Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

In a way, it's a form of natural selection, although it selects for trees
that retain enough leaves, and/or enough energy reserves, to survive a
defoliation event. Most can come back for being completely denuded,
although twice is harder (the problem with Gypsy Moths a few years back
was that they'd come back again and again, devouring the young leaves
until the tree was exhaused and died). But any sort fo environemtnal
pressure is a form of selection. Even with the Texas BLuebonnets
(basically, wild native lunpines) in my fron planting beds - the seeds
that survive teh "Winter" (such as it is here) and grow quickly, and
flower, before the heat hits (about this time of year) are the ones that
survive and make next year's seeds. A lot of the seedlings that sprouted
never quite made it. Anyone with a garden (who doesn't automaticly pull
up, or otherwise kill, any and all seedlings) can easily observe the
process. You'll see it with oyur trees - the ones that can grow quickly
enough so as to escape the shade of he larger/older trees will survive,
andthen have the chance to flower and set seed.

It cracks me up when I hear or read people say that "natural selection no
longer occurs" - what a crock of nonsense.

> Where have I been all my life?

Prob., like most people, brainwashed from the day of birth with all sorts
of crap as to how things like social climbing and owning the maximum
possible amount of miscellaneous stuff are supposedly of Paramount
Importance and supposedly constitute The Meaning Of Life. It seems to me
that this is why gurus, for example, have such an aura/mystique about
them - to most people, even the simplest idea that ignores social
bullshit and mindless materialism is a completely new and revolutionary
idea.

One of the *advantages* of being socially "retarded" is that I never
"properly" learned how to shut out perceptions, and appreciation, of the
"stupid little things" like nature and the environment. When I learned
about things like Eastern Philsophies, Zen koans, and the like, it was
not a new thing, but an affirmation of mcuh that was, to me, patently
obvious. What society totally sucks at is teaching children (and adults
;) ) how to *balance* the different aspects of human nature (or at least,
the *capabilities* of human nature). We are social beings, and we are
material beings existing in a material universe, but we're also
intellectual beings, natural beings, emotional beings, and, dare I say
it, spiritual, or at least philosophical, beings. Cultures in general
tend to emphasize the social first, and the matrerial second, with the
emotional nature third in importance, and the intellectual, natural, and
spiritual/philosophical aspects being lumped together into a very, *very*
VERY distant third.

This is, it seems to me, also why so many people totally reject a
statement such as "nature can teach us a lot" - the call it "mystical
claptrap", because they reejct the science behind it, and reject the non-
social and non-material parts even of their own being. Meanwhile, I
think this is also why it takes many people a very long time to
recognize, and then start to develop, these other aspects of their being:
they basically have to come across these things, learn about them, by
accident - the culture offers not one iota of guidance, because the
majority of sociocultural institutions, including religion, are
completely and totally anthropocentric, to the extent that tehy actually
seek to divide humans from nature, and designate nature as "evil". In
reality, nature is often hostile, and fundamentally indifferent, but not
"evil", which includes a premeditated intent to do harm.

Posted by EDS on May 17, 2008, 8:58 pm

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architectur

>>>>>>>>>>> e

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Very cool ;)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's

>>>>>>>>>> beautiful, albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer

>>>>>>>>>> ;) ))

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior,

>>>>>>>>> unfortunately, shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to

>>>>>>>>> suffer for the sake of the exterior. I don't like that

>>>>>>>>> approach in architecture or in life on any level.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors.

>>>>>>>> It's jsut

>>>>>>>> that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors

>>>>>>>> and structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do

>>>>>>>> go with the

>>>>>>>> houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which

>>>>>>>> is something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a

>>>>>>> lot of time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre

>>>>>>> back cushions) where he had no business making them, he did not

>>>>>>> spend the amount of time (imho) that he should have to make the

>>>>>>> interior functional and human friendly. This piece, which is his

>>>>>>> signature residence, is an almost complete disaster as much as

>>>>>>> interior functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE PLAN, man! ;0

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is

>>>>>>>>> hardly ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water)

>>>>>>>>> and I suppose

>>>>>>>>> it's the garage and other spaces.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in

>>>>>>>> seeing

>>>>>>>> utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if

>>>>>>>> one i spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever

>>>>>>>> why a "utility

>>>>>>>> area" can't fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic.

>>>>>>>> Esp. given

>>>>>>>> how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas -

>>>>>>>> IMO, ti's

>>>>>>>> goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people

>>>>>>>> don't give

>>>>>>>> these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why

>>>>>>>> they're never shown.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex

>>>>>>> depends on the interrelationship of all of it's parts.

>>>>>>> Basically, the exterior design IS "falling water" and nothing

>>>>>>> else lives up to the exterior.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The walk from this building is

>>>>>>>>> unbelievably long.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very

>>>>>>>> park-like, so

>>>>>>>> I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings

>>>>>>>> while approaching the house.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk

>>>>>>> coming in from work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long

>>>>>>> walk (if not more). Have you seen it?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and

>>>>>>>>> has had a

>>>>>>>>> constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose

>>>>>>>> to not

>>>>>>>> address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the

>>>>>>>> massing,

>>>>>>>> the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in

>>>>>>>> turn makes

>>>>>>>> it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr

>>>>>>>> natural elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of

>>>>>>>>> bad design.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism

>>>>>>>> is easy,

>>>>>>>> but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and

>>>>>>>> specifically, *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior

>>>>>>> in my first year. The vast majority of the other students there

>>>>>>> could have done so as well. I bet you could do better at student

>>>>>>> level as well.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Then?

>>>>>> We're talking the 1950's, right?

>>>>>> You have to take it in context man.

>>>>>> Lifestyles have changed and materials and practices have changed

>>>>>> too. Essentially, we do stuff different today.

>>>>>> Did the designers of the parthenon consider things like *traffic

>>>>>> patterns* or *furniture placement*?

>>>>>

>>>>> No, but they achieved their design goal. They were not designed

>>>>> for human comfort but to instill a sense of reverence or awe.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Don't think so, and even today 99% of the stuff I see out doesn't

>>>>>> either.

>>>>>> A home may look stunning on paper and in reality, but when it

>>>>>> comes time to actually *live* in it it must function effectively,

>>>>>> otherwise its a failure.

>>>>>> All the square footage and all the curb appeal will not a home

>>>>>> make. Notice I said *home* and not *house*.

>>>>>> There IS a difference.

>>>>>> The first one is meant to be lived in and the 2nd one is meant to

>>>>>> be drooled over in the glossy ragz.....

>>>>>

>>>>> Functionality and human friendly hasn't changed. Have you ever

>>>>> really looked hard at his plans, not elevations?

>>>>

>>>> Not hard.

>>>> Truthfully, I've never really been turned on by his stuff, it just

>>>> doesn't push my buttons.

>>>

>>> Well, imho, he was artistic in his approach to many of his designs as

>>> far as the exterior was concerned (with notable exceptions).

>>> However, he was absolutely poor in planning in most of the works I've

>>> seen. He's nobody to actually look up to as I see many architects

>>> do, like he was some god-like architecttype. :)

>> I think it largely became a media craze way back when and for all of

>> my life FLW loomed larger than life and in the early days I was drawn

>> in. But once I started to realize the reality of the thing it was like

>> when Toto pulled the curtain back.

>> The designer can do only what he can convince the client to do and for

>> me star-clients have been few and far between.

>> Rico once said I would be caught up in the details if I was to observe

>> Falling Water up close and personal and thats true but the otherside

>> of that is that I am just naturally attracted to such things.

>> This is more a comment to the times than the work, as thats the way

>> things were done then, rather than now.

> What I find interesting is that pro-FLW and anti-FLW seems to be very

> similarto "iberal" and "conservative" in terms of the polarization of the

> "camps" so to speak.

> I don't recall an FLW media craze; I came across his work entirely by

> accident (sort of how I learned most of what I know <g!>), and from th

> eoutset, there were aspects I liked and aspects I did not like (and still

> like or dislike).

> I don't understand why it has to be an either-or situation. All artists

> have their own vision (and, let's face it, ego, since it does take ego to

> be able to put your work in front of other poeple), but as in all art,

> there is no true "final authority"/"final arbiter" in that the artist's

> vision simply is not shared 'in toto' by everyone, everywhere, at all

> times. And heck, even artists modify/change/develop their own vision.

> SO it baffles me why, if you say, about FLW, "I like this", you're

> indilging in slavish hero-worhip, but if you say "I don't like that", you

> jet jumped on by the other camp. I like many of FLW's ideas - the fact

> that the execution thereof exposed certain flaws/shortcomings does not

> completely negate ALL of his ideas and designs.

> Or maybe I'm just too accustomed to the philosophy and mentodology of

> sceince - knowledge is incermental adn builds upon previous knowledge,

> and the disproof of a theory also increases knowledge. The steam-powered

> toy (rotating sphere) invented by Heron of Alexandria was interesting,

> but nobody took that knowledge and built upon it, so the steam engine

> wasn't developed until a couple thousand years later. In a sense, the

> fundamental idea was rediscovered/reinvented. I don't see why

> architecture should be any different - use/adapt the ideas that have

> merit, and *learn from* the aspects that don't work, rather than throwing

> the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water, which is just as

> bad as continuing to adhere to things that don't function well.

> That's how I see it, at least.

>> IOW, I don't think FLW was unusual but rather ordinary for a topshelf

>> designer.

>> I saw a show on PBS one time where someone disassembled an old custom

>> designed and built home of the early 1900's and restored it on another

>> site and it was dramatic, the detailing and craftsmanship of the

>> thing.

> Reminds me of that old movie with Edgar G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart,

> IIRC teh title is "Key West" - the proagonists huddle in a big ol' house

> to ride out a hurricane, and I always find myself wondering whether that

> was just artistic license, or what - logically, if comething is as

> reinforced as some of those old places seem to have been, with all of the

> tight lathing for walls (rather than sheetrock), and so on, it stands to

> reason that it'd survive a heck of a lot more wind than some thing made

> with 2X4s (that aren't really even 2X4s any more) spaced as widely apart

> as possible and skinned with what are basicaly nothing more than

> styrofoam panels...

> OTOH, again, there was also bad construction back then, so the principle

> holds: learn from both the ideas/methods that worked, and the ones that

> did not.

Damn right there was a lot of bad construction back then. I live in a house
built as a summer cottage (2500 sf) in 1886. My grandfather bought it in
1891 and stuffed a fieldstone foundation and a furnace under it to make it
"year round". However it is built poorly with studs being 2X3's at from 16
to 24 inches oc. I remodeled a couple years ago and basically rebuilt the
rear structure of the house and then sheathed on the inside with plywood. My
house in Boston was built in 1859 and was incredibly solid, built on piles.
It was however a full time residence. BTW, the Victorian rowhouse worked
very well as long as you have good legs for the stairs. I loved that house
and am sorry I ever let it go.

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 19, 2008, 3:18 pm

[snip]

>> Reminds me of that old movie with Edgar G. Robinson and Humphrey

>> Bogart, IIRC teh title is "Key West" - the proagonists huddle in a

>> big ol' house to ride out a hurricane, and I always find myself

>> wondering whether that was just artistic license, or what -

>> logically, if comething is as reinforced as some of those old places

>> seem to have been, with all of the tight lathing for walls (rather

>> than sheetrock), and so on, it stands to reason that it'd survive a

>> heck of a lot more wind than some thing made with 2X4s (that aren't

>> really even 2X4s any more) spaced as widely apart as possible and

>> skinned with what are basicaly nothing more than styrofoam panels...

>> OTOH, again, there was also bad construction back then, so the

>> principle holds: learn from both the ideas/methods that worked, and

>> the ones that did not.

> Damn right there was a lot of bad construction back then. I live in a

> house built as a summer cottage (2500 sf) in 1886. My grandfather

> bought it in 1891 and stuffed a fieldstone foundation and a furnace

> under it to make it "year round". However it is built poorly with

> studs being 2X3's at from 16 to 24 inches oc. I remodeled a couple

> years ago and basically rebuilt the rear structure of the house and

> then sheathed on the inside with plywood. My house in Boston was built

> in 1859 and was incredibly solid, built on piles. It was however a

> full time residence. BTW, the Victorian rowhouse worked very well as

> long as you have good legs for the stairs. I loved that house and am

> sorry I ever let it go.

With older places, I think it might be that a lor of people just built
their own shelters out of necessity, and simply dind't always know how to
do it *well*.

In the end, for older structures (whetehr a house or a non-residential
building), I think that each place is just individual, and any potantial
buyer has to be sure to both (1) get a thorough inspection by someone who
understands historic structures, and (2) be a hard realist about teh time
and costs involved in restoration. Personally, I know I couldn't cope
with an extensive restoration, having seen what can been involved, but of
course different peopl eare different, and I also think it's very cool
that other people do restore structures and, as a by-product, ina sense
maintain that bit of history for the rest of us.

But going back to cosntruction quality, I think that mainly, the worst
mistake is to *assume* that a structure is sound based upon its age (or
newness). The thing is that, even if the building was well-built,
factors ranging from perennial lack of maintenence, to poorly-done
"renovations", to destructive inhabitants, will comprimise any structure.
Plus, all builders simply were not, and are not, equal. So I don't think
one can make accurate broad statements as to whether old is better or new
is better...

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 19, 2008, 3:51 pm

> "EDS"> wrote

>> Damn right there was a lot of bad construction back then. I live in a

>> house built as a summer cottage (2500 sf) in 1886. My grandfather

>> bought it in 1891 and stuffed a fieldstone foundation and a furnace

>> under it to make it "year round". However it is built poorly with

>> studs being 2X3's at from 16 to 24 inches oc. I remodeled a couple

>> years ago and basically rebuilt the rear structure of the house and

>> then sheathed on the inside with plywood. My house in Boston was

>> built in 1859 and was incredibly solid, built on piles. It was

>> however a full time residence. BTW, the Victorian rowhouse worked

>> very well as long as you have good legs for the stairs. I loved that

>> house and am sorry I ever let it go.

> I'd say a house thats been around for 122 years and had been lived in

> for the duration is NOT built poorly.

I think he just needed to separate teh two examples into separate
paragraphs - I think the point was to contrast the two odler places, one
built poorly contrasted with one built well...

> 2x3 studs have a larger cross section than the current 2x4 studs and

> being on 16-24 centers is normal.

> I was involved with the restoration of several turn of the century

> island homes that were using existing stumps and large boulders for

> footer piers, which were replaced, but the overall structures survived

> 100 years of south Florida coastal turmoil.

Now *that* is impressive.

> There's been bad constructors throughout history but it seems to me if

> a home lasts 100+ years its doing better than probably most of the

> homes built today, which need major upgrades every 10 years or so.

I'm with you there. Whcih is why I hope that the last place I get will be
custom - it wouldn't be large, but I would want it built well enough so
that, when I can no longer do any maintenence work, it won't be a big deal
because the place will remain sound.

Posted by EDS on May 17, 2008, 9:13 pm