Where's Our Generation's Frank Lloyd Wright?

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
PrairieMod
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: www.prairiemod.com

Where's Our Generation's Frank Lloyd Wright?

Post by PrairieMod »

We've posted a call for information to our readers! We'd like to hear your thoughts on where this generation's Frank Lloyd Wright is. Check out the post and let us know--there are plenty of new Palmer's, Pope's, Pew's, etc. waiting to find their 21st century Mr. Wright. We'd like to explore the options out there and highlight them for all to experience and enjoy. Let us know!

PNB
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:12 am

Post by PNB »

Frank Lloyd Wright is like Beethoven or Mozart. There isn't one every generation or even century. I doubt there will ever be another one who combines the artistry and personality in such a fascinating way.

dkottum
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: Battle Lake, MN

Our Generation's Frank Lloyd Wright

Post by dkottum »

We have assured ouselves that there will not be another by education requirements that do not attract nor allow the creative and artistic individual who prefers to think for himself. If that is not enough, regulation and licensing further destroy the heart of the creative artist.



In today's America, it would be against the law for FLLW to call himself an architect, or practice architecture. Furthermore, many of his buildings could not get building permits. No Fallingwater, no Johnson Wax, no Taliesin West. Forget the Guggenheim. Our cities have become automobile hell and our open land traded as an investment commodity, while Broadacre City is considered a fantasy.



Oh how we need these creative minds.



Doug Kottum, Battle Lake

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

Doug,



As always, I value your comments. However, unconventional buildings as Fallingwater can be successfully built today since they are located in very isolated places such as Stewart Township in Fayette County where there is absolutely no code for residential properties. This is true in other remote places in the U.S. as well. One does not need an architect

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

Frank Lloyd Wright as the Greatest Architect in World History is obviously very rare. He was also in the right place at the right time. With society's embrace of Classicism and Victorian Architecture ("I don't need an architect because I can just pick it out of a book myself") the table was set for an unconventional architect with great personal and professional skills to take the ball from Louis Sullivan and accomplish great things.



There are great architects doing great residential work in this country right now. However none will be called greater than FLW because the conditions are not set for a massive sea change in architecture. Here is my quick list in alphabetical order with one great Australian: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, Cutler Anderson, Stephen Holl, Lake Flato, Marmol Radziner,Toshiko Mori, Glenn Murcutt, Office dA, Lorcan O'Herlihy, Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen, Thomas Phifer, Predock Frane, Todd Williams Billie Tsien.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

karnut
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:45 pm

Post by karnut »

If Mr. Wright were alive today he would no doubt have high respect for Bart Prince. Any comments on Mr. Prince?

karnut
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:45 pm

More Great Men

Post by karnut »

I can"t believe everyone here forgets John Lautner,also in reply to P. Harding listing Marmol Radziner ,All that firm does is Rip Off Pierre Koening.The only person in this forum that ever seems to get it besides my humble self is R. J. H. Time to take my Lotus on its Saturday drive to clear my head of all this. Peace

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

karnut wrote:If Mr. Wright were alive today he would no doubt have high respect for Bart Prince. Any comments on Mr. Prince?
In my opinion Frank Lloyd Wright would have found Bart Prince's work too idiosyncratic and lacking in rigor for his taste. Then again FLW was disparaging of the work of every other architect, including the great ones of his time and former employees who went on to achieve greatness, i.e. Neutra and Schindler.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Living Great Architects As Opposed to Deceased Great Ones

Post by pharding »

karnut wrote:I can"t believe everyone here forgets John Lautner,also in reply to P. Harding listing Marmol Radziner ,All that firm does is Rip Off Pierre Koening.The only person in this forum that ever seems to get it besides my humble self is R. J. H. Time to take my Lotus on its Saturday drive to clear my head of all this. Peace
The thread is about living great architects doing residential work, not the deceased great architects that did residential work. John Lautner is a great deceased architect. Of my quick list Marmol Radziner is also interesting of note because they actually build much of their own work. They have received numerous design awards in the city that is the most fertile environment for young architects and design innovation today.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

I seem to recall Wright having a very cordial relationship with Ludwig mies van der Rohe even though they were at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.



I also recall Wright commenting and intrigued with a very positive and organic design done by Eduardo Catalano in Raleigh, NC back in the 1950s. That house had a very organic (Parasol) roof shaped like a potato chip and supported by two buttresses.



http://www.jetsetmodern.com/catalano.htm

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Our Generation's Frank Lloyd Wright

Post by pharding »

dkottum wrote:...In today's America, it would be against the law for FLLW to call himself an architect, or practice architecture. ....
It is my understanding that FLW was a licensed architect in Illinois. I assume that he achieved registration in other states by reciprocity.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

karnut
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:45 pm

Dead or Alive

Post by karnut »

Just like Mr. Wright, The only thing dead about John Lautner is his body!!!!! Also let see if I understsnd this Paul; You put Marmol Radziner above Bart Prince. A little fact here Bart Prince is also a Great builder of many of his homes.He also did a HUD townhouse project a few years back. The coolest hud project in America.I love teaching

SDR
Posts: 19294
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Yes, architecture is alive and well, both here and abroad. Lots of younger offices are working imaginatively with wood and other materials; perhaps the "rain screen" concept -- a two-layered approach to the exterior wall -- has filtered down to the small building ?



We admire Wright because of his buildings, in my view, not for any more esoteric reason. The closest we come to his architecture is to copy it. Anything else is either watered-down Wright or else it's something with other qualities. We will look in vain for his "equal," but we hope for other architects to use space, light, view, enclosure, sequence, material and siting as sensitively and imaginatively as he did. Will another move us in the same way, without in any way mimicking him ? I hope so. But that person will have to be mighty original, and prolific, to elicit the reaction "he's another Wright" -- or Mies, or Corbu -- don't you think ?



SDR

KevinW
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:41 pm

Great Architects

Post by KevinW »

Ther are many very good Architects, perhaps even some great ones alive today. I regret that we may never have the opportunity to witness greatness with todays restrictions. In the few remote locations that may be exempt from complying to ordinances and building codes, (not sure where they may be here in the USA), there are still county conditions that may need to be met. What are the chances that the combination of a perfect client, with the vision, budget, and interest in building in a remote location will come along. RJH is correct that anyone can design a house. In certain parts of the country an Architects stamp and signature is not required to get a building permit, as long as it is a single story single family residential building. I think RJH is a little optimistic in his belief that some of the great buildings that have been built in the past, could be built legally today. It is a great many things that has sucked the life blood out of Architecture today, the biggest one being fear of being sued. The most common statement by Architects used to be "If I could do just a few great buildings, I would be happy". Today the statements are closer to "if I could just get the client to pay me".....or "sorry, can't meet you for lunch.....I have a value engineering meeting today".

I really am beginning to believe that GREAT Architecture in the US today, and forseable future may never gets its chance to ever cast a shadow. So I will now jump into my beat up american car, and search for the dumpster that will provide me with tonights dinner.

Cheers.
KevinW

Ed Jarolin
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Wyoming

Post by Ed Jarolin »

I agree with many of the points raised regarding the whereabouts of todays Frank Lloyd Wright. One might also ask where are todays Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe or Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt while you're at it. We're living in an age where fame and fortune are not at all connected to merit in many areas of endeavor. That being said, I do believe Wright was a once in a century or two type of character.



As to the practice of residential architecture. For much of Wright's career he was not in any way in competition the mega-developers. If a person wanted a house it would have necessarily been a one off proposition whether they went to an architect or had a local carpenter come up with something. The point being, fewer potential clients out there nowadays since most will follow the path of least resistance and settle for what the developers model house shows them. Let's also factor in the near impossiblity of finding a buildable lot within hailing distance of an urban center. Anyone out there with several million to buy up a few hundred acres of farmland to secure that rural building site?



On the subject of codes, regulations, etc., I will offer up rural Wyoming as a place blessedly free of these perceived impedements. Ditto Montana.



However, I've never quite understood the notion that the code would prohibit a Wright design being built today. Some of them yes, all of them no. Sure, you're not going to use a 2 ft wide door as a fire exit door, so use a pair with automatic bolts in the inactive leaf or go to a 4 ft. door if you want to stay on a 4 foot module. No you're not going to be able to do the Usonian Automatic design exactly because of the lack of egress from the bedrooms. So throw a french door in there: this doesn't destroy the integrity of the system. Well I could go on and on, but you get the idea.



One last rant. If there's a real fireball of a young architect out there who's tired of the boss telling him everyday what can't be done, is tired of the code, or worse yet, some insipid bureaucrat's misinformed interpretation of the code, come out here. I believe there's a lot of opportunity awaiting. You wouldn't believe the number of people moving here to retire. I'm sure many of them have tastes not met by the ubiquitous doublewide modular, oversized log "cabin", etc. Hey, it might beat dumpster diving, don't ya' think?

Post Reply