Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

[Jude Alexander]

[<gary]

now there is a productive use of having a lot of time on your hands,...................

[Jude Alexander]

You talking to yourself? :)

[Kris Krieger]

"Jude Alexander" wrote in news:aM1Wj.5157$Xv3.289 @bignews4.bellsouth.net:

Very cool ;)

((I&#39;ve hard all the pros and cons but I still think it&#39;s beautiful, albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;) ))

[EDS]

I&#39;ve been there about 25 years ago, and I don&#39;t remember it being that dark. Ceilings are low in some areas, but lots of windows, however it is rather deep in the woods. EDS

[Jude Alexander]

The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately, shows Wright&#39;s tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the sake of the exterior. I don&#39;t like that approach in architecture or in life on any level.

Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is hardly ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water) and I suppose it&#39;s the garage and other spaces. The walk from this building is unbelievably long.

I&#39;ve heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has had a constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad design.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Heh ;)

ANy half-decent 3D program can do the same thing, too. And also allow one to adjust the lighting. Main requirement is time!

What I&#39;m wondering is how the model was made, the origin of the textures, and so on.

[Kris Krieger]

"EDS" wrote in news:gOmdnWR5vujqmLbVnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

I&#39;m sure that the darjkenss was not a function of the structure, but rather, of the render engine used to render the model and record the walk- through.

[Kris Krieger]

"Jude Alexander" wrote in news:MHFWj.134727$ [e-mail]:

Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It&#39;s jsut that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors and structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do go with the houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which is something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.

Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in seeing utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if one i spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever why a "utility area" can&#39;t fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic. Esp. given how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas - IMO, ti&#39;s goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people don&#39;t give these areas any thought, so I&#39;d venture to guess that is why they&#39;re never shown.

It&#39;s called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very park-like, so I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings while approaching the house.

That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to not address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the massing, the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in turn makes it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr natural elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

What I&#39;d like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is easy, but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and specifically,

*doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

[Jude Alexander]

In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a lot of time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre back cushions) where he had no business making them, he did not spend the amount of time (imho) that he should have to make the interior functional and human friendly. This piece, which is his signature residence, is an almost complete disaster as much as interior functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE PLAN, man! ;0

I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex depends on the interrelationship of all of it&#39;s parts. Basically, the exterior design IS "falling water" and nothing else lives up to the exterior.

Well, one can call it that but it&#39;s just a long tedious walk coming in from work everyday. It&#39;s GOT to be around 80 feet long walk (if not more). Have you seen it?

OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in my first year. The vast majority of the other students there could have done so as well. I bet you could do better at student level as well.

[Jude Alexander]

Hey, THAT isn&#39;t the walk I&#39;m talking. THAT particular walk is into the woods from the house. I thought that as well in the beginning before I got a view of the whole complex. To the rear of the complex (opposite the "falling waters) is a 80&#39; long walk or so attached to a fairly large building.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Oh! Ok.

I also figure that groceries weren&#39;t carried in from the road - which is why it&#39;d be interesting to see the utility area. A covered walkway would IMO be a minimal requirement, best is some interior pathway (not carpeted...) allowing one to bring in groceries and take out the trash. But those things aren&#39;t popular "talking points" so to speak...they aren&#39;t "elegant", and poeple mostly want to see "elegant" rather than "utilitarian". Tho&#39; I still don&#39;t think the two need be mutuially exclusive ;)

[EDS]

When I saw it I was driving back with my boss (also a friend) from a job in West Virginia to Pittsburg. We took the tour and then asked to see the rear of the house. Because we were architects, they let us. The kitchen was large and blah. The owner&#39;s wife would not let FLLW do the kitchen, so it had standard St. Charles metal cabinets, I think red Formica counters, and was light yellow. That&#39;s why they don&#39;t show it, because it is bad 1940&#39;s! Regarding his furniture, Wright once said that he had a bad back because he had to sit in his own furniture. EDS

[Kris Krieger]

"Jude Alexander" wrote in news:PFJWj.9402$ [e-mail]:

80&#39; from where? From the garage/car-park, or from the road? I&#39;m not clear on that point. Also, I&#39;d though it was suppsoed to be a vacation house, not a primary residence. Then too, given the choice between walking 10&#39; to the dreary little door of a dreary little tract house, and Falling Water, it&#39;s not much of a contest.

It&#39;s obviously not your cup of proverbial tea, but your dislike doesn&#39;t change what I like about various aspects.

Oh good grief, it&#39;s not "hero worship" to like certain aspects of a specific item in someone&#39;s boy of work. I also like COltraine&#39;s "A Love Supreme", is that also "hero worship"? I like Vivaldi&#39;s "Four Seasons", but am less fond of some of his other works - is that "hero worship"? I like a lot of Calatreva&#39;s work (which I got to see pics of thanks to links priovided by otehr folks in this NG), but am less fond of other examples - is that being a "hero worshipper", merely liking some various examples of someones work, or even specific aspects thereof? Answer: nope. Your use of the phrase "hero worshippers" was entirely incorrect.

As for others doing better, I&#39;d honestly be interested in links to some examples, so I could take a look.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The other this is that different things "work" for different people. THere are a few things I&#39;m personally adamant about that other poeple feel work just fine for them.

I&#39;m also fed up with the following sort fo response: Me: "I like the way the shapes and atterns interact visually." Critic: "That&#39;s absurd, it leaks."

The "reply" has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement about the visual aesthetic. But IMO, it&#39;s just plain stupid to belittle one person&#39;s likeing, because it isn&#39;t to one&#39;s own liking. Personally, I dislike nearly all Victorian and derivatives thereof, becasue the business drives me to distraction and i don&#39;t like the spatial arrangements - BUT, there are a great many people who have a different aesthetic, and who renovate Victorian places in a way that actually works with the building and interior, and associated aesthetics - so, my own non-desire to live in one is *a separate issue* from whether the structure has, so to speak, integrity, internal consistency. Aesthetic appreciation is IMO not merely a matter of personal taste, of what one would personally want to live in or with, but rather, an ability to listen and learn about a wide variety of things, and realize that "veriety is the spice of life".

Buildings are like people in that each has a personality, and none is "perfect", if only because every individual person has a unique spin on what is or isn&#39;t considered "perfect" - and even that spin often changes as one goes through life.

So I just find it annoying and, really, kind of goofy, when someone replies to a purely aesthetic statement with some utterly pedestrian statement such as "it leaks". To claim that ANY aesthetic appreciation of said "leaky" structure is nothing more than "hero worship" (the implication being: mindless, stupid, ignorant) is IMO mere petty snideness. Contrary to many folks&#39; obvious belief, being snide does not equate to being clever.

WHen I see pics of Falling Water, yeah, I like the visual interaction of the shapes, the cantilevers, the elements,the materials, and so on. I like some parts of the interior, but not everything. Maybe it does leak; maybe it did require extensive retrofitting - but those are engineering facts, not aesthetic perceptions. Apples and oranges. I like both, but each for itself, without any pretense that they&#39;re identical.

[Jude Alexander]

No, but they achieved their design goal. They were not designed for human comfort but to instill a sense of reverence or awe.

Functionality and human friendly hasn&#39;t changed. Have you ever really looked hard at his plans, not elevations?

[Jude Alexander]

Well, imho, he was artistic in his approach to many of his designs as far as the exterior was concerned (with notable exceptions). However, he was absolutely poor in planning in most of the works I&#39;ve seen. He&#39;s nobody to actually look up to as I see many architects do, like he was some god-like architecttype. :)

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

What I find interesting is that pro-FLW and anti-FLW seems to be very similarto "iberal" and "conservative" in terms of the polarization of the "camps" so to speak.

I don&#39;t recall an FLW media craze; I came across his work entirely by accident (sort of how I learned most of what I know ), and from th eoutset, there were aspects I liked and aspects I did not like (and still like or dislike).

I don&#39;t understand why it has to be an either-or situation. All artists have their own vision (and, let&#39;s face it, ego, since it does take ego to be able to put your work in front of other poeple), but as in all art, there is no true "final authority"/"final arbiter" in that the artist&#39;s vision simply is not shared &#39;in toto&#39; by everyone, everywhere, at all times. And heck, even artists modify/change/develop their own vision.

SO it baffles me why, if you say, about FLW, "I like this", you&#39;re indilging in slavish hero-worhip, but if you say "I don&#39;t like that", you jet jumped on by the other camp. I like many of FLW&#39;s ideas - the fact that the execution thereof exposed certain flaws/shortcomings does not completely negate ALL of his ideas and designs.

Or maybe I&#39;m just too accustomed to the philosophy and mentodology of sceince - knowledge is incermental adn builds upon previous knowledge, and the disproof of a theory also increases knowledge. The steam-powered toy (rotating sphere) invented by Heron of Alexandria was interesting, but nobody took that knowledge and built upon it, so the steam engine wasn&#39;t developed until a couple thousand years later. In a sense, the fundamental idea was rediscovered/reinvented. I don&#39;t see why architecture should be any different - use/adapt the ideas that have merit, and *learn from* the aspects that don&#39;t work, rather than throwing the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water, which is just as bad as continuing to adhere to things that don&#39;t function well.

That&#39;s how I see it, at least.

Reminds me of that old movie with Edgar G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart, IIRC teh title is "Key West" - the proagonists huddle in a big ol&#39; house to ride out a hurricane, and I always find myself wondering whether that was just artistic license, or what - logically, if comething is as reinforced as some of those old places seem to have been, with all of the tight lathing for walls (rather than sheetrock), and so on, it stands to reason that it&#39;d survive a heck of a lot more wind than some thing made with 2X4s (that aren&#39;t really even 2X4s any more) spaced as widely apart as possible and skinned with what are basicaly nothing more than styrofoam panels...

OTOH, again, there was also bad construction back then, so the principle holds: learn from both the ideas/methods that worked, and the ones that did not.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Yup, and it&#39;s even been mentioned on various History Channel-type shows - just that I don&#39;t recall it personally ;)

It was/is a mixed bag, I think.

That&#39;s nto what I meant - some things just "go" with where they are. it&#39;s not something I know how to describe or "put my finger on" so to speak.

But there, too, you get "camps" - the "modern design/materials" adherents versus the "ancient designs/materials" adherents.

To me, it&#39;s like arguing whether clay sculpture is "superior" or "inferior" to welded steel.

In the end, it depends upon the designer&#39;s talent whether something looks good where it is, or not. And even there, "looks good" i a blend of environmental *and* historical/cultural factors.

This is why Architectural Design is considered one of the Arts. Yes,thre are necessary considerations of engineering and materials sceince and so on, but thre is also that artistic/creative aspect.

Unfortunately, that&#39;s true.

At least they also power sailing ships ;)

Exactly. I also like background info (such as, why certain types of designs and materials and so on came to be used in certain ways by local peoples), but "critics" aren&#39;t people I&#39;ve ever paid much attention to, at least not once I got past around the age of 12.

Oh, definitely true. I don&#39;t like *all* of his work by any stretch. But there are a couple things I do like (at least visually) quite a lot.

Red...? I don&#39;t get it, sorry.

But Ecclecticism, definitely - in everythign. I like all sorts fo things, but not *all* of anything. I like some of just about every musical style, from madrigals to classical to ancient instruments; same for art, same for food, same for everything.

Yup ;)

Definitely. Keeps one from getting bored - also tends to make one less boring! ;)

Yeah. I guess we&#39;re none of us immune to having knee-jerk reactions; it&#39;s just that some baffle me more than others, and the "FLW debate" is one of them - I don&#39;t see a debate, I see some things that are interesting and/or useful, and some things that, well, aren&#39;t.

Like the "80&#39; walkway". I like it for my own reasons, but I can accept that it doesn&#39;t float everyone&#39;s boat, however is it a serious design flaw? I don&#39;t think so. OTOH, a crumbling cantilever is a design flaw...! But IMO, the smart thing to do is to look at the *idea*, and if it makes sense aesthetically and functionally, figure out how to get the engineering right, *not* merely reject the entire idea (and belittle people who like the idea). IOW, I don&#39;t personally see why the debate

*is* a debate. I guess some folks just need extra heart stimulation...

Oh yeah, the Fake Dimensions. Yeesh :p . So sanding is the excuse for the reduction...? Even if that were true, why does it matter, if something is a structural unit that&#39;s going to be covered? Doesn&#39;t the removal of material make the item less strong...? IMO, things ought to be called what they are. But then, that seems to be symptomatic of the last 2 decades orso - meanings/words have become elastic, things to be bent willy-nilly merely for the sake of insignificant convenience. Ah, the 2X4 as a symbol of sociocultural malaise...

[EDS]

Damn right there was a lot of bad construction back then. I live in a house built as a summer cottage (2500 sf) in 1886. My grandfather bought it in

1891 and stuffed a fieldstone foundation and a furnace under it to make it "year round". However it is built poorly with studs being 2X3&#39;s at from 16 to 24 inches oc. I remodeled a couple years ago and basically rebuilt the rear structure of the house and then sheathed on the inside with plywood. My house in Boston was built in 1859 and was incredibly solid, built on piles. It was however a full time residence. BTW, the Victorian rowhouse worked very well as long as you have good legs for the stairs. I loved that house and am sorry I ever let it go.