. The mantra "Location, Location, Location" is derived from the process of choosing.

If the future of housing is to have an asthetic I expect it to come from efforts like the Loblloly House on the Maryland Chesapeak.

Living in a Florida, I prefer a little "poured" concrete in my walls. Homestead AFB had several prefab hangers rated for 200 mph winds that failed at considerable lower winds than that.

I don't know whether this is way off topic, but no house is ever in a vacuum (at least not yet), so matters like schools, access to transportation, libraries and such, all come into play. I live in washington DC, where the commuting traffic is worse than any other city in america. People out in Fairfax commute for hours every morning, and they aren't going all that far. The roads are totally inadequate and Virginia won't build anything better for a bunch of reasons. But the schools out in fairfax are good, from a striver standpoint, so people move out there and live in depressing and overpriced shitbox housing, all so they can reproduce the hell that middle-class life has become for them for one more generation. Yay. Meanwhile, there is lots of ARCHITECTURALLY superior housing available to them in the District, much closer to their jobs, but they don't want it. This may not be the right context for discussing WHY this is the case, but i just wanted to point out that it is.

Melvy,

I really want to say thanks for reminding me why living in the midwest is really the best.

250,000 dollars will buy what takes 1.5 million in many other parts of the country. This on a large sometimes massive scenic lot within 45 minutes of almost anywhere one needs to go.

Or for only 100,000 a well built 1950s ranch that is going to probably outlast every mcMansion built during the last decade and a half. Thats still in a decent neigborhoods near parks and surrounded by mature trees with sidewalks and neighbors you can share cookouts with.

We may not have salty air but many think thats a good thing too.