Got my July issue of FH and read the article by Bob Deshotels on yet another one of Frank Loyd Wright’s designs that is being expensively “rehabilitated”. Am I missing an important point here?
I have always tried to believe that residential architects have an important role to play in designing and creating sound housing that provides comfort, pleasure and pride in the lives of the owners, and also makes a positive and lasting contribution to the community.
Yet over the years, I can’t honestly say that I see any of the above-mentioned, admittedly personal, criteria being evident (to me) in Mr. Wright’s designs and construction methods, let alone his business practices. I feel that if this sort of article was written about a carpenter’s work, then one would be ill-advised to consider any of that person’s work. Seriously, what am I missing? And this is not intended to be read as sarcasm.
Replies
You say:
"...architects have an important role to play in designing and creating sound housing that provides comfort, pleasure and pride in the lives of the owners, and also makes a positive and lasting contribution to the community."
If you cannot see any of these criteria evident in the works of Mr. Wright, then I suggest you invest the time and effort to develop more than a passing acquaintance with his works.
Anyone who's read the most trifling of biographies of Mr. Wright is aware that his business practices and his experimentation with construction practices could be contentious (as often was his personality and personal life). However, his work speaks for itself, and ultimately for Mr. Wright, the end may well justify the means.
What am I missing, you ask? Visit the Hollyhock house in person and find out for yourself. Visit any Wright house in person. Many of Wright's famous structures look fabulous in photographs, but photographs cannot begin to portray how a space is actuallly perceived and physically experienced--and that's what the best Wright spaces are--an experience.
Mr. Wright understood and could manipulate space and light like no other architect in the history of human endeavor. He could interweave and contrast enclosure with openness, dark with light, shelter with nature, with effortless genius. Wright's best spaces are truly sublime and profoundly moving.
Wright was also an extremely inventive and daring builder--for every leaky roof, there are a dozen marvelous innovations of construction and engineering. Overall, Wright has made a tremendous impact on our country and the world that continues to affect the way we live and build, though most people may remain unaware of this.
To be able to live in a Wright house would be an unfathomable joy and a truly life-enriching experience. For a century people have known this and have very willingly suffered whatever problems some of his structures may have had.
...Plus, it seems to me that there are plenty of conventionally built houses that require some level of restoration and reconstruction after eighty years of poor maintenance.
Edited 5/27/2002 5:38:03 PM ET by Tellurian
A Wright house interacts with both its environment and with the dweller. He thought and acted outside the box. Creative and original. That means that sometimes he developed previously unused and untested methods. His engineeering was often poor but his concepts were worthy of study. His personality precluded working WITH other architects and engineers in a team approach which was both a major strength and weakness in his style. He is an inspiration, not another rubber mold.
His engineeering was often poor but his concepts were worthy of study
You got that wright! I delivered a TV in mid '60's during stint as TV reapirman to a Wright house in Decatur , IL.
My oh my, the torturous stairs to get anything into that house with out damaging the walls. Only place I've seen worse was parts of the Winchester house.
Especially HUMAN engineering, ever sat in one of his chairs?? Ouch!
I do have to give him credit for one thing. One of the big life decisions to be a DIY was seeing the Decatur, IL and Springfield IL , and the Oak Park Wright house(s) when I was a kid. I walked by the Springfield one every day on the way home from grade school, thought it was an abandoned Synagoge (probably because of the stained glass style) till I finally found out what it was. Knew I could conform to my own tastes better myself. I did learn an appreciation for QS oak from the spfld house.
While he may have made his mistakes and what architect has not. We curse the one who designed our facility on a daily basis. It was Wrights Imperial hotel that survived the 1923 Tokyo earthquake. When a lot of other contemporary structures did not.
I want to thank you all for your responses to my question. You have given me a lot to consider and mull over, even the response from Tellurian which was so over-the-top with adulation for FLW that I assumed it to be a well crafted joke.
Everything I know about Frank Loyd Wright I have learned from the pages of Fine Homebuilding over the years (decades). Maybe the natural human bias of the Fine Homebuilding writers has resulted in my confusion about the true value of this architect and his works. I owned and lived in an 1880's home built without benefit of an architect as far as I could determine. It was comfortable. and solidly built. Maintenance was minimal, the roof certainly didn't leak, and I am sure that, barring disasters, it will continue to serve its function well for another 100 years. Most of the other houses in the small townwere of approximately the same age, and went from generation to generation. Isn't this the important thing about human habitation? The house was rather pretty as well.
Anyway, thanks again everybody.
I've had the same question, but as others have mentioned, despite the problems with many of his homes, he pioneered a new way of designing houses.
Good or bad, you know when you're in a Wrightt space. Some don't like 'em, many do. All architects have learned from him as well as the public.
The only Wright I've actually been in is Falling Water. I'd hate to live in, but it is a very special space to experience.
Some architects produce art. Some produce buildings
for people to live in (form follows function). I don't
care for the idea that an architect creates a design which
forces you to live the way he envisions. Probably ####legitimate artistic expression, but not the way I wish to
live. Wright designed houses as a whole, including the
furniture. He was known to rearrange the furniture to
match his original plan when invited back to a home he
designed. I do not buy clothing that forces my body into
some shape that the designer finds pleasing. I buy clothes
that are comfortable, functional, and compliment the
shape that I naturally have (flawed as it may be). Some
art is meant to be pleasing and decorative. Some is meant
more as an academic illustration of a principle. Was the
work of Albers a significant contribution to art? Yes.
Would I rather have "Dogs playing Poker" hanging on my wall?
You bet.
Not that I don't consider Wright the most influential
architect of the century. Elements of his designs will
shape the course of architecture for centuries to come.
I think that some of his work is unfortunately the sort
of stuff that you visit and say "what a wonderful design",
then you go home to a building you can really live in.
Certainly there will be flaws in the execution of such
innovative work. On the whole, I think his engineering was
amazing. Most people with that sort of gift also have their
share of quirks. Wright surely did. Why are there not
millions of exact copies of his homes throughout the world?
Not even considering the cost or difficulty of execution,
his designs don't don't really "fit". They are wonderful,
but in my opinion don't make sufficient concessions to the
way people want to actually live their daily lives.
"I have always tried to believe that residential architects have an important role to play in designing and creating sound housing that provides comfort, pleasure and pride in the lives of the owners, and also makes a positive and lasting contribution to the community."
That was an important goal of Wright's too - he didn't just design single houses for rich clients. Read "The Usonian House" for example. It is in part because of Wright and others who embraced similar ideas in the first half of the 20th century that beliefs like the one you state (above) are considered universal today.
If you can spare $10, Click Here
T. Jeffery Clarke
Edited 5/27/2002 2:21:36 PM ET by Jeff Clarke
When you push the envelope, sometimes it tears. But even then, hopefully, someone will to figure out why it tore, which leads to collective advances.
Collectively, that's good. Unfortunately, he's dead too soon too learn from his own mistakes.
Excellence is its own reward!
Funny enough I also on my own called him Frank Lloyd Wrong.Although I have extreme respect for creative people .I consider Frank an impractical designer of houses. I really never cared for the Stickley furniture or the Mission style although I WOULD incorporate some of its features in my work. Yet on a whole I find it depressing......hence depression style. IMHO I think..just my opinion....homes and furnature should be a place of homage and reflection to ones inner being. Bringing out our most creative and warm feelings...and of course our anger. Yet Franky boy.....seemed to me to be kind of impractical in an area that deserves practicality. Kind of depressing in my mind. Yet, his concepts were enormous and I totally understand where the brother was coming from...Just think of it this way if you wish.....as I do.....Franklyn was a master of thought..Maybe never completed the thought in the sense of comfort nor energy efficient...yet he paved a path to "thought" and "imagination" and I hope eventually I can do the same......a place to pick up wheree the diude left off. I've spent 27 years within this craft of BUILDING....I think at 51 its now my time to develope a project to reflect all of my critisisms and aknowledgements of past builders. I really like the work of Robert Stern who happens to to still be alive,,,,. Just kinda dig his rythum. I kinda dig a whole lotta floks that produced inferior and yet intense ideas. Its what we can learn from. I dig Franky in the sense that the dude was off the chart....Ya dont have to be so in sinc with it all.ya jus' have to understand his work.....kinda like Jackson Pollack who I relate to more then anyone on this planet yet to this day I kinda dont get his artwork...MAybe thats what its all about..its about having people make you THINK and open up to other ideas.....ya know what I mean? One thing I'v e"finally" learned is.....ok.so now I know how to do it all almost...kinda sorta..so does that mean I should bounce from gig to gig doing all I know....or...should I start to develope new ideas and bring what builders throughout history such as Franky did.......should I forget about where my next check comes from and focus more on new ideas within my "small" yet precious life? I think thats what Franky did....I think thats what Jackson did,,,,,I think all creative and devoted craftspeople do that......Whats that cabinet makers name that lives in sonoma California????? German dude I think..HAs a great book on cabinet making,,,,Its nothin' but his concepts and the Zen of building.....Sorry I forget his name. I spoke to him once and I pissed him off for calling his furnature "stuff".....lol.......sorry bro but I'm fron NY! Anway....sorry for the rant,,,gotta get off to work now
Be well ya all
Namaste'
Andy
It's not who's right, it's who's left ~ http://CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
Edited 5/28/2002 7:25:39 AM ET by Andy Clifford(Andybuildz)
I don't personally know a lot about the guy, but most of what I've heard isn't good. But I think he probably gets a bum wrap to some degree because we see more of his mistakes than some other inventors.
For instance - Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein both came up with some brilliant ideas, as well as a heck of a lot that didn't pan out. The ideas they had that worked well got them a lot of attention. The ones that didn't work faded from memory pretty quickly.
But the houses that FLW built are there 100% - With both good and bad points for all to see. It takes some effort to look beyond the things that didn't work to see some of the things that did. But I think there are things to be learned if we look hard enough.
Beauty is only skin deep. But ugly goes all the way to the bone.
Many of these comments come from a present-day viewpoint - hindsight is always 20/20. You have to keep in mind where Wright was with respect to the times - for instance he did this in 1906. Look at other 1906 buildings by comparison and you'll see that he was light years ahead of his time, in a way that presaged many of our present commonly-held beliefs about what communities and buildings should be like.T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
I think of FLW as all that is wrong with "bad" architects/designers today. Impractical and illogical. Draw it without knowing if it can be safely built that way. Drawing with no concerns whether the local code will accept it.
I live fairly close to Falling Water, and have visited many times. Right now..they are finishing up a major structural remodel....those famous concrete cantilevers were falling off...because Wright agrued with the engineers at the time as to how much rebar to put in......he finally gave in and went with about half of the recommended....and it still wasn't right!
The project was bid at like $35K.....and wound up costing over 5 times more. But as a show of good faith....he didn't raise his design fee based on cost % off of the original 35K.....nice guy.
The "stream" inside the house wasn't a planned feature. Flat roofs really aren't a good idea in snow country....and looks like concrete cantilevers really do need some kinda support after all. Most uncomfortable furniture in the world.
Form over function....style over substance. Sometimes ya doen't get what ya pay for!
Count me out of the Love Wright club.....until I can explain that a binding door is more "in-tune with nature"....and the customers will pay 5 times the going rate for that crap. Jeff "That's like hypnotizing chickens........."
One thing I find suprising is that he was one pre-eminent architect when it came to mouthing the mantra "form follows function" (which is true of course) but then designed flat roofs.
If the function of a roof is to shed water...Excellence is its own reward!
I wholeheartedly agree whith the other posters who have replied.
Mr. Wright was decades ahead of his time, a time when engineering was not as readily applied to residential housing as it is now. We now recognize that engineering is important to certain designs more than others, any builder can throw up a standard split level home, but for more complex designs structural engineers are consulted. This is indicative of how far ahead of his time Mr. Wright was. He was pushing the limits of every trade at the time and experimenting with new materials, especially concrete in an effort to make his vision a reality. I read that at the S.C. Johnson Wax building, that he had to strip the first of the forms off of the ceiling supports himself, the workers were too afraid it would fall on them. He also proved the design for the supports succesful by placing more weight on a test model than it was expected to carry, as people wagered on what weight it would fail at.
Nowdays we know about and have developed methods like post and pre tensioning for concrete units, as well as improvemants in metals, concrete, in waterproofing methods and materials, and sealers and sealants, glass and thousands of other materials.
I think Mr. Wrights designs have held up remarkably well over the years. They have also been important to future designs by giving a measuring stick to architects and engineers. I think if there is any weakness in his designs it due to technology and materials and engineering not keeping pace with his vision. Should he have done more engineering on his projects? Probably. Could he have handled clients better? Yes.Could he have been less domineering? Maybe. Would he have been the Wright that we know and appreciate today? Would we have what we have today from him? I don't think so.
Chris
I went through 4 years of Architecture school so i know a little about this man. I can tell you most of the students HATED Wright. They called him Frank Lloyd Wrong. Frank was traind as a Engineer and then worked under Louie Sullivian. Frank was the only architect who made his Flat roofs Flat, NO pitch, yes they leaked. His designs were not structrually sound, Ever been to Falling Water a.k.a Falling apart?. Everyone feels his builldings were WAY overrated. His furnature was VERY unconfortable and he always had Narrow dark hallways. If Frank was so influnciall, Why dont you see many copys of his homes being built??
Our school had Two Wright homes. The AFleck house and Smith house. both homes were in very high-end neighborhoods, yet you couldent give me one of his homes. His homes were VERY high maitence.
I have been to Fallingwater, I have also been to a little known Wright designed home about thirty minutes away from Bear Run. ( Since you have been to architecture school I will let you dig up the name).
By the way did anyone stop to consider that the problems of Fallingwater possibly could have more to do with the dynamic loads of thousands of tourists more than anything else? The structure was designed to be a home, not a meeting hall or museum or any other place where many people walk and congregate in groups.
I also attend an architecture program at an institution of higher learning.
Obviosly you missed my point in my earlier post. I don't think any of us would let someone build a home for us today with all of the same techniques that were popular fifty or a hundred years ago. I did not mean to imply that the man was not without fault, nor was I defending all of his methods. I am simply offering the popular opinion that the man was ahead of his time in many areas, and brought alot to the table which was instrumental in helping to define an American style of architecture. We should all at least be grateful to him for his willingness to experiment.
One mans junk is another mans treasure. Personally I can't stand Le Corbussier's work.
Edited 5/30/2002 9:12:57 PM ET by CLWEBB
Edited 5/30/2002 9:16:31 PM ET by CLWEBB
Edited 5/30/2002 9:24:11 PM ET by CLWEBB
Having read through the above posts, I would offer the following advice to anyone thinking of forming their opinion of FLW from what has been said.
Buy a couple of books on Wright and read them. Books that cover his religious, commercial and residential buildings- including his houses for the very wealthy, and his numerous houses for the lower middle class.
Then read some American history of the time, and look at American social development, just to place his work in context- both technologically and culturally. Look at his buildings alongside other works being commissioned at the time. Understand what he thought of his context, and how he wished to change it.
Place his remarkable engineering successes like the Johnson Wax Building columns alongside the failure of the cantilevers at Fallingwater, and the leaking Prairie House roofs. Understand that at times engineers vehemently contradicted Wright and were dramatically proven to be wrong.
Examine his writings on the role of machine fabrication in architecture, and its effects on construction economics. Look at how he forced his students to obtain hands-on experience of construction.
Read what the skilled tradesmen he regularly worked with had to say about his designs and his construction methodology.
Read what usonian house owners have written about their homes.
And then visit a few of his buildings- not just the showpiece houses- try to experience some of the range of his work. Architecture is never adequately conveyed by pictures and words.
Sit in the uncomfortable dining room chairs, but not by yourself. Sit at a Wright dining table with a group of people, so that each chair is filled, and consider Wright's stated reasons for making the chairs the way they are. Do not mistake his intentions with an inability to design a comfortable chair, or an aesthetic preference for the way an empty chair looks over its usefulness.
Wright's successes and failures, and the argued significance of his contribution cannot be adequately covered in a few dozen posts.
Whether you like his work or not, I cannot imagine what our north american landscape would be like had he not made the considerable contribution that he did. As with Le Corbusier, too.
And finally, before blindly repeating "form follows function", ask yourself- "what's a function, and which functions must a building fulfill in order to be successful?"
At least you can spell "Architecture"....
Frankly, I find the Hollyhock house pretty ugly. But I think that's just a matter of taste. I just don't like flat roofs. I was raised to like a steep roof. So I pretty much don't like any Frank Lloyd Wright work when shown just an elevation photograph. Too flat. I do get the concept of intermingling nature and machine-made objects. I admire the attention to detail of esthetic. I'm a proponent of using new materials in unexpected way. But I can't respect the lack of attention to detail of construction practicality. In my mind, I don't care how many creeks you run in front of the fireplace because the sound of water brings you closer to your subconscious, a roof needs to not leek. To design a roof that is not going to shed water consistently is a failure to provide shelter. To use so many windows you can't keep the place a comfortable temperature is a failure to provide shelter. That's why a few of these houses are on display and are not residences. He just went too far. Or in this case, not far enough. The article clearly explained how he just didn't give it his full attention. Maybe if he had, the construction would have proven to be more robust.
Famous architect on page 108, or just darned lazy one on page 65 that specified a too thin curved wall and a too wide door, I think the magazine is sending a consistent message. Architects may need more than a little help to get the details right. That's why a lot of the important ones work in an office full of engineers, And some of the have to just make do with having the carpenter show them a little geometry worked out full scale on the slab in red chalk.
B
About five years ago I toured Taliessen (sp) West in Scottsdale, Arizona and had a couple of observations. The concrete and rock work looked pretty unprofessional. The front door was so short that you would hit your head if you were over 5'8". Also very dark inside. To his credit, he sure knew how to locate a house in the landscape!
On a related subject. They still train architecture students there. They give them some rocks, boards and a few other supplies and have them make their own accommodations while at the school. Talk about some crude places to live! Interesting.
Wright did for architecture what Sinatra did for the romantic ballad. It would have been interesting to see how his work would have evolved had he lived 300 years. Wright must be one of the top 100 Americans of all time. He designed for the superrich. Only they could afford his time. The same folks who have all the Rembrandt or Bernard Buffet paintings on their walls. As for "energy efficiency," the term means nothing to the class he worked for. Fact is, it didn't mean much to the general population until the contrived oil crisis of around 1973. F. L l. W. Was a product of the so-called "Federal Period," which spanned from after the Civil War until WW I, a period of unequalled prosperity, the likes of which will never again be seen.
"...Civil War until WW I, a period of unequalled prosperity..."
Take a look at the Panic of 1890 (you are on the internet, the date is only from "off the top of my head") -- please do not dispense grossly historically inaccurate info.
WSJ rates post WWI till 2000 as "most" -- <G> am I BSing, or is that accurate?? <GGG>
"the likes of which will never again be seen."
You mean until now? Great revolutuions in the way we go about production have always brought on advances in prosperity. The agricultural revolution allowed men to settle in one place and grow larger communities with time available for the arts. The industrial revolution brought on the type of prosperity you mention. The cyber revolution brings us to where we have been for the last several years.
With each of these, a class of few profited more than others from the situation at hand, depending on their control of the means.
Many of the new rich today try to emulate the class of the past without having any class of their own. FLW tried to ignore so-called class or establish his own.
Excellence is its own reward!
What Wright brought America was a break from it's insecurities. He wasn't alone (Sullivan for one was mentioned) , but he was part of America finding it's own design voice.
Even though 200 years of building ingenuity had taken place on this continent, builders (and the few actual architects) that existed, were busy copying from the past and ultimately other parts of the world. Wright looked to this continent with his prairie and Mayan themes in an effort to define a truly American style.
The rich to this day show off their insecurities with design elements derived from the past and other 'empires'. A huge majority of buildings carry their (often poorly interpreted) influences from Greece, Rome, England etc. Take a look at the White House for one example, what indigenous American forms do you see in that? Just an insecure new country posing it's way into the world with a Greek temple. Gee, what's Las Vegas today?
Wright looked to America. In his time this was an important part of America coming of age in the world.
That said, his building are not all that great. He experimented architecturally and in engineering terms. Experiments can fail or are often crummy places to live.
More disappointingly, even though he broke the mold, he too was a stylist.
In the words of another great American designer / architect, Charles Eames: "The extent to which you have a design style is the extent to which you fail to have a good design"
I've never been in a Wright house, and certainly have never studied his work, but the one in Hollywood mentioned is ugly...and flat roofs are always the mark of a great designer...
Some people look at crap that someone like warhol painted and call it beautiful, groundbreaking art. And other people look at the same thing and call it crap.
Wright might have been famous and all that, but that house fell from the ugly tree and hit all the branches on the way down. There's dozens of beautiful homes near the Wright house in the Hollywood hills that were designed and built much better and heven't required renovation after renovation just to keep standing.
A lot of FLW's stuff is great looking. The Guggenheim building is much better looking than the modern "art" inside. Personally, I don't need an architect to match the napkin rings to the house trim for me. Much of the earlier work is nice to look at, however I find there are earlier architects he was "inspired" by. I asked an architect, why there were 50 FLW books to every one book about another architect and the response was, "Because he did it all. He didn't need an engineer." So I mention the state of Falling into the Water, which has not collapsed because of the minimal rebar that the contractor snuck in despite FLWs refusal to use any. "Uhh.."
This Old House visited Taliesen. I left with an image of this sad and uninspired group of architects trying to be FLW Jr. The architect that gave the tour was inarticulate and boring. ...that's not a mistake, it's rustic
Corrections:
"He designed for the superrich. Only they could afford his time."
Poppycock, as a not-too-extensive examination of his works will reveal. (Tour the Pope-Leighy house in the DC area, for example. There are many others.)
He did claim to experiment more on houses for the rich rather than for those of modest means, since the rich could afford to take the risks. One wealthy prospective client asked for advice from a friend who lived in a Wright house. The friend replied that the house would cost double what Wright estimated, and that the roof would leak. And that it would be the best house he ever lived in.
"Why aren't people building his houses?"
They are -- the ranch house, of which there are a few around, is a direct descendant of the Prairie style. Low-pitched roof, strong horizontal aspect, deep overhangs...
They're also copying components: carports, radiant in-floor heating...
Love or hate his works, place your own value on form vs function, decry his egomania or applaud his charisma. Just don't deny his amazing flow of innovation or his lasting impact.
lj
"Federal Period..." Do you mean the "Gilded Age?" I thought the Federal Period was what came after the American Revolution, or architecturally, what came after the Georgian Period. :-)
While Frank Lloyd Wright did design many homes for very wealthy Americans (he actually passed on a commission from Henry Ford, probably the wealthiest man in the world at the time), Mr. Wright also spent the latter part of his career attempting to create affordable and practical housing for the average American--this is what his Usonian house was all about. Mr. Wright did in fact often successfully create houses that were affordable for his clients (and, as we all know, he also often overran budgets, sometimes dramatically), and his houses were in very many ways more practical that some would care to acknowledge. And what's more, he tried. The world owes a debt to Mr. Wright's fearless experimentation.
Flat roofs--Leaky? Yes, sometimes--but a flat roof is simple, which means it requires less material and is easy to construct.
The Usonian houses typcially had slab on grade foundations, centralized utility cores, were constructed of very common materials like plywood and concrete block, and were planned and constructed on very strict modular systems--all in an effort to make houses that were attractive, easily constructed, and affordable. Mr. Wright even designed furniture that his clients could build themselves out of plywood (most of which was actually quite servicable).
Energy efficiency? Mr. Wright may well have been the first architect to employ passive solar principles with serious intent. The Robie house of 1908-09 has those famously dramatic Prarie Style overhangs that, as it turns out, are a flawless passive solar design. In the winter, sunlight streams into the living/dining room, while the summer sun just kisses the bottoms of the french doors. The majority of Wright's later houses employed some level of passive solar design. What's more, the typical Usonians were relatively compact (yet versatile), had radiant floor heating systems, and incorporated thermopane windows before their use was common --all measures towards energy efficiency. The second house Mr. Wright built for Herbert Jacobs in Middleton, WI was, so far as I'm aware, America's first earth-bermed house (pioneer dugouts excluded).
Skeptics should note that, aesthetics aside, Frank Lloyd Wright was responsible for many technical and planning innovations that we continue to use to this day.
Wright specified he world's first wall-hung toilets--easy to mop under, thus more sanitary (first installed in the Larkin Company Administration Building in 1903). Also pioneered in the Larkin Building were uses of plate glass, all metal office furniture, and while the Larkin Building wasn't the first to have true air conditioning, it was the earliest to take full advantage of integrated mechanical air conditioning/climate control system (and no, in spite of common folklore, it was not cooled by blocks of ice).
Mr. Wright was not a poor engineer--he was a highly intuitive engineer who did astonishing things with concrete and steel. The dendriform columns in the Johnson Wax Building are 21'-7.5" tall, a mere 9 inches in diameter (and hollow) at the base, and capable of supporting something like 60 tons. Most people build swimming pools out of shotcrete--Mr. Wright built the Guggenheim. Is there any detractor of Wright who is capable of creating anything on par with the Price Tower?
People who are generally unfamiliar with Wright's work love to cite the problematic cantilevered balcony at Fallingwater as his folly, but is there a more astonishing, more exhilarating house in existence? (And BTW, the sagging cantilever is as likely due to errors in construction as any design flaw.)
Edited 5/29/2002 2:33:02 AM ET by Tellurian
Edited 5/29/2002 2:46:17 AM ET by Tellurian
I once heard that if you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion.
After reading this thread I think that also applies to architects............(-:
If men had periods, they'd brag about the size of their tampons.
After reading this thread I think that also applies to architects
Gee, Ron, I see mostly builders above failing to reach a conclusion <G>.
Part of it is how you go about defining FUNCTION for form to follow. We should not be so hasty as to assume that the only functions of a house are to (a) keep the rain out (b) not fall down and (c) be reasonably comfortable. A house should do all of those things, but I've seen concrete apartment blocks in the former Soviet Union that do all three quite well. I would not want to live in one.
It is also part of the nature of a house to define and express who we are, why we are alive and what we stand for. The charge to us today is not either-or, but BOTH-AND - I believe that you can have both in an environment where builder, architect and owner are all valued as critical forces in the process of making a house. The importance of this was put so well by Winston Churchill who said, "We shape our buildings, and then they shape us."
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Edited 5/29/2002 9:29:35 AM ET by Jeff Clarke
pay yer $8 and take the tour. Even the tour guides will tell ya......it's sagging because it was engineered....then Wright made them change it closer to his numbers. Engineers said it would fail....it did. Plain and simple.
Now that they can make it a highlight of the tour...they're happy to explain and show it all.
Dude might a been a fantastic idea man.....buy I wouldn't let him build my house. Lotsa architects and designers think their stuff's great till someone has to point out.....uh...that won't work. Jeff "That's like hypnotizing chickens........."