Faux Fallingwater For Sale

Sutton1 · Post by **Sutton1** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:21 am

http://www.milehimodern.com/2Borealis/index.php

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:28 pm

I'm no architect, but it seems to me that this house shares very little with Fallingwater.

A nice house it may be, but the similarities escape me I'm afraid.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:40 pm

I'm no architect, but it seems to me that this house shares very little with Jacobs I.

A nice house it may be, but the similarities escape me I'm afraid.

FLLW - Jacobs I

Mobius - "Jacobs I - derived" (night)

(daylight)

Jacobs I

Mobius

Jacobs I

Mobius

I hadn't intended further comment on Mobius's otherwise handsome house -- but this was an irresistible opportunity to make my point.
Sorry I didn't find better exterior photos.

SDR

Palli Davis Holubar · Post by **Palli Davis Holubar** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:41 am

This is a great opportunity to think in the Language - Vocabulary - Grammar- terms discussed on the chair thread. Selected broad tenets of a Language can be employed without using the vocabulary or grammar associated with the lead Speaker of the Language or an element of the vocabulary or grammar selected and pulled out of the context of the Language. That is what influence means. We can try to translate the language of FLW's organic architecture into our time but every attempt will be something else... a literal translation with the look of an over-worked assignment...a new translation into a vocabulary of the new time and circumstance...or something in between.

This is why Legacy buildings are problematic. It is why all the remaining FLW/Taliesin buildings must be sensed, studied, shared and preserved with love and living.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:28 am

This is a good opportunity to discuss architectural language.

The house for sale speaks a language that reminds one of Wright in that it is composed of a series of vertical masses which anchor lighter cantilevered planes, rendered in for the most part, earthy colors. The house's language has characteristics that make one think of Wright, but it is not a direct use of a Wright grammar of materials, nor is it based on any specific Wright design composition, but it has superficial references.

Mobius' very laudable house takes a specific Wright design composition as a starting point and with some modifications, creates a house that is Wrightian in parti (plan) and several key formal characteristics (anchoring masses, cantilevered planes, screen like fenestation), but it is rendered in a grammar that is not Wrightian: (not that there is anything wrong with that) almost flat but gently sloping roof planes, cool color materials, reduced emphasis on horizontal striations of vertical surfaces. Mobius quite skillfully translated a Wright composition into a different language...the message is similar, but the way in which the thought is conveyed has a different "tone".

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:53 am

The Jacobs House is something that should be left as is - and any building that claims to be "based" on the design of that wonderful house will fall short. Any really GOOD piece of architecture will be created as something different, something that responds to OUR times, not 1937. Although we can appreciate FLW's works as great architecture, they are historical in nature, and the desire to reproduce them in any way will be pointless, meaningless and futile. Move on, people, stop living in the past and start addressing the problems that lie ahead.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:08 am

My observation of many of the changes Mobius made from Wright's design were in the name of translating a 1937 American house to a 2008 New Zealand house. Materials and systems were selected based on energy efficiency and local availability, the form was altered to adapt to a different climate, changes were made to conform to necessary life safety codes, etc.
Mobius' design is not a house stuck in the past, rather it is a new house, of its time and place, based on a timeless concept that happened to be first expressed in the 1930's.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:25 am

But the Jacobs House was built as a result not only of Wright's vision of an appropriate way to live in the 1930's, but also as a reflection of the economic times - in time, the Usonian concept became expensive and unreachable for most middle-class families, and remains so to this day. That is one of many shortcomings, not to mention the idea of adding a sloped roof to the garage! Why would one put a distinctly different roof on a mundane building component, as if to call attention to it?

I'm sorry, but if this house is supposed to be a modern interpretation, it falls short - by miles. Certainly there are many, many houses that are being built today which capture the essence of the modest and modern home better than this.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:58 am

My problem with this interesting and apparently successful new house is the manner in which it has been portrayed.

According to the owner, the process was roughly as follows:

"I love the Jacobs house. I want to live in a house like that.

But:

I don't quite like this part.

They won't let me build that part.

My present needs and budget dictate this, and this, and this will have to be different.

My wife doesn't really care for that part.

Flat roofs are out: they leak.

We're actually more comfortable with a whole different material palette and color scheme.

But:

We still like to make the connection with Wright's Jacobs house, and all our friends and neighbors have been told that this is a Wright-derived design."

Could the owner possibly wonder that some Wright-lovers would be offended by this scenario ? Presenting this project to Wright Chat is like making a bad copy of the Mona Lisa and then setting it up on an easel outside the Louvre. This house belongs in Dwell or Metropolitan Home, where I'm sure it would be given its deserved attention.

Why not just build a house, without claiming an insupportable lineage ? Floor plans are a dime a dozen, and really that's all that connects this house to Jacobs, from what I can see.

I'm very sorry to be a wet blanket, but this has been my reaction to this subject, from the start.

SDR

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:01 am

i think that jacobs is still up to the minute in terms of plan, and i understand the idea of using the plan of the house as a starting point for a contemporary house, though a unique solution would also be commendable. i think the shortcomings of the new zealand house lie in the translation of the roof planes. for energy and code reasons the roof planes have become "thick" and because of this, the slight incline of the shed roofs appears heavy and slightly clumsy.

one thing wright avoided always, was a slightly inclined roof plane. he either made it flat or let it soar. i think the n zealand house would have been more successful if there would have been more thought in attempting to resolve this problem. the use of cooler materials i find ok because it can be justified in practical terms, the wood and brick of jacobs being prohibitively expensive and labor intensive. this, of course assumes that the new materials used are at least as "green", if not more so than those used in jacobs 1.

the thing that is interesting about the new zealand house is that it seems to only borrow from wright in plan, and overlooks most of his other organic principles.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:16 am

But - to return to the subject matter, the one similarity I found in reviewing the photographs was what appears to be a relatively recent stone pier (the masonry does not match the rest of the house) evidently built to support what may have been a sagging cantilevered roof! How Wrightian!

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:43 am

This really is a discussion about language and concept, and I think some of us are mistaking one for the other.

Mobius' house is Usonian in concept: it is a modest, modern house of its time, that uses its materials in a direct, honest way. It is based on a plan type, parti, or diagram that Wright used repeatedly. Most of Wright tenets of the Usonian concept are addressed or interpreted...some particulars are not (that Wright mentions shed roofs in Natural House and Marden had a garage, is an aside). It is not rendered in Wright's specific language or grammars, which changed by project and evolved over time.

The part I think we are getting stuck on is this: Is a Usonian house defined by its language or grammar, or is it defined by its design intent or concept?

Palli Davis Holubar · Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:13 pm

I'm not sure Usonian can be used as a generic term; it is indeed FLW's word and he chose to name Jacobs I first and then a project Usonia 2, subsequently the others in the family- Usonians. It expresses the specific vocabulary for this body of work of a particular time.
I think it is good to be a purist here.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:31 pm

If you really look closely at the language of the Usonian, I think that the building type was very complete in the sense that it went from the general to the specific. The planning was as innovative as the construction details - from the materials to the mechanical systems - a complete "gesammtkunstwerk" as the Germans say- and I think one should be purist here, as the homes which purportedly are "based" upon Usonian principles are projects which pick and choose - which only dilute the design intent. To take a plan and/or building elevation and the "adapt" it to modern construction methods is, in my opinion, a travesty.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:22 pm

Maybe not so much a travesty as just, not a Usonian.

I guess what we are saying is, to be a Usonian, the building must be a complete package, including all details, systems, furniture, fabric choices etc., as designed by Wright. Unless a Legacy house is built without a single screwhead out of place or a detail altered, the last Usonian was built almost 50 years ago.

We can learn Wright's language, but from what I'm reading, we will never allow ourselves to create any new accepted sentences in it, because they are not from Wright's lips. We will invariably say, "Wright would never..." or "That's not a _____ that Wright would....". They will always be faux.

All we can do is learn from the concepts and create anew...