This is slightly off-topic but I just read something in the current Quarterly that I did not know before: the Cedar Rock house was designed to have twelve inches of dirt on top of the concrete roof - a green roof.
Talk about ahead of his time... by about 50-60 years.
You could easily do this today with a new flat roofed Usonian. There are all kinds of products now on the market to make this feasible that I saw at the recent Green Build conference in Chicago. And you wouldn't need a concrete roof.
Topic for Discussion
-
googieagog
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm
- Location: O'Hareville, Illinois
SDR's right, as usual, about factory brick panels, mitered corner units and CNC-cut light screens -- if we're talking Eichler-scale production. For one subdivision, the setup costs might be too high. Lustron Corp. (and for that matter Studebaker, Hudson et al) died because production numbers were too low to justify tooling costs. Custom light screen patterns would have to be an upcharge -- someone has to design it, digitize the pattern & program the machine. Or, just crank out lots of the same pattern. Flip them upside down or backward on every third house ...
Dan
Heh-heh. . .Why not ?
While the auto industry is a favorite example of production issues, the cost of steel tooling for hundreds of parts, including enormous body-part dies, may not be truly comparable to the relative simplicity of wooden building components. I cannot cite numbers, but I think it bears a closer look. I do know that, at the other end of the size scale, in cabinetry and furniture, the savings afforded by making multiples of a design are real, but it still takes time to do the actual cutting and assembling; there isn't a great reduction of cost per unit when twenty items are built as opposed to one or two.
Building houses in a plant is more like making airplanes than autos, in terms of numbers of units on the floor at one time, and speed of production, I think. (Perhaps factory-built Usonians would fall somewhere between these two examples -- but closer to planes than cars, certainly.) But compared to the cost of site-built houses, shop-built ones are more economical (AND more precisely built) -- if only because of the resultant drastic reduction in time spent on site. Architects who have promoted prefab or modular building construction have always pointed to rapid on-site assembly as the major economic advantage, I believe.
SDR
While the auto industry is a favorite example of production issues, the cost of steel tooling for hundreds of parts, including enormous body-part dies, may not be truly comparable to the relative simplicity of wooden building components. I cannot cite numbers, but I think it bears a closer look. I do know that, at the other end of the size scale, in cabinetry and furniture, the savings afforded by making multiples of a design are real, but it still takes time to do the actual cutting and assembling; there isn't a great reduction of cost per unit when twenty items are built as opposed to one or two.
Building houses in a plant is more like making airplanes than autos, in terms of numbers of units on the floor at one time, and speed of production, I think. (Perhaps factory-built Usonians would fall somewhere between these two examples -- but closer to planes than cars, certainly.) But compared to the cost of site-built houses, shop-built ones are more economical (AND more precisely built) -- if only because of the resultant drastic reduction in time spent on site. Architects who have promoted prefab or modular building construction have always pointed to rapid on-site assembly as the major economic advantage, I believe.
SDR
This showed up this morning on DesignAddict; there could be something to learn from the estimable Ray Kappe and partners ?
http://www.wired.com/promo/wiredlivingh ... laceholder
Check out the videos, then look at the continuous wood ceiling in the living room (Virtual Tour).
A little wood-and-brick Usonian has to be easier (and cheaper) than this 4000-sq-ft steel-and-glass ark. . .?
SDR
http://www.wired.com/promo/wiredlivingh ... laceholder
Check out the videos, then look at the continuous wood ceiling in the living room (Virtual Tour).
A little wood-and-brick Usonian has to be easier (and cheaper) than this 4000-sq-ft steel-and-glass ark. . .?
SDR
I hope that the excellent thoughts already posted won't be ignored as this thread moves forward. I urge all to reread the thread so as to get the full import of what is being proposed here. I believe this is the most serious and substantial attempt yet mounted on Wright Chat (and thus, anywhere ?) to concoct a modern response to the challenge that Wright left us: better housing for America.
SDR
SDR
In trying to contain costs, would using materials such as brick veneer or man-made stone add up to enough of a substantial savings to make a dent in the overall cost structure? And would the installation labor hours involved end up being any less? How about the economical substitutes for exterior wood - cement board, composite plastic/wood, etc? Any meaningful savings to be found in these? What about using concrete block (as in Brown (Kalamazoo, MI) for example)? Or, might having block walls everywhere drive up the costs too significantly of things such as running your electrical, etc - thereby negating any savings?
David
David
Some wise and clever combination of suggestions like these would no doubt do the trick. Exchanging real masonry for real wood needn't necessarily be the answer -- but all options should be gathered before the "bargaining with the devil" begins !
Cost of material has usually been the lesser of those devils -- though of course stone costs more than concrete block. Labor in the shop vs. labor in the field will be the greater issues, I think. There's a reason why (real) brick veneer is hung on steel or concrete structures rather than be laid up by hand (still a "veneer, as the masonry is no longer structural). Perhaps a complete brick-veneered concrete element like a chimney-with-fireplace, shop-fabricated and trucked-and-craned onto place, makes sense in a small structure like a Usonian house. I can't say with any certainty -- but it seems to bear consideration. (To me, brick veneer might be acceptable, though I'd balk at stone veneer. . .)
New skins for new wine ! SDR
Cost of material has usually been the lesser of those devils -- though of course stone costs more than concrete block. Labor in the shop vs. labor in the field will be the greater issues, I think. There's a reason why (real) brick veneer is hung on steel or concrete structures rather than be laid up by hand (still a "veneer, as the masonry is no longer structural). Perhaps a complete brick-veneered concrete element like a chimney-with-fireplace, shop-fabricated and trucked-and-craned onto place, makes sense in a small structure like a Usonian house. I can't say with any certainty -- but it seems to bear consideration. (To me, brick veneer might be acceptable, though I'd balk at stone veneer. . .)
New skins for new wine ! SDR
Usonian materials and design
I think the idea of trying to substitute materials that are altered to look like another material, such as composite stone or brick veneer, is not in keeping with FLLW's Usonian idea. Each material has its own expression, and should not be used to look like another. But, there is nothing wrong with trying to skimp on materials. Wright gave many examples. The Brandes house is of concrete block and without a wood ceiling, yet it is one of his finest and most livable Usonians. The quality of the house is in design and site, not expensive materials.
Extraordinary design, skilled labor, and a nice building site are probably to most difficult issues for a successful group of Usonian houses. How might these elements be handled? And to be Usonian, wouldn't we want it site and client specific?
Doug Kottum, Battle Lake, MN
Extraordinary design, skilled labor, and a nice building site are probably to most difficult issues for a successful group of Usonian houses. How might these elements be handled? And to be Usonian, wouldn't we want it site and client specific?
Doug Kottum, Battle Lake, MN
Detailing with an eye toward the construction process is key. Wright had a penchant for the pricey....redwood and cypress... and his designs in their beautiful simplicity, had elements do double duty. For instance, Usonian sills and mullions in window/door walls are structural. He chose cypress for its rot resistance and its beauty...but it holds up the roof too. That cabinet grade wood must be installed as the rough framing is being done and protected until the end of construction. A Usonian as Wright designed it, needs a "mother hen of the works" on site at all times to oversee the precise details and to protect vulnerable finish work that, by the nature of its detailing, is exposed early on...these are hidden costs of the elegant simplicity. Wright had a low paid but highly trained apprentice on site, today we pay full price to a GC or CM for that service.
A Usonian for our time would have elegant details with elements doing multiple jobs, but for it to be as economical as we would intend, we must keep in mind how, where, and when the pieces will go together as well as what the pieces are.
As to the questions of cultured stone or thin brick...a Usonian's materials are finish AND substance/structure, if they are finish only, they are not doing double duty and are not in keeping with the concept. I think a building could be of the Usonian concept even if it used none of Wright's palette, as long as it followed his principles as described in the "Natural House".
A Usonian for our time would have elegant details with elements doing multiple jobs, but for it to be as economical as we would intend, we must keep in mind how, where, and when the pieces will go together as well as what the pieces are.
As to the questions of cultured stone or thin brick...a Usonian's materials are finish AND substance/structure, if they are finish only, they are not doing double duty and are not in keeping with the concept. I think a building could be of the Usonian concept even if it used none of Wright's palette, as long as it followed his principles as described in the "Natural House".
Well said, on both counts. The comments reflect an architectural as opposed to a decorative sensibility. My only defense in proposing veneer brick, for instance (which IS real masonry material, if not structurally employed) is to maintain the appearance, the feel, of a true High Usonian, on a budget. I admit that this route sacrifices honesty for appearance -- but the result, if done well, could be sufficiently satisfying, to even a perfectionist, and thus able to sell houses to those who like Wright for his material palette.
But I'd happily follow the formulae proposed by kottum and DRN. As it is, all of us seem ready to accept a modern alternative to "the real thing," of one sort or another, for any of several necessary and inescapable reasons -- not least of which is copyright infringement ?
I've been contemplating the possibilities of preassembly of building sections, and have come to the realization that (assuming a poured floor) the only pieces too big to truck to the site are roof and ceiling finishes (if not the roof structure itself, which might be panelized, along with floor sections where necessary). Is there a difference between flat roofs and pitched ones, in this regard ? Could preassembled roof sections with applied planked ceilings be delivered and installed, with roof covering applied after ? Or should roofs be entirely site-built, over the prefab/modular walls and site-built masonry, as Wright intended ? (We'll ignore, won't we, his early suggestion that the roof could be built and propped in place, while walls were assembled beneath them. . .?)
SDR
But I'd happily follow the formulae proposed by kottum and DRN. As it is, all of us seem ready to accept a modern alternative to "the real thing," of one sort or another, for any of several necessary and inescapable reasons -- not least of which is copyright infringement ?
I've been contemplating the possibilities of preassembly of building sections, and have come to the realization that (assuming a poured floor) the only pieces too big to truck to the site are roof and ceiling finishes (if not the roof structure itself, which might be panelized, along with floor sections where necessary). Is there a difference between flat roofs and pitched ones, in this regard ? Could preassembled roof sections with applied planked ceilings be delivered and installed, with roof covering applied after ? Or should roofs be entirely site-built, over the prefab/modular walls and site-built masonry, as Wright intended ? (We'll ignore, won't we, his early suggestion that the roof could be built and propped in place, while walls were assembled beneath them. . .?)
SDR
The SIPS panels mentioned in an earlier post are a great opportunity for some construction off-site. A slab and the masonry elements can be built on site, while the beams/skeletal elements and the panelized roof are fabricated. Some of the technologies in use for office environments could be utilized to make nonstructural partitions for bedrooms etc. that could be installed (and later moved) if the house shell structure is kept independent. Electrical/data could be run in the slab to regular connection points and the walls could plug in and carry the service to the point of use.
Many technologies are around to help us with this, we just need to be ready to take them out of the office or retail use in which they are common, and bring them into the home.
Many technologies are around to help us with this, we just need to be ready to take them out of the office or retail use in which they are common, and bring them into the home.
-
googieagog
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm
- Location: O'Hareville, Illinois
Build the wall SIPs with stained or integral-color fiber cement outside (substitue for the Erdman's masonite) and finish-grade plywood inside. Use composite (recycled plastic?) battens outside, and wood battens inside. Perhaps the wiring chases could line up with the batten pattern, so outlets and wall switches are integrated with the battens. What would the vertical grid pattern be? Wright used 1'1'' module (6'6'', 8'8'' etc. ceilings) but a 1' module (with battens every 2') would require less cutting and waste. Use Anderson windows, as did Wright's original prefabs.
For masonry elements, use factory brick panels as mentioned, or poured concrete with reverse battens. Can the concrete be sealed, stained or painted to avoid long-term problems? Or is that "cheating?"
Do Wright's thin concrete floor mats meet code in most places? How affordable would they be? Concrete floors and radiant heat are trendy, so that would be a selling point. How about hot-water or electric solar panels on the roof? What about air conditioning? High-velocity systems, with little plastic ducts in the ceiling, would work but are costly.
For masonry elements, use factory brick panels as mentioned, or poured concrete with reverse battens. Can the concrete be sealed, stained or painted to avoid long-term problems? Or is that "cheating?"
Do Wright's thin concrete floor mats meet code in most places? How affordable would they be? Concrete floors and radiant heat are trendy, so that would be a selling point. How about hot-water or electric solar panels on the roof? What about air conditioning? High-velocity systems, with little plastic ducts in the ceiling, would work but are costly.
Dan
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
Real. . .
and cast
(note repeats)