another Nu-sonian

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.
Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

another Nu-sonian

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

SDR
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Geez. If this is what happens when an architect wants to "do Wright" while steering clear of outright mimicry -- I say, "let the mimicry begin !"

The great mahogany ceilings of the Robert Berger house rise into the darkness, too -- but there, a tent is the result, while this barn goes nowhere -- for me, anyway. And, if there had to be joints in the boards, couldn't they have been staggered -- or covered with boards of the same width, perhaps -- rather than with these skinny strips ?

Maybe this house is from the formative period of the practice . . .

SDR

peterm
Posts: 6290
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

Built in 2001...

SDR
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

So . . . if we are to tolerate any sort of Nusonian, are we more likely to accept one which no one would mistake for Wright, or one that closely resembles a Wright design ? And why ?

SDR

lang
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:19 am

Post by lang »

Perhaps a Nusonian that is "non-Wright" is more acceptable. It seems that too many homages to the old man arouse contempt rather than admiration. Are there any non Wright Usonians that stand out? If so then what makes the design pass muster?

Craig
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:25 am
Location: California

Post by Craig »

Is the house currently being used as an orphanage?
ch

peterm
Posts: 6290
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

The Tarantino house listing (the link posted above is no longer opening for me...)
http://www.weichert.com/50624378/

lang wrote:Perhaps a Nusonian that is "non-Wright" is more acceptable. It seems that too many homages to the old man arouse contempt rather than admiration. Are there any non Wright Usonians that stand out? If so then what makes the design pass muster?
There are indeed many fine ones. Here is one of the more recent postings:
http://architecturalhomesny.com/2013/09 ... 99000.html

http://www.savewright.org/wright_chat/v ... php?t=7383

What makes a domestic architectural design (Wright Usonian, non-Wright Usonian, nusonian, you name it...) pass muster? An overall theme, unity, proper scale, proportion, and siting, sensitive use of materials, careful detailing, a logical, efficient and functional plan, and a close connection to the landscape making the site better than it was previously. And most importantly, the design must respond directly to the real needs of the inhabitant, and serve to elevate their lives on a physical, intellectual and spiritual level.

Here is an architect who gets it:
http://www.laurievirrarchitect.com/2.php

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10575
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

To the extent that 'Nusonian' is complimentary, suggesting that the architect knows FLW's principles, and practices architecture based on them without aping his specific effects, Kelly Davis is about as Nusonian as they get. But the term should be shelved. Let every fine architect establish his/her own identity independent of Frank Lloyd Wright.

peterm
Posts: 6290
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »


Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

SDR
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

On Ken Dahlin's site (above) the Cukic residence (last of the Prairie category houses) seems to be all of a (fairly rich) piece . . .


SDR

clydethecat
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 pm

Post by clydethecat »

There's a very expensive Nusonian in my area. I've never seen it because it's in a gated community, but the four photos on the architect's site seem pretty impressive:

http://taggartdesigngroup.com/2013/02/2 ... residence/

SDR
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Nice. When does a Nusonian become a Mansonian ? Some of Fay Jones's houses seem to fit the bill: deLuxe houses of apparent size and unmistakable finesse . . .

SDR

peterm
Posts: 6290
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

Isn't a "Mansonian" the 1938 Charles L. Manson house for sale in Wausau, Wisconsin? :roll:

Maybe you meant a Mansionian?

Post Reply