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.
jackmax wrote:If I'm not mistaken, it's not considered a Wright original unless it is built on the site it was planned for.
Well, Mr. Wright spoke often of this being his process, but he often broke his own rules on this and many other matters. He often allowed his instinct to override his dogma.
There are many designs that he created for one location and when the project fell through, he reused the design for something else (admittedly, he usually modified it in some way).
Some of his designs were specifically made to be built in numerous places. The Price Tower ( a perfect example of a reused design: originally made for St.Mark's Place in Manhattan in slightly different form) was part of his idea for Broadacre City. If you look at the model of Broadacre City you'll see little "Price Towers" all over the place.
Of course, he also dabbled in modular, pre-fabricated housing, as well.
Either way, a Frank Lloyd Wright original is a Frank Lloyd Wright original. However, at this point, the idea of a *new* FLlW Original building is pretty much moot. It's unlikely that building codes would even allow for it at any price. Not to mention modern ammenities...Or any changes Mr. Wright might've made during construction if he was around while a home was being built.
He's been quoted as saying that the architect's most useful tools are the eraser in the drafting room and the wrecking bar at the building site.
If you want a FLLW "style" house, find a good local architect whose work appeals to you and appears to embody his principles-and don't be afraid to say how much you admire Wright. This is not hard if you can refrain from thinking it has to "look" r(wr)ight (which without exception is some perversion of the "prairie house").
If you do want over-wrought regurgitated copies, yes, there are any number of architects and developers at the ready to give you that.
If you have the money, go to Bart Prince for a truly original and organic building.
But as many people have said in the past. It is clearly NOT as good as a genuine FLW design. And here is my opinion as to why:
1. House contains no
There are some of us fools out here who believe that the legacy of Mr. Wright is more than his built work, writings, and art. But it is also an Idea that is available to anyone with the courage and ambition to discover that Idea, and realize it in their own homes and lives. I am one of those fools and have a Usonian house project of my own going on. Mr. Sutton has invented ways to deal with technical problems of Usonian house construction, and has been helpful to me in my own project. I am grateful for his help.
Am enjoying these recent discussions a great deal, and they have brought some very fine people into the fray. Even a couple of artists. The criticisms of those who have been engaged in actual work, by those who are perhaps only watching, seem harsh at times. But that is among the risks of doing creative work.