Summary: We have lots of letters this week. Architecture California editor Tim Culverhouse, FAIA, extends proper credit to Miltiades Mandros, John Gusto, and Justin Drews for their roles in restoring a Neutra House in Los Altos. Three readers really don’t like NCARB’s proposed “Six Month Rule.” We also have some questions and clarifications regarding the 19 Housing Awards recipients, as well as opinions on the cost of AIA Contract Documents Webinars and a characterization of Soviet Russia. Keep those cards and letters coming!

Re: The Neutra House: Adaptive Reuse and Relocation of One of “Three Small Houses in an Orchard”

I read with interest and concern the article on the three small houses by Richard Neutra in Los Altos, Calif. I have followed this story for some time and am familiar with its history. Your article is not the first to have obscured the seminal work performed by former AIA member Miltiades Mandros and others. I would like to help correct this slight.

A decade ago, Dion Neutra gave Mandros a list of his father’s Northern California buildings and asked if he was willing to research the location, owners, and condition of a number of long-forgotten projects, one of which was the trio of cottages. In the course of his research, Mandros was befriended by the then owner of the two extant cottages, John Gusto, who asked him to design an addition to the larger structure. He did so, but the city's historic committee would not allow the house to be touched. Gusto decided to sell the property.

The only people interested in the site wanted to bulldoze the property to build a McMansion (municipal regulations allowed the buildings to be demolished but not remodeled), so Mandros sought preservationist-minded, mid-century Modernism lovers to purchase and restore the cabins. His efforts were unsuccessful, so he turned to the city and ultimately gained the support of Justin Drewes on the Historic Committee. With the backing of that committee, a cadre of supporters gradually came together and brought before the city council the idea of the city accepting and relocating the larger house. Mandros attended a number of meetings in support of the proposal, which generated significant controversy. When Mayor Lear got on board, meaningful traction was gained, funds were raised, and the bandwagon started rolling. At that point, city officials claimed the project as their own.

The initiators—Mandros, Gusto, and Drewes—have, with troubling consistency, been denied recognition for their efforts ever since.

—Tim Culvahouse, FAIA
editor, arcCA (Architecture California)
Berkeley, Calif.

Re: The Six-Month Rule: Are You Ready?

After reading the six-month rule, I am a bit dismayed. I was very encouraged with the new model law to allow for taking the ARE during IDP. However, making the IDP process more difficult and perhaps even excluding hard earned hours seems counterproductive. I recommend using the existing approval process, which adds an extra fee for reviewing post-dated time submittals. This serves the overall process to drive more people toward licensure, not away. Thanks.

—D.J .Heinle, AIA
CMA Architecture Planning Interior Design
Minneapolis

Yet again NCARB feels the need to exert more and more stringent reporting requirements upon interns to make a cumbersome process even more cumbersome. Can someone please explain how filling out forms based on new "do-it-or-lose-it" deadlines equates to better mentorship? NCARB ought to be held to the same stringent standards that they dictate to interns, but this clearly is not the case. As an example, NCARB recently took five months to review my final IDP submission and forward a letter of transmittal to my local board so I can begin the ARE testing process. NCARB's Web site states that this process is supposed to occur within 30-40 days. Why the disparity? Why are only interns in the system held to higher and higher standards while NCARB can continue to bungle at will with no recourse?

—Brad Ladwig, Assoc. AIA
Honolulu

I’m currently trying to go through the NCARB/IDP process. NCARB took over two years to log in the training reports, transcripts, and other information they wanted to be submitted. After over two years, they “decided” in an apparently random manner, what information to count and what not to issue credit for. If the interns spend countless hours and money to go through IDP and will have even more restrictions in getting IDP done, then NCARB should have to step up to the plate as well and process IDP information in a timely manner. After all, interns pay for the service …

It seems that the interns will get the short end of the deal here, as NCARB officials are not able to handle the load of applicants, schools don’t train their students on IDP at all, and small firms don’t have the time or manpower to monitor and supervise the IDP process. It all looks fair and do-able on paper, but the reality of the process gave me a very different experience.

—Martina Bello, Assoc. AIA
Berlin Architects
Jackson, Wyo.

Re: AIA Contract Docs to Host “AIA 2007 Documents: An Overview” Webinar on March 18

Information about the documents should be free to AIA members. The AIA sells the docs, so information about the documents is part of marketing costs.

—Nathaniel Wilson, AIA
Campus Architect, CSUN, Facilities Planning Design & Construction
Northridge, Calif.

Re: Nineteen Projects Take Top AIA 2008 Housing Awards

There is no doubt that the 19 recipients of the 2008 Housing Awards have designed stunning and creative homes. However, I take issue with the summary introducing the parameters of the award. Your criteria to recognize “… the importance of good housing as a necessity of life …” feel inconsistent with the excesses depicted in each of these selections. These homes represent what only a fraction of the population can afford and do not address the “necessity” of shelter that many people cannot afford.

—Nazanin Khodadad

Ed. note: While this may be true for most of the projects, there are some projects for low-income residents and public housing in this year’s mix. Check it out—they are really well done.

I’m wondering just how sustainable some of the award-winning projects are that are listed in the “19 Projects Take Top AIA Housing Awards.” For example, [The Wildcat Ridge Residence in Snowmass Village, Colo., says,]: ”Sustainable design has allowed the use of uncommonly large spans of glass; more than 60 geothermal wells extend 200 feet into the earth below to provide renewable energy (all of the cooling and 95 percent of the heating) via ground-source heat pumps.”

Are the heat pumps powered by solar PVs on the site? If not, this design does not “provide renewable energy” as the blurb claims. I’m also wondering how “sustainable design has allowed the use of uncommonly large spans of glass?” This appears to be an oxymoron. So much of published design purports sustainability while featuring vast glass facades that are inherently red in an IR photo. Thanks for clarifying for us,

—Thomas K. Davies, AIA
Director of Design & Construction, Amherst College
Amherst, Mass.

Managing Editor Stephanie Stubbs responds: It’s my fault and I apologize. I should have edited the copy better than I did. It should say:
”The architects used sustainable design techniques to offset the high amount of heating and cooling energy required by the building’s uncommonly large spans of glass. For instance, more than 60 wells extend 200 feet into the earth below to provide geothermal energy (for all of the cooling and 95 percent of the heating) via ground-source heat pumps.”

It would be very helpful if in your photos you actually gave an address. If as architects, we are in various cities and can see what you think is award-winning architecture, it would be helpful to be able to find the places! Pictures are often very deceiving about how good projects really are ... Thank you.

—Kay Barned-Smith, AIA
Project Manager, Massachusetts Port Authority
East Boston

Ed. note: What say you, readers? Would addresses with projects be a helpful inclusion? Drop a line and let us know.

Re: Joining Man and Woman with Steel and Glass

“… fading Soviet ideals of humble collectivism and class solidarity” … This is [Author Zach Mortice’s] description of the murderous Soviet regime, which killed millions and imprisoned many more in the gulag system, stealing the lives of generations while wreaking havoc around the world? Many things come to mind when considering the Soviet Union specifically and communism/socialism generally, but humility does not describe well with the totalitarian nature of these schemes. Stalin humble? Please …

—Ed Weaver, AIA, LEED-AP

Zach Mortice responds: Who appointed Stalin as the ultimate arbiter of Soviet politics throughout all of Soviet history? Soviet Russia had a history and set of shared ideals before that genocidal tyrant, that was, yes, based on collectivism and class solidarity, and it had a history after him and will have one after all the dictators that followed. In the middle were opportunists (like Stalin) who co-opted these ideals for their own totalitarian purposes.