Wright Chat

I suppose if one really wanted to build a "new" Wright designed house it would perhaps be more appropriate to build an Erdman design. Since Mr. Wright intended that the Erdman designs would not be exclusive to a specific site and that multiple units would be built in various locations throughout the country, I think its construction today could be justified; assuming that the materials and scale are unaltered. [The original construction materials are still available and construction methods are relatively conventional; there are even quality panel prefabricators in the marketplace.] Of course, since others have already been built it would likely not contribute much to Mr. Wright's legacy, either positive or negative.



I'm not really sure how this would be any different than moving the Duncan house to a new site: the foundation, masonry core, floor system and roof [at least] will all have to be new construction at the new Duncan site.

RG & JimM,



All I am trying to say is that an exact FLLW Usonian house CAN be built today as FLLW designed it.



The problem is, as you said,

This month's Preservation Magazine has an article exploring the appropriateness of executing Frank Lloyd Wright's unbuilt plans



http://www.nthp.org/magazine/story/index.htm

RJH wrote:RG & JimM,All I am trying to say is that an exact FLLW Usonian house CAN be built today as FLLW designed it.

Absolutely, although that is either never actually done, or is just not practical for any number of reasons.



Maybe I can take another hit at this. A client who admires Wright would first realize that Frank is no longer in a position to accept commissions, and see the folly in a knock off of any stripe. Appreciating the core principles Wright advocated would dictate searching out something "modern" in the sense Wright intended; good architects can always use the work. I realize many do not agree, and it is common that style, ignorance, money, or a combination of all will usually rule the day.



Of course, anyone has the right to build whatever they like, and although I have yet to hear a good argument other than "I want to", far be it from me to think my opinion should fall on anything but deaf ears. The purpose of architecture as a creative, personal art is not defined by overt emulation or unabashed "inspiration". It is in fact only style without architectural legitimacy in the critical sense, which is perfectly acceptable to many, but not to me.



I agree with rgrant to an extent that knockoffs are better than McMansions. But they are not good architecture. Without original "ideas" there is no context to independently compare them honestly to Frank or anyone else for that matter.

Specifically on the Jester house, and whether it is appropriate for the lines of the desert, Storrer claims that Wright offered the design to a Dr. Palmer for a Phoenix site in 1947 (http://www.franklloydwrightinfo.com/wrightxtaa.html). Is that accurate?

Wrighter, I'm not sure exactly what the painful Palmer contortion of Jester looked like (not Frank at his best) since I have seen only the floorplan, but it was an almost complete re-do of the original, like the sprawling Loeb project in CT. What I find disconcerting about Pfeiffer is that it looks like it was built elsewhere, flown in by a chopper and plopped on the desert without any attempt at fitting it to the contours of the land or altering its program to accommodate the different circumstances. Apparently it is what Bruce wanted, and that is a good enough argument in its support, but it should not be referred to as a Frank Lloyd Wright design, but rather Wright + whoever at Taliesin made the alterations. Attribution is what is important. The brilliance of the original can be glimpsed at Pfeiffer through a glass darkly, but that isn't enough to blame FLW for it.

Thanks, RG. I like that formulation of Wright + whomever. My version would be something like "INSERT ARCHITECT's NAME HERE, inspired by an original FLW design."



I have no objections to the legacy program itself--I'm happy to see TA try out ideas from old plans. My objections are merely to what we call the things. And I think that the whole process of charging varying amounts, or changing "certifications" based on level of alteration from original plans is a bit silly--since they will almost surely, by definition, be significantly altered, no matter what. For that reason, I think a more honest designation such as "inspired by" would resolve much angst (though, of course, probably wouldn't justify the fees quite as well).



I don't think anything built now could provide any real damage to FLW's legacy, anymore than I think a movie like "10 Things I Hate About You" can do any damage to Shakespeare's legacy. That legacy is secure on both counts. Might it give people with a passing knowledge the wrong ideas about Wright's principles? Sure. But that's going to happen with or without such buildings (I've been on a few house tours where guides were providing erronous information that I thought damaging to Wright's legacy--and they were standing in Wright structures).



I think perhaps the most valid objection to the legacy program has already been mentioned--wouldn't it be more in keeping with Wright's philosophy to seek out a current, working architect whose spirit, philosophy, grammar, whose commitment to a vision and coherent idea, one felt sympathy with, and give that person a shot at the building, rather than looking backwards? Part of me says yes to this. The other part of me remembers each time I set foot in a Wright house as new revelation. One doesn't stand in front of Dana-Thomas and think, I'm looking backwards at a slice of turn of the century America. Rather, one thinks--this house would feel like a new vision if it were built last week. So I have trouble looking at building from an old Wright design as looking backwards.



But, I agree, the designation system Taliesin has adopted is troublesome.

RJH wrote:All I am trying to say is that an exact FLLW Usonian house CAN be built today as FLLW designed it.

No - that's utterly incorrect. At least , in New Zealand, anyway. Check the building code in any US state, and I guess it'll be similar to here now too:



1) Floor slab must drop at least 100mm to the exterior of the house.



2) Roof must have gutters.



3) Walls MUST have insulation, and hence an internal frame.



4) Bricks are not a structural component in a building and can not be used as such. Bricks are for cladding only.



I know this quite well, as I am in the process of building a house derived from Jacobs #1. http://4sure.co.nz/nzonia



And yes - I changed the carport to a garage. A house without a double car garage is unsaleable. Sad but true.

I'll grant Mobius expertese on New Zealand, but am happy to pass

along the following regarding building codes in parts of the USA.

In rural areas of Wyoming and Montana, and possibly other states

as well, conformance to a building code is not required by law. In

Wyoming, if you are hooked up to the power grid you must conform

to the National Electric Code. You'll also need a state permit for a well

and a septic system. That's it, other than that you're on your own be

it Wright knockoff or doublewide modular. I know this may be hard to

believe in this era of excessive regulation, but as I am currently

building a (sadly) non-Wrightian home in the Blackhills of Wyoming

I can attest to the accuracy of these statements.

For those dying to build Wright, go West, just not too far West.

It is sad to see the restrictive nature of New Zealand's building codes -- it seems it is a real damper on creativity, at least on Wright-inspired buildings. But, I am also pleased to say that, in Canada, the 1995 National Building Code (NBC) not only permitted all the items listed in Mobius' post (Mobius, did you not mention once before that you are not permitted fireplaces either?!) but the new 2005 NBC now has provisions for performance based criteria which allows for experimentation and less rigid requirements for specific constructions. Safe yet creative -- move to the America's attic!

Mobius,



There is basically no code if you build a FLW house in the proper location. As Ed pointed out, they are usually in very rural areas. If it doesn

[quote="RJH"]Mobius,

Personally, as a genuine FLW Usonian homeowner who experiences the

JimM,



I am under the impression that Mobius IS trying to build a Jacobs I house. At least that is my understanding from his earlier posts where he stated his objective for the project. If that is the case, the numerous and extensive modifications make his design way off base. A failure! If he is NOT building a Jacobs I, but incorporating FLW ideas into his own independent design

I agree that codes and their enforcement vary from place to place. James De Long was able to win concessions for his houses which had 6'8" ceilings in Los Angeles! To a degree, codes exist more to justify the continued employment of bureaucrats than for building safety, their only true justification.



Congrats to RJH. Prairiemod, commenting on this current post, refers to your comments as "humble and thoughtful" while the rest of us are "acid-tongued." Are you on their payroll?

The PrairieMod Team has decided to pull that particular post. No-one is "on the payroll" since we have no payroll. We were initially impressed by the original spirit of RJH's thoughts on this particular subject and felt it a positive counter-balance to much of the what has been posted.



We've decided, going forward, not to single out particular people to either praise or chastise and focus solely on what we are passionate about...the spirit of the Prairie School artsits and Arts and Crafts Movement and how it melds with the Modern World.



We regret any confusion or offense as a result. We would welcome any thoughts to help make our site better.