A facade doesn't have to survive a nuclear strike

Modern private architecture in Russia has never gone mainstream. Even though it has been "modern" for 30 years (or 100, depending on how you count) and has become commonplace in, say, the Scandinavian countries, the houses we build are very conservative — 19th century at the very least.

It would be interesting to trace why. There are many factors. For one, people have nowhere to experience a modern country house — no one they know lives in one. And bold designs are often expensive and complicated. The conventional house is more familiar.

But I have some thoughts on a topic close to home — finishing the facade. To lend weight to the simple form of a modern house, the suggestion is to use aged, hand-formed bricks made from the layered clays of some particular Austrian region, in a special shape, on a two-year lead time. The market bought it, and it works. That's how architecture gets pushed into the premium segment: supposedly you simply can't build a modern house without that brick, slate, or zinc-titanium roof.

And really, you don't have to be afraid of stucco, siding, faux stone, or painted metal. Beauty lies in beautiful combinations, proportions, and accents. A facade doesn't have to survive a nuclear strike or be passed down to your great-grandchildren. A facade can be repaired and renewed. And that's fine.

Once you untangle the neurotic knot tied by sellers of "timeless" materials and insecure architects, building becomes easier.