14 August, 2019
In Reyner Bandam’s "A House is Not a Home", he criticizes American architecture because they do not properly protect occupants from the heat and cold, thus requiring excessive energy, service, and upkeep. He argues that obsession with cleanliness has led to the emergence of technology to regulate nature, rather than incorporating the environment into the design. He states that humans have two ways of controlling the environment: (1) avoiding and hiding from it, being unfamiliar with and threatened by it (the type of architecture he is criticizing), and (2) “interfering with the local metrology” (page 75). The latter meaning designing with things like survival and nature in mind. He purposes a radical “un-house” that responds to nature’s elements and displays the mechanics to criticize American’s style of building temporary structures. He compares this model to a car and mobile home, which is more like a home than a house because they express the mechanical systems. Throughout the paper, Banham uses a satirical and sarcastic tone.
The paper starts by criticizing houses that use a large amount of mechanical systems yet hide them; if you have so many mechanical systems that could hold the house up, why build the structure at all? The two reasons as to why architects do this are: (1) they are unfamiliar and do not know how to properly incorporate them into design, and (2) mechanics are “a culture threat to their position in the world” (page 70) because they are creating and controlling space. He criticizes architectures like Stanford White, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright.
Banham criticizes American architects, stating “Left to their own devices, Americans do not monumentalize or make architecture” (page 73), calling it a “hollow shell” that does not hold heat. He blames technology for this, going back to Benjamin Franklin’s lamp; he states, “the American interior has had to be better serviced if it was to support a civilized culture” (page 73).
He argues that one of the reasons for this is America’s obsession with cleanliness, contributing to the invention of air conditioning to get rid of uncomfortable humidity, as well as household cleaning products like the vacuum and Kleenex. He talks about his own experience with this; he was observing Americans enjoying the outdoors by a chlorinated lake sitting of sterile sand. He realized that Americans want to feel connected to the outdoors if they can control it.
Banham switches gears and discusses mobile homes and automobiles. Both have their mechanical elements on display and weigh less than a traditional house, all the while performing better. He argues that a better system for a mobile home is one that can he easily transportable, his “un-house.” His solution is a floating floor slab covered in a “transparent plastic bubble dome inflated by air-conditioning output” (page 77). The mechanics are on display in the middle. The aim is to criticize how modern buildings “spend money on services and upkeep rather than on permanent structure” (page 76). He concludes by arguing that every though Americans know that the European style of architecture—designing for the environment without relying on mechanical devices—is better, they do not adapt.
While many of his ideas are radical, I agree with Banham’s overall criticism of buildings that rely too heavily on mechanical devices to control the environment, rather than designing them to optimize the conditions for a comfortable indoor temperature. One of Banham’s examples is the Johnson House in New Canaan, that consists more or less of a floor slab and a central fireplace. When it’s cold, the inhabitants move closer to the fire; when they are hot, they move further away. This idea is something so simple that is so often cast away. Today, rather than adding or removing layers of clothing, occupants often abuse mechanical means. While these devices are extremely beneficial, they should not be taken for granted. Architects should design the house so that there is minimal need for these devices.