I think I agree with most of Kevin Williamson’s additions to and critiques of my piece on traditional architecture. I think the California bungalow has a lot going for it, especially the location in California. And I can see the kind of optimism in the development of Irvine’s style of housing. But I have to admit that, as attractive as the weather is, I find the Eichler style of residential housing more appealing in theory or in magazines than in practice. They can be photographed beautifully on a beautiful day. But unless you have a very purposefully designed landscape around it, the fishbowl-like quality that looks nice in a real-estate photo is actually a bit of a nuisance for living in — requiring ungainly coverings for basic privacy, or rather terrible amounts of energy for cooling. Also, there’s the upkeep. What was economical for Eichler’s building company may not be for the owner.
Williamson says that government is here to help us live our lives as we want, not tell us what we should want. I think the insight Roger Scruton had was that prices often tell us what people do want. And the premium on traditional neighborhoods featuring traditional buildings in London is globally notable. The same goes for townhouses in Chelsea, N.Y., and the Victorians in San Francisco. On the other side, apartment blocks, which don’t create a greater density than you’d find in Notting Hill, arouse political resistance, and can become a detriment to social life on the street.