We have the current cost data that you are looking for. Contact me and I'll help you out.JohnAdams wrote:Hello All!
My new wife and I recently visited Falling Water and Kentuck Knob for our honeymoon (wanted to see all my life) and sort of fell in love with the idea of building a usonian house in our area (Windsor, Ontario).
I found a website of a guy that built one named Tim Sutton but his email is not working. Can anyone recommend someone that has gone through this sort of project and can answer a few questions regarding Usonians, more specifically the estimated costs of building one?
Thanks so much ahead of time.
Want to build Usonian - Advise?
Re: Want to build Usonian - Advise?
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
Update: Usonian Dreams
Here is sort of what we have in mind pre-reading the usonian books mentioned in this thread. They are on order (much more expensive in CAN).
We have our eye on a fully treed 3 acre lot. Checking if maybe we can purchase the lot now, place a mobile home on it and build the house ourselves over time. Needs a septic bed and something calls a Cistern tho.
Any thoughts on the design? It is just a rough plan just so we can see whats possible. It is about 2700 square feet but i may have to get it down to 2500 for septic and zoning reasons. Please forgive the lack of knowledge in design as I have not drafted since high-school 25 years ago (or so).
We chose to focus more on the kitchen space then living room space. The kitchen would have a raised ceiling similar to kentuck knob.
We are going to see the affleck house sometime soon so the design may of course change drastically.
I'm estimating about $300K for land and materials and some of the skilled labour.
Wright's Usonian's were much more orchestrated than what you may see paging through the books. The floor plan, elevations, and materials were (usually) a consequence of the site and owners. The floor plan was laid out on a grid, usually four feet, so alignment of all components (windows, doors, structural, cabinets, everything) never varied. The size and shape of spaces were carefully related to each other and the whole, the living space largest by far, the kitchen relatively small (tiny, and tall to give a sense of space and ventilate cooking heat and odors). They are very complex little devils.
The idea was to give even the lower income people an opportunity to live in a home that was a work of art that would influence and inspire their daily lives. The Old Man skimped on floor space, but used good materials, limited to masonry, wood, glass, and later drywall ceilings. If the masonry was stone, it was the same stone (with the exception of colored concrete floors) throughout. If the wood was cypress, it was cypress throughout, even the furniture. Wall hangings were not used in favor of the window views and character of the wood and stone.
Achieving this idea of home as art is best left to the architect who truly understands Organic Architecture, and has demonstrated the ability to do it. Some can and many cannot, some who can design it participate on this forum. Some have professional credentials as long as your arm but don't know art when they see it.
A good strategy to get a home of this nature is to get your land, then research to find an architect who can do it for you. Put this in your budget, it will be money well spent.
doug k
The idea was to give even the lower income people an opportunity to live in a home that was a work of art that would influence and inspire their daily lives. The Old Man skimped on floor space, but used good materials, limited to masonry, wood, glass, and later drywall ceilings. If the masonry was stone, it was the same stone (with the exception of colored concrete floors) throughout. If the wood was cypress, it was cypress throughout, even the furniture. Wall hangings were not used in favor of the window views and character of the wood and stone.
Achieving this idea of home as art is best left to the architect who truly understands Organic Architecture, and has demonstrated the ability to do it. Some can and many cannot, some who can design it participate on this forum. Some have professional credentials as long as your arm but don't know art when they see it.
A good strategy to get a home of this nature is to get your land, then research to find an architect who can do it for you. Put this in your budget, it will be money well spent.
doug k
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
SDR makes a pertinent observation with regard to the locations of the central bedrooms and the related bathroom.
I surmise that in your design this last has been located so as to act as a powder room also, but it is not good planning. Every house should have areas that are truly private, and FLLW expressed this fact by, amongst other devices, making the galleries very narrow.
dkottum displays a fine understanding of the principles and purposes of the Usonian houses. His point that they are complex is worth reiterating.
Frank Lloyd Wright often employed top hung clerestories on the north [street] side of his Usonians, in order to balance the light within the internal space[s], and yet maintain privacy. Top hung sash do not assist in climate control to the same extent as casements. The latter can be hung to ‘scoop’ the prevailing breezes, and, if they are as narrow as 490 mm [20�] across the jambs, furnish utility without impinging drastically on privacy.
I surmise that in your design this last has been located so as to act as a powder room also, but it is not good planning. Every house should have areas that are truly private, and FLLW expressed this fact by, amongst other devices, making the galleries very narrow.
dkottum displays a fine understanding of the principles and purposes of the Usonian houses. His point that they are complex is worth reiterating.
Frank Lloyd Wright often employed top hung clerestories on the north [street] side of his Usonians, in order to balance the light within the internal space[s], and yet maintain privacy. Top hung sash do not assist in climate control to the same extent as casements. The latter can be hung to ‘scoop’ the prevailing breezes, and, if they are as narrow as 490 mm [20�] across the jambs, furnish utility without impinging drastically on privacy.
The best way to build a Usonian is to...build a Usonian. Look at designs of built Usonians and projects and pick one out you like. Then start tweaking the design to fit codes and modern conveniences. The modular design process Wright used can make it easy to adjust the size of rooms by simple expanding a grid unit in one direction of another. Of course, an architect sensitive to Wright principles will make that tweaking more successful.
Deke
Deke
It is time (as is usually the case, in such discussions) for someone to enumerate the "Wright principles" that make a Usonian what it is.
What is it that attracts our potential homeowner to the Usonian ? Is it
The planning of the home -- literally, the layout of rooms, and their relation to the site features and solar orientation ?
The section -- the levels of roofs, the provision of clerestory lighting/ventilation ?
The appearance of the structure -- the choices of forms, of materials, of detailing ?
The intention to self-build (a feature sometimes but not typically stressed by the architect, if I have it right) ?
It is easy to point to a famous example of housing and say "I want [something like] that." There are multiple answers to the subsequent question "Well, what is THAT, exactly ?" Depending on the answers (and they will vary, from one individual to the next) there are any number of examples of residences, from across the spectrum of twentieth-century practice, that might serve as models for the proposed structure. If one is not wedded to the superficial appearance of the Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian dwelling, then a lot of the admirable work of the LA-area post-war architects might fill the bill. If, on the other hand, the prospective home-builder has his heart set on the gestalt of the Jacobs residence (or the Rosenbaum, or the Pew, or the Affleck, etc etc) with its particular menu of material and formal choices -- even if the observer has added to these a vague notion of some unspecifiable superiority of the Wright touch -- then nothing less than a more-or-less close copy of such a structure will fill the bill.
So -- what is it ? Some from column A, some from column B ? Or does the prospective builder have a clear notion of what it is about a Usonian that surpasses all other prototypes for his future home ? And is he willing to copy Wright while slipping in all the personal preferences and substitutions that will be necessary, in 2011, to get his dream house built -- while still telling all and sundry that he has "a Frank Lloyd Wright house" ?
SDR
What is it that attracts our potential homeowner to the Usonian ? Is it
The planning of the home -- literally, the layout of rooms, and their relation to the site features and solar orientation ?
The section -- the levels of roofs, the provision of clerestory lighting/ventilation ?
The appearance of the structure -- the choices of forms, of materials, of detailing ?
The intention to self-build (a feature sometimes but not typically stressed by the architect, if I have it right) ?
It is easy to point to a famous example of housing and say "I want [something like] that." There are multiple answers to the subsequent question "Well, what is THAT, exactly ?" Depending on the answers (and they will vary, from one individual to the next) there are any number of examples of residences, from across the spectrum of twentieth-century practice, that might serve as models for the proposed structure. If one is not wedded to the superficial appearance of the Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian dwelling, then a lot of the admirable work of the LA-area post-war architects might fill the bill. If, on the other hand, the prospective home-builder has his heart set on the gestalt of the Jacobs residence (or the Rosenbaum, or the Pew, or the Affleck, etc etc) with its particular menu of material and formal choices -- even if the observer has added to these a vague notion of some unspecifiable superiority of the Wright touch -- then nothing less than a more-or-less close copy of such a structure will fill the bill.
So -- what is it ? Some from column A, some from column B ? Or does the prospective builder have a clear notion of what it is about a Usonian that surpasses all other prototypes for his future home ? And is he willing to copy Wright while slipping in all the personal preferences and substitutions that will be necessary, in 2011, to get his dream house built -- while still telling all and sundry that he has "a Frank Lloyd Wright house" ?
SDR
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
SDR and dkottum both stress the principles that were embodied in the Usonian houses of Frank Lloyd Wright.
Such a house was to be of moderate cost, small area, and constructed in such a manner that much, if not all of it could be accomplished by the owner possessing reasonable skills. Some of the furniture was of the highest standard, but much was conceived as to not tax the abilities of a carpenter.
A number of the later houses hardly meet the criteria established by the Herbert Jacobs 1 and Loren Pope residences: Fawcett, Gilling, and Wingspread for example.
Whilst the basic rectangle, triangle, and circle, together with their three dimensional forms, cube, prism, and cylinder remain as they always have, there are infinite ways in which each can be assembled to produce an integrated design.
As FLLW stressed, ‘Culture is not for the herd’, and those attracted to the Usonian house type, both originally and now, are people of a particular mindset.
Their preference is for quality of space rather than quantity, human scale, rather than that imposed by a mindless bureaucracy, and modest fitness as opposed to ostentation.
There is frequent mention in posts to this site of the difficulty of achieving the results, particularly in terms of vertical scale, whilst conforming to current codes.
My experience is that with the application of imagination much can be achieved in this regard. Moreover, language being what it is, no matter how carefully the legislation is drafted, it is possible to find interpretations of phrases that do not conform with the narrow concepts intended. Armed with a set of drawings submitted for approval, and Webster’s Dictionary, I have been successful on numerous occasions in thwarting the desires of administrators bereft of imagination, and with limited vocabulary.
To use an early Usonian house as an example. With access to outside thru pairs of French doors, and with most, if not all furniture built in, there is no practical reason why a gallery should be of the width stipulated in many codes. Likewise, if the springing height of the roof structure conforms to the code, it is possible to argue that decks at a lower level are nothing more than extended light fixtures. Why is it necessary to have a comparatively high ceiling above a built in bench seat?
Even in a nanny state, such as Australia is becoming, it is possible to have amendments made to the building and planning legislation as a consequence of citizen pressure. The Building Code of Australia has a ‘deemed to comply‘ provision, permitting nonconforming proposals that are practical to receive approval, albeit often grudgingly.
External scale can be established by employing wide roof overhangs all around a house, fretting the eaves on the side from which the sun shines.
Frank Lloyd Wright claimed that codes were totally against the interests of those who want to build a building, Negotiating them to the advantage of clients necessitates an architect with both imagination and experience. If it is the wish to build a Usonian house, one with a knowledge of the principles of an Organic Architecture, and an empathy with the concept is essential. To quote an old book, ‘Many are called and few are chosen.‘ I hope Mr Adams is able to find one in his neck of the woods.
Such a house was to be of moderate cost, small area, and constructed in such a manner that much, if not all of it could be accomplished by the owner possessing reasonable skills. Some of the furniture was of the highest standard, but much was conceived as to not tax the abilities of a carpenter.
A number of the later houses hardly meet the criteria established by the Herbert Jacobs 1 and Loren Pope residences: Fawcett, Gilling, and Wingspread for example.
Whilst the basic rectangle, triangle, and circle, together with their three dimensional forms, cube, prism, and cylinder remain as they always have, there are infinite ways in which each can be assembled to produce an integrated design.
As FLLW stressed, ‘Culture is not for the herd’, and those attracted to the Usonian house type, both originally and now, are people of a particular mindset.
Their preference is for quality of space rather than quantity, human scale, rather than that imposed by a mindless bureaucracy, and modest fitness as opposed to ostentation.
There is frequent mention in posts to this site of the difficulty of achieving the results, particularly in terms of vertical scale, whilst conforming to current codes.
My experience is that with the application of imagination much can be achieved in this regard. Moreover, language being what it is, no matter how carefully the legislation is drafted, it is possible to find interpretations of phrases that do not conform with the narrow concepts intended. Armed with a set of drawings submitted for approval, and Webster’s Dictionary, I have been successful on numerous occasions in thwarting the desires of administrators bereft of imagination, and with limited vocabulary.
To use an early Usonian house as an example. With access to outside thru pairs of French doors, and with most, if not all furniture built in, there is no practical reason why a gallery should be of the width stipulated in many codes. Likewise, if the springing height of the roof structure conforms to the code, it is possible to argue that decks at a lower level are nothing more than extended light fixtures. Why is it necessary to have a comparatively high ceiling above a built in bench seat?
Even in a nanny state, such as Australia is becoming, it is possible to have amendments made to the building and planning legislation as a consequence of citizen pressure. The Building Code of Australia has a ‘deemed to comply‘ provision, permitting nonconforming proposals that are practical to receive approval, albeit often grudgingly.
External scale can be established by employing wide roof overhangs all around a house, fretting the eaves on the side from which the sun shines.
Frank Lloyd Wright claimed that codes were totally against the interests of those who want to build a building, Negotiating them to the advantage of clients necessitates an architect with both imagination and experience. If it is the wish to build a Usonian house, one with a knowledge of the principles of an Organic Architecture, and an empathy with the concept is essential. To quote an old book, ‘Many are called and few are chosen.‘ I hope Mr Adams is able to find one in his neck of the woods.
Mr Virr states the case convincingly and thoroughly.
There are, however, additional points which could be addressed. Nowhere in that thorough explication of the Usonian type is any mention -- perhaps because it would be beside the point ? -- of the particular dress with which Mr Wright clothed his principles. In other words, it would be perfectly possible to construct a house conforming to the letter of those principles without any of the niceties we associate intimately with our hero; certainly it could be said that the raked-joint brickwork, the corner glazing, the perforated window coverings, the horizontal and vertical module expressed everywhere from the trowelled-joint concrete mat to the board-and-sunk-batten siding, the carefully-limited material and color palette and all the lovely ins and outs of the formal geometry which result in the confection we see when we look at one of these little masterpieces, are not strictly necessary in order that the functional requirements of the program be met.
And no one should think for a moment that the house as drawn by Mr Wright is a piece of cake for the builder, either professional or amateur. Look again at the Standard Detail Sheet: there are far more and more complex, far-from-standard molded profiles that the millman must make custom knives for and produce on the shaper in the shop, than are found in the work of Wright's many fellow practitioners -- including both (differing) edges of every siding board on the house. Little mention is made of these, though they are (most of them) critical and intrinsic to the detail, even the very construction, of the house as he wished to see it.
It was said of one of Wright's less-well-known progressive colleagues, who built wooden houses in my neck of the woods during the period when the Usonians were under way, that his structures looked as if they had been detailed "by a very skilled carpenter." Would that all buildings were designed and detailed that way ! In Wright's case, the Usonian house appears to have been designed by a finicky and enlightened cabinetmaker of some otherworldly origin. Architects do not generally, in my experience, acknowledge (because they do not know ?) that lumber arrives from many mills with curves, twists, cups, and a number of other irregularities, all of which try to defeat the millman and the carpenter when it comes to working them into a building envelope. Such irregularities might well be the death of so carefully-detailed a construction as Wright drew on his Standard Detail Sheet. Woe be to he who takes the project lightly !
SDR
There are, however, additional points which could be addressed. Nowhere in that thorough explication of the Usonian type is any mention -- perhaps because it would be beside the point ? -- of the particular dress with which Mr Wright clothed his principles. In other words, it would be perfectly possible to construct a house conforming to the letter of those principles without any of the niceties we associate intimately with our hero; certainly it could be said that the raked-joint brickwork, the corner glazing, the perforated window coverings, the horizontal and vertical module expressed everywhere from the trowelled-joint concrete mat to the board-and-sunk-batten siding, the carefully-limited material and color palette and all the lovely ins and outs of the formal geometry which result in the confection we see when we look at one of these little masterpieces, are not strictly necessary in order that the functional requirements of the program be met.
And no one should think for a moment that the house as drawn by Mr Wright is a piece of cake for the builder, either professional or amateur. Look again at the Standard Detail Sheet: there are far more and more complex, far-from-standard molded profiles that the millman must make custom knives for and produce on the shaper in the shop, than are found in the work of Wright's many fellow practitioners -- including both (differing) edges of every siding board on the house. Little mention is made of these, though they are (most of them) critical and intrinsic to the detail, even the very construction, of the house as he wished to see it.
It was said of one of Wright's less-well-known progressive colleagues, who built wooden houses in my neck of the woods during the period when the Usonians were under way, that his structures looked as if they had been detailed "by a very skilled carpenter." Would that all buildings were designed and detailed that way ! In Wright's case, the Usonian house appears to have been designed by a finicky and enlightened cabinetmaker of some otherworldly origin. Architects do not generally, in my experience, acknowledge (because they do not know ?) that lumber arrives from many mills with curves, twists, cups, and a number of other irregularities, all of which try to defeat the millman and the carpenter when it comes to working them into a building envelope. Such irregularities might well be the death of so carefully-detailed a construction as Wright drew on his Standard Detail Sheet. Woe be to he who takes the project lightly !
SDR
Last edited by SDR on Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This could be a thread unto itself: what makes for a Wrightian home? In my opinion, it has more to do with the sequence and shape of the spaces enclosed, more than materials. Of course, materials are important, but I think there's more variation possible. Bricks could be used, or stone, or desert rubble...but the general effects would remain the same if the proportions and composition are followed. Likewise, I don't think the detailed mullions and window framing specified in the standard detail sheet need to be faithfully followed as long as the size, shape and proportions of the windows are maintained. I think it would be silly to try and mimic the construction methods Wright used 50 years ago. Just follow the aesthetic he strived for. There was a magazine article...maybe House Beautiful...in which the main design points of a Wright home were listed. Not sure if Wright wore that, but I think it was at least approved by him.
Deke
Deke
Well -- at what point are we "spitting in the master's coffee" (to use the Master's own words) when we copy his work without even the courtesy and the faith to follow him to the letter ? (That wasn't the exact point of his argument; he decried any copying at all !) Yet this is what we do when we add (necessary) roof flashing or modify the condition at the base of a row of french doors, to avoid deterioration of the material over time -- I suppose.
SDR
SDR
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
I made no mention of the specific details enumerated by Stephen, as I assumed nobody would consider building a Usonian house lacking at least some of them.
It is important to appreciate that it is possible to incorporate some, all, or none of these elements, and yet still produce something that is an individual expression, within the principles of an Organic Architecture.
I would suggest that an adherence to formal geometry is a prerequisite to any Usonian type building. The human race uses geometry to make sense of what otherwise would be an environment of chaos.
Frank Lloyd Wright chose to ignore the many examples thru’out the history of Architecture where hemicycles, hexagons, and triangular forms were employed in ground plans and elevations, and claimed that any contemporary architect using such devices was copying his work! His attitude was such that could he have taken out a patent on the square, the triangle and the circle, he would have done so with alacrity. His claims were unadulterated nonsense: a part of the propaganda machine created to denigrate the work of even dedicated and talented architects such as William Eugene Drummond.
Conversely, he had no scruples with regard to requisitioning the ideas and details of others, and passing them off as his own. Whilst the corner window with mitered or butted glass, and the carport can be directly attributed to him, raked joint brick masonry illustrations can be found in many 19th and early 20th century building construction textbooks, and the board and batten partitions are surely but a reinterpretation of joinery practice having a history as long ago as the Medieval period. The canted fascias can be seen as a consequence of his visits to Japan.
Frank Lloyd Wright did not invent such details, and was very slow in adopting some of them. The brick masonry of his own Oak Park house, and as I recall, the Frederick Robie house, have both bed and header joints flush. That is, not even struck.
Having once been used by him, are all such details forbidden to others?
Some of his joinery details speak of another age, when timber was plentiful and labor inexpensive. My understanding is that the Standard Detail Sheet was that in name only, and that constant revisions were made to it, not all to simplify the milling.
It was not that he did not know his building construction: given the opportunity he could build beautifully. He was concerned with the visual, and sometimes, just sometimes, he selected the detail that furnished the image rather than the substance.
It is important to appreciate that it is possible to incorporate some, all, or none of these elements, and yet still produce something that is an individual expression, within the principles of an Organic Architecture.
I would suggest that an adherence to formal geometry is a prerequisite to any Usonian type building. The human race uses geometry to make sense of what otherwise would be an environment of chaos.
Frank Lloyd Wright chose to ignore the many examples thru’out the history of Architecture where hemicycles, hexagons, and triangular forms were employed in ground plans and elevations, and claimed that any contemporary architect using such devices was copying his work! His attitude was such that could he have taken out a patent on the square, the triangle and the circle, he would have done so with alacrity. His claims were unadulterated nonsense: a part of the propaganda machine created to denigrate the work of even dedicated and talented architects such as William Eugene Drummond.
Conversely, he had no scruples with regard to requisitioning the ideas and details of others, and passing them off as his own. Whilst the corner window with mitered or butted glass, and the carport can be directly attributed to him, raked joint brick masonry illustrations can be found in many 19th and early 20th century building construction textbooks, and the board and batten partitions are surely but a reinterpretation of joinery practice having a history as long ago as the Medieval period. The canted fascias can be seen as a consequence of his visits to Japan.
Frank Lloyd Wright did not invent such details, and was very slow in adopting some of them. The brick masonry of his own Oak Park house, and as I recall, the Frederick Robie house, have both bed and header joints flush. That is, not even struck.
Having once been used by him, are all such details forbidden to others?
Some of his joinery details speak of another age, when timber was plentiful and labor inexpensive. My understanding is that the Standard Detail Sheet was that in name only, and that constant revisions were made to it, not all to simplify the milling.
It was not that he did not know his building construction: given the opportunity he could build beautifully. He was concerned with the visual, and sometimes, just sometimes, he selected the detail that furnished the image rather than the substance.
-
Jeff Myers
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:01 pm
- Location: Tulsa
- Contact:
Laurie Virr wrote:
Laurie speaks volumes with this single sentence. It is the reason Deconstructivist architecture is so unsettling to many people. Even in Bruce Goff's most free form works, there was an underlying geometric principle to order the composition. Wright's crisp, strict, geometries and rhythm of element placement are a key factor in his work's timeless appeal to so many.The human race uses geometry to make sense of what otherwise would be an environment of chaos.