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.
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?
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.
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.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?
This type of house is a commodity class FLW design, not to be confused with the custom houses.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.
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?
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.