Wright Chat

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.

John,
My advise is to hire an architect familiar with Wright's Usonians. These come to mind quickly:

John Eifler of Chicago, IL: http://www.eiflerassociates.com/

Ken Dahlin of Racine, WI: http://www.genesisarchitecture.com/

Kelly Davis of Minneapolis, MN: http://www.salaarc.com/profiles/kelly-r-davis/

Kevin Eckert of Seattle, WA: http://www.buildllc.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=8&p=-1&a=-1&at=0

Michael Rust of Chandler, AZ: http://www.rust-architect.com/

I sure there are a few more that others might recommend.

ALSO: It is very important that you go see as many Usonians as possible to find out the features you most appreciate, so that you can communicate these to your architect. It is only through your breadth of knowledge that you will be able to build something that you will enjoy.

Study these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Lloyd-Wrigh ... =8-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Lloyd-Wrigh ... 103&sr=1-1

Last year I contacted Ken Dahlin at Genesis. He invited me to Wisconsin. I was remarkably impressed with his knowledge of Wright. His homes and other structures I looked at there were awesome. He spent a lot of time with me asking me questions about what I wanted, etc. Great listener. Incredible background knowledge of how Wright thought. He knows all Wright's structures and has been in many of them.

Well, because I live in Kansas and he lives in Wisconsin, I just couldn't afford him due to all the travel to see my site and follow the building, which are excellent and appropriate things for a good architect to do.

I found him mesmerizing. If I were living in Wisconsin, or a state closer than Kansas, I would have signed on immediately.

Mike

I pose this question: Is it really possible to build a Usonian style home today considering the cost of materials and labor unless you have considerable financial resources and don’t care about resale value?

By today’s standards, Usonians were small and used high quality materials (lots and lots of wood). On a $/sq ft basis, it would be extremely expensive today. And you could never, ever resell it and come close to recouping your investment.

Am I wrong in this conclusion?

So, if you cannot afford to build a true Usonian today, what do you change to reduce the cost but still maintain the appropriate aesthetic? I think it really comes back to the finishes. I see no issue with a concrete slab or with using modern materials and methods for the structure. But when it comes to the finishes used inside and outside the home, where can you compromise and still call it a Usonian style home?

Mr. Wright loved to use new technologies. One of his favorites was the Formica (TM) he used in the kitchen in Fallingwater. He loved concrete and all its newer uses. Saying this, todays equivalent of the Usonian would possibly not look like the Usonian of the olden days. Codes don't allow ceiling heights as low as his, and if you live in an area of considerable snow loads, the roofs of old may not pass the muster of code as the newer ones. With the large amount of mass produced faucets and drains and pipe and lighting, would he have been so compelled to insist on plumbing, etc., being done all by design of his own hand? I hope so! But it is my contention that houses have to look differently today because of legislation and newer codes. I just finished re-reading FLW's autobiography and he himself stated that one thing he detested was students or other archtitects who copied him. He thought people should take the precepts of Democracy and learn to integrate these new ways into them. Lots of his advice has become pertinent and urgent today for some reason. I love seeing what these newer architects are doing with their skill and knowledge of every-changing politics and the newest of materials today. I think these guys listed are some of the ones who're out there making those vital changes needed today..... Mike Shuck

I agree with some parts of your post but not all. Wright did push the envelope and it sometimes caused problems for the owners. And I agree that todays architects and designers create wonderful buildings.

But, the OP is interested in a Usonian style home, not something else. Regardless of whether one considers it is right or wrong to copy or emulate the original, can it be done with a similar aesthetic at a reasonable cost?

Regarding ceiling heights, etc, I believe you can go as low as 7’ for a finished room and even lower for beams. You can also engineer a flat roof to span a much greater distance than was possible in Wright’s time. Wind loading and such would probably prove to be a more complicated issue, but should be achievable with the proper engineering. For the most part, I think you could engineer the building to pass most building codes.

But, how far can you get from the Usonian aesthetic before most people would no longer call it Usonian?

How far do you need to get, to satisfy any of the requirements you mention ?

The romance we take from, and bring to, Wright's residential design leads us to flights of fancy -- like associating the building with a form of enlightened self-rule, and like assuming that its glorious forms were and still are nigh-well unbuildable. Neither fancy gets us any closer to what we ask for, simply to replicate as nearly as possible the buildings we desire. Why make it so difficult ?

More outrageous cantilevers are being done today than ever before. We have modern engineering and modern technique at our disposal. Take a look at what's being done now, here and abroad.

Further, it's a shame (to my way of thinking) to constrain oneself to building only what one could turn around and sell at a profit, next year. That's the old "credit bubble" way of thinking. We've gotten beyond that, for better or worse. We should build well, and in a way that pleases us, confident that quality (if not quantity) will be found as worthy to future owners as it does to us today. Isn't Wright's design worth a handsome premium, in today's market ? Won't good design always command what it is worth ?

There's plenty of wood to build with, if that's what we want. If we want to build exactly as Wright did, we may have to sacrifice for that luxury -- including going far enough away from urban centers that compliance issues are less problematic. On the other hand, we can apply a different Wrightian dictum, and build in our own way, with the latest techniques and materials, ending up with Wrightian spaces clothed in different raiment.

Either way, we don't have to be limited -- except by our own imaginations.

SDR

Want to appologize for my email not working for the usonianredhouse website.
Have tried to fix it and am unable. If anyone has any advice please let me know. Web pages are somewhat obscure especially to architects.

here is the working email for me [email protected]

Always glad to answer questions about my usonian house finished and occupied in 2005.

Douglas Kottom, If you see this send a picture of your house now.

SDR, our resident philosopher, is 100% correct in his analysis of the situation.

Today's materials and engineering make many of the things that Wright found difficult, with a 2x4, much easier. Take his advise and find some property 50 miles out of town where there are minimal building codes and land is cheaper. Use today's mass market materials and fixtures in imaginative ways. The biggest cost of "finishes" is the labor... show some initiative and DIY. And last but not least, building a home for the purpose of resale is a fools errand that will only result in the soulless boxes that pass for today's production houses. Show some individuality and build it for "yourself."

I agree with SDR's position. If all you want is a house to flip for a profit, don't bother with an architect. Aesthetically, John Adams, you are on firm footing. You want to build a house you and your wife would like to live in. The problems you face are pocketbook, bureaucratic and commuting. And, as newlyweds, you have no idea how large your family will eventually become, which is something you must consider, as well. I would suggest an architect as familiar with Canadian codes as with FLW's architecture. James DeLong, a Taliesin alum, has lived his whole life in the L A area and knows the system inside out, so when bureaucrats balked at allowing his designs to be built, he was ready with persuasive arguments that carried the day; you need that kind of ability in your architect. I think you would also go astray if you went with someone willing to ape FLW. Kelly Davis in Mpls shows an understanding of FLW's principals, but his work is not the least bit imitative; he's the sort of architect who would probably do the best job for you.

Paul has done us a favor with the links to architects, in his post above. So far, I have looked at the Prairie and Modern/Usonian portions of Ken Dahlin's portfolio, and seen some nice examples of Wright's thinking in the hands of another. One comes away convinced that to build a simple rectangular volume and call it a "room" is to fall short as an architect. I look forward to seeing what else is there, in Paul's list.

SDR

Thanks everyone for the conversation on this. I looked at some of the architect's sites that one of the posters gave me. They are EXACTLY what i was looking for.

I have been reading a lot about the usonian style and frank lloyd wrights original intentions and reasons for this "style" home and why my wife and I are compelled to follow this style.

For one thing, I think FLW was trying to design a "system" of building houses with our own hands so as to go with his "from within" philosophy. In other words, we would have much more invested in our dwellings if we built it from the ground up ourselves (relying on professional skilled labour only when necessary). This is a partial draw as construction has always been my fallback way of making money.

The second is the simplicity of layout. As one poster said, there is no way you can design a home such as the Jacobs home and resell it considering our basic need for high square footage especially in the kitchen and master bedrooms, etc. However, I am already working on modifying his original designs to meet these needs.

For instance, when we were at kentuck knob, yes the ceilings were too low (I am 6'4" and was ducking in door ways) and the hallways were just too narrow - no way would you get it past fire codes these days. However, with simple modifications, the elements we liked can be incorporated into the ones that are just not possible because of our requirements or local codes.

Regarding resale value, again, I do believe FLW's intent with the usonian design was to keep the house as your family grows. Exterior walls can be added to becoming interior walls. The Rosenbaum house seems to be a good example of this. As well, if I had a well built usonian style house in our area, there is no way in the world it's uniqueness would not be its major selling point. We are considering putting it near a major provincial park which will give it that much more draw. We do intend to keep it forever though, even though we both realize things happen and it may need to be resold.

One common nature I noticed about wright is when he went over budget, he created masterpieces that are literally priceless now. If it takes twice my original budget to make it that masterpiece that people from all over my area know is there, so be it. Think about fallingwater. Original budget was $40K and it went to $160K but look at its value now. I know it will not be a fallingwater but it will DEF be unique and solid built.

To Mr. Sutton, thanks for the email address. I will have MANY questions for you if you do not mind.

So the steps I am at now is we have been looking at 5 acre plots outside the city that would be ideal and I am reading EVERYTHING I can on the reasoning behind FLWs usonian system so I can make sure I am keeping the pureness of the design both my wife and I fell in love with.

Actually the one that is haunting me now is the idea of the hidden entrance. No idea why he does that.

Anyway, thanks for all the info so far and the healthy debate on its purpose. Perhaps I should have titled the thread "Want to Build Usonia Style house, advise?"

When searching for the lot, keep in mind the overall traffic flow and direction of expansion of the city. One can never be sure of changes over time, but in the past, many fine neighborhoods have ended up in the embrace of freeway interchanges or hemmed in by commercial/industrial development. Next to a park is a good thing, as close as one can get to assurance of no unwanted development.

The subject of the "hidden entrance" is best solved by visiting as many FLW homes as possible. I believe you will find that from the door of your car to the main entrance of the house there will be an obvious pathway, just follow your nose. It may take you around the building to the back side (Bach) with twists and turns along the way, it might take you up stairs and down stairs and through loggias that seem like logical entryways (Taliesin) but aren't (anymore) or it may be as blunt on the front (Wingspread, Winslow) as the "sock in the gut" type of entrance FLW said he hated. Though it does sometimes take a bit of thought. I talked Tom Schmidt and Lynda Waggoner at Fallingwater into taking down the little sign that said "Entrance" with an arrow! It was propped up on the stone work next to the driveway and was not aesthetically pleasing. I said if the visitors couldn't find the front door on their own, to hell with them. They later told me there were people walking all over the lot looking for the damn front door, so they put the sign back. But generally the location of the entrance is not that difficult to find.

Ahh, the "front door" I live in a Usonian in concept at least, a 1954 Cliff May prefab (precut really) There are pairs of french doors everywhere, none of them the "front one" When one of my friends came to visit the first time, that was his question: where's the front door?" The answer in my case is the gate to the courtyard.

I think of my house as Usonion mainly because of the grid it is based on.
The entire house conforms to a 32" grid. The posts holding up the beams are 64" on center. Also, a simple L shape of very modest size- 1383 square feet.
And it is the largest model in this tract. Most are in the 1100 range.

Other things that make a Usonian a Usonian are simplicity and scale. While Kentuck Knob may be considered a Usionian by some, it was built for wealthier clients. The scale and materials reflect that. Many others do as well. But there are good examples of truly affordable ones, built with CMU blocks and plain plywood cabinets. One of the ways Wright made these small houses work was providing lots of built in storage and bookcases. In fact, one of the ways one could get around current codes is to make a very wide hall that gets cabinets after the final inspection.

John, do get John Sergeant's book Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian Houses.
It's cheap (available in paperback) and does a good job of laying out the underlying concepts. It's concept you are after. Style is like fashion and should be avoided when undertaking this project. There are many threads around here with groaning and snarky comments about folks who have tried to use Wright "style" with very poor results. Wright used elements that reflected or related to the specific place. The shape of the land (for instance) often dictated the shape of the grid, the perforated panels, the angle of furniture. One cannot just take those things and plop them elsewhere and expect them to work. There is one thing that Wright did that is rarely noted because it may seem to diminish the greatness, but to me he often did the most obvious thing. So many folks try way to hard to be clever. Or clients insist on things being "special" I suggest keeping the Shakers in mind. That was not a style either.

Assuming you want a house much less complex than Fallingwater or Kentuck Knob, good advice is provided by Wright himself in "The Natural House", a simply written and well illustrated book he wrote about the building the Usonian house.

Begin by finding a good, interesting building suite, one with character, as FLW would say. Ideally at least an acre with a good view of falling land to the south/southeast. A good site with interesting character along with your own character will describe the design and its materials to a capable designer.

Use as simple design as possible with virtually no alterations to Wright's Usonian concept. Find an architect who truly understands and admires Wright's work. I don't mean to copy Wright's work necessarily, but to design without updates. Avoid some kind of hybrid thing.

Perhaps the most difficult is to find a builder today who will build it as designed for a decent cost. Leave no design or material decisions to them, even though they will most surely have some advice to offer.

Unless you are building it yourself, and you should, be prepared for costs well above standard building costs.

Contact Tim Sutton. He is an architect who has built his own Usonian. Although I believe he is retired, he is an expert on building a Usonian today and is very generous with his excellent advice.

doug k