Another Wright-inspired Life Dream House
-
rimrockgal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:19 pm
Another Wright-inspired Life Dream House
Message deleted.
Last edited by rimrockgal on Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
rimrockgal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:19 pm
I wouldn't have identified it as "wright-inspired" except for the clerestory windows in conjunction with the raised ceiling in the kitchen.
A poor inspiration at best, at least in my view.
A poor inspiration at best, at least in my view.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
The exterior looks lumpen, the interior disorganized and uninspired. The clerestories are just rectangular holes punched in the plaster. The stone fireplace is too good for the rest of the house. The garage is great by comparison, because it's honest. Compared to the usual house to be found in suburbia, it must be admitted that this is superior, but by FLW standards, it's of no consequence.
-
Michael Shuck
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:31 pm
- Location: Wichita, KS
Paloverde Life Dream House
Message removed by original submitter
Last edited by Michael Shuck on Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
rimrockgal
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:19 pm
Arizona Life Dream House
OK, folks. I can't let this discussion go on without responding, especially to the previous post. The house was most definitely built from the Life Dream House plans, by a builder that John Rattenbury referred us to when we met with Rattenbury at Taliesin West. It is the Paloverde elevation with the clerestories as designed for that elevation.
The choice of sliding glass doors for the great room was made to feature the inspirational view out to the headwaters of the Verde River and Bill Williams Mountain. We visited the Life Dream House model at Gold Mountain near Portola, CA before beginning construction on our home, and made choices for our home based on its very different location, climate and surroundings.
One last note: John Rattenbury included a photograph of this Arizona house on page 168 of his book, "A House for Life: Bringing the Spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright Into Your Home" (2006).
The choice of sliding glass doors for the great room was made to feature the inspirational view out to the headwaters of the Verde River and Bill Williams Mountain. We visited the Life Dream House model at Gold Mountain near Portola, CA before beginning construction on our home, and made choices for our home based on its very different location, climate and surroundings.
One last note: John Rattenbury included a photograph of this Arizona house on page 168 of his book, "A House for Life: Bringing the Spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright Into Your Home" (2006).
Extreme Frank site...
Hi there Ms RimRock . . .
I am a mere student of architecture and I have the highest regard for FLLW and the people here who study Mr. Wright's work . . . Only the highest. However, sometimes, we can be over the top in our adulation of an Ideal here at Wright Chat.
May I opine that your house is sensational? Breathtaking even. Certainly, there are things that could have been done differently, but what is perfect or may appeal to everyone’s sensibilities? I believe that you probably did everything within your power to create an exemplary home. Perhaps the worst that can be said is that Frank Lloyd Wright was used in the description of the house. That was bound to offend the purists who frequent this site, and that is unfortunate.
My intent here in this note is to beg tolerance of the perfectionists who would slash and burn any attempt to create anything reaching for an Ideal.
All we can do is recognize an Ideal and try . . .
I am a mere student of architecture and I have the highest regard for FLLW and the people here who study Mr. Wright's work . . . Only the highest. However, sometimes, we can be over the top in our adulation of an Ideal here at Wright Chat.
May I opine that your house is sensational? Breathtaking even. Certainly, there are things that could have been done differently, but what is perfect or may appeal to everyone’s sensibilities? I believe that you probably did everything within your power to create an exemplary home. Perhaps the worst that can be said is that Frank Lloyd Wright was used in the description of the house. That was bound to offend the purists who frequent this site, and that is unfortunate.
My intent here in this note is to beg tolerance of the perfectionists who would slash and burn any attempt to create anything reaching for an Ideal.
All we can do is recognize an Ideal and try . . .
-
Ed Jarolin
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:06 pm
- Location: Wyoming
rimrockgal,
Though it may be hard not to, try not to take anything said here personally. You're working in front of a tough audience on this board. Even the subject of our admiration, Frank Lloyd Wright, gets his share of deserved as well as undeserved criticism.
That being said, IMO Rattenbury does not stand among first rate residential architects. When the "Dream House" first came out, way back when, I can only say I was completely underwhelmed. For a disciple of FLlW to come up with this design, especially with the various "style" options flies in the face of everything Wright espoused. It smacks of the facadism that he deplored. As Wright wryly said, "put a bay window on it for the lady." I say this with full knowledge of the commercial pressures which drove the decision to do so. Sadly, again IMO, the "dream house" has never been much more than a tricked up tract house.
So I've had my say on this subject and I'm quite sure I'll receive a share of criticism for it. However, these are my thoughts and I stand by them.
If you custom build again, I'm sure many here would offer their recommendations as to a superior organic architect for you to investigate. Good luck.
Though it may be hard not to, try not to take anything said here personally. You're working in front of a tough audience on this board. Even the subject of our admiration, Frank Lloyd Wright, gets his share of deserved as well as undeserved criticism.
That being said, IMO Rattenbury does not stand among first rate residential architects. When the "Dream House" first came out, way back when, I can only say I was completely underwhelmed. For a disciple of FLlW to come up with this design, especially with the various "style" options flies in the face of everything Wright espoused. It smacks of the facadism that he deplored. As Wright wryly said, "put a bay window on it for the lady." I say this with full knowledge of the commercial pressures which drove the decision to do so. Sadly, again IMO, the "dream house" has never been much more than a tricked up tract house.
So I've had my say on this subject and I'm quite sure I'll receive a share of criticism for it. However, these are my thoughts and I stand by them.
If you custom build again, I'm sure many here would offer their recommendations as to a superior organic architect for you to investigate. Good luck.
I was searching for a way to say something similar. If that makes me a Wright "elitist" or something of the sort, so be it.
I'm sure the Rattenbury opus(s) deserve praise in many ways -- but they ain't Wright. As this is a site designed to preserve the original (and in my opinion to consider a very careful version of a "legacy" approach to new building) I guess we should be grateful that this issue is discussed here, as opposed to somewhere in the shadows of the real estate megalith.
The problem seems to be that, in the face of new building codes, and probably because "everyone" wants a bigger kitchen and four baths, the idea of actually building Wright has moved off the table. What is left ? Well, the options are limited: "Use a designer asociated with Wright in some way" is probably the closest thing, in most minds. The problem is in suggesting something "Wrightian" about the result.
It's either Wright or it's something else. There are lots of good alternatives to a poem by a particular poet; they can have words in them that the earlier poet wouldn't have used, and they can say things that the earlier poet wouldn't say. It's just that that they are poems by a different poet, and need to appreciated for themselves, and not seen continuously the shadow of the earlier (idealized) work.
As I have said, I don't believe in "I've got mine; _____ you" in architectural (or any other) terms. Someone who really wants to own a Wright home has options -- ones that imply some degree of sacrifice, of course, just as owning an early master painting isn't going to be a whim satisfied in a moment, or a carefree ongoing obligation.
I'm a designer. I love to invent, and to be free to design anew with each fresh formal and structural inspiration. But if I were an architect given the task of faithfully emulating a previous opus, I would enjoy seeing what I could do -- modifying the original as invisibly as possible, where necessary. A Usonian with an extra couple of module bays in the bedroom wing, and carefully integrated insulating glass, for instance, would be preferable, to me and to my scrupulous and demanding ideal client, to a "free interpretation" that we both agreed to refer to as "inspired by. . ." another architect. To have a 99% authentic experience, in terms of material, space, and every other metric, seems both achievable and desirable, to me.
I too have no intention to be insulting. I just think a spade must be called a spade -- and a flower a flower. And I believe there's room for both in the world.
SDR
I'm sure the Rattenbury opus(s) deserve praise in many ways -- but they ain't Wright. As this is a site designed to preserve the original (and in my opinion to consider a very careful version of a "legacy" approach to new building) I guess we should be grateful that this issue is discussed here, as opposed to somewhere in the shadows of the real estate megalith.
The problem seems to be that, in the face of new building codes, and probably because "everyone" wants a bigger kitchen and four baths, the idea of actually building Wright has moved off the table. What is left ? Well, the options are limited: "Use a designer asociated with Wright in some way" is probably the closest thing, in most minds. The problem is in suggesting something "Wrightian" about the result.
It's either Wright or it's something else. There are lots of good alternatives to a poem by a particular poet; they can have words in them that the earlier poet wouldn't have used, and they can say things that the earlier poet wouldn't say. It's just that that they are poems by a different poet, and need to appreciated for themselves, and not seen continuously the shadow of the earlier (idealized) work.
As I have said, I don't believe in "I've got mine; _____ you" in architectural (or any other) terms. Someone who really wants to own a Wright home has options -- ones that imply some degree of sacrifice, of course, just as owning an early master painting isn't going to be a whim satisfied in a moment, or a carefree ongoing obligation.
I'm a designer. I love to invent, and to be free to design anew with each fresh formal and structural inspiration. But if I were an architect given the task of faithfully emulating a previous opus, I would enjoy seeing what I could do -- modifying the original as invisibly as possible, where necessary. A Usonian with an extra couple of module bays in the bedroom wing, and carefully integrated insulating glass, for instance, would be preferable, to me and to my scrupulous and demanding ideal client, to a "free interpretation" that we both agreed to refer to as "inspired by. . ." another architect. To have a 99% authentic experience, in terms of material, space, and every other metric, seems both achievable and desirable, to me.
I too have no intention to be insulting. I just think a spade must be called a spade -- and a flower a flower. And I believe there's room for both in the world.
SDR
-
Michael Shuck
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:31 pm
- Location: Wichita, KS
One More Remark from Me
Hi Folks...I want to apologize for making my insensitive remarks here. I should not have been so callous as to make such derogatory remarks. If I could not have offered something positive, I should have kept my fat mouth shut. My apologies in particular to the owner, rimrockgal.
Mike
Mike
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Frank Lloyd Wright/Escoffier/Beethoven
John Rattenbury/McDonalds/ the guy who wrote "Feelings"
With Will Bruder and Wendell Burnett in the Phoenix area producing architecture on a par, each in his own way, with Frank Lloyd Wright, I see no reason to beat around the bush about the quality of something that is painfully third rate, and should not be connected with Wright in any way. You may be emotionally attached to your house, as many are to their Victorians, Tudors, Mediterraneans, but by making that unearned link to Wright, you set yourself up for what you got.
John Rattenbury/McDonalds/ the guy who wrote "Feelings"
With Will Bruder and Wendell Burnett in the Phoenix area producing architecture on a par, each in his own way, with Frank Lloyd Wright, I see no reason to beat around the bush about the quality of something that is painfully third rate, and should not be connected with Wright in any way. You may be emotionally attached to your house, as many are to their Victorians, Tudors, Mediterraneans, but by making that unearned link to Wright, you set yourself up for what you got.
1997 Life Dream House
The Rattenbury Dream House appears easy to live and function in, and capable of taking on a variety of decorating schemes from Wrightian to Southwest Cowboy. But that is what bothers me about it.
It seems modular and generic, with no intrinsic personality of its own. An interior decorator can destroy a FLLW house, but the Dream House would be little more than a collection of boxes without one. Then there is the option of exterior styles. I believe that with FLLW, there is a direct relationship of plan to elevation. Try to imagine the Palmer house with the Arizona adobe treatment. (For those of you who like the idea, I'm not suggesting anything.)
The Dream House may surely be a good, liveable house. It is what a present generation seems to want. But it is not poetic. It is not art. And it definitely is not Wright.
It seems modular and generic, with no intrinsic personality of its own. An interior decorator can destroy a FLLW house, but the Dream House would be little more than a collection of boxes without one. Then there is the option of exterior styles. I believe that with FLLW, there is a direct relationship of plan to elevation. Try to imagine the Palmer house with the Arizona adobe treatment. (For those of you who like the idea, I'm not suggesting anything.)
The Dream House may surely be a good, liveable house. It is what a present generation seems to want. But it is not poetic. It is not art. And it definitely is not Wright.