NO ONE COULD ACCUSE THESE HOUSES of being cookie-cutter. While cruising the East Hampton listings in the $600-800,000 range, these two, er, unusual houses came up. They’re not entirely out of context. The Hamptons have long been known for outrageous beach-house architecture, some of it brilliant.
But I’m not sure what to make of these two. I like their spirit, but they seem to be trying way too hard. Architect-designed during a ’60s-’70s Hamptons building boom, they’re remnants of an age whose architecture is taking an awfully long time to become fashionable again, if ever it will be.
The white cube with giant fisheye, above, was designed by Henri Gueron. It was featured in Architectural Record, and in a book called The Great Houses (McGraw Hill), below. New to market, asking 799K, it’s tiny by today’s inflated standards: 2 beds, 2 baths, 950 square feet on half an acre, with a new pool, below, a fancy Italian kitchen, and a roof deck.
While the white box makes me cringe a little, the winged wood one, below, makes me laugh. Is it a nod in plywood to Saarinen’s TWA terminal or a Palm Springs gas station?
Known as the “Butterfly House,” it dates from 1964. The architect was Henry T. Howard (Google comes up short). Three bedrooms, 2 baths, 1,200 square feet, felicitously located on a wooded corner lot in Springs, not far from Accabonac Harbor and magnificent bay beaches. The interior, below, looks promising, and it was just reduced to 725K.
While I would prefer my next house to be a late 19th century shingled farmhouse with a front porch, as soothing and unchallenging as my beloved Impressionists, I would also kind of enjoy furnishing that crazy cube with classic modern furniture, rya rugs, and a nice, big Jackson Pollock.
The more I look at these two oddities, the better I like them. They’re interesting, and that’s more than can be said for most houses. They’re economically small. They’re secluded. But they’re strange. It will take a very special buyer, now and forever after, which makes these houses a pretty hard sell and a chancy investment. Maybe they’ll be highly prized in 30 years, if they don’t get torn down by then.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 9, 2010 at 12:08 am
Terry Kearns
I like the both but prefer wings myself. Butterfly’s great room is great. Chilly near those windows I’d guess. I’m getting way too chilly in Atlanta right now.
January 9, 2010 at 8:53 am
Astor C.
Great houses. Just over-priced. Both would be fantastic canvases for furnishings, either stark moderne or go against the grain and do French Rococo a la “2001″.
January 9, 2010 at 9:25 am
Allegra Dioguardi
I DO like the inside of the “butterfly” house but the outside (and it may the photography) looks like a huge wedge from space landed on the house! I have to give them credit for trying though. You always turn up some interesting houses Cara, great post, thanks!
January 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm
design snob
Bite your tongue, Cara! It would be tragic to see the house with wings demolished and, well, a bit sad to see the cube go, too.
January 9, 2010 at 1:32 pm
cara
God knows, snob, I don’t *want* it to happen, but it very well could, and that would be a pity.
January 9, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Harriet Bell
Well, what if the house with wings was painted white? Think about it.
It’s no worse than many other Hamptons houses.
January 10, 2010 at 9:29 am
cara
White would make it stand out more (when there’s no snow, anyway). Don’t think that’s a good thing. I don’t think it’s any worse than many other Hamptons houses – in fact, better! But I still don’t think it qualifies as ‘good architecture,’ whatever that is.