I’ve seen the future and it’s expensive. Not to mention cold, sterile and utterly charmless.

homes of the future

I look forward to seeing more of this development when it appears on the next series of Lost as the home of the as yet undiscovered and even more sinister community: The Other Others.

Speaking about the project, Richard Rogers said: ‘Our partnership with George Wimpey has given us an opportunity to take a fresh look at housing design.

‘By working closely together, we have been able to develop an approach which links construction closely to design, giving real value to the homeowner.

‘The scheme at Oxley Woods is highly flexible and sustainable and will, we hope, provide homes for a diverse community for many generations to come.’

Early guides put the market value of the houses at £199,995 for a two-bedroom property and £249,995 for a three-bedroom home.

From ajplus (my emphasis)


As usual, input from older, wiser colleagues at the office this morning forces us to ask the question: Has housing progressed in almost a century?


(image source)

from Weissenhofsiedlung built in the late 1920’s – more images on flickr

7 thoughts on “homes of the future?

  1. wait a minute what happened to the £60,000 house, or is that what it cost to build legoland modernism?

  2. £60,000 is just the construction cost (not including land purchase). After that we’re all at the mercy of the free market. Unfortunately this was somewhat less than clear when Prescott announced the competition.

  3. What’s so wrong with the housing (asside from the relatively flat elevations, lack of greenry, etc). They seem to provide cost effective housing that is also sustainable…it seems to be a step in the right direction.

    Is the claim towards charm meant to be towards aesthetics?

  4. hmm you may be right architechnophilia, I can’t view the aj arcticle, but of course the market value is in excess of the cost of building. That was the idea in the first place to sell off these houses at a different price to the market level. If that’s been done then kudos all round. The aesthetics should be taken in context with everything else.

  5. Don’t you think charm qualifies as a benchmark of aesthetic success? I included it for exactly that reason – it’s an underused term which you won’t find many architects using. Why not? In the context of suburban, family housing it’s perfectly applicable.

    My criticism is admittedly narrow at this point – I’ve only got that image to go on, but I know that if I came back from a tough day at work and drove down the road towards that blank, sterile house at the end I’d find it tough to call it home.

    Mostly I’m just surprised at the difference between the end product and some of the sketches in the original Design For Manufacture submission. The corner kitchen window idea had much more … warmth.

  6. “The aesthetics should be taken in context with everything else.” with what context? aesthetics is very subjective matter yet a lot of variable influence it. Building cost vs. market value, yes it sometimes, if I don’t say almost, affecting what kind of architecture to be produced. Rob, charm doesn’t only the benchmark of aesthetic quality. Even the sterile concept, if it sourced from a deep thinking and considering what context of the architecture, the sterile is, hardly to say, an aesthetic. By the way I still believe with saying, “Home Sweet Home”.

Comments are closed.