Buffalo Boathouse/new construction methods old design???

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.
mike
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: st louis

Buffalo Boathouse/new construction methods old design???

Post by mike »

http://www.wrightsboathouse.org/photos.php

This should stir things up. I'm surprised that new construction techniques are being used. I guess code rules. In the end it will look the same but............

The debate on a project being by Wright or not drives me nuts. Many designs were finished after Wright died. Guggenheim? Corbin project in my old hometown of Wichita was just a sketch I believe when he died. It looks like Peters later work to me.
There are others.
St Louis

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

Post by pharding »

That is a prime example of Wright Disneyland in Buffalo. It is no more than a cartoon of a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Why don't they just rebuild Fallingwater above Niagara Falls and complete their fantasy?
Last edited by pharding on Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

DRN
Posts: 3976
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I'll admit it will be a slick looking boathouse and it will be great to see it in the sunlight, on the water, in three dimensions (provided its proportions are intact), but to "sell" it as authentic Wright when the structural system and probably some interior functions and dimensions have been altered is plain wrong.
I have an idea... how about we rustle up some investors and build an indoor extreme sports complex using Boulee's Cenotaph for Newton...we can use precast panels, an aluminum geodesic dome which we will cover with Dryvit to get the coffers correct, we can put the accessible toilets in the....it will be his vision realized!

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Wright/Wrong; Martin House/Boat House.

Looks like a water intake for the Niagara Power Plant farther up the river...

outside in
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

Aren't you a little curious to see how its going to come out? I know that the Foundation and Taliesin Architects are involved, and its my understanding that the drawings were at the construction stage, so even though the structure is inconsistent (which is going to be covered anyway) it will be interesting to see how its finished. My biggest fear are the butt joints on the precast - how can they bridge for a continuous stucco surface? Expansion/contraction vertical joints would be a pity. Of course its not as good as an original, but its the idea of the building that is interesting.

MHOLUBAR
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Post by MHOLUBAR »

I want very much to see how it comes out. having dealt with quite a few FLW houses plagued with leaks, sagging cantilevers and rotting wood it was a relief to see the actual structure built to stand the test of time. This particular design I have lusted after since the 'Wright in Madison' show at the Chazen Museum many years ago. Its position on Lake Erie seems to rob it of the long blending approaches of it's original site along the Yahara River in Madison
mholubar

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

The water side view of the more or less completed building looked out of scale on an unsympathetic site. It almost looks harsh when compared with the repose of the original design intent-also one of his greatest compositions.

Too many compromises support a prime argument against these projects. They share no relationship whatsoever with Frank, no matter how much was paid for the "Wright's".

A new building should be "new". The beauty of these ideas should not get watered down like this.

SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

If the building is an accurate reflection of Wright's intent as to dimension, color, visible detail and approximate siting, then we will learn something that there is no other way of learning: how would this building have looked if built ? That alone is worth the effort -- isn't it ? Think of it as a full-size mock-up. . .

As to structure, thank heaven for that steel roof ! What would Robie look like today if Wright hadn't used steel there? Why ALL the Usonian carport cantilevers weren't framed with steel is beyond me. . .some romantic notion of "consistency of material" may have infected our architect's sainted head ? :)

SDR

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4349
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

FLW Boathouse

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

SDR wrote:If the building is an accurate reflection of Wright's intent as to dimension, color, visible detail and approximate siting, then we will learn something that there is no other way of learning: how would this building have looked if built ? That alone is worth the effort -- isn't it ?
I whole-heartedly agree!

I want to see as many of his unbuilt designs built as possible. They will be better than 99% of what is being built today by contemporary "architects".

EJ
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

JimM wrote:
They share no relationship whatsoever with Frank, no matter how much was paid for the "Wright's".
No relationship with Frank, huh? Isn't that overreaching just a bit? Tell me then what the standards are for what a "Real Wright Building" is and how I can identify it. I strongly believe that any reasonable objective standard will inevitably leave out some buildings that we now accept as authentic.

Let me own up to my own view: I take delight in these new buildings. Are they 100% Wright? No, but then again neither are Ennis, Lykes, or a plethora of other Wright designs that have been remodeled or added onto without the benefit of Wright designing the addition. As much as some some people hate it, these "new" (even though the design is all pre-1959) buildings can lay a rightful claim to Wright pedigrees. Hell, I would argue they have more Wright in them than some of the built work Wright did.

I would rather see these buildings built than gathering dust in some damned archive. I would rather walk into these buildings than some Skidmore piece of garbage. Let's face it: 90% of architecture is crap. INmy experience, those architects (and I know a lot of architects) that design crap usually are the ones to scorn Gehry and make excuses why Wright wasn't the greatest. These new buildings can still serve to delight a client and the public in a way that wouldn't be possible with another architect. They are probably better functioning and practical than Wright's designs. Maybe they could inspire someone to greater things in the future But I digress.
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Well, that might be a little "over the top" -- but the enthusiasm is contageous !

And *I* wholeheartedly agree with Mr Ringstrom: "I want to see as many of his unbuilt designs built as possible." Let the re-creating begin. . .with the Pauson house ! [Oh, not that again, says the chorus. . .]

SDR

LikaComet
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Lowlands of Maryland

Post by LikaComet »

Let the re-creating begin. . .with the Pauson house ! [Oh, not that again, says the chorus. . .]
Wouldn't it be great to see the Pauson house. (sang the chorus)

What is wrong with a full scale mock-up? Even with the imperfections of the building's setting I think it's great. I'd hope that Frank would be flattered by the effort.

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

Post by pharding »

LikaComet wrote:
Let the re-creating begin. . .with the Pauson house ! [Oh, not that again, says the chorus. . .]
Wouldn't it be great to see the Pauson house. (sang the chorus)

What is wrong with a full scale mock-up? Even with the imperfections of the building's setting I think it's great. I'd hope that Frank would be flattered by the effort.
Mr. Wright disparaged imitators of his work, even if they were talented former employees doing a wonderful building.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

True enough -- but we're talking about a sincere effort at faithful realization of The Master's intent. How could he not be flattered and amused ? And what's the harm ? No one should confuse these efforts with a genuine Wright opus, built by Taliesin in his lifetime.

SDR

Deke
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Deke »

Just as Taliesin now has levels of "wright-ness" in their licensed designs, so perhaps are there levels in the buildings built in his lifetime: those he had a lot of hands-on supervision over during construction, those he was very involved in design but had apprentices supervice, and those he merely sketched and left to other to complete the details and supervise construction.

Personally, my interest is in the design itself, not when it was built or who supervised it or what construction methods were used. They had to retrofit Fallingwater using new methods...does that make it less of a Wright building now?

Deke

Post Reply