Oh my god...and this is the crap their teaching architecture students...and calling it an education! further proof that you can be a complete moron and idiot ...while still having a diploma ... hanging on your wall.

Hey UB, you want real innovation....get on the internet and look at european architecture or asian architecture...your not doing anything innovative ... its talentless crap....and it deserves to be flushed. If you put that in your portfolio Id immediately say.....NEXT!

Where is Simon Cowle when you need him....someone needs to wake them up to reality....whose going to want to walk past that vomit everyday....except maybe Gomez and Morticia .... Im kinda laughing because it really says just how much white trash uncultured inbred lack of culture we really have in Buffalo!

There are ways to offer criticism in a conversational productive manner and there are purely unproductive and boring ways or commenting as well.

Waffles, I suggest that you go and visit the house and try to get a tour by Frank or one of the students. Its really very easy to understand because its just fun. It really isn't something that you should try and experience only through a blog.

I don't go as far as Chris69 but I do think it is pointless and goofy and makes no lasting or meaningful contribution to our built environment. All it does is add novelty. There is nothing wrong with novelty; the karaoke stand on Elmwood a few weeks ago was also pointless and goofy and I loved it. If Buffalo offered no novelty, we all might as well move next door to BuffaloPundit in Clarence.

The issue for me is the commitment of resources. Buffalo's built environment & urban fabric is tremendously fragile in all too many places. Given the ability of the UB Architecture School to help mend and strengthen that urban fabric, and the ever-dwindling resources available for Buffalo to mend on its own, does this project represent the most bang for the taxpayer buck? (Remember that UB is publically funded.) Does all that teacher & student time, energy, and talent address any real-life problems in Buffalo other than keeping one house out of a landfill?

Did those students learn how to respect and rehabilitate houses like this without imposing any one-up-manship gimmicks? Did they learn about Secretary of the Interior standards for restoring old houses, which is what their trade will require if they are skilled enough to practice in Buffalo some day?

I don't know the answer to these questions--that's why I raised them. But I do think the students learned that as architects they are not obligated to respect the original form, function, and construction of fragile Buffalo houses in fragile Buffalo neighborhoods. And to me, that is sad and bodes poorly for Buffalo's architectural future.

Anyone ever watch Beetle Juice the movie....where those insane....artsy....notice me notice me....culturally challenged elitist trash pretend take a perfectly nice house and rip it apart as some sort of vomit nightmare that only a demon summoned from hell could relish.

Thats this house!

You know what kids.....no one in their right mind is going to buy this house and no design or architectural firm or customer is going to admire you for having this piece of vomit in your portfolio! Tell your architectue and design teacher that he has either been in academia to long to understand the real world or drugs are making a comeback with 1960 wanna be professors. Either way....its not the students...its the teacher that should be fired! Yes fired!

Hey challenging convention...thats fine for a painting...but take a look at the architectural trends...life is stressful enough and people want to relax and destress....with natural, well integrated, flowing spaces....whether their period with lots of detail or modern with clean lines....the result is the same. NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE IN AN ABSTRACT SCULPTURE....

HEY MY 8 YEAR OLD WHO CANT PUT TWO BOARDS TOGETHER STRAIGHT....COULD HAVE DONE THIS WITHOUT GOING TO COLLEGE...TELL ME IF YOUR FLOORS ARENT LEVEL...IS THAT TALENTED ABSTRACT CHALLENGING CONVENTION OR POOR CRAFTSMANSHIP!

ARE THE NEGLECTED BUILDINGS WITH CAVED IN ROOFS, HEAVED UP FLOORS, BUCKLED WALLS AND FLOODED BASEMENTS...IS THAT AN UNSAFE DECAYED HARZARD OR URHM AN AGED AND WEATHERED ANTIQUE RESIDENCE.

The art world has been telling us they have talent...so much that the A-K deaccessioned REAL ART....when people were skilled. There is a reason no one today can produce a Rembrandt...or a Monet...it takes talent and today....the lack of talent and craftsmanship is deflected by the oohs and aahhs of so called challenging conventional thinking....and so called abstract.

its really unfortunate that chris69 has managed to hijack this discussion and infect it with his negativity.

As a student in this class I want to thank all of you for the positive feedback and comments. As for certain people that don't agree or understand it, that is fine by me. The one thing that many people are missing is the amazing interior of the building. True, the rotated facade is the focal point but the interior is very interesting. If anyone didn't get a chance to see it and would like to contact Anna Miller here at BR and she can give you my e-mail. Thanks again all for showing up and for the support.

I was ready to agree with Chris until I drove by this house tonight. It wasn’t as distracting as I had expected. It almost looked a little contemporary, or has the chance to be. I think that if the right person finished it in a pleasing way it could be a stylish house. Unfortunately it will probably be finished with cheap vinyl windows and siding and become just another eyesore in the neighborhood. Maybe it was good construction training for students, but it would be an embarrassment to me if it were on my block.

hey..they deleted my suggestion....to move the plumbing the exterior of the building and make it clear....see that would be unconventional...clear exterior plumbing....it would add movement to the exterior and it would be controversial....hey....why even both connecting to sewars...just let the plumbing fertilize the organic garden..

Though I have to agree the construction experience was a worthwhile learning experience and so was the community activism....my critique is purely the exterior design.

After sifting through Chris69's rants, some valid points can be harvested from the diatribe.

The "novelty" of the rotating facade is kind of cool but these architecture students should be focusing their energies on far more important details. MisterChips is entirely correct; The real issue here is the commitment of resources.

The #1 lesson that could have been learned with this project is how to take a rotting old city house and gracefully update it to serve modern needs and conveniences. The profession of Architecture has been steadily devolving into one big joke, following the pattern of other artistic pursuits. It has drifed away from being a trade focusing craftsmanship to being a narcissistic "art" where its practitioners are constantly trying to out "cutting edge" one another.

Perhaps the house's renovation did do some of the things the students should have been worrying about, but from the lazy slapsdash way this article was put together...we wouldn't know. If only they had assigned this to someone who is qualified to write about architecture.... Oh well, BR is probably too broke to buy Steel a plane ticket.

If we can imagine all of the new buildings that are constructed in North America in one year, what percentage of that is architecture that can be considered bold, artistic, "narcissistic" or whatever. Imagine all of the stupid McMansions, condo towers, strip malls, office parks, supermarkets, or hospital rooms that these graduates might have to design in the years to come. The vast majority of american architecure is dull dull stuff that clients demand to be done quickly and on the cheap. Architects are the ones who are obsessed with craft! Its the clients(all of you folks out there) that don't seem to care about craftmanship(see Holy Cupola! arcticle). Consider the Bass Pro building. Imagine being an architect in the firm that will design that. Imagine having to merge community (blurred)visions of an historic wharf that never was with the requirements of a big-box sporting goods store. Clowns to left and jokers to the right.

Thanks, dude and davvid. It is not hard to see what the profession of architecture is in the public mind: either you are a sprawl collaborator o you are a stuntman or stuntwoman. This project was indeed a stunt. Maybe it will pay off for the neighborhood, in which case I am relieved. But since when is coming up with a stunt synonymous with being creative? And is a regime of compulsory novelty really what we want or need from the architectural profession in a future of ever-dwindling resources?

I like this architectural experiment, if that is what it is.

davvid - in reviewing other works, look to what their task was. For example, in my design of the cupola (from the Holy Cupola! article), our task was to fix a rotted, collapsing roof. An architect and structural engineer were hired only after the "roof-fix" was constructed. The city allows cupola's to be built with no variance but because of a rogue inspector our project was singled out, adding thousands to the project cost.

Personally, I find architectural "statements" that are wildly inappropriate and jarring within a particular setting to be highly offensive. I don't enjoy being the victim of an architect's ego.

I assume the point of this exercise was to experiment with the form and turn the victorian typology on it's head (or on it's side in this case). Fair enough, and good job. However, what becomes of this house? Is it inhabitable? How do you properly and efficiently weather seal the facade? Thie image shows alot of steel reinforcing right over top of the front windows, that's not good. I think UB architecture tends to focus too much on theory, but that's just my opinion. Admitedly I haven't visited the house so I cannot properly comment. I applaud the students and faculty on an interesting sculpture and artisitc exercise. And finally all the students are accurate in refering to their design as "dynamic".

hmmpf. you are all grossly uneducated. it is a metaphor for the socio-racial strife found in contemporary neo-pan-urbanism, the students' concept is so obviously based on a literal interpretation of Jean Baudrillard's essay "Falling Facade".

I guess to each their own.

But to me this is not much more than a tacky gimmic. I guess it is ok to bring attention to the project/area. But I know I wouldn't want to live near it and would eventually lothe walking by it after a while. I can go up to clifton hill and see a building "on its side" with a bonus gorilla hanging off the top too!

Investing the money in a "real" turn of the century front porch and other exterior improvements would have had a much larger, and classier impact on the neighborhood. It's a shame to see the original front porches missing from/cheaply replaced on so many of these houses. They were true works of craftsmanship that made the streets the place to be and interact. A collaborative bewtween local architectural students and apprenticing craftsman would have really been a sight to behold. also mix in the material science department and work towards integrating the great details of yesterday with the low-maintenance desires of today.

But it is good to see the neighborhood involved and people talking. I just hope the neighborhood can stomach looking at it into the future.

This project has been an interesting diverson from the heavy housing issues facing city planners. Clearly, it is important to challenge architecture students with creative opportunities, but I also hope they address other overwhelming housing challenges.

Commissioner of Permits & Inspections Richard Tobe summarized on Michele Johnson's radio show last week that the City has allocated $14 million for demolitions in the coming fiscal year.

SEE: http://wnymedia.net/index.php?option...d=16&Itemid=46

The city has $6 million for demolitions in the new budget beginning July 1 & is awaiting $8 million more from NYS. Tobe also expressed stong support for deconstruction & its potential to create neighborhood jobs, while reducing landfill.

Tobe reviewed some shocking statistics:

a. 40% of fire calls are to vacant structures

b. The city did 144 emergency demo’s last year at a cost of $2.4 million.

c. There are over 22,000 housing vacancies (NOTE: he referred to the 2000 Census, making a likely 25,000 vacancies today?) in 10,000 vacant structures.

d. There are 7 vacant units for every 100 persons in Bflo.

e. It costs the city $20,000 to maintain a city-owned house over 5 years

f. The city plans to demolish 1,000 structures annually for a decade.

It was also good to hear from Tobe that there are clearer criteria & priorities for determining order of demo’s:

1. Emergency demo of a dangerous or fire-destroyed house.

2. Bad houses by public institution (school, agency, etc)

3. Good block with single bad house

4. Proposed site for new housing

5. Eventual landbanking (badly needed, but Tobe not promising it immediately)

Tobe also committed to removing any house from the demo list for 6 months if interested parties want to explore their capacity to rehab it.

Architecture students, go for it!

Dick Kern

This highly involved conversation was the actual point of the project. The fact that we are discussing what should be done to these houses was our goal from day one. If the front of the house was not flipped this posting would have about 3 comments instead of 40. What we did is not right by any means. It is one idea that we came up with. Looking back 4 months ago this house was going to be torn down, 14 students had a small understanding of construction, materials, codes, permits, and budgets, an owner was paying into a demo pot, and conversations like this were dwindeling. Today all of this has changed. That was the goal. PERIOD. If the house turns out to be an eyesore to the community we will have another party to flip it back. It is experimental architecture in order to raise questions.

Feebs1112 , what are you talking about ? There should never have been a question on what should be done with these houses. It’s obvious, maintain, restore, renovate or remodel them. Not make freak shows out of them, this discussion is not answering any unknown question on what to do with these houses. This project would not make me want to own a house on that street. It will scare more perspective buyers away. Was that the idea?

Dave- Here you go

Maintain- the house would have been torn down if we did not rescue it Restore- the house needed new foundations, 20 dumpsters of garbage were removed, roof was revamped Renovate- If you saw the interior you would know Remodel- a 100 year old duplex was turned into a modern loft style house with triple height spaces, large picture windows and an oval bathroom.

If the facade is bothering you, it can be turned back around in 1 or 2 hours. So in reality we did all those things you mentioned above. The facade is meant to make a statement, but it is only temporary if the owner decides.

As far as scaring perspective buyers away....there have already been numerous buyers interested. Think they would have been interested in the building 4 months ago? No way. Neighbors too are very happy with the project.

“--Any more tacky or gimmicky than the Blue Sky or the new FLW boathouse. Or tackier than painting a victorian insane colors?” -YUP “--So you'd rather walk past a boarded up home or a vacant lot than be surprised by something slightly out of the ordinary? That sounds a tad irrational.” -YUP, though our definition of slightly may defer. I bought my house with a vacant open house two doors down and another behind me. One has been remolded and the other is in process. And do to their choices, I will not have to look at something similar to this ;) “--To add on a "turn of the century porch" on to a house that this was filled with trash and where snow would come in through holes in the roof seems also irrational to me.” Um, the trash removal and other repairs were done anyways. And I can’t imagine that rotating and reintegrating the front façade was cheap and it was done. I bet even more expensive than the porch would have ended up being. “--classy impact? Are you a classy impact? Is my car a classy impact? What is a classy impact?” I don’t know. What do you drive? “--That is exactly what this is.” As a gimmick and for how long? "-Are you at all aware of the who exactly was working on this project and the level of expertise that was involved? “ I am. I don’t knock the planning, engineering, desire and labor that went into accomplishing this, like moving a house. As an engineer myself I find it quite interesting. I just wouldn’t be happy with having to look at his on my street. “--I'm not exactly sure I understand this but do you mean vinyl decorations? Please. You would call that craftsmanship? “ Nope they are part of the “problem”. Though there are other (more expensive) composites that are nice and straight and do a great job of replicating clapboard. People just don’t want to pay for it, even on $300k new builds. So we get to look at a lot of wavy vinyl. And unfortunately people no longer desire to pay for one off details and their upkeep either. To find a solution in modern materials that would closely replicate them at a good price with low maintenance without looking like playground equipment would be great. Feebs1112:

I applaud your effort and it sounds like a great experience. I would have loved to work on such while I was in school. I no where above meant to belittle the effort or intentions and it did create a discussion, that I am happy to chime in on, but not have to look at ;)