StructureHub

NYTimes:  Libeskind Designs a Prefab Home

No, irony does not lurk in the article title.  But if you read the article, you may experience a twinge of amusement as you contemplate the great Mr. Libeskind’s foray into prefab design, which he drippingly describes as “unprecedented around the world.”

Prefab design (here: a directory of prefab manufacturers and Inhabitat’s top-10 list) is a growing movement that takes advantage of mass-production techniques to, among other things, (1) reduce a project’s construction and lifetime carbon-footprint and, if possible, (2) reduce the cost of (and thereby increase access to) high quality design and construction.

Mr. Libeskind, known for his jagged and shard-like civic spectacles such as the Jewish Museum Berlin and Denver Art Museum (above), is now joining the party with his own attractive prefab home.

Of course, the irony lies in the fact that each buyer of Mr. Libeskind’s design will also receive a guarantee of regional “exclusivity” - the neighbors will have to go elsewhere for a prefab home.  This guarantee is rather inconsistent with a central premise of prefab (i.e., relying on mass-production to accomplish certain goals); I think that foreclosing nearly all others from purchasing a Libeskind design really undercuts the success of his experiment and hinders the movement’s aim of reaching the middle-class.

For these reasons, Mr. Libeskind would do well to candidly recognize the project’s true nature - while it may technically qualify as a “pre-fabricated” unit, the term “factory-built” is a bit more honest, since the project does not hue to primary tenets of the “prefab” concept.  Better still, since Mr. Libeskind repeatedly describes his design as art (albeit factory-built art), he should dispense with the “prefab” label entirely, even if it means less exposure.

You’ll see that not everyone would agree with me (although the article does quote Jill Herbers’ decidely ambiguous assessment of Mr. Libeskind’s concept).

Frank Lloyd Wright actually came to mind when I read the article.  His failed (and well-intentioned) attempt to design a modern home for ordinary folk is well-known (early attempts were printed in the Ladies’ Home Journal and later designs were built as Usonian houses).  Like Mr. Libeskind, Wright was already famous, comfortably designing works for affluent and institutional clients alike when he took up the challenge.

Here however, Mr. Libeskind’s effort at “prefab” seems more discursive than in-depth, assuming his project truly qualifies under that umbrella  term.  Architectural achievement is an odd thing; the contextual vocabulary used to describe a design can mean the difference between (perceived) success and failure (indeed, as with Wright’s hugely influential and visionary Usonian designs, Mr. Libeskind’s design may actually be extraordinary despite failing as a “prefab” concept).

Interestingly, the fellow charged with marketing and distributing Mr. Libeskind’s prefab design also shies away from the term ”prefab.”  Michael Merz never wanted to use that label, instead favoring the design’s ”work of art” qualities.  Perhaps it’s just easier selling $3-4 million works of art than prefab units of the same price (Michelle Kaufman may attest to this).

In any event Mr. Libeskind, I’d suggest following Mr. Merz’s lead; just call the villa factory-built art - its true identity and where its real success lies.

Via NYTimes; also see ArchDaily

Image courtesy of AskDaveTaylor