Feb. 2nd / The Travel Channel

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.
Post Reply
Guest

Feb. 2nd / The Travel Channel

Post by Guest »

Feb. 2nd / FLW Usonaian House to be featured on the Travel Channel



Just thought some may be interested. FLW

Guest

Post by Guest »

Don't forget............

SWSinDC

Schwartz House on Travel Channel

Post by SWSinDC »

Interesting piece, and the house looks great. And loved how FLLW got back at Mrs. Schwartz for moving his linen closet!



Afterwards, reviewed Storrer and was intrigued to note that Schwartz was a nearly exact construction of FLLW's design for LIFE Magazine's 1938 "Dream Home." Further to the discussion of Rattenbury/TA's 1997 LIFE Dream Home elsewhere in this forum, this would seem to conflict with FLLW's belief in designing the structure only after knowing the client and the site. How do we reconcile this?

guestnow

Re: Schwartz House on Travel Channel

Post by guestnow »

SWSinDC wrote:this would seem to conflict with FLLW's belief in designing the structure only after knowing the client and the site. How do we reconcile this?


I just don't think this rule was always followed.

rgrant

Post by rgrant »

SWSinDC: We don't. It's largely hockum. Wright was full of it, a brilliant fabricator of mythology. If you look at certain designs -- Sundt, Jester, Boomer, Slater -- that he liked, he made repeated attempts to get them built, sometimes distorting them beyond recognition. If he had very sensitive clients, like the Lovenesses or Palmers, he could come up with superb designs tailored expressly to their needs (even though Reisley is basically Palmer redone in stone). For others, he designed what he wanted to design and fitted the clients in after the fact. Usually, because the quality of the work was so good, it worked. He was obsessed with the Sol Friedman commission, which was a retread, and in the end, the clients were totally hooked. But so have the subsequent owners been hooked on what has to be one of FLW's most unusual and, one might imagine, most client-specific designs.

Michael D
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Contact:

Schwartz house/Life Magazine

Post by Michael D »

I'm the guy you say on the Travel Channel.



The original Life Magazine Dream house design was never built for the original client in Minnesota, Bernard Schwartz read the Life Magazine article and contacted Wright to have it built in Wisconsin. Wright was intent on on having the basic design of the Life Magazine realized but did work closely with Schwartz and even had him sell his first lot and find a better property.

The new property had the solar orientation he wanted and the privacy that the lot in Minnesota had. Along with the fact that the client was asking for the the Life Magazine design, There are many more similarities between the two different clients that did provide Wright with a perfect opportunity to realize his Life Magazine Vision.



Michael Ditmer

NickSpellman

Schwartz House on Travel Channel

Post by NickSpellman »

To amplify on SWSinDC and rgrant's comments: Mr. Wight designed the American System-Built and Erdman prefabricated homes, which were not site or client specific designs.

guestnow

Post by guestnow »

Is it also true that, toward the end of his career, that some residential designs left his offices with his name on them, but they really did not have much involvement from the master?

pharding
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Schwartz House on Travel Channel

Post by pharding »

SWSinDC wrote:...this would seem to conflict with FLW's belief in designing the structure only after knowing the client and the site. How do we reconcile this?
Many, if not all, great architects recycle ideas and design schemes, especially un-built innovative schemes. FLW was just doing what other great architects have done throughout history. The key to this is to find an appropriate fit between client aspirations, budget, and the site. FLW was a master at this. Nonetheless the resulting design was still a custom home tailored to the specific needs of the client.


NickSpellman wrote:To amplify on SWSinDC and rgrant's comments: Mr. Wight designed the American System-Built and Erdman prefabricated homes, which were not site or client specific designs.
This type of house is a commodity class FLW design, not to be confused with the custom houses.
Paul Harding FAIA Owner and Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, the First Prairie School House in Chicago | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

SWSinDC

Re: Schwartz House on Travel Channel

Post by SWSinDC »

pharding wrote:Many, if not all, great architects recycle ideas and design schemes, especially un-built innovative schemes. FLW was just doing what other great architects have done throughout history. The key to this is to find an appropriate fit between client aspirations, budget, and the site. FLW was a master at this. Nonetheless the resulting design was still a custom home tailored to the specific needs of the client.


That being said, it is a little unclear why there is opposition to utilizing unbuilt FLLW designs which are not site-specific (unlike Chahroudi). Would the idea of utilizing an unbuilt FLLW design be more palatable if the homeowner had an architect who could be trusted to undertake such tailoring? I note that, under the TA Legacy Program (please, no boos and hisses), you must provide a good deal of information about your site and client needs to facilitate looking for a good design match. Presumably a good architect could tailor the design even further to make it as good a match as could be expected without the Master here to do it himself. Thoughts?

Guest

Post by Guest »

I was disapointed with the Schwartz house. Not a very good desgn. Why are there 2 living rooms? No cozy feeling here.......

John
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:25 am

Schwartz

Post by John »

I was disapointed with the Schwartz house. Not a very good desgn. Why are there 2 living rooms? No cozy feeling here.......


Actually, it is very "cozy." You have to be there and experience it.

Wrightgeek
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Westerville, Ohio

Post by Wrightgeek »

Having stayed at the Schwartz house, I must agree with John, that the living room and reading nook/library are both very comfortable and cozy spaces.



It may not have come across that way on the Travel Channel segment, but if you ever have the chance to see the house in person, I'm sure you'll agree.

Guest

Post by Guest »

Appears awkward to me (and my husband). We were gong to consider renting the house. Now discussing a different Wright rental.

rgrant

Post by rgrant »

As originally conceived for Life, the Schwartz scheme intended the larger of the two living spaces to be much more active than a mere sitting room. There is a wonderful cutaway rendering of the house showing a family fully utilizing the house, and the intended swimming pool that was to be adjacent to the terrace. While it now seems quite sedate, the intent was for it to be anything but.

Post Reply