Article: H. H. Richardson Home set to be demolished - Brookline, MA

[Roderick Grant]

It should be noted that the New York State Capitol was not designed entirely by Richardson. The first floor was the work of the originally contracted architect, Thomas Fuller. Floors 2 and 3 were designed in collaboration by Richardson and Leopold Eidlitz. The rest of the structure was done by Isaac G. Perry. I leave it up to others to ascertain which of the 3 elements is best.

[jay]

Thanks for linking the new book, David. Looks like a good one.

Just after Richardson died, Olmsted was working on Franklin Park (Boston). He designed a piece of legitimate architecture, an "Overlook Shelter" that housed a restaurant, changing rooms and bathrooms.

The facade with its crisp gable:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 435428479/

Side angles of the facade:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 435428479/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 843256092/

Quite interestingly, the roof form on the rear is rounded in a less-geometric shape:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 843256092/

The intention, from afar, was that it'd rustically blend in with boulders:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 843256092/
(zoom in to get a nice look)

On the other side of the field is "Schoolmaster Hill", where Ralph Waldo Emerson once lived before the land became a public park... The Olmsted-designed structure has long since burned down.

Edit:
Another good one, where zooming in you can see how well the roof blends into the scenery:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_a ... 843256092/

[jay]

I just finished reading the book David linked to on the previous page:
"Architects of an American Landscape" by Hugh Howard.

Wow.... what a fantastic book!

Howard answers all the questions we raised on this thread, for one thing. His easy-to-read narrative efficiently and thoroughly tells each designer's story, with distinct focus on their works and their creative approach/process. Really a fun read altogether, which is refreshing as these subjects often get the treatment of historic 'over-detail' or academic study.

The author's research also seems top notch. He gives a quote from Olmsted I'd never seen before:

"No sharply defined lines [should] mark the sudden transition from the formality of architecture to the irregularity of nature."

Highly recommended for all Wrightians.

[DavidC]

Thanks for letting us know, Jay. Good to hear that you found the book to be so enjoyable, too.

I'm interested in what you came away with about Richardson after reading this?


David

[jay]

Well, for someone not too interested in the finer details of classical architecture (myself) it was nice to have a concise narrative that pinpointed where Richardson came from, creatively and historically...and how he used those forms in new ways that caused such excitement in its day. I can see why architects love Richardson. And I really enjoyed learning about his train stations.

Roderick mentions earlier that he wasn't impressed with the Glessner interior, that it was still Victorian, which seems accurate. The Wrightian quality of continuity (exterior to interior and back out to the exterior) is what rings my bells, and so it seems like Richardson was making exciting progressions with his exteriors, but not so much as an interior designer. Further, the whole sense of marrying the structure to the ground it sat on was glorious, and of course the main theme of Olmsted's influence. But it wasn't until FLLW's later work that fulfilled this agenda, all the way, entirely through the interior....completing the full scope.

One interesting note on Richardson's interiors, though, comes at the end of Hugh Howard's book. He cites Richardson's libraries in a Wrightian manner:

"To visit the libraries where Richardson created drama with varying ceiling heights is to anticipate the sense of spatial play that characterizes many works of Wright and his successors." (pg 339)

Anyway, the book has inspired me to take a trip to the Boston area sometime soon. And I'll be very excited to see as many Richardson buildings as I can...!

[SDR]

I was inspired to look for a photo of the facade of the State Capitol building, to see Richardson's second and third stories. I got more than I was hoping for: What a marvelous grand stair ! Is that Richardson and Eidlitz ?

https://untappedcities.com/2020/06/05/b ... in-albany/

S

[jay]

The article says the staircase was by Richardson alone, and further decorated by architect Perry. The article's author also compares the stairs to MC Escher, which seems apt.

[Roderick Grant]

As state capitol buildings go, one advantage that NYS has over many others, as well as the DC holy of holies, is that it does not reference St. Peter's Basilica at all. The grandiosity of most state capitols seems to contradict the very nature of the country. Of all 50 capitols, Alaska's is the most "American": a modest 6-story block that could pass for a department store, no pretentions at all, which I believe is the appropriate stance for government buildings. Elected officials are, after all, just glorified bureaucrats. They don't stride about in togas, through marble halls, pontificating. (Well, actually they do, but they shouldn't.)

That's where FLW's contribution to Arizona comes in. While it would have been a grand place, it would not have scared the bejesus out of people approaching it. There was to be no overwhelming cascade of stairs to exhaust elders trying to enter ... as NYS has. A large portion would have been a delightful garden to attract nearby workers and passing pedestrians looking for a shady place to enjoy their bag lunch. Among all state houses, it would have stood out as a beautiful, approachable structure. As is, only Nebraska's tower by Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue aspires to its purpose as a symbol of the state.

Again, as with Glesner, the interior of NYS Capitol is underwhelming, a Victorian Chateau.

[SDR]

All well said. But . . . underwhelming ?

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... 3-copy.jpg

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... NY-020.jpg

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... NY-032.jpg

I think I'd be "majorly whelmed" if I encountered this interior . . .!

S

[Rood]

All well said. But . . . underwhelming ?

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... 3-copy.jpg

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... NY-020.jpg

https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/u ... NY-032.jpg

I think I'd be "majorly whelmed" if I encountered this interior . . .!S

Huh ... I might throw up.

[Roderick Grant]

I didn't say anything about the fanciness of the interiors; Victorian interiors are infused with gewgaws in every nook and cranny. Aesthetically the interiors don't work for me, SDR. You may be 'bigly whelmed' as much as you like.

[SDR]

That vast, top-lighted, stone-built space---a space entirely devoted to circulation, to dramatizing the simple act of moving from one floor to the next---is an architectural extravagance of the first order, regardless of period or style. Encountering it must be something like navigating one of those remarkable chasms or canyons one finds in our western national parks, which are similarly top-lighted and were carved by water from the living stone; the stairs at Albany might be likened to waterways. The whole affair represents another of man's countless attempts to evoke nature in art---as Wright does at Fallingwater, I would suggest.

S

[DavidC]

HH Richardson: The Hidden Hand behind American Romanesque - w/ Old World Exploration - (1:38:44)


David