Description
Located in Southern California's Coachella Valley, this study examines some of the most exclusive golf clubs and their residential desert communities. Particular emphasis in this work is given to the architectural design guidelines of these communities and how they frame the aesthetics of 'landscapes of privilege' while simultaneously delineating the limits of creativity in custom home building. Based on site documentation, architectural analysis, and interviews, this fieldwork documents the ways design regulations dictate how residents must behave according to, buy in, or challenge the notion of homogeneity within the communities. A deep dive into the elite country clubs of the desert and their larger service and support communities brought to surface the cultural ideal of the 'good life' that underpins our society. To be in the top one percent has not proven to be a qualifier for complete creative freedom in design for these communities. This begs the question of why is not all privilege the same when it comes to design? Why do landscapes of privilege both conform with and diverge from the norm? And further, who controls homogeneity and deviation in architecture and landscape design?
Homogeneity and Controlled Deviation: Design Codes as Behavior Codes in California’s Golf Communities.
Located in Southern California's Coachella Valley, this study examines some of the most exclusive golf clubs and their residential desert communities. Particular emphasis in this work is given to the architectural design guidelines of these communities and how they frame the aesthetics of 'landscapes of privilege' while simultaneously delineating the limits of creativity in custom home building. Based on site documentation, architectural analysis, and interviews, this fieldwork documents the ways design regulations dictate how residents must behave according to, buy in, or challenge the notion of homogeneity within the communities. A deep dive into the elite country clubs of the desert and their larger service and support communities brought to surface the cultural ideal of the 'good life' that underpins our society. To be in the top one percent has not proven to be a qualifier for complete creative freedom in design for these communities. This begs the question of why is not all privilege the same when it comes to design? Why do landscapes of privilege both conform with and diverge from the norm? And further, who controls homogeneity and deviation in architecture and landscape design?