Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

Page 1 of 3  
http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architecture
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
now there is a productive use of having a lot of time on your hands,...................

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You talking to yourself? :)

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

Very cool ;)
((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's beautiful, albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;) ))
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ceilings are low in some areas, but lots of windows, however it is rather deep in the woods. EDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

But in this vid those woods were clearly winter bare.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately, shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the sake of the exterior. I don'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's the garage and other spaces. The walk from this building is unbelievably long.
I'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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It'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'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's goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people don't give these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why they're never shown.

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

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'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's just a long tedious walk coming in from work everyday. It'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.

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

80' from where? From the garage/car-park, or from the road? I'm not clear on that point. Also, I'd though it was suppsoed to be a vacation house, not a primary residence. Then too, given the choice between walking 10' to the dreary little door of a dreary little tract house, and Falling Water, it's not much of a contest.
It's obviously not your cup of proverbial tea, but your dislike doesn't change what I like about various aspects.

Oh good grief, it's not "hero worship" to like certain aspects of a specific item in someone's boy of work. I also like COltraine's "A Love Supreme", is that also "hero worship"? I like Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", but am less fond of some of his other works - is that "hero worship"? I like a lot of Calatreva'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'd honestly be interested in links to some examples, so I could take a look.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The other this is that different things "work" for different people. THere are a few things I'm personally adamant about that other poeple feel work just fine for them.
I'm also fed up with the following sort fo response: Me: "I like the way the shapes and atterns interact visually." Critic: "That's absurd, it leaks."
The "reply" has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement about the visual aesthetic. But IMO, it's just plain stupid to belittle one person's likeing, because it isn't to one's own liking. Personally, I dislike nearly all Victorian and derivatives thereof, becasue the business drives me to distraction and i don'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'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' 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're identical.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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't changed. Have you ever really looked hard at his plans, not elevations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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've seen. He's nobody to actually look up to as I see many architects do, like he was some god-like architecttype. :)

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

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't recall an FLW media craze; I came across his work entirely by accident (sort of how I learned most of what I know <g!>), and from th eoutset, there were aspects I liked and aspects I did not like (and still like or dislike).
I don't understand why it has to be an either-or situation. All artists have their own vision (and, let'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's vision simply is not shared 'in toto' 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're indilging in slavish hero-worhip, but if you say "I don't like that", you jet jumped on by the other camp. I like many of FLW'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'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't developed until a couple thousand years later. In a sense, the fundamental idea was rediscovered/reinvented. I don't see why architecture should be any different - use/adapt the ideas that have merit, and *learn from* the aspects that don'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't function well.
That'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' 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'd survive a heck of a lot more wind than some thing made with 2X4s (that aren'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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in

Yup, and it's even been mentioned on various History Channel-type shows - just that I don't recall it personally ;)

It was/is a mixed bag, I think.

That's nto what I meant - some things just "go" with where they are. it'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's like arguing whether clay sculpture is "superior" or "inferior" to welded steel.
In the end, it depends upon the designer'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'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't people I've ever paid much attention to, at least not once I got past around the age of 12.

Oh, definitely true. I don'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'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're none of us immune to having knee-jerk reactions; it's just that some baffle me more than others, and the "FLW debate" is one of them - I don't see a debate, I see some things that are interesting and/or useful, and some things that, well, aren't.
Like the "80' walkway". I like it for my own reasons, but I can accept that it doesn't float everyone's boat, however is it a serious design flaw? I don'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'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's going to be covered? Doesn'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... <g!>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, OK - I'd thought the sizes were off because of trimming. I stand corrected, thanks ;) I know about shrinkage when dealing with wood for things like furniture and other smaller-scale proejcts, but just assumed (erroniuosly, it turns out) that Lumber was differnt. It's always helpful to know the facts ;)
I definitely did not know that about pressure-treated wood. I thought they coated it with somethign but the salt bit is interesting.
Tangentially, I'll haev to google "how long does PT wood last if in contact with the ground", now that you've mentioned PT wood (I have a 2' wide perimeter of stones underlaid with fiberglass landscape fabric around the whole house and pool decking, to make insect control easier, but right now, all that's holding it up is that plastic 'lawn edging' stuff,a nd I'm trying to decide whetehr I want to make the maintenence even easier by putting something around the stone, since the lawn doods always end up knocking the stones in to the lawn).

I didn't know that - well that explains that. And why baseboards often don't seem to be flush at both the top and the botton. Interesting.

Which of course leads one to ask, How'd ya do it?" ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doesn't that comprimise the insulation of the room?

Isn't that why there is Faux Texturing? <G!>

Oh jeez, you do BIG projects! I figure the glass (and maybe some associated woodwork and concrete-molding) will be enough for me. Well, in addition to diggin in the yard and installing the rest of the stone borders. I'm more of a landscape type than a building type ;)

They seem to have doen it right in this house at least - all the baseboards, and pretty much anywhere that any sort of framing or other non-wall element meets the wall, is all caulked, with the caulk overall smoothed properly. SO I give them credit for that. The house in Massachusetts had no caulking, just paint, and the baseboards quickly started to "bow out" and develop gaps. Cheesy workmanship.
Have you ever seen metal baseboards, or metal-cald-woods ones? THat's an idea that's skittered around in my head off and on for a while, but I don't recall seeing it anywhere (aside from metal-framed heavy-duty industrial-type doors). I'm trying to picture how brushed stainless (or other metal) might look, whetehr it'd be interesting or whether it'd just look cheesy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see...

Well, that stinks :(
It's interesting to watch it done - very messy, i.e. kid-like ;)

I can't say I know anything useful about them. Well, I could say, but it'd be a lie, so I won't ;)
Did you get to set up that small portable greenhouse? What kind of vegetables?

I havent' seen too much aside from the very plain frames - occasionally, I've seen one that's stamped with a design, but most of the "metal" ones are faux finishes. Sometimes, they're silver-leaf, which is OK, if given a protective coat of varnish.

Oh yeah, that's true - I hadn't thought about scratching. THat's prob. why it's not used - it'd be like stainless appliances, a pita to keep up with. People would prob assume it was just wood painted with Rustoleum/enamel anyway.

I think it'd prob. have to be pressed/fitted onto a wooden form, othewise it'd dent too easily.
Well, seemed like a better idea than it actually is!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not too bad an amount for two people.

Well, from what I've read, smaller fruits/vegetables tend to be more nutritious, because the larger ones aer usually bread mainly for high sugar content, and fast growth - ironically, the faster the fruit/vegetable grows, the less the amount of minerals and whatnot that are taken up from the soil - it ends up being closer to leaves, in a sense, in that it's more water and cellulose. Which is why, for example, a lot of fruit these days does *not* tasete the way fruit did 30 yrs ago. Most consumers seem to be capable of only tasting "sweet", i.e. sugar, but when fruits are manipualted to increase the sugat content, it tends to bollox up the genes and/or development of actual *flavor*.
FWLIW...

That sounds good. COnsider a few stalks of corn, too. It does taste different when you gerow it, allow it to mature naturally, and eat it immediately after picking. You're also thinking of sunflowers IIRC...? Have you considered beans of any sort?

Oh yeah, I go in for flowering shrubs/small trees, too. Ideally, I'd like to have something blooming all year round (which is doable in the Houston area and other Southern climates).
THere is a good Redbud for hotter climates, IIRC the detailed designation is "Cercis canadensis var Oklahoma ssp 'texensis'"; I have one, it's a type that gets white floweres, it's in the 1/3 of the back yard that I've been turing into a WHite Garden (just because I've always liked the idea of that, being able to sit out on warm SOuthern nights an dsee the full moon lighting up the white flowers). I doubt we'll live here long enough to finish it, but the plan would be to first plant in a number of white- blooming shrubs and small trees, and tehn make beds underneath with various bulbs, perennials, and dwarf shrubs that bloom white. I should be getting my hands on some white-blooming Hibiscus this weekend. They're rare in the nursery trade so I had to special-order them.
Anyhoo, FWIW, of you wife likes crepe myrtles, trhere are now miniature ones that only grow to about 3'X3' and are suitable for growing in pots.
Salvia are also tough plants that can get from 2' to 6' (depending upon the type); penstemon i ssimilar. You can get all sorts of colors ranging from reds to purples to blues to white. I think there are also ao couple of yellows now, too. Typically, Salvia species are perennial and grow to thickly-shrubby plants about 4'X2'-4'. They attract butterflies, and on a hot day, give off a sage-like scent - they're related to the herb Sage. THey're generally what's called "woody perennials" - the stems are, well, woody, almost like a shrub, but they're not as bstantial as teh stems and branches of a true shrub. The few that are not perennial tend to reseed and come back the next year.
HTH!

Cool ;)
I haven't given too much thought to any sort of topiary because it's hard enough for me to keep up with low maintenence items, but alot of it is interesting.
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.