Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

I'd like to see references to the publications, becasue I'd like to see
that - if you don't want to post them here, you can send to (mirror image
of) moc.niftorrapATscimorhcoretp

I think one thing that often is forgotten about FLW is that he did do a
fari bit of experimentation. I'm not so sure thatit was, at that time,
easy/straightforward to predict how some things would or wouldn't wrk, or
stand the test of time. THat's just my impression, but it doesn't alter
the fact that some of the ideas were, for lack of a better phrase,
"human", in that they did try to address how people would feel in a
particualr environment, based on the fact that poeple have a better
quality of life (and also, do better work) if they're in a pleasing
environment. Yeah, I knwo thre is more to it, but I'm talking about
ideas that are worth taking to the next stage of development.

So, even if the cantilevered roof and balcony elements in Falling Water
did need to be reinforced due to structural problems, the answer is not
to simply NEVER use cantileverd roof and balcony elements; the answer is
to use/adapt them where it is appropriate to do so, AND get the
engineering correct.

So I don't go for either extreme (although all extreem\ism is IMO too,
well, extreme ;) ). I don't think FLW was a god, but I also don't think
he was a villain or an inept boob. He was an architect who had some good
ideas and some, well, not so good ideas - but at least his ideas make a
person *think* ;)

Posted by gruhn on June 2, 2008, 3:19 pm

> friendly. This piece, which is his signature residence, is an almost

Did he claim that?

> complete disaster as much as interior functioning is concerned. =A0LOOK AT=

THE

> PLAN, man! =A0;0

Not going to do your work for you.

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

> work everyday

Please confine your criticism to the actual project.

> OKAY, hero worshipper

Was wondering when you'd try that lack of tactic.

Posted by Jude Alexander on May 14, 2008, 6:28 pm

>>>

>>>>

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

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> Nothing like a full speed sprint with 2 bags of groceries in an horrendous

> downpour to get your juices flowin'........

> I think Judes point was that its very seldom you see a view of Falling

> Water that is NOT of the falling water.

> This is the first time I've seen the long walk from the driveway to the

> house on that sweeping sidewalk.

Hey, THAT isn't the walk I'm talking. THAT particular walk is into the
woods from the house. I thought that as well in the beginning before I got
a view of the whole complex. To the rear of the complex (opposite the
"falling waters) is a 80' long walk or so attached to a fairly large
building.

Posted by gruhn on June 2, 2008, 3:22 pm

> a view of the whole complex. =A0To the rear of the complex (opposite the

> "falling waters) is a 80' long walk or so attached to a fairly large

> building.

Do you mean the Guest House?

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 14, 2008, 6:33 pm

>>>

>>>>

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

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> Nothing like a full speed sprint with 2 bags of groceries in an

> horrendous downpour to get your juices flowin'........

> I think Judes point was that its very seldom you see a view of Falling

> Water that is NOT of the falling water.

> This is the first time I've seen the long walk from the driveway to

> the house on that sweeping sidewalk.

Oh! Ok.

I also figure that groceries weren't carried in from the road - which is
why it'd be interesting to see the utility area. A covered walkway would
IMO be a minimal requirement, best is some interior pathway (not
carpeted...) allowing one to bring in groceries and take out the trash.
But those things aren't popular "talking points" so to speak...they
aren't "elegant", and poeple mostly want to see "elegant" rather than
"utilitarian". Tho' I still don't think the two need be mutuially
exclusive ;)

Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
Rendering or Walk-through. What is better?	April 2, 2007, 5:47 am
Re: Just when you thought you'd seen everything.....	July 26, 2007, 8:33 am
Re: Just when you thought you'd seen everything.....	July 25, 2007, 10:29 pm
Don -You thought architect licensing was bad	March 23, 2007, 12:48 am
Thought provoking, even if highly flawed	September 7, 2007, 9:27 am

XML Sitemap