Too bad we don't have private messaging any more; Messrs. J and V could fight it out in private, resolve their differences and become fast friends.
Well... it could happen...
Frank Lloyd Wright's struggles with officialdom
For the record, Craig J is not technically a new poster, his first post being Nov. 2, 2009. He has posted 11 times, and only on this thread did his comments stray from the topic, or become aggressive...
Too bad we don't have private messaging any more; Messrs. J and V could fight it out in private, resolve their differences and become fast friends.
Well... it could happen...
Too bad we don't have private messaging any more; Messrs. J and V could fight it out in private, resolve their differences and become fast friends.
Well... it could happen...
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
I am sorry I interjected my succinct comment. I was signaling, in my "old maid teacher voice", disapproval when people duke it out personally over the internet: the internet is not personal!
Lacking private messages, and, perhaps, in jest, could we agree upon a "safe" word that could signal discomfort or perceived lack of respect with the conversation? now let's see what words ....
But, no, Roderick neither do I want to stiffle dialogue. Hard balance....
Signed, "Can't We All Just Get Along" Palli King
P.S. I enjoy these anecdotes of construction woes and triumphs. Craig J, surely there are stories from the other side of the council table too.
Lacking private messages, and, perhaps, in jest, could we agree upon a "safe" word that could signal discomfort or perceived lack of respect with the conversation? now let's see what words ....
But, no, Roderick neither do I want to stiffle dialogue. Hard balance....
Signed, "Can't We All Just Get Along" Palli King
P.S. I enjoy these anecdotes of construction woes and triumphs. Craig J, surely there are stories from the other side of the council table too.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
No, old maid teacher, we cannot just all get along. If so, there would be no reason to discuss anything. A bit of friction doesn't hurt discourse.
I came across the Spring 1995 issue of the Journal of the Taliesin Fellows in which an article, "FLlW vs. the USA" by Talbot Wegg, AIA, originally published in the February 1970 issue of the AIA Journal was reprinted. It seems to address this subject of bureaucracy and FLW perfectly. In 1941, FLW was commissioned to plan what became his "Cloverleaf Housing Project" for the Federal Government. All went felicitously until Mass. Rep. John W. McCormack [elected officials are just bureaucrats with larger paychecks and an imperious mien] complained that a Wisconsin architect had been hired to do work in Massachusetts, thus denying work to Massachusetts architects. From there it was all downhill. FDR intervened to keep the House off FLW's back, but did not restore the project, and in the process denied the construction of a wonderful design that would be a national treasure had it been built. After all the dust had settled, FLW wrote a note to Wegg, saying, in part, "... As for me, I expect nothing from Washington at any time - past, present or future." Unfortunately for us all, that's precisely what he got.
I came across the Spring 1995 issue of the Journal of the Taliesin Fellows in which an article, "FLlW vs. the USA" by Talbot Wegg, AIA, originally published in the February 1970 issue of the AIA Journal was reprinted. It seems to address this subject of bureaucracy and FLW perfectly. In 1941, FLW was commissioned to plan what became his "Cloverleaf Housing Project" for the Federal Government. All went felicitously until Mass. Rep. John W. McCormack [elected officials are just bureaucrats with larger paychecks and an imperious mien] complained that a Wisconsin architect had been hired to do work in Massachusetts, thus denying work to Massachusetts architects. From there it was all downhill. FDR intervened to keep the House off FLW's back, but did not restore the project, and in the process denied the construction of a wonderful design that would be a national treasure had it been built. After all the dust had settled, FLW wrote a note to Wegg, saying, in part, "... As for me, I expect nothing from Washington at any time - past, present or future." Unfortunately for us all, that's precisely what he got.
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
Just stumbled upon this article and thought it might be relevant to the original topic of the thread:
http://www.treehugger.com/chile-building.jpg
Article with additional images:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03 ... -chile.php
Comparing Haiti and Chile: Did Building Codes Save Lives?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03. 1.10
DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
The Libertarian point of view is that building codes are evil and an intrusion. They even say that "Building codes restrict innovation. If we didn't force everyone to comply with old technological standards in construction, we would likely have developed a system that is both cheaper than current systems and more resistant against natural disasters." Others say "Strict building codes makes it harder to build buildings. Prices of structures will skyrocket."
But does the experience in Chile, where the number killed is roughly 1/10 of 1% of Haiti, prove the Libertarians wrong, that tough regulation is necessary and saves lives?
Brigitte Meinhold in Inhabitat thinks so, calling their codes and quake-resistant techniques among the best in the world. She says "Its situation is a testament to what a huge life-or-death difference smart building codes and well designed architecture can make." She points us to a BBC article that describes the structural systems they use:
The idea is that buildings are held up by reinforced concrete columns, which are strengthened by a steel frame. Reinforced concrete beams are joined onto the columns to make floors and the roof.
If there is an earthquake, the idea is that the concrete on the beams should break near the end, which dissipates a lot of the energy of the earthquake, but that the steel reinforcement should survive and the columns should stay standing, which means the building will stay upright.
Melissa Lafsky at the Infrastructurist agrees that strong codes made the difference. But in comments, you can hear the Libertarian argument:
It's not the building codes. It's their wealth. It's the structures themselves that stood the test, not some bureaucratic enforced legislation.
The idea, that without government enforced building codes, that a country's infrastructure would be weaker is ludicrous. What apartment complex, business park, high rise, or hotel would invest their capital in a structurally unsound structure? Risk their occupants, customers or owners lives? NO ONE! And if they did, they wouldn't stay in business.
Unfortunately this just isn't true. Builders cut corners all the time, and are interested in building at the lowest possible cost. They are perfectly happy to shift the burden to the owners and the insurance companies. And occupants don't know risk either, and happily live in old brick unreinforced structures in the middle of earthquake zones.
Cameron Sinclair noted in the Huffington Post that Chilean architects and designers take earthquakes seriously.
"When you look at the architecture in Chile you see buildings that have damage, but not the complete pancaking that you've got in Haiti," said Cameron Sinclair, executive director of Architecture for Humanity, a 10-year-old nonprofit that has helped people in 36 countries rebuild after disasters.
Sinclair said he has architect colleagues in Chile who have built thousands of low-income housing structures to be earthquake resistant.
In Haiti, by contrast, there is no building code.
Patrick Midy, a leading Haitian architect, said he knew of only three earthquake-resistant buildings in the Western Hemisphere's poorest country.
http://www.treehugger.com/chile-building.jpg
Article with additional images:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03 ... -chile.php
Comparing Haiti and Chile: Did Building Codes Save Lives?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03. 1.10
DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
The Libertarian point of view is that building codes are evil and an intrusion. They even say that "Building codes restrict innovation. If we didn't force everyone to comply with old technological standards in construction, we would likely have developed a system that is both cheaper than current systems and more resistant against natural disasters." Others say "Strict building codes makes it harder to build buildings. Prices of structures will skyrocket."
But does the experience in Chile, where the number killed is roughly 1/10 of 1% of Haiti, prove the Libertarians wrong, that tough regulation is necessary and saves lives?
Brigitte Meinhold in Inhabitat thinks so, calling their codes and quake-resistant techniques among the best in the world. She says "Its situation is a testament to what a huge life-or-death difference smart building codes and well designed architecture can make." She points us to a BBC article that describes the structural systems they use:
The idea is that buildings are held up by reinforced concrete columns, which are strengthened by a steel frame. Reinforced concrete beams are joined onto the columns to make floors and the roof.
If there is an earthquake, the idea is that the concrete on the beams should break near the end, which dissipates a lot of the energy of the earthquake, but that the steel reinforcement should survive and the columns should stay standing, which means the building will stay upright.
Melissa Lafsky at the Infrastructurist agrees that strong codes made the difference. But in comments, you can hear the Libertarian argument:
It's not the building codes. It's their wealth. It's the structures themselves that stood the test, not some bureaucratic enforced legislation.
The idea, that without government enforced building codes, that a country's infrastructure would be weaker is ludicrous. What apartment complex, business park, high rise, or hotel would invest their capital in a structurally unsound structure? Risk their occupants, customers or owners lives? NO ONE! And if they did, they wouldn't stay in business.
Unfortunately this just isn't true. Builders cut corners all the time, and are interested in building at the lowest possible cost. They are perfectly happy to shift the burden to the owners and the insurance companies. And occupants don't know risk either, and happily live in old brick unreinforced structures in the middle of earthquake zones.
Cameron Sinclair noted in the Huffington Post that Chilean architects and designers take earthquakes seriously.
"When you look at the architecture in Chile you see buildings that have damage, but not the complete pancaking that you've got in Haiti," said Cameron Sinclair, executive director of Architecture for Humanity, a 10-year-old nonprofit that has helped people in 36 countries rebuild after disasters.
Sinclair said he has architect colleagues in Chile who have built thousands of low-income housing structures to be earthquake resistant.
In Haiti, by contrast, there is no building code.
Patrick Midy, a leading Haitian architect, said he knew of only three earthquake-resistant buildings in the Western Hemisphere's poorest country.
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
I hesitate to prolong this thread, but peterm has unearthed an interesting document.
No architect with any sense of humanity and responsibility would want a building to fail for any reason whatsoever.
The fact that government departments exist to scrutinize planning and building applications is actually an indictment of the education system as it relates to architects. Bureaucrats have been able to persuade politicians that colleges of Architecture graduate a poor product, and therefore the profession should be supervised as is no other. Rather than the response being to strengthen the entry requirements to the colleges, or to abolish the formal system in favor of a return to apprenticeships, the lawmakers have buckled under the pressure and established the system that prevails in most cities and some rural jurisdictions.
There has yet to be a comment on this thread to my assertion that Architecture must be one of the few professions in which those who are demonstrably deficient in their talent and ability, supervise those with greater gifts. Why would the latter be in the posts they are otherwise? Does a Frank Lloyd Wright, a Bruce Goff, a Fay Jones, or a Kendrick Bangs Kellogg really need a far less gifted individual to pass judgement on their documents, and be able to delay the passage of them thru the administrative procedure, often at whim? The seasoned professional with decades of experience is subjected to the same procedure as the young architect submitting his documents for the remodeling of his aunt’s screened porch.
Codes are fine if one lacks knowledge of the realities of building, but with the accumulation of experience they become redundant, and only serve to inhibit innovation. As Frank Lloyd Wright was prone to point out, ‘You do not have to drink a tub of dye to know what color it is’.
Architects, real architects that is, should be quite prepared to take responsibility for their designs and details, and be fully aware of the consequences if their work is not up to standard.
No architect with any sense of humanity and responsibility would want a building to fail for any reason whatsoever.
The fact that government departments exist to scrutinize planning and building applications is actually an indictment of the education system as it relates to architects. Bureaucrats have been able to persuade politicians that colleges of Architecture graduate a poor product, and therefore the profession should be supervised as is no other. Rather than the response being to strengthen the entry requirements to the colleges, or to abolish the formal system in favor of a return to apprenticeships, the lawmakers have buckled under the pressure and established the system that prevails in most cities and some rural jurisdictions.
There has yet to be a comment on this thread to my assertion that Architecture must be one of the few professions in which those who are demonstrably deficient in their talent and ability, supervise those with greater gifts. Why would the latter be in the posts they are otherwise? Does a Frank Lloyd Wright, a Bruce Goff, a Fay Jones, or a Kendrick Bangs Kellogg really need a far less gifted individual to pass judgement on their documents, and be able to delay the passage of them thru the administrative procedure, often at whim? The seasoned professional with decades of experience is subjected to the same procedure as the young architect submitting his documents for the remodeling of his aunt’s screened porch.
Codes are fine if one lacks knowledge of the realities of building, but with the accumulation of experience they become redundant, and only serve to inhibit innovation. As Frank Lloyd Wright was prone to point out, ‘You do not have to drink a tub of dye to know what color it is’.
Architects, real architects that is, should be quite prepared to take responsibility for their designs and details, and be fully aware of the consequences if their work is not up to standard.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a building is designed and built without the approval of a bureaucratic agency, there is no formal set of building codes which are followed, the building then fails and people inhabiting the building are injured and killed. Who then would determine whether the architect is to blame, or the builder, or even a combination of the two? Who would be responsible for documenting the progress of the construction to find out where the mistakes were made?
Are you suggesting that a jury of peers (architects) would then be assembled to analyze (after the fact) what mistakes were made? Who would pay them for this service? Would reputable architects even have the time to take on such a project?
It's one thing to suggest that building codes get in the way of creativity when we talk about something like a single family house, but what about large structures, which if fail, can lead to devastating consequences?
I have experienced many earthquakes over the years in California, and frankly, I feel safer knowing that there are some formal guidelines in place.
Are you suggesting that a jury of peers (architects) would then be assembled to analyze (after the fact) what mistakes were made? Who would pay them for this service? Would reputable architects even have the time to take on such a project?
It's one thing to suggest that building codes get in the way of creativity when we talk about something like a single family house, but what about large structures, which if fail, can lead to devastating consequences?
I have experienced many earthquakes over the years in California, and frankly, I feel safer knowing that there are some formal guidelines in place.
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
peterm:
I do not condone poor construction under any circumstances, whether it be on stable land or in earthquake prone regions. But no matter what factors of safety are taken into account in the design, Nature will unleash unprecedented violence at some stage. My understanding is that even the houses designed to be hurricane proof before Katrina, suffered grievously during the storm. Responsibility is surely a question of degree in such circumstances,
It is also a question of degree regarding the factors that a code should embrace. As I wrote in a previous post to this thread, the bureaucrats are always seeking the rule so broad as to permit of no exception.
For most buildings larger than the average house an architect would commission an engineer to determine the structure, and supervise its construction. As with the architect, the engineer should be willing to take responsibility for his work. Even when a building is subject to bureaucratic approval it is rare, in my experience, for the government authority to take the blame if it fails. In such cases it has the resources of the state legal apparatus to set against the attorneys representing the architects and engineers, and just by prolonging the case it is usually a simple matter to exhaust the assets of the latter.
Much code legislation, here in Australia at least, involves aspects of building that are no business of government. Is it for government to stipulate the area a kitchen or bathroom has to be in an architect designed, custom built house, the width of a gallery, the size of a window? If the owner of such a house decides to sell at a later date, potential buyers will evaluate his decisions with regard to the planning, and make their bids for the property accordingly.
Minimum ceiling heights are designated, but should they be applicable to a custom residence? Moreover, supposing a contractor chose to construct a speculative built house with a general ceiling height of 1800 mm, it is reasonable to surmise that he would have difficulty in selling it. Is it better for society to let him transgress such a general standard, if he chooses so to do, and oblige him to accept the consequences personally, or to draft paragraphs of legislation and create an army of bureaucrats to administer it, always with the threat of the use of the staff of the Attorney-General behind them?
Welfare housing is an entirely different matter. I would have a strict code relating to it, and have the quality of its construction rigorously supervised by government, ensuring that society received value for money, but also that the poor were not any more disadvantaged, by being obliged to reside in substandard accommodation.
As with other aspects of the administration of planning and construction, the legislation is drafted to embrace those with vast experience and those with little. Yet again it is the rule so broad............... I am sure that having been responsible for the design of Fallingwater. Frank Lloyd Wright must have been thrilled if he was required to submit drawings for approval to the same, or a nearby administration, when he was involved with Kentuck Knob.
I do not condone poor construction under any circumstances, whether it be on stable land or in earthquake prone regions. But no matter what factors of safety are taken into account in the design, Nature will unleash unprecedented violence at some stage. My understanding is that even the houses designed to be hurricane proof before Katrina, suffered grievously during the storm. Responsibility is surely a question of degree in such circumstances,
It is also a question of degree regarding the factors that a code should embrace. As I wrote in a previous post to this thread, the bureaucrats are always seeking the rule so broad as to permit of no exception.
For most buildings larger than the average house an architect would commission an engineer to determine the structure, and supervise its construction. As with the architect, the engineer should be willing to take responsibility for his work. Even when a building is subject to bureaucratic approval it is rare, in my experience, for the government authority to take the blame if it fails. In such cases it has the resources of the state legal apparatus to set against the attorneys representing the architects and engineers, and just by prolonging the case it is usually a simple matter to exhaust the assets of the latter.
Much code legislation, here in Australia at least, involves aspects of building that are no business of government. Is it for government to stipulate the area a kitchen or bathroom has to be in an architect designed, custom built house, the width of a gallery, the size of a window? If the owner of such a house decides to sell at a later date, potential buyers will evaluate his decisions with regard to the planning, and make their bids for the property accordingly.
Minimum ceiling heights are designated, but should they be applicable to a custom residence? Moreover, supposing a contractor chose to construct a speculative built house with a general ceiling height of 1800 mm, it is reasonable to surmise that he would have difficulty in selling it. Is it better for society to let him transgress such a general standard, if he chooses so to do, and oblige him to accept the consequences personally, or to draft paragraphs of legislation and create an army of bureaucrats to administer it, always with the threat of the use of the staff of the Attorney-General behind them?
Welfare housing is an entirely different matter. I would have a strict code relating to it, and have the quality of its construction rigorously supervised by government, ensuring that society received value for money, but also that the poor were not any more disadvantaged, by being obliged to reside in substandard accommodation.
As with other aspects of the administration of planning and construction, the legislation is drafted to embrace those with vast experience and those with little. Yet again it is the rule so broad............... I am sure that having been responsible for the design of Fallingwater. Frank Lloyd Wright must have been thrilled if he was required to submit drawings for approval to the same, or a nearby administration, when he was involved with Kentuck Knob.
I agree that if it takes a building official's signature to get a building built, then that code enforcement authority should then share in responsibilty when there is some sort of building failure. But this never happens, instead blame gets pointed at the Architect, with our assumed deep pockets...
I would though be cautious about a blanket statement about those in code enforcement, please remember, this economy has forced up to 40% of all Architects and structural engineers to look for new work....it just could be that code enforcement and plan checking is the only industry related job they could find. A kneejerk blanket statement of incompetence could be viewed as arrogance.
I have had structural engineers in tears begging for work, and our firm still gets stacks of resumes from quality people needing an income.
Anyway...thats my last 2 cents on this thread.
I would though be cautious about a blanket statement about those in code enforcement, please remember, this economy has forced up to 40% of all Architects and structural engineers to look for new work....it just could be that code enforcement and plan checking is the only industry related job they could find. A kneejerk blanket statement of incompetence could be viewed as arrogance.
I have had structural engineers in tears begging for work, and our firm still gets stacks of resumes from quality people needing an income.
Anyway...thats my last 2 cents on this thread.
KevinW
That last [Fallingwater, in Virr's post] is, of course, too tempting an object to let pass: Was Mr Wright's client at Bear Run entirely out of bounds to hire his own engineer ? The eventual failure of the principal cantilever -- I don't think that is an exaggeration of the truth -- shows that he (Kaufmann) was justified in his concern -- does it not ?
(Who was it who heard Mr Wright mutter, in bed with fever while Fallingwater was under construction, ". . .it's too heavy. . .too heavy. . ." ?)
Would the cantilevers have deflected so much -- if at all -- if steel had been placed appropriately in that generous underfloor cavity ? Was not Mr Wright his own worst enemy, on occasion, in his apparent reluctance to assure structural success ? (See the recently-posted Tafel anecdote re Schwartz and Rosenbaum carports. . .)
Hero worship is all well and good -- the Old Man is my hero, too, for his poetry of Form, Material, and Space -- but let us have clear vision of what he was, and wasn't. Were his clients fortunate that his structures escaped the kind of bureaucratic scrutiny Mr Virr decries ? Sagging roofs, exterior slabs in plane with interior ones -- and this roof fascia detail (from a drawing signed by Herb Jacobs on Nov 15, 1936):
Was this house meant to be built in the open air, exposed to the weather ?
(One is reminded of Mr Wright's withering greeting of the young Mr Johnson: "Dear Philip ! And are you still building those little boxes and then leaving them out in the rain. . .?")
Should we be surprised that the architectural establishment turned its back on Mr Wright and his "little boxes" ? He cleared for himself the space to do as he wished -- and was apparently willing to suffer the consequences. Were his client's best interests always at the forefront of his mind ? One wonders. . .
Stephen
(Who was it who heard Mr Wright mutter, in bed with fever while Fallingwater was under construction, ". . .it's too heavy. . .too heavy. . ." ?)
Would the cantilevers have deflected so much -- if at all -- if steel had been placed appropriately in that generous underfloor cavity ? Was not Mr Wright his own worst enemy, on occasion, in his apparent reluctance to assure structural success ? (See the recently-posted Tafel anecdote re Schwartz and Rosenbaum carports. . .)
Hero worship is all well and good -- the Old Man is my hero, too, for his poetry of Form, Material, and Space -- but let us have clear vision of what he was, and wasn't. Were his clients fortunate that his structures escaped the kind of bureaucratic scrutiny Mr Virr decries ? Sagging roofs, exterior slabs in plane with interior ones -- and this roof fascia detail (from a drawing signed by Herb Jacobs on Nov 15, 1936):
Was this house meant to be built in the open air, exposed to the weather ?
(One is reminded of Mr Wright's withering greeting of the young Mr Johnson: "Dear Philip ! And are you still building those little boxes and then leaving them out in the rain. . .?")
Should we be surprised that the architectural establishment turned its back on Mr Wright and his "little boxes" ? He cleared for himself the space to do as he wished -- and was apparently willing to suffer the consequences. Were his client's best interests always at the forefront of his mind ? One wonders. . .
Stephen
Yes, certainly -- and we can sympathize with that desire. But really. . .does the man really believe that his alternative is a sound and sensible alternative, likely to weather well and keep the water out ? The scribbling on the above drawing indicates some discussion of the matter, don't you suppose ?
Almost every Usonian with a flat roof now sports some kind of visible flashing. If that metal is available in unlimited lengths (does anyone form it from a roll of flat material, on site ?), the aesthetically-desirable installation is done without joints in any straight run. (Perhaps a joint on the straight is thought to be preferable to one at a corner ?)
Only Jacobs I (as far as I can see) was restored in a way that avoids visible roof-fascia flashing.
Almost every Usonian with a flat roof now sports some kind of visible flashing. If that metal is available in unlimited lengths (does anyone form it from a roll of flat material, on site ?), the aesthetically-desirable installation is done without joints in any straight run. (Perhaps a joint on the straight is thought to be preferable to one at a corner ?)
Only Jacobs I (as far as I can see) was restored in a way that avoids visible roof-fascia flashing.
Standard Detail Sheet "Edited Sept 23, 1940"
Pauson, 1939
-
ozwrightfan
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
My understanding of the large cantilever at Fallingwater was that unknown to Mr Wright the client together with his engineer actually put more steel into it than Wright/ Peters specified. It must be a testiment to Wes Peters engineering skills that the cantilever held up for as long as it did with the weight of the additional steel.