Page 1 of 1

Article: What you need to know about Usonian homes

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:13 am
by DavidC

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:42 am
by SDR
I attempted to leave this comment at Dwell. but was defeated at the facebook gateway.

"Thank you for covering this topic, and for the useful information it contains. However: Usonian Automatic describes a small subset of Wright's Usonian
designs, not the typical house. Plan shapes are not "typically L-shaped"; there are inline, T-shaped, U-shaped, triangle-based, curved and circular Usonians.
They all have living rooms. The Masson house is not a Wright design but was designed by David Henken -- as your own Dec 17 article made clear. "Toyhill,"
the Sol Friedman house at Usonia, wouldn't be described as an "early" circular design, considering that the Guggenheim Museum and other circular designs
predated it by at least a decade."


Usonian Automatics

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:59 am
by SpringGreen
That jumped out at me, & I also heard that Usonia is a play on "United States of North America" (not just "United States of America"), but dammit, I've been doing this for so long I can't remember where I saw it.

Thanks for attempting to write them. I didn't feel like jumping into that (I try to remember the advice of "don't try to correct the Internet").

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:57 pm
by SDR
"Don't try to correct the Internet" may be good advice. But "You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem" (paraphrasing Cleaver) keeps me going. I did manage to correct the spelling of a title, "Blow-Up," at Wikipedia the other day -- it was quite easy -- but only as an image heading and not in the main title of the page.

There's this, on "Usonia":


Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:10 pm
by Roderick Grant
What hit me in the face was that image of the elongated Jacobs I House. I suppose the hard copy of the magazine doesn't have that problem?

I agree with the "don't try to correct the Internet" advice. The 'net is like a diamond mine: tons of slag containing tiny bits of useful information.

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:27 pm
by SDR
From my perspective it depends on where you look, and what you're looking for. The last election demonstrated that social media is likely an unreliable
source for information related to politics, for instance.

But much useful information can be gleaned. Your favorite newspaper almost certainly now has a Web site, and I think it likely that articles
appearing on the web are identical to what they print, on any given day. As for Wikipedia, pages are written, added to, and edited by individuals, some
reliable and others, not. But it's easy to distinguish between them: reliable pieces provide sources, in footnotes which can be checked.

What would I do without IMDb when I want to remind myself of the cast of a movie -- for instance ? Should I be suspicious of such simple (and simply-
verified) data ?

Self-help and DIY videos can be useful, as well, and one way to weed out bad information is to consult as many entries as one can find, to look for
common threads -- and to use common sense in evaluating what one sees.

I'm not willing to throw this baby out with the bath water. There will always be gullible readers, and lying (or misinformed) posters. Would you judge that
most of what a reader finds at Wright Chat is reliable information on the architect ?


PS -- I'm going back to a previous habit, formatting longer posts to restrict the width of the text. Today's wider screens seem to call for this, in my
view. But I'd be interested to know if this results in messy or even illegible posts for readers using smaller devices -- for instance. Feedback welcomed . . .

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:43 pm
by Paul Ringstrom
Wright Chat entries that don't require you to scroll left and right
in order to read the article are preferred.

I have a small MacBook Air with an 11" screen.

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:20 pm
by SDR
Thanks, Paul. How do you like it ? I haven't tried a laptop or pad yet . . .


Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:41 pm
by egads
The formatting is welcome, although it seems like a large photo can reformat an entire page of a thread. Scrolling side to side is a PITA.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:02 am
by SDR
Yes: once an overwide post has been placed, the page widens, typically making the readability issue worse.

As I haven't gotten feedback on this issue for nearly a decade, I assume that readers are using displays of sufficient width to make the point moot.

Very long hot links used to be a problem; this seems to have abated, though relatively few readers resort to TinyUrl to shorten their links . . . ?


Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:50 pm
by Roderick Grant
SDR, what kind of computer do you have? A Muntz?

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:37 pm
by SDR
Heh. No, I have a five-year-old Mac mini and a 22" Acer display; still using the 2009 Apple keyboard. I have no wireless devices, yet -- and receive TV signals via antenna.

Really behind the curve -- but not antediluvian, I believe. How about you ? Fisher-Price ? Hand-cranked or Diesel-powered ?