Wright Chat

There's an interesting progression from what was originally (more than likely) a residential based firm, to the larger contemporary works. I'm sure that's due in part to the eventual partnerships. The last partnership was re-branded into two firms; Bruder downsizing and going solo (probably for the better), and three other partners off to mega structures dotting the Middle and Far East. Their new firm is named the Bauhauesque "Worksbureau" (pronounced Verksbureau?), which seems appropriate.


[/img]









[/img]


[/img]
[/img]

That first [Pratt] building is the only one that piques my interest. Even then, with some Wrightian elements, the plan is too symmetrical and doesn't seem to have the flow of a Wright plan. I suppose I expect too much.

It all looks imaginative and elegant, though I haven't experienced a Bruder building directly. The Platt house feels like Lautner to me...

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Mr Bruder's work was Wrightian -- meaning that it contains overt references to Wright's way of building. Rather, the claim was made that the former demonstrates what we call the principles of Wright's work -- without of course being too specific about what those principles might be.

In addition to the Platt residence, the more recent Byrne commission (seen in images 7 and 8 of the gallery above) is a favorite. But neither house is an homage to Wright, in my opinion.

If I wanted a Wrightian home, I think I'd select an architect who was satisfied to be faithful to another composer, rather than one who had much to "say," himself.

SDR

The sixth picture in the stack posted by JimM is Wes Peters'/TAA's Focus House for the Taliesin Gates (later Cactus Gates) subdivision.

Most of Bruder's work is not "Wrightian" at all, but his work, IMHO, is exactly what Wright wanted: honest in its use of materials; respectfully integrated to its site, environment, and time; based or ordered on a geometrical system; and not overly derivative of Wright's own grammar. This is why Wright respected Goff and Lautner, and much of the work they produced.

The following is a link to Bruder's Deer Valley Rock Art Center (petroglyph field) which even has a "perf" in its CorTen steel sign slab based on a petroglyph:

http://www.mimoa.eu/projects/United%20S ... t%20Center

I've heard some compare Will Bruder's work to that of Glenn Murcutt, which I fail to see. Both use metal and often expose structural and mechanical systems, but Bruder's work is so much more responsive and integrated to its site, where Murcutt's buildings (structures might be a better term) are seemingly dropped into place by aircraft or farm truck.

DRN, your evaluation of Bruder's "Wrightness" is perfect. I have nothing to add to it.

Photo 4 is of Bruder's own house, first published in an Architectural Record Houses issue in the 70s, and in Brian Spencer's "The Prairie School Tradition" (pg 295) as it originally appeared when built on a shoestring: a tiny residence for 2, a small studio and a breezeway between. As expanded, it is much less interesting. One should consider carefully before making a small house large. (Even FLW had mixed results; compare Sondern/Adler with planned-to-be-enlarged-from-the-beginning Hanna.)

Bruder is much better on his own. He doesn't need input from lesser lights. His Deer Valley is great; the Phoenix Public Library superb; a long list of private residences carefully thought out, from the early Platt to a remodel of a MCM Ranch featured in "Fine Homebuilding."

Thanks to Roderick for the Spencer volume citation. Here is the photo he mentions, and two more illustrations from the same source -- early residential designs
which may or may not have come to completion:




Bruder's own house. The cladding is shiny corrugated metal.

Roderick Grant wrote:One should consider carefully before making a small house large. (Even FLW had mixed results; compare Sondern/Adler with planned-to-be-enlarged-from-the-beginning Hanna.)

I would also consider the Rosenbaum House, with its FLW addition, in the category of notable "mixed results."

IMHO, Bruder's original home/studio looks to be "seemingly dropped into place by aircraft or farm truck." I say this not strictly based on the above photo. I have been there in person.

Paul R.-

I agree with you completely about the addition to Rosenbaum. As I read R. Grant's comment about Sondern/Adler, I immediately thought of the Rosenbaum addition. Maybe it is because the original Rosenbaum structure is such a pure Usonian that needs nothing added or subtracted. But the scale of the addition is so out of character to the original, that it feels just like what it is, an addendum.

Thanks for making this point. We are definitely of the same mind on this.

Wrightgeek,
I used to teach in a school that had been added on to at least four times from the original building. Needless to say, it was a total mishmash of illogical hallways, classrooms without windows, etc. I have ofter wondered why the original architect was not asked to "sketch-in" the rough outlines of three or four additions at the time of the original construction so that subsequent architects would at least have a coherent outline to work off of.

This, I believe, is what happened at Reisley. They knew they would eventually want a larger house and that they couldn't afford it at that time and they asked Wright to design the addition at the start. That addition certainly makes more sense than Rosenbaum, etc.

Are their other houses where Wright did the additions contemporaneously to the original?

Wright designed an addition to Lamberson in 1951, the year in which the family moved into the house. The family had three children, two of whom shared a bedroom. The addition consisted of a new master bedroom suite, shrinking the middle bedroom to accomodate a gallery to the new space making the house a four bedroom, two and a half bath residence.

The addition was never realized...

Love the Platt house. Never before heard of Bruder.

.... well at least not the name. Now I see I've heard of the Phoenix Library before. Nice building that.

Other than a book about the library, which Bruder designed in collaboration with Wendell Burnette (there are designs by the two of them individually that are indistinguishable in design philosophy), published by Rockport Publishers in 1999, Bruder's work is mostly available in the Japanese periodical A+U. If Gehry is book-worthy, Bruder ought to be.

DRN relates how he has heard some compare Will Bruder’s Architecture to that of Glenn Murcutt’s constructions. If they do so favorably, it is a gross disservice to the former.

I have yet to visit any of Will Bruder’s buildings, and as a consequence I have to rely on photographs in order to make an assessment. Conversely, I have visited more than enough of those with which his buildings are compared, to form the judgment that the works of these two practitioners are as different as chalk and cheese.

One is exploring new forms, the other exploiting the nostalgia of a population searching for an identity. One is practicing in a country where Architecture still has a place in the national consciousness, however diminished that may have become in recent times, whereas the other resides amongst a nation that has never expressed an interest in the Great Mother Art.

One pays respect to the site, the other raises the building on posts, thereby ignoring it.

One recognizes the uses and limitations of materials, the other persists in employing corrugated steel sheets horizontally on walls, despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to weatherproof and vermin proof the junctions.

One would appear to have a coherent architectural philosophy, whilst the other quotes being influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright, Henry David Thoreau, and Mies van der Rohe! What type of intellectual gymnastics are required to amalgamate those diverse approaches?