Wright Chat

What Are Eichler Homes and Why Do People Love Them?


David

DavidC wrote:What Are Eichler Homes and Why Do People Love Them?


David

Embarrassing ... and typically Dwell ... that they can't even show an unadulterated Eichler in the article.

And does any one of Eichler's architects deserve more credit than the others ?

SDR

What Are Eichler Homes? Mid-Century Modern Architectural Gems, That's What


David

While perusing the August 1958 issue of House & Home which featured Wright's Thaxton House, I came across a news item on page 41 about a test case in California which struck down race bias in FHA, and VA financed home sales. There was a side bar to the news piece in which it was noted that Joseph Eichler resigned from the National Association of Home Builders, over comments made by the Executive Vice President of the San Francisico NAHB Office that stated the NAHB was not pleased with the Court's decision.
It's nice when a venerated historical figure places himself on the right side of history.
I'll forward a scan for SDR to post.

More on the story....
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ ... 628975.php

"Orientals." Ouch again . . .

S

I know that "Orientals" is one of those "never-utter" words, but considering that all it means is Eastern (we would Occidentals) I have never figured out why. A former co-worker of Japanese descent expressed her opinion. I asked her why she was opposed to the word, and she had no answer. A seemingly similar term, "Asian," seems to have no negative connotations, even though it covers 4.7 times as much territory and a plethora of ethnicities.

The vocabulary around race and ethnicity has many twists and turns---around the world, in any culture (or between any two cultures), I imagine. Just look at the changes in how African-Americans have been referred to, over the last century-and-a-half . . . Then there's "I can call myself that, but you'd better not . . .!" Fascinating . . .

S

The "O" word used in the news piece was an accepted ethnic descriptor in 1958, and indeed for a considerable time after.
My understanding of its fall from favor is that it implies a "one" or the "other" duality between the East (Oriental) and the West (Occidental), and with that, the possible implication that one is superior to the other. The term Asian achieves the goal of a descriptor without the implied (or not) judgment.

But Asia includes Israel, Arabia, Armenia, all of the 'Stans' and even parts of non-Siberian Eastern Russia.
What you are saying is that all of these terms are defined by the people they refer to as good or bad, which makes the whole exercise kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? In the early 60s, the term 'black' was decreed the ONLY acceptable one, even though a few prominent persons objected. Ethel Waters, for instance, preferred the term 'colored,' which, in those days was anathema, while today, POC is an acceptable term, which means essentially the same. Josephine Baker said on The Merv Griffin Show, "I'm not black; I'm dark brown." To me, it seems like a lot of effort expended on a trifle for very little effect. In high school, I had an English teacher (who was probably English himself) who referred to me as a 'Scandihoovian.' I don't know where that came from, but it didn't matter to me one way or the other.

(By the way, I agree with Eichler: Any form of bigotry is inexcusable, even the 'Basket of Deplorables' type.)

Why is it so hard to use terms that people in a particular group prefer, if they must be used at all? It always seems to be those who are straight, white and male and hence have never been labeled as "other" are the ones who don't get it. As a gay man, if you need to label me in order to distinguish me from you then I am the one who gets to choose what I find acceptable, not you. I couldn't care less if you "understand" which term I prefer.

Also, I bet if you said the word "Occidental" to anyone who still uses the term "Oriental" they would not have a clue as to what you were saying. I doubt if any American has ever used that term to self-describe.

Craig, it would simplify things if there were a broad-based agreement on which is to be used. The Black/Colored/African-American group in particular seem not able to make up their minds. Now it's Black or POC (which includes everyone on the planet, except those whose ancestry traces back to Europe); not long ago it was African-American; before that it was again black, uncapitalized. For the gay population, there is a host of politically accurate titles which must be used correctly for each subset. I don't know if the "Q" word would get deleted on this site, but until not so long ago, it was considered one of the most offensive terms, but now is used casually. That's a good thing. It has taken the power of insult away.

I suspect most persons who do not belong to one or another group don't really care about the subject at all. I don't.

Eichlers are the Ikea of modern architecture.

Modernism for the masses?
I’d agree.