John Portman

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue May 10, 2016 10:55 am

"John Portman and his colleagues visit Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater in Pennsylvania." PBS tonight.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue May 10, 2016 11:20 am

The maker of this presentation also produced "John Portman: A Life of Building", the documentary that aired on PBS in May, 2012....this should be worth seeing.
WHYY Philadelphia will air Portman at Fallingwater on Sunday, June 12 at 1PM on its YINFO channel 12.3

egads · Post by **egads** » Tue May 10, 2016 11:54 am

I could not find a listing for any of my local PBS stations, but did find an online version:

http://johnportmanvisitsfallingwater.com/video-page/

jmcnally · Post by **jmcnally** » Tue May 10, 2016 12:04 pm

John Portman is my least favorite architect because I worked in the Renaissance Center. If he really visited Wright, I'll bet he was suffering from temporary Helen Keller Condition during the visit.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue May 10, 2016 1:15 pm

The first Portman building I experienced was the 1973 Hyatt Regency Hotel in San Francisco, which was, and still is, spectacular. I like it. It was widely publicized, because nothing like it had been seen before. However, in 1976, a mere 3 years later, the Bonaventure Hotel opened in Los Angeles, and it is a mess. The interior is a jumble, not easy to navigate. The exterior is not pedestrian-friendly at all. One side is a blank concrete wall with no apertures. Needless to say, my opinion of Portman's work is mixed.

It seemed that the group visiting Fallingwater had never been there before. That's sad, that middle-aged and elderly architects so close by had never bothered to visit the most celebrated house of the 20th century. But better late than never.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue May 10, 2016 1:36 pm

As an existing artifact, Fallingwater seems obvious, inevitable. But imagine if it had never made it beyond the drafting table. It would have gone down in history as the fantasy of an old man whose heyday was long passed. I was 6 when I first saw the iconic Hedrich Blessing photo of Fallingwater from the base of the fall in a magazine ad for some product that was used in the house. I think that if I had seen the perspective drawing from the same vantage point, I would have assumed it was not real.

One comment that is repeated often is that the obvious place for a house at that location would have been downstream with a view toward the waterfall. But consider the problem with large sheets of glass being constantly spritzed by mist from the fall, and the incessant noise of the thing. Whenever I have been in the house, the claim that the noise of the fall was an annoying presence has proved not to be the case at all.

At the SE corner of the living room, exterior, there is a trellis that extends just a few inches beyond the parapet of the balcony above it. Is that the sort of detail that an architect is likely to employ? I doubt it. Wouldn't it be more common to end the trellis flush with the parapet? It would be wrong, but I wonder if even a good architect would catch that?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue May 10, 2016 1:38 pm

I don't think Portman ever did better work than the Embarcadero in San Francisco. The Atlanta buildings were a run up to that. (I stopped following his work awhile back, so not really up to date now)
Yet, as an elementary school and high school kid in Atlanta, Portman's work was some of the only built modern work I had access to before 1970.
The blue top flying saucer rotating restaurant was a thrill as was the elevator ride to get to it.
Wright's first scheme for the Guggenheim directly influenced him. ..in my judgement.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue May 10, 2016 2:33 pm

Roderick, your raising the issue of the trellis at the SE corner of the LR @ FW is interesting.
I was with you until the last sentence.
I did not follow the last sentence: " It would be wrong, but I wonder ...."
Could you explain with finer grain please.
It is very interesting what Wright is doing around the exterior brim of the living room with the trellis on east and west sides - appreciative of having my attention brought to this.

Portman uses Wright's trellis to good effect in San Francisco and Atlanta. Maybe the best use of Wright's trellis outside of Wright's work. In fact I'd say in Atlanta the incorporation of the trellis makes all the difference as a room for the atrium lobby.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue May 10, 2016 2:33 pm

Portman's hotel atria are my guilty pleasure in architecture...
https://www.google.com/search?q=portman ... 57&bih=654

...yeah, some are better than others, but you have to admit they are streaks better than placeless, long, double loaded corridors stacked one on top of another.

I have to think Wright's unbuilt Rogers Lacy hotel must have influenced Portman when he did his first atrium in the mid-'60's.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue May 10, 2016 2:48 pm

Tom, I think it would be wrong not to have extended the trellis because the parapet and trellis are two different things, going in two different directions. For the trellis to have stopped exactly at the parapet corner would make it an extension of the parapet, not a separate element on its own. The edge of the trellis is rounded, so any other solution than what FLW chose would have made for an awkward connection, as well.

It may sound like quibbling, but I believe it's the handling of these often unnoticed details that make FLW's work as good as it is. It's like the detailing of roof shingles sizes and shapes, as posted by SDR, that mortals are less likely to address, or the difference between the rather handsome house, posted today on SWCCAFLW, in Washington, where detailing is all there is between a fairly good house and a great one. (In that instance, the outrageous costs today of doing such detailing definitely played a part.)

Rood · Post by **Rood** » Tue May 10, 2016 2:54 pm

This showing is a rerun from the original broadcast from 14 December 2014.
As I recall it's more about the thoughts and impressions of Portman's colleagues than about Fallingwater. I was not terribly impressed.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue May 10, 2016 3:12 pm

Roderick, very helpful. Thank you.
And I agree with you about the difference the detailing makes in Wright's case. It's not quibbling. ...the seeming nonchalance of Wright's detailing ...part of the freedom expressed in the work.

What is SWCCAFLW?

Wrighter · Post by **Wrighter** » Tue May 10, 2016 3:20 pm

Tom: Roderick is referring to the running "So We Can Call Anything Frank Lloyd Wright" thread.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue May 10, 2016 3:34 pm

Ah! Of course, thank you.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue May 10, 2016 6:00 pm

Hedrich Blessing photo

The initial shot in the subject video:

The inconsistent shadow line at the bottom of the living-room balcony is the result of a non-Bauhaus radiused edge. The resulting liveliness of the object in daylight is perhaps a tiny example of the difference between an architect who timidly or thoughtlessly aligns adjacent parts of his building, and the one who refuses so to do.

The vertical edges of these same pieces of Fallingwater are crisp and square, not rounded. The easy, eyes-closed solution might be to treat every arris the same . . . ?

SDR