Page 90 of 96
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:39 pm
A souvenir, something made for a gift shop ? One wonders when, where, and by (or for) whom ...
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 1:29 pm
Which one is it? The monochrome or colored? What happened to the trellis on the uphill side of the house?
I would buy it, but I already have a gold, bejeweled model of Mt. Rushmore, which is quite enough.
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:30 am
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:38 pm
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:50 am
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:58 am
Though you may be inclined to do so, don't mute this video. The angry music is perfect for this vast, sterile mess of a house. I can imagine the cast of "Game of Thrones" settling in comfortably.
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:45 pm
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:36 pm
Both these houses derive their exterior composure---the unity of form, the consistency of detail---from Wright's example, and this gives them whatever quality they possess as architecture.
And one has to admire, in the La CaÃƒÂ±ada example, the integration of second-floor terraces into the hipped roofs of the main level. It surprises me that Mr Wright seems never to have considered this possibility, inherent in his chosen roof form ?
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:56 am
The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap.
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:51 am
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:20 pm
Interesting house, but there is no focus. It's a collage of bits and pieces, without any control.
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:19 pm
Roderick Grant wrote:The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap.
Have to agree. A second level terrace similarly concealed between two fully ridged single floor wings would be fine, but not as a primary feature as is the case here, IMO.
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:27 pm
"The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap."
Funny, I don't see it that way; but I respect that it could seem so to other designers. To me it seems the logical solution to the problem created by the
choice of roof pitch, the desire for a no-taller-than-necessary building profile, and the difference (when it occurs, as here) between first-floor and second-
floor enclosed footage.
The design doesn't suggest convenient drainage---and perhaps the discontinuity of the ridge of those lower roofs, from the body of the house, just
feels wrong---or looks wrong from the ground ? It makes for tidy elevations, of course . . .
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:16 am
Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:57 am