Comments on: No Place Like Home: Design and Architecture in post-Katrina New Orleans

By: Adrienne Skye Roberts

Adrienne Skye Roberts — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:26:24 +0000

Thanks, Julian. I’ll go ahead and answer your questions. I am unaware of the response from local residents, however, judging from my experience working in this neighborhood, I imagine that the joy and relief in being able to return home outweighs any skepticism about the means through which this was made possible. And I am certain that the MIR houses do, in fact, suit the residents. This is where the irreconcilable feelings that I mentioned in my previous comment come in; if the goal is to return residents, which I believe it is, than MIR succeeds, however there are things I remain skeptical about. I do question whether projects like MIR should be built in familiar styles specific to local architecture and worry about, as Eric said in his previous post “the arrogance of the architect to think his or her modern vision supersedes any notions of history, context, or economics.” I am concerned about who controls the rebuilding, whose voice is heard, and whose projects gain publicity and therefore funding. Brad Pitt is a super-star and while his humanitarian efforts are well-received, there are many locally initiated rebuilding projects that will never get the same attention because they simply don’t make headlines the way Pitt does. Again, I think it is irreconcilable and perhaps this is one of the many reasons why I continue to think about this issue and other similar issues related to post-Katrina politics. I certainly don’t believe that economically disadvantaged communities are suspicious of modern design and hope that my post wouldn’t suggest that.

By: Julian Myers

Julian Myers — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:05:57 +0000

Hi Adrienne, I wanted to offer up a belated thanks for this post. I found really interesting and have been thinking about the questions it poses. I visited the 9th Ward on a student tour led by Matthew Coolidge in 2006, when very little had yet been built, and am fascinated to see how much, and how little, restoration has happened.

Early on you say “Whether or not the homes are beautiful is subjective and not all that productive to consider.” But aesthetics do seem to be at the center of your argument – you seem to be asking whether projects like MIR shouldn’t build in familiar, local vernacular, rather than contemporary, styles, inasmuch as “familiarity is key in regaining a sense of home.”

But I am less clear on what basis we ought to be skeptical of the MIR house. Have potential residents said anything for or against? Or are we embarrassed about them in some other way? The asymmetrically pitched roof does have an odd jaunty look, like the cocked brim of a hat, that takes some getting used to. And they look antiseptic. But I’m not sure why such a house wouldn’t suit residents just fine. It is not necessarily true that impovershed people are suspicious of radical or modern styles.

By: Adrienne Skye Roberts

Adrienne Skye Roberts — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:09:35 +0000

I think a lot of this discussion relates to memorialization and whether or not architecture can, within this context, acknowledge the tremendous effect of Katrina on the city and resident’s lives, while also moving forward beyond it. I agree that it is a false assumption to think one can restore neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth Ward to their pre-Katrina environment, however, as Tim mentioned, familiarity is key in regaining a sense of home. I also wonder more generally about Pitt’s role and have two divergent feelings – that the city needs all the help it can get through projects like MIR and yet, skepticism about celebrities influence in post-Katrina and general questions of who controls the rebuilding?

By: Eric Heiman

Eric Heiman — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:58:22 +0000

Adrienne, thanks for the great post and further elaboration on my thoughts. I can’t help but consider that, despite its good intentions, the Pitt/MIR project might suffer from a familiar pitfall—the arrogance of the architect to think his or her modern vision supercedes any notions of history, context, or economics. I’m not against Tim’s assertion that the architecture should reflect 21st century trends, I just wonder if the trends reflected are anything more than the architects’ singular aesthetic vision, the Ninth Ward site no more special or influential to their decisions than any other location. (See my soon-to-be-next post about the less successful Rural Studio projects.)

By: Tim Belonax

Tim Belonax — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:51:26 +0000

Concerns for the visual are not a matter of privilege, especially when discussing the visual aesthetics of a home. If a dwelling looks uninviting from the outside, it affects the residents as well as its visitor and the community as a whole. I believe your concerns for considering the aesthetics of New Orleans are valid but a key component the discussion is also context. The New Orleans that we knew was built a long time ago and reflected the heritage of its birth. It seems only fitting that the rebuilt and reclaimed areas of New Orleans reflect current architectural trends while respecting the culture and community of “The Big Easy.”

By: Anuradha

Anuradha — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:49:29 +0000

It seems as though the distinction here is between an architecture-driven project and a community-driven one. Both have architectural and community applications, but the balance is different for each. Architecture-driven homes are notoriously difficult to live in! I would be curious to know what the residents of the MIR homes have to say (as well as who they are – you make a good point about who these homes actually serve).