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.
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:14 am
- Location: Illinois
Wright got a lot right, but not everything. Wright's work
what a stupid comment. name 1 architect anytime before 1959 that paid any attention to energy conservation or low environmental impact designs.
just another example of a journalist who writes about things they know nothing about.
- Posts: 682
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
- Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
The author of this article does not know what they are talking about. Wright was working on biophilic design well before it ever became apparent to other architects. To Wright, it was called 'nature."
First of all, Wright orientated most of his houses to face south. This allows sun to stream into the house through windows in the winter, which heats the inside of the house. In the summer, there is a broad roof overhang that shelters the house from the sun since the sun is higher in the sky during that season. I
- Posts: 10540
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Given the world FLW lived in, he was as "biophilic" as he could be. If nothing more forward-thinking than his earth berm houses had become popular, think of all the energy we could have saved over the past half century. Although he used the word "organic" to describe his work, late in life he regretted the choice, and said that if he had it all to do over again, he would use "bionic" ... and that was decades before "The Six Million Dollar Man."
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Fremont CA
Following up on what RJH has said, Joseph Connors, in his book on the Robie house (I think), points out that Wright was doing what we nowadays call passive solar design a hundred years ago. The prairie houses have broad eaves to provide shade in the summer and abundant windows to pick up any available breezes. In the winter, when the midwestern sun is low, the same windows pick up all available sunlight.
Construction costs and operating costs can be a tradeoff, wherein saving on one leads to greater costs on the other. For example, if you skimp on insulation when you build, your heating and air conditioning costs will be higher. A fully self-sufficient solar electricity system (which I don't think our current technology is up to) might be expensive to build, but, if it works and if maintenance is cheaper than a monthly electricity bill, you save. The tradeoffs keep changing, and we shouldn't think they were the same when he was building.
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Illinois
Not to mention Broadacre City and the Mile High office building. Weren't these projects designed with low environmental impact in mind? Except for some minor fallout from the atomic elevators in Mile High, environmentally sound intentions such as the maximization of green space at the base was a major selling point.
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:39 pm
- Location: st louis
The term organic architecture when was it first used????
Richard Bock used the term in his autobiography which he wrote in the mid-1940's.