Was this already shared when it came out in 2014?
https://architizer.com/blog/wrights-uto ... nia-today/
Do others agree with this concept of planning? In many ways, Usonia predicts the condominium projects of the 1970s, at least conceptually. The architecture itself was rarely as interesting, and landscaping often worked against the indigenous flora and fauna, as opposed to enhancing and extending it.
I especially like no fences, narrow roads, commonly owned land, small bedrooms, consistency in landscaping, and last but not least, employing great architects with a vision.
I'm not so sure about building it yourself, though :- /
Ten Takeaways from Usonia
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
2. Keep roads narrow. Bravo! Nothing like wide roads to bring unwanted extra traffic into town.
3. Keep bedrooms small. Mixed. Teens insist on their privacy, while parents insist on nosing into their children's activities. FLW, ironically, had a bedroom at Taliesin large enough to cordon off as a separate apartment, private even from his wife.
5. Landscape at least half the project. I would emphasize relying heavily on native plants, as opposed to, say, topiary, and avoiding Kentucky Blue. Tastes in landscaping vary widely, so uniformity becomes one of those things that has to be imposed on the community, and that is bound to cause friction.
6. Build it yourself. Fine, if you can. I firmly believe that professionals deserve respect, and old people deserve a rest. I would opt for kibitzer-in-chief.
7. Phasing is key. Hanna demonstrated that in spades.
9. Keep doors unlocked. This is a cliché about small town America. The assumption is that everyone around you is benign, and that just isn't the case. If you live in a large city and you leave your house unlocked, when you return, you will find that someone has entered your abode and CLEANED IT OUT! If you live in a small town and leave your house unlocked, when you return, you will find that someone has entered your abode and CLEANED IT UP! ... and left a covered dish in the oven. You don't want this. There's only so much tuna fish casserole that anyone can stomach.
10. Enlist an architect with vision. Totally subjective. Better to impose a certain vision, like Usonian, Colonial, Tudor, PoMo, to encourage uniformity. Same goes for landscaping. If the investors really like topiary, they should have it.
3. Keep bedrooms small. Mixed. Teens insist on their privacy, while parents insist on nosing into their children's activities. FLW, ironically, had a bedroom at Taliesin large enough to cordon off as a separate apartment, private even from his wife.
5. Landscape at least half the project. I would emphasize relying heavily on native plants, as opposed to, say, topiary, and avoiding Kentucky Blue. Tastes in landscaping vary widely, so uniformity becomes one of those things that has to be imposed on the community, and that is bound to cause friction.
6. Build it yourself. Fine, if you can. I firmly believe that professionals deserve respect, and old people deserve a rest. I would opt for kibitzer-in-chief.
7. Phasing is key. Hanna demonstrated that in spades.
9. Keep doors unlocked. This is a cliché about small town America. The assumption is that everyone around you is benign, and that just isn't the case. If you live in a large city and you leave your house unlocked, when you return, you will find that someone has entered your abode and CLEANED IT OUT! If you live in a small town and leave your house unlocked, when you return, you will find that someone has entered your abode and CLEANED IT UP! ... and left a covered dish in the oven. You don't want this. There's only so much tuna fish casserole that anyone can stomach.
10. Enlist an architect with vision. Totally subjective. Better to impose a certain vision, like Usonian, Colonial, Tudor, PoMo, to encourage uniformity. Same goes for landscaping. If the investors really like topiary, they should have it.
In San Francisco we have neighborhoods of varying vintages which exhibit uniformity without sterility. Granted, these are lot-line townhouses, but something can be learned from these examples, perhaps, that would speak to suburban development as well ?
http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guid ... roeder.jpg
https://blogcontent.zippgo.com/wp-conte ... marina.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/visiter-sanfrancisco. ... 6_1024.jpg
In the above instances, the same architect and/or builder was responsible for the row -- except possibly for the second one, found in the Marina district.
SDR
http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guid ... roeder.jpg
https://blogcontent.zippgo.com/wp-conte ... marina.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/visiter-sanfrancisco. ... 6_1024.jpg
In the above instances, the same architect and/or builder was responsible for the row -- except possibly for the second one, found in the Marina district.
SDR
The victorians show a fair amount of uniformity, but the others really don't. Each house has a completely different facade with varying paint jobs.
Though these examples might be pleasant enough urban neighborhoods, aren't they the antithesis of the Usonia development planning? It's more like rows of soldiers each wearing a different uniform.
The notion of the detached single family house is not necessarily rational at all, and is generally dependent on the automobile. Wright accepted that as a given. Within that framework, though, Usonia is idyllic as a modern utopia within the natural environment.
Though these examples might be pleasant enough urban neighborhoods, aren't they the antithesis of the Usonia development planning? It's more like rows of soldiers each wearing a different uniform.
The notion of the detached single family house is not necessarily rational at all, and is generally dependent on the automobile. Wright accepted that as a given. Within that framework, though, Usonia is idyllic as a modern utopia within the natural environment.
Last edited by peterm on Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Perhaps we need definitions of "continuity," "conformity," and "uniformity." The photos seem to represent examples of any of those terms; the visual effect in each case seems to be a collective statement with pleasing variety of expression. This could be achieved with paint alone, as in the famous row of gabled Victorians dubbed the "Sisters."
In the first example above, the black-and-white photo, variety has been achieved by the removal of gabled false fronts to the first three houses in the row !
I don't present these photos as ideal solutions to any problem, merely as examples of the issues under discussion,
SDR
In the first example above, the black-and-white photo, variety has been achieved by the removal of gabled false fronts to the first three houses in the row !
I don't present these photos as ideal solutions to any problem, merely as examples of the issues under discussion,
SDR
Last edited by SDR on Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
It can be reasonably assumed that a suburban development like Pleasantville is quite different from a row of attached houses snuggling up to a Frisco sidewalk. A list of desirable traits for one doesn't necessarily translate for the other. For dense urban areas, the Brits seem to have found a good solution with attached houses wrapped completely around a private park, as shown in the popular movie "Notting Hill."
If a development really favors a certain type of architecture, does it matter if others don't like it? In one famous case from the mid-60s, a modern house with flat roofs, large windows and unpainted vertical wood plank walls was built in a California subdivision with rules requiring that all houses had to conform to a Colonial aesthetic, never mind that all the other houses in town were postwar ranch houses with a nod to Colonialism being the typical louvered panels screwed alongside picture windows. The town took the owners of the house to court, and the judge ruled that the interlopers had to demolish their house. If someone had bought a lot in Pleasantville and built a Tuscan villa, would the same thing have happened?
If a development really favors a certain type of architecture, does it matter if others don't like it? In one famous case from the mid-60s, a modern house with flat roofs, large windows and unpainted vertical wood plank walls was built in a California subdivision with rules requiring that all houses had to conform to a Colonial aesthetic, never mind that all the other houses in town were postwar ranch houses with a nod to Colonialism being the typical louvered panels screwed alongside picture windows. The town took the owners of the house to court, and the judge ruled that the interlopers had to demolish their house. If someone had bought a lot in Pleasantville and built a Tuscan villa, would the same thing have happened?