Beyond Buildings

 

The Dingbat Artistically Reconsidered

Submit A Comment | View Comments

Last week, the Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design announced the winner of its Dingbat 2.0 competition. Not only did I used to live in a dingbat in L.A., but I was one of the co-founders of the Forum, so I was intrigued by this news. I was also a bit disappointed, I have to admit, mainly for nostalgic reasons, that the winner and many of the other finalists saw the solution to this particular L.A. form as replacing that much-derided building block of Southern California urbanism. They were right, I guess, but I would still miss the dingbat.


Dingbat
Photo: Toby Begalke

 

The dingbat’s logic is simple: three stories of stud construction covered with stucco accommodates somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen units, each with either their own exterior entrance or, at most, one shared with one or two other apartments. Parking slips partially under and partially behind the structures. The basic box is simple and unadorned, except for the front, where a variety of moldings, colors and script try to evoke everything from French chateaux to Jetson futurism—the planner and critic John Chase called it “exterior decoration,” by analogy to the riots of styles on display in L.A.’s tonier interiors. Occasionally, there will be other benefits, like a bit of landscaping in the side walkways, a balcony here and there, and even, where owners have taken great pride, embellishments like enclosed patios.  

What makes the dingbat great is its generic quality, which allows for different strokes of living for different folks (culturally, economically, age-wise) while creating a unified appearance and set of spaces. The problem is that the dingbat can get mighty repetitive, is by its nature thinly and cheaply built, leaves virtually no open space, and is completely dependent on car culture for its logic.


During my period in Los Angeles, in the mid-eighties through the mid-nineties, I watched the replacement of this venerable building type by the massive apartment blocks, twice as tall, much more massive, and indescribably ugly, that amalgamated several lots and pressed countless inhabitants into smaller, dimmer, and more air-conditioned spaces. I also watched the flight into “town homes” in the suburbs, which took the basic idea of the semi-individual unit as part of a larger structure and stretched it to obscene proportions. The dingbat is a disappearing type.

 

Dingbat 2.0 proposes that the type is salvageable, especially given recent zoning and cultural changes in L.A. The simplest solutions propose letting the type become larger, stacking it up into higher structures and using the resulting free space as shared open courtyards or greenswards. In this sense I especially liked the design by the student winner, Ryan Lovett.

 

Student
Ryan Lovett's Design

 

The winner of the “professional’ category, a team called Footprint consisting of Carmen C. Cham, James Black, and Tyler Goss, suggested using zoning changes to do away with the dingbat altogether, breaking it up into smaller units. “Microparcelization” is now possible because L.A. allows the breakup of lots (so that you can build the infamous granny flat in the back), and Footprint suggests that this could be an opportunity for a new kind of case study program in which current technology and inventive design could come together to create not just individual micro-homes (or, to use real estate speak, “starter homes”), but ones that could be constructed using standardized components while letting each have its own character.


Winner
Footprint's Design


This seems quite reasonable, though you wonder whether the economic logic is clear: Who will pay for this degree of design, and who will give families the chance to buy such structures? Nonetheless, the winning proposal reaches back to that other great American tradition, that of the small, individual home built with quasi-mass production. Whether it is a salt box, a bungalow, or a Levittown Colonial, this is, for better or worse, the preferred American way of living. In Footprint’s version, at least there is the potential for some shared space, but I will continue to miss that other tradition, one which developed out of the bungalow courts and Spanish Colonial courtyard buildings of Southern California’s 1920s utopian dreams, and of which the dingbat is only the faintest echo. Someday we can hope to use architecture to build not just home sweet home, but community sweet community.

 

 
 

Comments

Be the first to add a comment to this post.

Comment on this Post

Post your comment below. If you wish, enter a username and password though they are not required. Please read our Content Guidelines before posting.

 

Enter the code shown in the image

Username is optional

 

Enter a password if you want a username

 
 

About the Blogger

Aaron Betsky

thumbnail image Aaron Betsky is the director of the Cincinnati Art Museum, and in 2008 he was director of the 11th Venice International Architecture Biennale. Trained as an architect at Yale, he has published more than a dozen books on art, architecture, and design and teaches and lectures about design around the world. Aaron worked for Frank O. Gehry and Associates and Hodgetts & Fung Design Associates as a designer, taught for many years at the Southern California Institute of Architecture, and between 1995 and 2001 was curator of architecture and design at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. From 2001 to 2006 he was director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.