Johnson & Favaro and Guthrie+Buresh called for a
Since the boom of the early 19505 the response to
Two Issues were considered of primary i~portance , First
Increased demand for housing has been to build Qut-
was the need for Increased urban density
or, as the
redislribution of space , transferring unused privat e space
the singl e family Mme dweller to maintain th e status
wards. With Los Angeles and Its adjoining counties
Central Office of Architecture declared, "DENSIFY OR
to the public domain. Ingeniously expanding on Ihis
quo. Revolutionary change runs COunter 10 the oulmoded
~
Synonymous with Ihe nolion of suburbia is the deSire of
spanning hundreds of square miles, planners have been
DIE: Second was the acknowledgement of the single
techniqu e, Mary-Ann Ray's designs used alleys and
fantasies of the average suburbanit e. Whether these
virtually powerless to control the growth on any but a
family residence as the icon of American capitalism, the
other voids between shuctures as the fool prints for her
radical redefinitions would be embraced within their
strictly regional level. From the taxing of resources to thfl
American Dream.
buildings, fold ing them into the crevices of the urban
alloted con texts remains the crucial question, In a panel
mesh ,
discussion on the final weekend of the exh ibition the
dilemma of transporiatiOfl, developers, too, have long
architects themselves agreed that the most effective
recognized Ihe disadvantages of expansion Into the vast
Satisfying urban demands and suburban desires, efforts
desert bul have resp<lnded to consumer demand by
which beller lend themselves to juidaposition than mar-
As if in response to the tract housing of the post-War
continuing to build centrifugally.
riage, required In most schemesa radical reinterpretation
era, most of Ihe projects includ ed several building types
of a suburban aesthetic. All of Ihe projects re<:ognized.
'with in their respective schemes. Unlike the Central Of"
Redefining the American Dream, although a seemingly
the need for re-evaluating existing zoning laws which
fice of Architecture 's uni-dimensional Love-II-or-Leav e-
Orwellian proposal, is presented with such grace and
In recent years development of tract houses in some
test would be to build them and let reality be the judge.
communities has given way to multi-story units. How-
impose set-back requirements and restrict building
It approach, designs such as Ray 's designated housing
clarity In Ihese projects that It is difficult to believe thai
ever, these seemingly obvious ,clutions do not accom -
heights.
types with spe<:ilic occupants in mind, These Included
somewhere, at some time, their precepts couldn't be
housing for Ihe homeless, transients, singles and fami-
successfully appli ed. Still open to question, however, is
modate Ihe desire of many home owners, that of Ihe private space afforded by the single family residence.
The main focus of the designers was to take advantage
lies, and Ihose who work both in and away from Ihe
whether a Los Ang ele s nearing th e millennium Is the
of avai lable space. Janek B ielski and Roger Sherman
home,
proper provin-g ground, But, then, whr!l"e beller? These architects have called allention to the obsolescence of a
In an exhibit that recently closed at the LA Municipal Art
both approached Ihls task by providing a range of op-
Gallery Roger Sherman assembled several architectural
tions for residents, eliminating set-backs and creating
Guthrie+Buresh also recognized the need to build above
desire to keep population densities low. One realizes
firms to address the iss ue of housing in response to
courtyard spaces. Uke their Medltefla nean counter-
and around existing structures to Increase the occu-
looking allhes e elegant and Inventive schemes the need
population growth In Southern California, Challenging
paris, these designs did not require the strict designa-
pancy of single lois. Their strateg ies included construct-
to awake f rom our reverie,to awake 10 the reality of the
standard building types accepted since World War II and
tion of interior and exterior space.
Ing studios over garages and adding commercial space
Dream.
admonishing the f_ recent attempts by deYelopers to
In lieu of front lawns in order 10 take fu ll advantage of
meet the demands of urban dwelling, Ihe archit ects
usable land,
Alison Lynn
altered environ ment. (Residents might as well be told
p.esented projects that acknowledge not only the basic demands of the maturing city but also the intangible deSires of Its inhabitants. To this end was proposed RE; American Dream.
Dream on
Architects and city planners don't always see eye to eye
Los Angeles views Itself as a series of small towns and
show that advocate measures such as losing paris of
with the public about the desirability of Increasing the
neighborhoods, Densiflcation represents the death of
backyards for an alley would undoubtedly pmYOke open
thai they
density of existing urban nelghoomoods. A case in polnl
these neighborhoods as their residents know them -
warfare. Why, I wondered as I looked althe show, would
and stop watching TV because it rols their minds,) New
witness the ferocity with which Southern California resi-
any homeowner who likes the way hislher neighborhood
high density housing might be more appropriately intro-
the L.A. Municipal Arl Gallery. The architects whose
dents band logether in protective homeowners groups. I
looks now, be willing to watch It be completely trans·
duced in some olher loning cstegory such as commercial
conceptual projects were on display made little, if any,
found the show's assumption that lower density neigh-
formed?
land use,
acknowledgement that density is the great Bogeyman
borhoods would inevitably become outmoded by some In short, the show had the vices and virtu es of a paper
for many Los Angeles residents. This fundamental flaw
kind of mutually agreeable environmental agenda and go
Districts where these proposals would stand the great-
in Ihe schemes' premis es renders them formalist exer-
the way of leaded gas and styrofoam fast-food contain-
est chance of being adopted would be where more
project. Its idealized program allowed architects to de-
cises rather than real possibi1i\ies for improving the
ers naive and wildly optimistic. This is not a politically
transient rental populalions and noncon forming hou sing
velop ideas that push back the boundaries of existing possibililles , but Ihese ideas were weakened as actual
suburban landscape andlor community. People in
plausible premise, given that most homeowners groups
already exist. In economically deprived sections of the
Southern California generally will do anything possible
have fought tooth and nail to get Iheir neighborhoods
city, smaller allowable lot sizes and great er density cou ld
solullons by the fact that they ignored some very real
to have a physical buffer of space between them and
downzoned to prolect Ihem from the threat of greater
act as a de-facto urban opportunity lOne, (Although
soclo- political considerations.
their neighbors even if that means gelling up at 4;00
density. Some of the proposals in the show call for
some low-incom e neighborhoods may be just as
A,M. to commule from the Moreno Valley to downtown
mandatory reconflguration of property lines, a process
adamantly opposed to the measures as any other
L.A. Lois of human beings in the street are scary to
which would ultimately requ ire government condemna-
single-family neighborhoods,) Some of th e ideas in the
residents of Southern Californ ia. People on the street
tion of privately owned property. The
pr~osals
In the
Jo hn Cha se
show seem more applicable to the development of raw
represent crime, danger, and the suspect condition of
land in Palmdale than well eS lablished nei ghborhoods
being an automobile-less pedestrian,
In Los Angeles; Instituting these proposals there does not require an existing population to accept a totally
fOI' Architecture and Urblrn D. ... n
W Hotlywood, C. llfoml •
· 21;8127141
stop driving cars because they pollule
Is the show "RE; American Dream ", recently on view at
•
.....
SMU~
Forum