Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a shame. There are a few modernist homes scattered throughout my general area (Arl 22207) and when they're well-done, they look really neat. I think it's kind of cool to have a victorian, a colonial, a cape, a tudor and a modern house on the same block. This house doesn't look bad; I hope he prevails and doesn't spend all his money fighting the suit.

I generally agree with you, but there's the kicker in bold. We've all seen blocks destroyed by the likes of Mickey Simpson lot-swallowers. And I didn't finish the article to see if this was a historical neighborhood. If it had a certain designation, I would be surprised that this style was allowed.

But Mickey Simpson homes aren't at all modernist. I can't think of any builders in the area that really do modernist, which is too bad. We need more of them around here.

Right. They're usually generic crap, which you are way more likely to get than something well designed or modern.

There is no way in hell a judge will order that thing torn down.

The neighbor who filed the lawsuit is vile. I cannot fathom inflicting that kind of pain on someone. I hope she loses and the couple counter sues for harassment.

Anonymous wrote:It is funny how the couple building the house are architects(or one of them is), their planned house passed the board's review(more experts), but some how the want to be architect who lives across the street knows the house will not fit in the neighborhood. I wonder what her education and back round is? Architects study for years to do just this. Things do not have to be matchy matchy to work, they should complement the exist neighborhood.

+1

I think the new house is bland, blah, and out of character for the neighborhood, but it's too late now since the couple went through the proper process.

It is funny how the couple building the house are architects(or one of them is), their planned house passed the board's review(more experts), but some how the want to be architect who lives across the street knows the house will not fit in the neighborhood. I wonder what her education and back round is? Architects study for years to do just this. Things do not have to be matchy matchy to work, they should complement the exist neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a shame. There are a few modernist homes scattered throughout my general area (Arl 22207) and when they're well-done, they look really neat. I think it's kind of cool to have a victorian, a colonial, a cape, a tudor and a modern house on the same block. This house doesn't look bad; I hope he prevails and doesn't spend all his money fighting the suit.

I generally agree with you, but there's the kicker in bold. We've all seen blocks destroyed by the likes of Mickey Simpson lot-swallowers. And I didn't finish the article to see if this was a historical neighborhood. If it had a certain designation, I would be surprised that this style was allowed.

But Mickey Simpson homes aren't at all modernist. I can't think of any builders in the area that really do modernist, which is too bad. We need more of them around here.

The neighbors are causing more problems for themselves than they know. They don't seem very bright.

Anonymous wrote:I really wish more new houses were intelligent build, modern houses, and not some faux colonial mcmansion shit.

What do you care? If its not on your property, don't worry about it. This is exactly WHY people like you will never have enough money to afford a new house. You are too busy spending your time trying to police the neighborhood. You know, like the insane, gun toting, "neighborhood watch" George Zimmerman types. If you want to better the neighborhood, move somewhere else.

This is also what shows a huge lack of class, independent of money. MYOB's show far more class than do-nothing know it alls that know very little and show it at every opportunity. The "big swinging dick" syndrome of the teeny tiny penis. Please, stop announcing to the world how frustrated you are with your own life. We are tired of hearing your whining.

I really wish more new houses were intelligent build, modern houses, and not some faux colonial mcmansion shit.

Anonymous wrote:I love the look of their home. Live and let live.

It was an empty lot.

Unless they can afford to buy the property, they should really STFU. They don't own it.

"the Raleigh Historic Development Commission gave the couple permission to move ahead with building the house."

That is a red state historical review board for you. Can you imagine that historic districts of Georgetown or Takoma Park approving this?

Since it was approved, the neighbors should stand down.

This was in my neighborhood growing up, it was a neighborhood legend long before we knew who Frank Gehry was:

http://www.archdaily.com/67321/gehry-residence-frank-gehry/

Anonymous wrote:That's a shame. There are a few modernist homes scattered throughout my general area (Arl 22207) and when they're well-done, they look really neat. I think it's kind of cool to have a victorian, a colonial, a cape, a tudor and a modern house on the same block. This house doesn't look bad; I hope he prevails and doesn't spend all his money fighting the suit.

I generally agree with you, but there's the kicker in bold. We've all seen blocks destroyed by the likes of Mickey Simpson lot-swallowers. And I didn't finish the article to see if this was a historical neighborhood. If it had a certain designation, I would be surprised that this style was allowed.

Frank Lloyd Wright, contemporary Ludwig Mies van der Rohe minimal modernism is hot. I'm drawn to it more and more with age, but alas, live in a post war colonial.

No win for anyone here now, with the neighbor already suing, unfortunately.