Article: What you need to know about Usonian homes

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
DavidC
Posts: 7726
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Article: What you need to know about Usonian homes

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I attempted to leave this comment at Dwell. but was defeated at the facebook gateway.

"Thank you for covering this topic, and for the useful information it contains. However: Usonian Automatic describes a small subset of Wright's Usonian
designs, not the typical house. Plan shapes are not "typically L-shaped"; there are inline, T-shaped, U-shaped, triangle-based, curved and circular Usonians.
They all have living rooms. The Masson house is not a Wright design but was designed by David Henken -- as your own Dec 17 article made clear. "Toyhill,"
the Sol Friedman house at Usonia, wouldn't be described as an "early" circular design, considering that the Guggenheim Museum and other circular designs
predated it by at least a decade."


SDR

SpringGreen
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:00 am

Usonian Automatics

Post by SpringGreen »

That jumped out at me, & I also heard that Usonia is a play on "United States of North America" (not just "United States of America"), but dammit, I've been doing this for so long I can't remember where I saw it.

Thanks for attempting to write them. I didn't feel like jumping into that (I try to remember the advice of "don't try to correct the Internet").
"The building as architecture is born out of the heart of man, permanent consort to the ground, comrade to the trees, true reflection of man in the realm of his own spirit." FLLW, "Two Lectures in Architecture: in the Realm of Ideas".

SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

"Don't try to correct the Internet" may be good advice. But "You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem" (paraphrasing Cleaver) keeps me going. I did manage to correct the spelling of a title, "Blow-Up," at Wikipedia the other day -- it was quite easy -- but only as an image heading and not in the main title of the page.

There's this, on "Usonia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AUsonia

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

What hit me in the face was that image of the elongated Jacobs I House. I suppose the hard copy of the magazine doesn't have that problem?

I agree with the "don't try to correct the Internet" advice. The 'net is like a diamond mine: tons of slag containing tiny bits of useful information.

SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

From my perspective it depends on where you look, and what you're looking for. The last election demonstrated that social media is likely an unreliable
source for information related to politics, for instance.

But much useful information can be gleaned. Your favorite newspaper almost certainly now has a Web site, and I think it likely that articles
appearing on the web are identical to what they print, on any given day. As for Wikipedia, pages are written, added to, and edited by individuals, some
reliable and others, not. But it's easy to distinguish between them: reliable pieces provide sources, in footnotes which can be checked.

What would I do without IMDb when I want to remind myself of the cast of a movie -- for instance ? Should I be suspicious of such simple (and simply-
verified) data ?

Self-help and DIY videos can be useful, as well, and one way to weed out bad information is to consult as many entries as one can find, to look for
common threads -- and to use common sense in evaluating what one sees.

I'm not willing to throw this baby out with the bath water. There will always be gullible readers, and lying (or misinformed) posters. Would you judge that
most of what a reader finds at Wright Chat is reliable information on the architect ?

SDR

PS -- I'm going back to a previous habit, formatting longer posts to restrict the width of the text. Today's wider screens seem to call for this, in my
view. But I'd be interested to know if this results in messy or even illegible posts for readers using smaller devices -- for instance. Feedback welcomed . . .

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4311
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Wright Chat entries that don't require you to scroll left and right
in order to read the article are preferred.

I have a small MacBook Air with an 11" screen.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thanks, Paul. How do you like it ? I haven't tried a laptop or pad yet . . .

SDR

egads
Posts: 892
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Long Beach CA

Post by egads »

The formatting is welcome, although it seems like a large photo can reformat an entire page of a thread. Scrolling side to side is a PITA.

SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Yes: once an overwide post has been placed, the page widens, typically making the readability issue worse.

As I haven't gotten feedback on this issue for nearly a decade, I assume that readers are using displays of sufficient width to make the point moot.

Very long hot links used to be a problem; this seems to have abated, though relatively few readers resort to TinyUrl to shorten their links . . . ?

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

SDR, what kind of computer do you have? A Muntz?

SDR
Posts: 19324
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Heh. No, I have a five-year-old Mac mini and a 22" Acer display; still using the 2009 Apple keyboard. I have no wireless devices, yet -- and receive TV signals via antenna.

Really behind the curve -- but not antediluvian, I believe. How about you ? Fisher-Price ? Hand-cranked or Diesel-powered ?

SDR

Post Reply