I thought of this term while visiting Indianapolis and
seeing their library and a nearby church converted to residential. Mullet
refers to a hairstyle that is:
-business in the front and party in back.
A mullet is a type of catfish. Mullet head is a derogatory
word implying poor and therefore stupid. This word became associated with the
hairstyle a few decades ago. While I claim credit for Chicago Facade, peeling
the facade off an old building then pasting it on a new one to satisfy nostalgia,
the Mullet Architecture term already exists.
Examples given are Frank Lloyd Wright’s Winslow house in
River Forest and modernist houses built in Nazi Germany which maintained a
severe front. I am extending the term to Mullet houses that meet the
requirements of historic districts while allowing large family rooms and
kitchens.
This type of restoration arises from envy of the Ranch
styles with their dramatic living/dining and open kitchen areas. People living
in Craftsman, Victorian, Four Square, Elizabethan, Georgian, Italianate, etc.
homes want to have the suburban open pit television aesthetic. Since they can’t
capture the spaciousness of those cheap unincorporated lots, they compensate
with fancy kitchens.
The kitchens are remarkable. Consider a restaurant line chef’s
work station. It is quite snug, in part because space for guests represents
revenue but also because chefs are on their feet. Some pastry chefs may
maintain a piece of marble, but I have yet to see any of the popular
counter tops in a restaurant kitchen. These home kitchen Hestia shrines are an atavism
representing a lost mythical past. One giveaway is the lack of a smoke hood
above a ridiculous industrial stove. I have seen paintings hung in a kitchen.
The Indianapolis Library anchors a large park designed in
the image of the National Mall. Centering of the Sales Force tower at the
opposite end of the park has already subverted the nationalist image.
Losing the original pleasant library building at the end of
the park would be wrong. I fail to see why keeping that building required that
they add on to it. A separate new library building, even at a different site
doesn’t seem to be more expensive.
I am not a fan of repurposing churches. I understand
nostalgia for the buildings. But the cheery appropriation of the sacred for the
profane is annoying. Indianapolis wanted to maintain the look of their park while
building condominiums. The mullet is easier than attempting an architecturally
appropriate modern building on the site.
