Let's not forget the influence of the Japanese on Wright and really on all modernism. When you say you like Usonian, you in part are saying you like the Asian aesthetic of grid-based design.
Deke
Want to build Usonian - Advise?
-
outside in
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
- Location: chicago
Usonian homes, like most important works of architecture, were the product of an architect, client, material cost, codes (or lack of them). In the 20 years following the Jacobs House, American tastes changed, the clients became more affluent and wealthy, and the architect adapted the initial design "language" to fit the client, site and budget. Finish materials and construction methods changed to the point that the solid plank walls were abandoned and replaced with conventional 2x4's (laid flat). Windows used insulating glass, etc. etc. This is a different time, and a new home based on the principles of Usonian design are still valid, but the finished building will probably appear quite different than the Jacobs icon.
We can trace it back to the self-evident need for a flat horizontal surface to move about on, and the simplest and most direct enclosure of a space above that surface -- providing sufficient headroom without unnecessary waste of material. The "box" is thus the default object, and its geometry the default geometry, of man's building endeavors. The first deviation from the box is the secondary requirement of the abode, that it be able to shed rain and snow from its top surface(s) -- thus, the pitched roof, and all the variations in form that followed.
I believe this orthogonal geometry is comforting to the mind of man -- his rational and self-justified solution to the problem of shelter, and thence of the building art writ large. Order appeals to man's mind and to his heart; a row of trees, planted along a road to provide shade, becomes a colonnade both natural and man-made. Our buildings follow this pattern most naturally, both from a techtonic and an aesthetic point of view.
SDR
I believe this orthogonal geometry is comforting to the mind of man -- his rational and self-justified solution to the problem of shelter, and thence of the building art writ large. Order appeals to man's mind and to his heart; a row of trees, planted along a road to provide shade, becomes a colonnade both natural and man-made. Our buildings follow this pattern most naturally, both from a techtonic and an aesthetic point of view.
SDR
-
Jeff Myers
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:01 pm
- Location: Tulsa
- Contact:
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
One reason why some folk, perhaps unconsciously, are attracted to Colonial Architecture is because they sense the inherent order it displays. Whether or not they can articulate it, they are responding to the ramifications of a module.
Deconstructionism, and similar approaches, seek to deny such order, thereby dismissing Architecture as it has always been practiced, around the world, from the earliest times. To its adherents, all cultures are out of step.
Architecture is distinguished from folk building by, amongst other considerations, its sense of order. ‘Free form Architecture’ is an oxymoron.
SDR:
With the greatest respect, but the commonly accepted use, and dictionary definition of the word ‘orthogonal’, is to refer to lines or planes that are perpendicular, but unless the ‘box’ has a regular polygonal or circular plan it is not enclosing the maximum area within the minimum length of wall. There is no unnecessary waste of material with such forms, as the Inuit and Dogon know so well.
Regards.
Deconstructionism, and similar approaches, seek to deny such order, thereby dismissing Architecture as it has always been practiced, around the world, from the earliest times. To its adherents, all cultures are out of step.
Architecture is distinguished from folk building by, amongst other considerations, its sense of order. ‘Free form Architecture’ is an oxymoron.
SDR:
With the greatest respect, but the commonly accepted use, and dictionary definition of the word ‘orthogonal’, is to refer to lines or planes that are perpendicular, but unless the ‘box’ has a regular polygonal or circular plan it is not enclosing the maximum area within the minimum length of wall. There is no unnecessary waste of material with such forms, as the Inuit and Dogon know so well.
Regards.
Laurie:
One can't deny that a cylindrical room would contain a greater number of cubic feet of air, relative to the square footage of the material required to contain it, than would a rectangular room. Indeed, a spherical room would be even more efficient, by that measure. Yet the yurt and the igloo remain almost unknown to the great majority of builders -- in the so-called advanced cultures. I submit that the combination of convenience -- rectangular planes and geometries suit the vast majority of available drawing and cutting technologies -- and the comfort levels of the inhabitants of those cultures, combine to dictate the ongoing preference for the orthogonal forms we see around us. Mr Wright had nothing to apologize for, in my opinion, by employing those forms for the majority of his work, early and late.
(I am not by any means denying the charms of the "modified box," which I propose is the appropriate description for the vast majority of the work of Wright and of most other architects. That is, the orthogonal volume which is graced with varying ceiling heights and floor levels, sloped ceiling planes, and a great variety of inventive means of opening the spaces to the out-of-doors, both visually and corporally.)
I'd be interested to see examples of the Deconstructivist work you mention, for evidence of the abandonment of orthodox or historic architectural order. I am lacking in experience in that realm. I'd be happy to post any material you could point me to.
The order inherent in certain species of Colonial Architecture may or may not be related to a module. Architect and writer Jonathan Hale has put forward examples of this work; it is interesting to find that some of the most moving images are of building in which an apparent modular measure is either abandoned or temporarily suspended -- for reasons either exigent or whimsical ? Here are a couple of the illustrations from his work, "The Old Way of Seeing" :
I have pondered the possible effect of the suspended module. What would be wrong with, for instance, inserting a half-unit -- or a non-conforming one -- into a composition, when the condition so dictated ? (Would that be more or less "honest" than stuffing the requirements into the given raster, even where this compromises utility or common sense ?) Would the Gods of The Grid be thereby offended ? What could be more humanizing (if that were a permissible or even a laudable trait) than the interruption of a mindless repetition, for a mindful need ?
SDR
One can't deny that a cylindrical room would contain a greater number of cubic feet of air, relative to the square footage of the material required to contain it, than would a rectangular room. Indeed, a spherical room would be even more efficient, by that measure. Yet the yurt and the igloo remain almost unknown to the great majority of builders -- in the so-called advanced cultures. I submit that the combination of convenience -- rectangular planes and geometries suit the vast majority of available drawing and cutting technologies -- and the comfort levels of the inhabitants of those cultures, combine to dictate the ongoing preference for the orthogonal forms we see around us. Mr Wright had nothing to apologize for, in my opinion, by employing those forms for the majority of his work, early and late.
(I am not by any means denying the charms of the "modified box," which I propose is the appropriate description for the vast majority of the work of Wright and of most other architects. That is, the orthogonal volume which is graced with varying ceiling heights and floor levels, sloped ceiling planes, and a great variety of inventive means of opening the spaces to the out-of-doors, both visually and corporally.)
I'd be interested to see examples of the Deconstructivist work you mention, for evidence of the abandonment of orthodox or historic architectural order. I am lacking in experience in that realm. I'd be happy to post any material you could point me to.
The order inherent in certain species of Colonial Architecture may or may not be related to a module. Architect and writer Jonathan Hale has put forward examples of this work; it is interesting to find that some of the most moving images are of building in which an apparent modular measure is either abandoned or temporarily suspended -- for reasons either exigent or whimsical ? Here are a couple of the illustrations from his work, "The Old Way of Seeing" :
I have pondered the possible effect of the suspended module. What would be wrong with, for instance, inserting a half-unit -- or a non-conforming one -- into a composition, when the condition so dictated ? (Would that be more or less "honest" than stuffing the requirements into the given raster, even where this compromises utility or common sense ?) Would the Gods of The Grid be thereby offended ? What could be more humanizing (if that were a permissible or even a laudable trait) than the interruption of a mindless repetition, for a mindful need ?
SDR
OP - current thoughts and responses.
I'm really impressed by people's knowledge of Frank Lloyd Wright and his design philosophies on this board. It's been difficult locating information on the man and his houses. It reminds me of when I was younger I studied Nikola Tesla and found out more about his life than designs. Very similar.
There are many sides to this conversation but I wish to discuss the main question:
Why would you want a Usonian Style Home?
The biggest reason for this style house is that my new wife and I (whom I have known for 4 years almost) will be able to create something together that both of us have wanted (individually) our whole lives.
What is that? Something elegant we have produced with our own hands that when people see it will have the same reaction we have when we see FLWs creations. Also something so solid, even builders will tell us that is going to last forever.
When we sat at the bottom of Fallingwater (for quite some time) looking at that famous view, I noticed the people more than the house. Their expressions as they saw that sight for the first time in their lives was something more inspiring than the house itself. The same at Kentuck Knob.
If we are able to create something as a couple that is even 1/100th of that effect, we achieved that first goal.
I have been a business builder, software engineer and marketing guru for years and each time I create something that is so elegant and see other people's reactions to that elegance, it inspires me to do even better. And do it with more and more aspects of my life. I want that with our home just as my wife does.
Now on more of a selfish note, I have lived in many homes and in my head I like certain elements and hate certain elements. Now this is the exaggerated ends and I realize there are many “I wish I had that� elements, but I have never been greedy in my wants (neither has my wife in her own life). There are just certain things wrong with most designs and homes I see.
When we began to see the Usonian designs,, we saw MUCH of our wants and solutions to our HATES. I don't even really care who designed that style of home just like someone that likes the current style in our area called “Raised Ranch� doesnt care who designed it. In fact we both LOATHE the design even though it is pretty well the only style being built in our area that sells.
I hate the way these homes are constructed. Most have leaky basements where ½ your living space is. No basement solves that just fine (especially in the area we are in that is prone to flooding basements).
I do not want floors that creek, solid concrete on one level solves that.
Heating cooling is a HUGE problem in all the homes I have been in. In floor seems to solve that.
I do not want DRYWALL! I have installed enough of it, removed enough wet and moldy drywall and dealt with MANY issues that a house with no drywall solves.
I want a designated space for each room we live in. Currently that is not possible with our 1200 square foot house simply because of the design. It is actually plenty of space but not in the right places.
I had a 2700 square foot Bi-level home that I loved but it lacked all character and was on two levels – all living space was a plus though. So we know the ideal square footage our family needs. A larger Usonian design solves that fine.
Our current location is on a busy corner with plenty of trees. The house is naturally cool, lots of light but the noise from the street is almost deafening with the windows open in the spring and fall. This can be solved with the smaller windows in front and court in back. We LOVE LOVE LOVE that usonian feature.
The same goes for the past two houses I have owned. There is either no cross breeze in the house because of the design and AC is a must 5 months of the year. Why? We used the AC about 5 days last year and put up with the noise.
We have both worked VERY hard our entire lives and helped people as much as we could and even though it is self-serving, we want a beautiful home. Neither of us can STAND the McMansions that are so prevalent in our area that just scream future foreclosure. We want to live within our means but have a beautiful place we can call home together. We want to put more money into the land than the house construction. The original Usonian concept would solve that. A 2700 square foot bungalow on a lot in the McMansion area is not even possible according to building codes. No problem not too far outside of city though.
It seems to me that Frank Lloyd Wright always began with the family unit (or else I do not see naming the house the name of the family unit). But the problem is the family unit has changed since his existence. Our family happens to be my wife and I and three daughters that are almost done school (one is done) and live here ½ the time. The Usonian style sort of solves that to a degree because we just do not need a huge home if the girls will only be here for a few more years (hopefully!).
I am sorry about the discussion here but I am sure it is of interest to others that are feeling the same thing. I always rely on the Internet's ability to remember.
Perhaps this is my way to develop the language I need to talk to an architect. I will contact each person that has mentioned so in this thread over time.
What is funny is my wife's brother has a ranch that was added onto and it almost mimics my floorplan (which I have been revising according to people's comments and will show again soon).
As a professional marketer, I know what it is like being on the other side of a client/professional discussion (usually my clients want something and it is up to me to gently tell them they are wasting their money on what they think they want when that money can go into better places to get them more business.) I am sure an architect is going to tell us the same thing. It is up to me as a client to know what he is saying and to tell him/her my needs properly so I do greatly appreciate this discussion.
There are many sides to this conversation but I wish to discuss the main question:
Why would you want a Usonian Style Home?
The biggest reason for this style house is that my new wife and I (whom I have known for 4 years almost) will be able to create something together that both of us have wanted (individually) our whole lives.
What is that? Something elegant we have produced with our own hands that when people see it will have the same reaction we have when we see FLWs creations. Also something so solid, even builders will tell us that is going to last forever.
When we sat at the bottom of Fallingwater (for quite some time) looking at that famous view, I noticed the people more than the house. Their expressions as they saw that sight for the first time in their lives was something more inspiring than the house itself. The same at Kentuck Knob.
If we are able to create something as a couple that is even 1/100th of that effect, we achieved that first goal.
I have been a business builder, software engineer and marketing guru for years and each time I create something that is so elegant and see other people's reactions to that elegance, it inspires me to do even better. And do it with more and more aspects of my life. I want that with our home just as my wife does.
Now on more of a selfish note, I have lived in many homes and in my head I like certain elements and hate certain elements. Now this is the exaggerated ends and I realize there are many “I wish I had that� elements, but I have never been greedy in my wants (neither has my wife in her own life). There are just certain things wrong with most designs and homes I see.
When we began to see the Usonian designs,, we saw MUCH of our wants and solutions to our HATES. I don't even really care who designed that style of home just like someone that likes the current style in our area called “Raised Ranch� doesnt care who designed it. In fact we both LOATHE the design even though it is pretty well the only style being built in our area that sells.
I hate the way these homes are constructed. Most have leaky basements where ½ your living space is. No basement solves that just fine (especially in the area we are in that is prone to flooding basements).
I do not want floors that creek, solid concrete on one level solves that.
Heating cooling is a HUGE problem in all the homes I have been in. In floor seems to solve that.
I do not want DRYWALL! I have installed enough of it, removed enough wet and moldy drywall and dealt with MANY issues that a house with no drywall solves.
I want a designated space for each room we live in. Currently that is not possible with our 1200 square foot house simply because of the design. It is actually plenty of space but not in the right places.
I had a 2700 square foot Bi-level home that I loved but it lacked all character and was on two levels – all living space was a plus though. So we know the ideal square footage our family needs. A larger Usonian design solves that fine.
Our current location is on a busy corner with plenty of trees. The house is naturally cool, lots of light but the noise from the street is almost deafening with the windows open in the spring and fall. This can be solved with the smaller windows in front and court in back. We LOVE LOVE LOVE that usonian feature.
The same goes for the past two houses I have owned. There is either no cross breeze in the house because of the design and AC is a must 5 months of the year. Why? We used the AC about 5 days last year and put up with the noise.
We have both worked VERY hard our entire lives and helped people as much as we could and even though it is self-serving, we want a beautiful home. Neither of us can STAND the McMansions that are so prevalent in our area that just scream future foreclosure. We want to live within our means but have a beautiful place we can call home together. We want to put more money into the land than the house construction. The original Usonian concept would solve that. A 2700 square foot bungalow on a lot in the McMansion area is not even possible according to building codes. No problem not too far outside of city though.
It seems to me that Frank Lloyd Wright always began with the family unit (or else I do not see naming the house the name of the family unit). But the problem is the family unit has changed since his existence. Our family happens to be my wife and I and three daughters that are almost done school (one is done) and live here ½ the time. The Usonian style sort of solves that to a degree because we just do not need a huge home if the girls will only be here for a few more years (hopefully!).
I am sorry about the discussion here but I am sure it is of interest to others that are feeling the same thing. I always rely on the Internet's ability to remember.
Perhaps this is my way to develop the language I need to talk to an architect. I will contact each person that has mentioned so in this thread over time.
What is funny is my wife's brother has a ranch that was added onto and it almost mimics my floorplan (which I have been revising according to people's comments and will show again soon).
As a professional marketer, I know what it is like being on the other side of a client/professional discussion (usually my clients want something and it is up to me to gently tell them they are wasting their money on what they think they want when that money can go into better places to get them more business.) I am sure an architect is going to tell us the same thing. It is up to me as a client to know what he is saying and to tell him/her my needs properly so I do greatly appreciate this discussion.
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Stephen:
Deconstructionism, by definition, eschews order. Some of the buildings, and their contents, are deliberately designed to induce feelings of visual discomfort, whereas Architecture is surely concerned with repose and shelter.
One has only to travel a few kilometers from your abode to the Contemporary Jewish Museum on Mission Street to see walls and furniture deliberately distorted. That it is possible to build walls that appear they may topple at any moment, or seats, the supports of which look as tho they could be in the process of collapse, is undeniable, but I would suggest that is not the role of Architecture.
One of the factors that distinguishes the Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright from that of his International School rivals was his consideration of supports. Not only are they capable of doing the task intended, but they convey that sense, as a consequence of their proportions.
This is in contradistinction to those who would employ a 50 mm diameter steel pipe column rather than a masonry pier. Such an element can support a considerable load, but if disguised with a coat of paint so that its nature is hidden, it would not appear so to do.
The lack of the traditional aims of Architecture, of furnishing ‘commodity, firmness and delight’ are some of the factors that have alienated many folk from much of the building of our time. Such are the depths to which the profession has sunk, that many practitioners design, not for their clients, but rather to earn the plaudits of their fellow professionals.
It is of immense significance that one of FLLW’s finest designs, the Ralph Jester house, is not based on orthogonal forms.
Deconstructionism, by definition, eschews order. Some of the buildings, and their contents, are deliberately designed to induce feelings of visual discomfort, whereas Architecture is surely concerned with repose and shelter.
One has only to travel a few kilometers from your abode to the Contemporary Jewish Museum on Mission Street to see walls and furniture deliberately distorted. That it is possible to build walls that appear they may topple at any moment, or seats, the supports of which look as tho they could be in the process of collapse, is undeniable, but I would suggest that is not the role of Architecture.
One of the factors that distinguishes the Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright from that of his International School rivals was his consideration of supports. Not only are they capable of doing the task intended, but they convey that sense, as a consequence of their proportions.
This is in contradistinction to those who would employ a 50 mm diameter steel pipe column rather than a masonry pier. Such an element can support a considerable load, but if disguised with a coat of paint so that its nature is hidden, it would not appear so to do.
The lack of the traditional aims of Architecture, of furnishing ‘commodity, firmness and delight’ are some of the factors that have alienated many folk from much of the building of our time. Such are the depths to which the profession has sunk, that many practitioners design, not for their clients, but rather to earn the plaudits of their fellow professionals.
It is of immense significance that one of FLLW’s finest designs, the Ralph Jester house, is not based on orthogonal forms.
An instructor in my sophomore-year arch design course, a practicing architect, made clear to me that he felt the plan should be a thing of beauty in itself, answering my query to the effect that the plan merely represents a more or less practical arrangement of spaces and enclosure. Wright's plans are indeed works of art, at least in the two examples immediately above.
SDR
SDR
Hildebrandt's "The Origins of Architectural Pleasure" might be a nice read for those interested in the emotional appeal of architecture (or why some buildings fail to appeal). Wright was great at using traditional materials (stone and wood) in a manner that is logical to us. Heavy materials rooted to the ground and lighter wood materials higher up. Our history with these materials is so long that it's probably hard wired into us. The internationalists were using 20th century materials (steel and glass). Both materials read as "light" and we don't have the history with them to really feel anything emotional when see them...other than a general amazement at the size and lightness of the structures. It's notable that Wright...a real innovator...never worked within the steel/glass vocabulary. His material innovation stopped with reinforced concrete.
Deke
Deke
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Deke, I would modify your last statement. FLW's tall buildings were supported by reinforced concrete rather than a steel cage, but the exterior surfaces of Nat'l Life, Bowerie Apts, Golden Beacon, Illinois and Price were all finished in the same types of materials as the endless examples of the Miesian Mode, but with more panache. FLW was not intimidated or even dismissive of new materials or methods of construction, but he never would have fallen for the deconstructivist blather of Gehry, Hadid or Coop Himmelb(l)au. Jacques Derrida would have no place in FLW's library.
(An aside: I haven't taken the time to investigate fractal geometry, but based on what I've heard of it, it's just another example of a discipline that has been ground to bits by the Deconstructivist hoo-hah. Is that so? Or is there substance to the subject? I don't want to start studying a subject just to refute it.)
Speaking of asides, I think we have hijacked John Smith's worthy subject and run far afield. Perhaps it should be bifurcated with two threads focused on two very different subjects?
(An aside: I haven't taken the time to investigate fractal geometry, but based on what I've heard of it, it's just another example of a discipline that has been ground to bits by the Deconstructivist hoo-hah. Is that so? Or is there substance to the subject? I don't want to start studying a subject just to refute it.)
Speaking of asides, I think we have hijacked John Smith's worthy subject and run far afield. Perhaps it should be bifurcated with two threads focused on two very different subjects?
Returning to John Smith's original post about being drawn to Fallingwater and Kentuck Knob, both of these houses are built into spectacular sites. Although plan, elevation, and section of Wright's Usonians were so perfectly done, his best designs were a result of his ability to analyze the building site and derive a design from it.
You had mentioned some land you are considering. If it has some rugged or difficult features, that can lead to an especially interesting design in the hands a an Organic Architect. If it is flat with a straight horizon in view it may be no less interesting.
The point of Usonian design is that it must be Organic Architecture to be successful. As with all good architecture, it starts with the land and proceeds from there, rather than on a sketch pad or in a book of plans.
doug k
You had mentioned some land you are considering. If it has some rugged or difficult features, that can lead to an especially interesting design in the hands a an Organic Architect. If it is flat with a straight horizon in view it may be no less interesting.
The point of Usonian design is that it must be Organic Architecture to be successful. As with all good architecture, it starts with the land and proceeds from there, rather than on a sketch pad or in a book of plans.
doug k