Architecture

Page 1 of 2  
What is your take on Frank Lloyd Wright Architecture?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe this group's main discussion focus is on the architecture and design of digital processing circuitry.
I always have to LOL however, when I noting the frequency of wayward newcomers to the field of building architecture, who's first inquiry is always about FLW. I LOL again.
On a completely different topic, If Intel keeps the price cutting and AMD follows lock step, we're all going to be out of work!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jeff Myers wrote:

There are a lot of books on it. Do you have an opinion on it or are you just taking a poll?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Innovative at the time, inspires a lot of ideas (to me at least), beautiful materials, visually rhythmic and often pleasantly (to me) asymmetrical, yet balanced; in execution, would not meet todays; standards for engineering or energy-efficiency.
I was in Wingspread for a conference once, an dit was definitely "way cool" ;) , and 've already gone at some length, in the past, about my experience visiting the Guggenheim; I have several books on FLW's works and often look at them. I don't personally take it "lock, stock, and barrel" so to speak, IOW it is not "my perfect style", but lots of great visual and spatial rhythms.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was in Falling Water about 20 years ago. I really liked it, but I'm tall and the door heads were about 6'-2" and constantly brushed my hair. Mr. Kaufman was 6'-4" and must have had permanent bruises on his forehead. EDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
eds wrote:

So your hair was nice... That would be handy for when you were in a rush and didn't really have the time. You could curve the door heads just so for around the ears, that is unless you prefer a flat-top.

Or a hunched back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
eds wrote:

hmm, how tall was Frank L? Someone in the thread mentioned that some FLW edifaces would not meet code today but wasn't Falling Water overengineered for its time?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

His cantilevers are notorious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:35:08 -0400, Michael Bulatovich wrote:

Thanks. I am a proud black cock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He was about 5'-7". Falling Water was not well engineered, more by seat-of-the-pants than calculations and recently had several million dollars of done to bring it up to minimal standards. I still think it is about the best house I've ever been in. I was lucky enough to work for a FLLW follower during the 60's and 70's. EDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I actually like his slightly earlier work a bit better. I find it a bit more accessible. I've been in a bunch of his buildings, including Fallingwater, the Chicago stuff and the Goog, and there's no doubt he was a gifted designer. I haven't seen any of the late stuff in person. On paper it strikes be as wacky, but then I used to like Bruce Goff's stuff when I was a kid in the '70's...now not so much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Bulatovich wrote:

I like his earlier work (even his unbuilt) better, too, because he actually thought in terms of how people used his spaces and what delight they might encounter with this or that space or detail, from the areas he set up in his own home for his children to act out plays to the beauty and utility of individual window, lamp, masonry, and other designs. In that respect, he doesn't differ in some of the detail work one sees in , say, classic Brown and Root (before they became defense contractors - talk about defaming your own heritage) and rivals Tiffany in decorative potential and color use. He was supposed to be quite the taskmaster on details in his studio but the almost family orientation of his earlier studio provided a kind of focus that is often lost today on two percent jobs with little margin for design out of the pedestrian.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<nods in agreement>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you have any descripotions of your work/expereince published online or elsewhere...? THat sound slike ti could be interesting to read about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ouch!
Yes, one problem (IMO) with FLW is that he did often ignore practicality. Archetecture can definitely be art, but it first and formost IMO has to be practical. WHen you enter Wingspread, for example, you enter through a low concrete tunnel-like structure. NOw, it *is* tru that, when you emerge into the space, it is absolutely breathtaking, because of the scale and the shape of the space and the light and so on. But the doorway is *so* low, taht, yes, no small number of the attendees had to stoop. IMO, that's not practical, and I didn't think ti was necessary to make the visual point.
THe thing with a house is that ti is precisely that - a house, a place where people live. The trick, as I see it, is to design a beautiful space (which, IMO, includes the exterior spaces, the structure, *and* the interior spaces) - while at the same time keeping it *liveable*.
SO, yeah, it's very, very mundane to think about getting, say, energy efficient windows and then also planning the installation so as to *keep* them energy efficient. But that is just the nature of archrtecture. Is is *not* pure sculpture; a house is more than a prettily-facetted crystal.
It seems to me that the mundanities are actually the most difficult things for architects to deal with. A house *will*, at some point, have newspapers piled up, tricyles left out, toys scattered in the living room, dishes in th esink, laundry ne the bed, and so on. So one fonction of a house is to not just be beautifulm, but also begracious in both tolerating life's little messes, and in assisting with their organization.
IMO, the problem with many of FLW's houses, as well as the houses of others!!, is that they sometimes don't seem to be places where people *live*...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't just look at those photos! When I worked for a Wrightian Architect in the 70's, we occasionally set up our completed houses for photo shoots for publication. I remember one house in RI, where we took down a truckload of furniture and houseplants, put all the Owner's furniture in one bedroom, had a cleaning crew in, located the furniture according to the photog's directions, (look closely, same piece in several rooms) and moved plants around as required. We even had a model in to sit by the swimming pool. Costly? Yes, but that spread got us several more large commissions. If a house looks like a place where no one lives, that's because nobody does at the time of the photos. EDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's an interesting point. Sort of like "staging" a house for sale, I suppose...
But I also meant some of the interior fixtures and integrated furniture - some of the furniture looks nifty, but also looks completely uncomfortable. I'm also not too sure about some of the floorplans - i'm of course looking at them from a more modern perspective, plus a *very* strong sense of what does and does not "work" for me in terms of efficiency and "traffic flow". But some of the layouts, some of the orientations/positions of certain rooms or areas, seems like ti could eb a bit difficult *for me personally* (can't speak for anyone else ;) ) to live comfortably with.
But I still love the look of Falling Water, and the Robie House =:-D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this complexity seems to stump a lot of people...just try to explain that to your local architecture critic!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have little tolerance for, or interest in, the vast majority of any sort of critic. Too many sound rather, well, unintelligent to me, probably because so many of them resort to buzzwords and pop-phrases and misused terms that all end up have little, if any, real *meaning*.
It's not that the level of writing is "too elevated" for me to understand, either - I read, and can easily write, on a post-graduate level. My annoyance lies in the fact aht I *do* understand, and that I can see how much is just plain BS presented using $5 words and convoluted (and generally incorrect!!) grammatical constructs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You obviously haven't read the group's FAQ...
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.