Monsanto House of the Future

People's reaction of seeing the space age like future houses at first may have been odd at first, but everyone loved it. The Monsanto house and the Futuro had insane number of visits which showed the people's extreme interest. That did have a positive feel at first, as that could indicate that people accept that radical idea. 60,000 people visited the house each week.

Having the number of visits doesn't mean people will be running to go buy the prototype if the promotion isn't well, meaning the advertisement.

In Monsanto's case, it did have an advertisement/commercial aim of Monsanto chemicals showing off their skills.

I do think that diverted from the real aim of convincing people to buy this lifestyle. Designing a radical idea really can go in two ways either successful or not. For that reason, I think that is why it did not develop further than it is and 70 years later is still not in our lifestyle.

The overall look of the futuristic houses is space age like, it was inspired by movies that represented the future in a different and more fictional light.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: House And Home

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The design was too out of the box for people. They could not visualise it in their neighbourhoods. I think in the 1950-60's they visualised the future as the movies have shown us.

The future homes will reflect that lifestyle of shiny polyester clothes and silvery colours and alien influences. But, life down the line just got much quicker paced and that needed a practical aspect to catch up.

In my opinion that's where it went wrong and missed the mark.

However, nobody could really anticipate what the future life and our homes really could be like. I also think they were shooting in the dark, they should have studied people's opinions and perceptions of the future that could have shaped the home much more realistically. And therefore, find the connection and relate it to people as a marketing tool. In order to sell something, you must make it believable, and as much as Monsanto aimed at it with these photographs it was not successful.

However, The Bubble house was the only successful futuristic plastic home that had been inhabited and used for 30 years (1968-1998). It was discontinued later. This raises a very important idea that, even though The Bubble House was successful in its aim and goal. Why aren't we still living in that lifestyle? Did people grow out of that ideology of the 'space age' future? Referring back, I believe that's why it has not been applied to our homes now.

We still view plastic as a cheap material and do not like to be fully enclosed in polyester. I think people still view plastic as a non-natural, raw material that is quite synthetic. And that creates a stigma of it being non reliable compared to other materials.

Therefore, people could not visualise it other than it being a bag carrying their stuff or extra fleece to make you warm. These house experiments showcase durability, maintainable and affordable plastic home. I also believe that when people buy and build a home, they spend their hard-earned money on real raw and heavy materials that satisfies their hard work.

If they bought the futuristic home, with its pricey budget, they may feel they have been deceived in some way and aren't fully convinced. That also follows from the perception of what people feel towards plastic as a material.

Plastic in the 50's and 60's was relatively new. Now we are more familiar with it and have seen its enhanced properties, that we are now using it. Just like the house made from Affresol. Therefore, its not about just appeal but also the performance of materials.

I think the experimental homes presented the concept of plastic architecture and living in an environment consumed of plastic everywhere, however, as time pass, the idea of using plastic in our home became more conceptual and on a smaller level. Therefore, it's been implemented now in our lifestyle but on a conceptual level.

The Monsanto house was very difficult to knock down, it had to be sawed down. As it did not break with the wrecking ball. In fact, it bounced off. The rest of the experimental homes have not changed; they are still found in their same condition. Fierbach's futuristic home did not need any more renovations.

They all have a similar design set design approach that cannot be changed, unless adding their duplicates. That has its own positives and negatives in our world now. In terms of our lifestyle, we keep evolving and changing our layouts from the inside. Many buildings may start with a function and then it continues to change.

Therefore, once we build a house, we need to consider how it may change in the future. For example, if it may be applicable for an extension etc. Moreover, if we have houses made from plastic, it will be very difficult to adapt and change. It is not sustainable for our future yet. Another point of view is, if we do build houses from plastic with a set design and layout that does not need change. Then it does become