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!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
That's an interesting point. Sort of like "staging" a house for sale, I
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
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.
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.