Wright Chat

[wjsaia]

Deleted.

[Unbrook]

The problem of how to add to an existing icon is indeed a difficult problem.
There can be no correct solution. If Mr. Wright were still alive, it is possible the site would already have additional buildings, look at the Rhodendenron Chapel and Gatehouse projects. In his absence, I believe any buildings near the site of the house must be respectful and not be in sight of the existing house. The new proposal for an addition to Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth seems to do this in a very appropriate way. The original Louis Kahn building seemed to defy any intrusion, but the current proposal seems to invite a great dialogue between the old and the new.
My issue with the Competition winner for the Guest Cottages at Fallingwater is the that the inside walls are curved. I don't think that this is the "Wright" feeling of space for these subterranean rooms. I have admired the architects for such a long time, but feel that these Flintstone-esque spaces do not invite a reverence for the original building.

I don't believe any additional buildings on the site should immitate Mr. Wright's architecture, but would hope a denial of his basic principles should not be the desired solution.

[DRN]

wjsaia raises some interesting points...some I had considered, some I had not.

Communication between cottages: I hadn't studied the interrelationship of the cottages to one another, but it should be addressed in the design. There would be a natural inclination for those of similar pursuit, often from vastly different places, to mingle and discuss their experiences at Fallingwater. A site plan that creates a "monastic cells" with no common area would be innappropriate...possibly a series of "cells" off a common "cloister" would allow a mix of singular retreat and common spaces.

Safety at areaways/openings: I saw the Swiss project in Record Houses this year and was surprised the project was published with such an important issue resolved upon completion of construction in such a slipshod manner...a miscalculation by a kid on a sled would be fatal. In a competition or a study model, lack of resolution can be excused, not encouraged, but excused. Malcolm Wells elegantly solved the problem on his houses and designs with parapets, berms, and restrictive plantings, and Maya Lin solved the same issues at the Vietnam Memorial...so I don't see safety as an insurmountable problem.

Disturbance of the landscape: The irony of earth sheltered construction is how much disturbance is often required to yield such a reposed silhouette. Do the ends justify the means?

Perceived missing Wrightian traits: I didn't see the need for Wrightian trademark spaces or detailing in the cottages. Why have that dilute the experience for the scholar who will be otherwise up close and personal to the real thing? I saw the experience in the cottage as being the sip of water and bite of an oyster cracker between the glasses of wine...a way for the scholar to reflect in a neutral, but not uninteresting setting. Many may not share my view.

I do agree there is much to be resolved in the winning scheme, but I feel there is an appropriateness and uniqueness to the concept worth considering.

[Unbrook]

I guess I don't consider the proposed buildings to be a neutral solution. The curving of the interior walls makes an aggressive statement which I don't find at all organic. If the purpose of the cottages was to house visiting scholars, I would think the more monastic and contemplative the better (i.e. the monks' cell at La Tourette designed by Le Corbusier). I am also concerned about the expense of constructing the non standard shapes. This is not to say that I would not invite innovative solutions. The work of Tadao Ando and other Japanese architects seem to play around with space in a manner reminiscent of an updated Mr. Wright.

[SDR]

Unless the intention was to discourage interaction between visitors, or to assure them -- for whatever reason -- of entirely self-sufficient housing units, the Usonian-residence model might have served well as a model: minimal but comfortable sleeping/study quarters, with generous shared space consisting of kitchen/dining and living space. A single extended Usonian straight-line plan (for instance) might be far less costly to construct, with a bonus of occupying less space on the ground. . .? Then, the resulting structure would present a sample of Wright's more "pedestrian" work (compared to Fallingwater) from the same period, for the delectation of visitors (who would presumably be unusually interested in, and sensitive to, its charms).

I would have suggested a structure that faithfully employed the standard materials and details used in any of the several earliest and simplest houses, without any specific reference to a single design (no perfs, for instance). Thus, no effort would be made to "make a Wright design" -- the materials and details only would be Wright's -- and ours ?

If anyone has a right -- legally, ethically, aesthetically -- to employ a pre-existing palette and vocabulary (and I'd argue that any architect has that right -- it's hardly a novel or untried concept), it would be an organization which owns and exhibits, and is responsible for, a work by the same architect -- it seems to me.

Further distance from "the original" (if that were desired) could be had by substituting materials while maintaining the detail vocabulary (for instance). But I don't really see the point of that. Neither do I see the point of the present solution -- namely, going as far from Wright as it is possible to go, while still producing something "unique" (to paraphrase a recent post).

SDR

[wjsaia]

[SDR]

An update or refinement of the Fallingwater Cottages ? Or just newer renderings ?


http://www.forbes.com/pictures/elfk45ifj/fallingwater-cottages/#gallerycontent

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/elfk45ifj/fallingwater-cottages-2/#gallerycontent

SDR

[peterm]

I believe these are the same renderings as from 2010:

http://inhabitat.com/frank-lloyd-wright-fallingwater-underground-eco-cottages/

I liked the solution the first time I saw it, and it still looks good to me now. I would love to stay in such a place...

My only quibble:
The renderings show the interiors furnished with mid century Arne Jacobsen pieces (Swans in the living room and Ants around the dining table...) I would use nothing from the mid century, but find the most appropriate contemporary pieces possible. Why confuse the issue by using design from another important architect/ designer of the same time period? Think how crazy it would be to use Le Corbusier chaise longues or Mies Barcelona chairs in the renderings! It's almost that wrong...

[Roderick Grant]

The interior looks a bit too bright. Are there really enough windows to allow so much natural light?

[Rood]

[John]

“No house should ever be on a hill or on anything."– FLlW.

OMG! Isn't Fallingwater itself built ON something?

As for the idea of disturbing the landscape, I have personally always been frustrated that I couldn't sit, peacefully, on that very same rock outcropping above the falls that the Kaufmanns did when they picnicked, without the intrusion of "that" house ;-(

[Rood]

No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it. Hill and house should live together each the happier for the other. FLLW