Here is an interesting concept that could be a modern-day usonian home designed on a 16" grid.
Website: http://www.houseplans.com/flexahouse_index.asp
Article: http://blog.houseplans.com/2009/02/26/f ... ther-news/
*As far as I know, Nusonian is a term proposed by Wright Chatter Mike Shuck.
Modern Usonian = Nusonian*
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
Modern Usonian = Nusonian*
Last edited by Paul Ringstrom on Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The handsome, well-thought-out, straightforward houses that result from this kit-of-plan-elements are just what America's aesthetically-struggling
suburbs need.
The interesting thing to me is that, while most occupants would be perfectly happy with the wide-open spaces and soaring ceilings in the
"great room" of these plans, I would instinctively look for the balancing gesture of intimacy, which Wright always provides via the "deck."
Eric Wright calls it a "light shelf"; in describing this element of his grandfather's work he says "roof soffits pierce through the walls into the
interior to become light shelves or the ceiling." To Wright, and to me, this element is more important (almost) than running water or electricity, to
the life of the house and its occupants -- yet such a refinement is clearly not an objective necessity of any building; it is gratuitous filigree, a luxury
of the sort that Wright meant when he said "take care of the luxuries, and the necessities will take care of themselves." Perhaps he meant that no
one would build a house without a roof, but it takes an act of will to include such life-giving amenities as a cozy "cave" within the larger space,
or a lower-ceilinged passage which enhances the "sense of shelter" which he so highly prized.
So, in a house like the ones presented here, it would be up to the owner to add such amenities, in the same way that one would add a rain canopy
or a sun shade to the exterior when and where they were needed -- I suppose. Would the architect be offended by such additions, or pleased ?
I see nothing about the houses which would make these additions seem out-of-place, or alien to the architecture -- even if the extra matter does
no grow inevitably out of the fabric of the structure, in this case, but is woven into it as an afterthought.
Such an intervention would not be performed in order to make the house "look more like Wright" but for a much more important reason: to make
the house "feel right." And, I anticipate with interest the discussion of appearance and structure, meaning and "validity," that this proposal
might provoke, for architects and their critics.
In any event, thanks for bringing in this refreshing new house model for our consideration, Paul.
SDR
suburbs need.
The interesting thing to me is that, while most occupants would be perfectly happy with the wide-open spaces and soaring ceilings in the
"great room" of these plans, I would instinctively look for the balancing gesture of intimacy, which Wright always provides via the "deck."
Eric Wright calls it a "light shelf"; in describing this element of his grandfather's work he says "roof soffits pierce through the walls into the
interior to become light shelves or the ceiling." To Wright, and to me, this element is more important (almost) than running water or electricity, to
the life of the house and its occupants -- yet such a refinement is clearly not an objective necessity of any building; it is gratuitous filigree, a luxury
of the sort that Wright meant when he said "take care of the luxuries, and the necessities will take care of themselves." Perhaps he meant that no
one would build a house without a roof, but it takes an act of will to include such life-giving amenities as a cozy "cave" within the larger space,
or a lower-ceilinged passage which enhances the "sense of shelter" which he so highly prized.
So, in a house like the ones presented here, it would be up to the owner to add such amenities, in the same way that one would add a rain canopy
or a sun shade to the exterior when and where they were needed -- I suppose. Would the architect be offended by such additions, or pleased ?
I see nothing about the houses which would make these additions seem out-of-place, or alien to the architecture -- even if the extra matter does
no grow inevitably out of the fabric of the structure, in this case, but is woven into it as an afterthought.
Such an intervention would not be performed in order to make the house "look more like Wright" but for a much more important reason: to make
the house "feel right." And, I anticipate with interest the discussion of appearance and structure, meaning and "validity," that this proposal
might provoke, for architects and their critics.
In any event, thanks for bringing in this refreshing new house model for our consideration, Paul.
SDR
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
I think how one handles the roof of this house can make or break the final product. I can easily see this plan with a flat roof with varying interior heights and transom windows and large overhangs, etc. If you select a gable roof a series of clerestory lights at the beam or a series of skylights that wrap over the central beam (ala E Fay Jones) could add to the architectural drama of the interior depending on the solar orientation of the lot.
SDR's reminder of the importance of "light decks" is important whenever a "volume ceiling" is employed to add human scale and help illuminate the dark underside that sometimes results from these interior volumes. I also like the exposed trusses that appear in one of the photos in the article that also ameliorate the volume.
SDR's reminder of the importance of "light decks" is important whenever a "volume ceiling" is employed to add human scale and help illuminate the dark underside that sometimes results from these interior volumes. I also like the exposed trusses that appear in one of the photos in the article that also ameliorate the volume.
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
SDR and Paul, I had been waiting to to understand why I was both delighted and perplexed by my reaction to the shell context of the Flexahouse. But remember IANAA. The comments about the soffits closing the space into an intimate interior gave me the insight to start...
Soffit ledges are the penetration of the exterior roof planes overlapping the interior spaces together with themselves and the exterior. It is more than a refinement that makes a cozy interior space: it is the visual and physchological security that weds the closed & open spaces together. All the more necessary when rooms are building blocks butted together. With a peaked roof the exposed beams can interpenetrate. With a 16" the unit, the distance is so wide that visually I have nothing to attach the trellis to... (I profess I do have a bias for the smaller units among Usonians.) The challenge for Flexahouse is to knit the spaces together. The trellis is a natural convention to do that but can the trellis overlap spaces?
Simple(?) questions from my consumer mind: How do the parts join? Can you attach great room to great room? Can you purchase only the great room?
Soffit ledges are the penetration of the exterior roof planes overlapping the interior spaces together with themselves and the exterior. It is more than a refinement that makes a cozy interior space: it is the visual and physchological security that weds the closed & open spaces together. All the more necessary when rooms are building blocks butted together. With a peaked roof the exposed beams can interpenetrate. With a 16" the unit, the distance is so wide that visually I have nothing to attach the trellis to... (I profess I do have a bias for the smaller units among Usonians.) The challenge for Flexahouse is to knit the spaces together. The trellis is a natural convention to do that but can the trellis overlap spaces?
Simple(?) questions from my consumer mind: How do the parts join? Can you attach great room to great room? Can you purchase only the great room?
Last edited by Palli Davis Holubar on Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We value an overhead volume -- nothing is more deadly than a single low ceiling plane -- yet we sense the need to temper or counter it. Call it the yin
and yang of the matter ?
Palli, the parts of this design aren't literally a kit; that is, the modules are design components rather than manufactured items. The architect draws a
single construction document which places the house parts in the relation to each other chosen by the client -- as I understand it.
SDR
and yang of the matter ?
Palli, the parts of this design aren't literally a kit; that is, the modules are design components rather than manufactured items. The architect draws a
single construction document which places the house parts in the relation to each other chosen by the client -- as I understand it.
SDR
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
I think it's a way for the architect to appeal to the client, by inviting him to become actively involved in the design of his home. Whether the result is a
better design than "the competition" offers, I'll leave to you. If I were the architect of this package, I'd feel confident that I'd spent my time well,
establishing a series of design solutions that I could rely on without "reinventing the wheel every Monday morning," to use the current phrase,
and knowing that whatever the combination of elements turned out to be, I'd retain some control over the final appearance because I'd already
chosen the proportions and appearance of the individual units.
The use of modules of varying size and complexity seems perennially to attract the architect, probably on multiple levels: bricks, blocks, sheets of
plywood, doors and windows are examples of the many repeated units of which buildings have always been composed, and it's logical to extend this
thinking to larger components like rooms and room groups.
SDR
better design than "the competition" offers, I'll leave to you. If I were the architect of this package, I'd feel confident that I'd spent my time well,
establishing a series of design solutions that I could rely on without "reinventing the wheel every Monday morning," to use the current phrase,
and knowing that whatever the combination of elements turned out to be, I'd retain some control over the final appearance because I'd already
chosen the proportions and appearance of the individual units.
The use of modules of varying size and complexity seems perennially to attract the architect, probably on multiple levels: bricks, blocks, sheets of
plywood, doors and windows are examples of the many repeated units of which buildings have always been composed, and it's logical to extend this
thinking to larger components like rooms and room groups.
SDR
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
-
Eric Saed
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:52 am
- Location: Minne-sO-tah Norwegian living in exile in Lubbock, Texas
What about the Noble Home? They're a couple of young Taliesinites, I really like their plans: http://noble-home.net/Paul Ringstrom wrote:I would love to see what a Wrightian-inspired architect could do with this "concept." There are several on this Chat Board. Let's see their ideas.
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
The Noble Home is a good effort. I applaud their use of modern insulated panels for the walls and roof.
What I found interesting was the concept of assembling a unique design from a set of "architectural parts". It was not the design of the parts that I found all that appealing, but the concept of what he was trying to accomplish.
Why not a set of Usonian-style Parts ?
What I found interesting was the concept of assembling a unique design from a set of "architectural parts". It was not the design of the parts that I found all that appealing, but the concept of what he was trying to accomplish.
Why not a set of Usonian-style Parts ?
I go crazy every time I see a thread like this!
Not intending to toot my horn, but I spent over a year trying to get traction on what I believe to be a true cost effective, primarily wood, quality alternative to the log/modular/move-on/Lindel/etc, etc, homes which usually have no warmth or character as a function of their limitations, design, and materials.
For various reasons mine is hardly a Usonian (although I did try to incorporate interesting features), but the possibilities-especially Usonian- are one of its most intriguing aspects.
Just had to vent on an unrequited business venture amidst all the "what ifs"and "why nots" of contemporary Usonians...... there are creative options possible.
Not intending to toot my horn, but I spent over a year trying to get traction on what I believe to be a true cost effective, primarily wood, quality alternative to the log/modular/move-on/Lindel/etc, etc, homes which usually have no warmth or character as a function of their limitations, design, and materials.
For various reasons mine is hardly a Usonian (although I did try to incorporate interesting features), but the possibilities-especially Usonian- are one of its most intriguing aspects.
Just had to vent on an unrequited business venture amidst all the "what ifs"and "why nots" of contemporary Usonians...... there are creative options possible.