Anti-development types are always, as we noted in a recent column, complaining about today’s architecture—that it’s big, boxy, devoid of detailing and “soulless”. We argued in that piece that zoning, design rules and other government regulations are often to blame. But we also argued that not all modern architecture is bad; often what is reviled today gets revered by later generations for representing a given historical era. One such design vernacular, often seen in Appalachia and the Intermountain West, is rustic modern. 

This design combines a baseline “rustic”—evoking heavy use of wood, stone and other natural materials—with the clean lines and glass facades of modernism. The rustic format has, of course, long existed as a quintessentially American style. The early American settlers along the frontier, with their log cabins, stone chimneys and clay insulation, were the official pioneers of rustic. However, by the late 1800s, writes design firm Vera Iconica, there grew to be an aesthetic demand for rustic architecture rather than a strictly pragmatic one.   

The style, unsurprisingly, became common in National Parks and other outdoors vacation hubs, including the Adirondack Mountains. It has been applied to everything from cabins to hotels to houseboats. But there are some key stylistic similarities. Along with the use of back-to-nature materials, rustic architecture has dark, earthy color palettes.

A theater/presentation room in the Grand Canyon Lodge (Image Credit: Miguel Hermoso Cuesta, Wikimedia Commons; CC ShareAlike Unported 3.0 License). 

Rustic architecture remains popular in the modern era, but in ways that conform to newer design standards. This “rustic modern” style specifically incorporates the steel beams, metal roofs and wide windows seen in modern architecture. 

Image Credit: Jeremy Levine Design, Openverse. (CC BY-2.0 license).

But such buildings incorporate natural materials, too, speaking to a conservationist impulse. Mixing the modern elements is designed to enhance these rustic traits, adding more character to avoid the “soulless” critique. Bricks (whether exposed or painted over) are perhaps the best material for merging the two styles.

The point at which rustic and modern were combined is a bit imprecise—one source claims that it began in the early 2010s, but it arguably dates back to Frank Lloyd Wright. His Fallingwater home in Pennsylvania took an emerging mid-century modernist style that was better known in cities and plopped it quite literally onto a waterfall in the woods. Wright wanted buildings to appear as integrated with nature as possible, stating, “No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill, belonging to it”. This is the rustic design ethos personified.

Rustic modern design is frequently seen in the West, particularly in California. In fact, West Coast redwoods are a common design influence. But its influence has gone global, reaching mansions in the Arabian Gulf. It’s also seen in bars and can be seen on the East Coast as well, particularly in the Appalachian region. 

This spreading of the genre will likely continue as mass production makes it cheaper and easier to capture the aesthetic. The irony is this nature-based look is often no longer natural. The wood-and-natural-stone aesthetic can be simulated using different concrete, cement and fiberboard products. 

Rustic modern architecture’s prominence demonstrates that the question of architectural aesthetics is more nuanced than critics of contemporary design claim. In fact, it’s possible for newer styles to blend with older, beloved ones and enhance them. The best rustic modern homes often command over $1,000 per square foot (excluding land). They can also be environmentally friendly, arguably more so than older architectural standards dictated. 

It’s yet another reason to avoid micromanaging design standards through restrictive, meddling regulations and just letting the market do its thing. 

This article featured additional reporting from Market Urbanist content staffer Ethan Finlan.

Cover image use authorized under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license