Comments on: HOUSE OF TOMORROW

By: Gordon Imrie

Gordon Imrie — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:10:41 +0000

But hey, give ‘em credit for getting so much stuff right. I hope the 2-ton computer is a metaphor for how much intelligence mankind can bring to problems facing us today.

By: Olli

Olli — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:01:59 +0000

I don’t like the idea of such a huge TV above my bed.. Seems able to produce some sort of “headache”

By: Al Bear

Al Bear — Wed, 21 May 2008 04:50:17 +0000

Ha ha ha! the house of the future still had a 2 ton 000.62Khz tape drive computer!;)

By: Casandro

Casandro — Tue, 20 May 2008 05:26:56 +0000

I guess the main reason it failed was that most technologies were simply not availiable back then.

Back then video-tape splicing was done regularly by TV-stations. For consumers that never was an issue as a year later the first decent quality (think VHS) consumer VTRs came out which were so cheap (think car) that you could have afforded 2 if you put some money into your hobby. If course you had to buy your equipment in europe or japan.

By: Blurgle

Blurgle — Tue, 20 May 2008 04:44:46 +0000

They’ve stressed function over form so much that they’ve forgotten the importance of form. If items don’t appeal to the senses in the way people expect, those items simply won’t be used no matter how functional they appear. People don’t want their sofas and beds to be adjustable as much as they want them to be soft and comfortable, not hard and sleek as those seem to be. They don’t want their dishes to be disposable as much as they want them to be sturdy and attractive. They don’t want their food to be cooked efficiently as much as they want it tasty with proper texture.

Even though some of the ideas could be adapted to a standard home, the package itself was bound to fail. People don’t want to be efficient at home: they want to be comfortable. This is about as uncomfortable as could be imagined.