Wright's 'dream' of being able to bring affordable architecture to the masses via Usonia seems to have been largely unrealized. And perhaps it was not even ever possible given the parameters he choose: individual (unique) homes for each client, relatively expensive finish materials, non-standard building methods driving up labor costs, etc.
It seems that the closest he ever came to fulfilling this dream was with the Erdman Prefabs - where standardization could be the rule and client choices were possible, but within a limited framework.
We all (rightfully) marvel at Wright's ability to "shake designs out of his sleeves" when it comes to the various (and varying) Usonians that did 'come out of his sleeves' year-after-year. But should the Erdmans hold a place of their own as his truest attempt to bring affordable architecture to the masses?
David
Wright, Usonia & affordable architecture to the masses
More American Redicuts were built, and, judging from photos, I prefer them.
The aspects of Wright's architecture that people wanted - open plan, split level, long horizontal line - found a ready market. They really didn't want the rest, and price wasn't the reason. Modernism (organic, internationalist or what have you) remains a minority taste in housing. As the Hillmer thread reminds us, people who can afford anything don't usually have very good taste either.
The aspects of Wright's architecture that people wanted - open plan, split level, long horizontal line - found a ready market. They really didn't want the rest, and price wasn't the reason. Modernism (organic, internationalist or what have you) remains a minority taste in housing. As the Hillmer thread reminds us, people who can afford anything don't usually have very good taste either.
And in conjunction with my first question: was the Erdman's architecture - though possibly 'less' than what each unique Usonian design had - 'worthy' in the sense that the client was getting much more in design than they would have received for a design of similar cost at the time (late 50's)?
David
David
My own opinion is that the Erdman prefabs are the sole example (fortunately) of late-career Wright "knocking off" his own work in order to make it affordable -- yet another brave attempt at what so many architects have tried, over the decades if not centuries.
Unfortunately, economies like stock windows and indifferent aesthetics seem to have sucked the life out of these houses (the "ranch house" type, anyway) -- they just don't have what a true Usonian has, in my view. A distinctive cladding texture is about all that's left of Wright in these houses, as I see it.
Reidy is probably right; perhaps the average consumer couldn't really distinguish an Erdman ranch from the other kind -- and if he could see a difference between either of those and a true Usonian, the price associated with that difference wouldn't seem worth it . . . ?
SDR
Unfortunately, economies like stock windows and indifferent aesthetics seem to have sucked the life out of these houses (the "ranch house" type, anyway) -- they just don't have what a true Usonian has, in my view. A distinctive cladding texture is about all that's left of Wright in these houses, as I see it.
Reidy is probably right; perhaps the average consumer couldn't really distinguish an Erdman ranch from the other kind -- and if he could see a difference between either of those and a true Usonian, the price associated with that difference wouldn't seem worth it . . . ?
SDR
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
An excellent query from one of the very best contributors to Wright Chat.
As with everything associated with FLLW there is a dichotomy associated with this subject. There is absolutely no doubt that he devoted much time to the design of affordable housing that was also Architecture, as distinct from building. He certainly believed that Architecture was the headstone of any culture. Nevertheless, he asserted that ‘culture is not for the herd.’
Conditions were different of course during the times of the American System foray and the Erdman prefabs, but whereas the former designs used planning, space and light brilliantly, and employed interesting, durable materials, the latter were very much run of the mill ranch houses, and clad with sheeting of questionable qualities when subjected to the North American winters. The earlier houses possessed a generous presence, those of the 1950’s appear mean in comparison.
As Roderick Grant wrote in a previous thread, it is the fenestration that distinguishes Frank Lloyd Wright’s work from that of many of his would be fellow travelers. In the 1950’s and 1960’s Anderson Windows were considered to be a superior product to those of most of their competitors, and were more expensive, but they did not have the aesthetic qualities of the custom built sash characteristic of the Usonian houses. It must have been extremely difficult for FLLW to specify Anderson Windows in order to meet the budget. We all remember, ‘Give me the luxuries of life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,’
As with everything associated with FLLW there is a dichotomy associated with this subject. There is absolutely no doubt that he devoted much time to the design of affordable housing that was also Architecture, as distinct from building. He certainly believed that Architecture was the headstone of any culture. Nevertheless, he asserted that ‘culture is not for the herd.’
Conditions were different of course during the times of the American System foray and the Erdman prefabs, but whereas the former designs used planning, space and light brilliantly, and employed interesting, durable materials, the latter were very much run of the mill ranch houses, and clad with sheeting of questionable qualities when subjected to the North American winters. The earlier houses possessed a generous presence, those of the 1950’s appear mean in comparison.
As Roderick Grant wrote in a previous thread, it is the fenestration that distinguishes Frank Lloyd Wright’s work from that of many of his would be fellow travelers. In the 1950’s and 1960’s Anderson Windows were considered to be a superior product to those of most of their competitors, and were more expensive, but they did not have the aesthetic qualities of the custom built sash characteristic of the Usonian houses. It must have been extremely difficult for FLLW to specify Anderson Windows in order to meet the budget. We all remember, ‘Give me the luxuries of life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,’
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Laurie, you hit the nail on the head: Anderson Windows, or Twindows as the double paned were called. Erdman must have had a connection with Anderson that gave FLW no choice. It's less the lack of exquisite detailing than scale; they were slightly too big for FLW's work. As handsome as McBean is (and the 2-story Erdman is much better than the 'Ranch') the scale of the windows, which controls the scale of the overall house, is too big. It's too bad Anderson and FLW didn't get together to come up with an alternate design, a less bulky affair that could have included mitered corner windows. The ASB houses had the advantage of not being in the era of the McCorporation, which sucks the life out of smaller companies and limits choice.
That said, based on the three Erdmans I've been in, McBean, Zaferiou and Mollica, all of which have been well cared for (Zaferiou is still in original owners' hands), they are not bad houses at all. Yet it is not hard to understand that the average home shopper, knowing nothing about aesthetics, would not want to pay a premium for the Erdman design.
That said, based on the three Erdmans I've been in, McBean, Zaferiou and Mollica, all of which have been well cared for (Zaferiou is still in original owners' hands), they are not bad houses at all. Yet it is not hard to understand that the average home shopper, knowing nothing about aesthetics, would not want to pay a premium for the Erdman design.
I found this photo of the Duncan house living room, online. I was going to ask why Mr Wright wouldn't have employed Anderson casement windows -- surely his preference, and available (at that time ?) from Anderson ?
I had feared that the ones used were double-hung, from their exterior appearance, cursorily noted. But no -- these clearly have a single sash. Operable how ? I see the ones nearest the camera don't have equal lites, above and below; what's up with that ? The further window appears to have its central division aligned with the feature strip of the masonry work -- not so the nearer pair of windows.
I had feared that the ones used were double-hung, from their exterior appearance, cursorily noted. But no -- these clearly have a single sash. Operable how ? I see the ones nearest the camera don't have equal lites, above and below; what's up with that ? The further window appears to have its central division aligned with the feature strip of the masonry work -- not so the nearer pair of windows.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
While FLW gave a lot of thought to inexpensive housing, that came mostly int he form of smaller designs and cheaper materials. The critical element he seemed to overlook was the cost of labor. Skilled masons and wood workers were remarkably cheap through much of Wright's life. I can only imagine this had an effect when he sat at the drafting board and worked up designs that involved beautiful stone work and complex joinery. The price of skilled labor went up significantly after WWII (and even as the skills when down), and I think that was tough for Wright to factor in, given that his homes are often like fine pieces of furniture, requiring the skill of a cabinetmaker.
Deke
Deke
Photos by Alan Weintraub of the LaFond house. In conjuction with an exterior photo, below, we see that the lower lite is an awning sash, hinged at the top and opening outward. A different (from Duncan) handle is just visible in the dining room, and a crank operator in the bedroom. The unequal panes still puzzle me, though the center division is centered on a board of the interior cladding -- perhaps no accident ?
I can see Wright being pleased -- if only for variety's sake -- to adopt a post-war horizontal sash for this new work. But to my eye the proportions of the sash rectangles do not, from the exterior at least, present a felicitous appearance.
I can see Wright being pleased -- if only for variety's sake -- to adopt a post-war horizontal sash for this new work. But to my eye the proportions of the sash rectangles do not, from the exterior at least, present a felicitous appearance.
I guess that is my main wonder: were these designs 'good' in comparison to what else was out there at the time at similar cost?Roderick Grant wrote:".....based on the three Erdmans I've been in, McBean, Zaferiou and Mollica ..... they are not bad houses at all.
The reason(s) that they failed to catch on can be deduced and elaborated on. But, in looking back, did Wright actually come close to offering affordable, quality architecture to the masses via these three Prefab designs? If we can generalize that the typical Usonian was affordable only to the upper-middle class and above (there were exceptions, of course), were Wright and Erdman able to lower the entry level a notch (say down to middle-middle class) and still maintain a level of design that exceeded what was available to those in a similar economic/class situation?
Perhaps this whole subject might be good for a dissertation, but if Wright did succeed design/affordability-wise in doing just that (no matter that they didn't catch on with the masses), then shouldn't these perhaps be viewed more favorably in hindsight?
David
-
Jeff Myers
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:01 pm
- Location: Tulsa
- Contact:
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Did FLLW succeed design/affordability-wise in the design of the Erdman prefabs?
I would suggest that the Erdman designs were the least successful of Frank Lloyd Wright’s essays into affordable housing.
Roderick Grant makes mention of the proportions of the sash, and their relation to the overall scale, both very valid points, but were such factors appreciated by the average purchaser, and would they have influenced their decision?
An analogy can be drawn with the automobile industry, which at that time was a barometer of popular taste. The Chevrolet that was longer, lower, and wider, and had the teardrop rear lights, was hideous, but had been designed after considerable market research. It sold. The Nash, a more modest vehicle in appearance, but arguably better engineered, did not, and the American Motors Corporation went out of business.
The Erdman details are fussy and inappropriate, and in comparison with the typical Usonian, the spaces are dull. Moreover, the external maintenance would have been considerable. Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to use the vocabulary of the Chevrolet class of home buyers, when he was ill fitted for such an exercise. At that time, his values and thought processes were not at that level.
The American System houses are far superior in every respect, and display a real understanding of what constituted affordable accommodation in the era of their design. They were beautifully scaled, in a manner that the later prefabs were not. The means by which this was achieved from 1911 thru 1917 was probably considered too expensive in the 1950’s.
As Deke asserts, labor was less expensive, and skills more finely honed then. Furthermore, the overall appearance of the Erdman houses suggests that a real struggle ensued, both in the studio and in the field ,in order that the purchase price was competitive.
The John and Muriel Sweeton house is a low cost Usonian, which in its allocation and quality of space, its detailing, cleanness of line, and general livability, is light years ahead of the Erdman houses. I would choose the former any time.
I would suggest that the Erdman designs were the least successful of Frank Lloyd Wright’s essays into affordable housing.
Roderick Grant makes mention of the proportions of the sash, and their relation to the overall scale, both very valid points, but were such factors appreciated by the average purchaser, and would they have influenced their decision?
An analogy can be drawn with the automobile industry, which at that time was a barometer of popular taste. The Chevrolet that was longer, lower, and wider, and had the teardrop rear lights, was hideous, but had been designed after considerable market research. It sold. The Nash, a more modest vehicle in appearance, but arguably better engineered, did not, and the American Motors Corporation went out of business.
The Erdman details are fussy and inappropriate, and in comparison with the typical Usonian, the spaces are dull. Moreover, the external maintenance would have been considerable. Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to use the vocabulary of the Chevrolet class of home buyers, when he was ill fitted for such an exercise. At that time, his values and thought processes were not at that level.
The American System houses are far superior in every respect, and display a real understanding of what constituted affordable accommodation in the era of their design. They were beautifully scaled, in a manner that the later prefabs were not. The means by which this was achieved from 1911 thru 1917 was probably considered too expensive in the 1950’s.
As Deke asserts, labor was less expensive, and skills more finely honed then. Furthermore, the overall appearance of the Erdman houses suggests that a real struggle ensued, both in the studio and in the field ,in order that the purchase price was competitive.
The John and Muriel Sweeton house is a low cost Usonian, which in its allocation and quality of space, its detailing, cleanness of line, and general livability, is light years ahead of the Erdman houses. I would choose the former any time.
Cost was an issue with the Erdman Pre-Fabs. It turned out to be a large variable due to differences in shipping costs to different parts of the country and the need for a considerable amount of on-site construction of the foundations and the masonry core. The Cass house constructed in 1958 on Staten Island NY was arguably the most expensive: $20,000 for the "kit" delivered to the site; and $35,000 for "kit" assembly by local contractors and construction of the foundations and fieldstone masonry core...this likely also included site work, drive, etc. (see this link: http://www.neighborhoodpreservationcent ... sHouse.pdf )
I would have to believe that the Erdman Pre-Fabs constructed closer to Erdman's plant, using less expensive masonry, and less expensive mid-Western labor would have cost less, but I don't know if they would have matched the Sweeton house's spartan elegance for the price.
The Sweeton house, completed 7 years earlier, 70 miles to the south, is of comparable size and form, and was constructed for just under $25,000. (budget was $15,000...par for the FLLW course). Surely South Jersey's lower construction costs, some inflation from 1951 to 1958, and less pricey masonry account for some of this differential, but it does seem as if the Pre-Fab approach didn't save that much in total cost and did lead to design compromise. Gone were radiant heat slabs, mitered corner glass, and the elegant proportions and details of Wright's walls of windows and doors.
I would have to believe that the Erdman Pre-Fabs constructed closer to Erdman's plant, using less expensive masonry, and less expensive mid-Western labor would have cost less, but I don't know if they would have matched the Sweeton house's spartan elegance for the price.
The Sweeton house, completed 7 years earlier, 70 miles to the south, is of comparable size and form, and was constructed for just under $25,000. (budget was $15,000...par for the FLLW course). Surely South Jersey's lower construction costs, some inflation from 1951 to 1958, and less pricey masonry account for some of this differential, but it does seem as if the Pre-Fab approach didn't save that much in total cost and did lead to design compromise. Gone were radiant heat slabs, mitered corner glass, and the elegant proportions and details of Wright's walls of windows and doors.