For fans of the Organic

^ Ohhhhhhhhhh. Purdy.

This is what I always dreamed my childhood home would resemble, once I realized my parents were looking at new homes outside Dorchester.

Instead, we got not a second, maybe not even a third rate disciple of FLW, in a decent-enough burb, where at least this architect's homes were not all the same/cookie-cutter development style and were as solidly built for their time as Wright's homes were in theirs.

Oh, and without the total control freak tendencies, either. :razz:
 
Did you move the dining room place settings?! Did you?!
 
I hadn't actually looked at the article yet, but I actually like this house. I usually don't like Wright, but I guess mostly because I don't like the materials or textures he uses. The exterior is still very him, and I don't like it as much, but the interior is genius.

Did FLW always have a rule against 90 degree angles, or is that just unique to this home?
 
kennedy said:
I usually don't like Wright, but I guess mostly because I don't like the materials or textures he uses.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know more about what you find off-putting about Wright's material palate. I'm curious, because Wright's use of materials draws me to his work.

kennedy said:
Did FLW always have a rule against 90 degree angles, or is that just unique to this home?
Click to expand...

Wright's work was strictly orthogonal (with elliptical and 45-degree elements) until around 1914, when a hexagonal module appeared. This was the time of Midway Gardens (demolished) and some of his unbuilt residential and recreational experiments with wigwam forms. The honeycomb, equilateral triangle, and diamond unit systems, as well as orthogonal elements that invade each other at 30 or 60-degrees were all staples of Wright's work after 1930.
 
Beton Brut said:
I'd like to know more about what you find off-putting about Wright's material palate. I'm curious, because Wright's use of materials draws me to his work.
Click to expand...

His houses always seem to have brilliant shapes and spaces, but somehow the materials always detract from it. It's probably just my own personal tastes, but in this example, the pink brick seems so dated and cheap, and I feel like that almost every time I look at his work.
 
Oh yeah. I like to shift utensils a few degrees off axis when I go to formal dinner parties, asymmetricalize (?word?) the flower arrangements, and kick the chairs askew. :p

I have a number of friends, none of whom toured the same places with me, but all of whom have said, when entering a FLW home or a reasonable facsimile, that they find it oppressive--often the heaviness of the materials. I always assumed that the dark, thick-planked, long and low profiles of his built-ins and accessories was what made it heavy for them.

People expect that in high-ceilinged castles. :)

On a similar theme, many have also exclaimed that it felt as if rooms were pressing down on them. He has just as many rooms where this doesn't happen. However, I think this is a valid critique or observation.

I think you do have to put materials choices in the context of their time, too, and that can be hard to do relative to current sensibilities.
 
Currently at the Guggenheim: Frank Lloyd Wright: From Within Outward

I went this past Friday. There's a great deal about seeing the original drawings that is revealing and transformative for Wright scholars and enthusiasts. Like Robert Campbell in his astute critique of the exhibition in this month's ArchRecord, I had some misgivings about the way the drawings are displayed, but I'm not smart enough to suggest an alternative. In all, an amazing way to spend an afternoon.
 
I've been a combination of lazy and busy these past few weeks. All this talk about Richardson has woken me up...

The Glessner House, H.H. Richardson, 1887
From the street:
3970235715_d3f54535cd_b.jpg


3970140753_60bcfd6914_b.jpg


3970139719_22dc507cba_b.jpg


3970139273_6f28ac20b7_b.jpg


3970142071_b6aacefc9f_b.jpg


In the garden:
3970910896_fea7b6a33a_b.jpg


3970910238_0ba603fb08_b.jpg


3970138931_929e58dd35_b.jpg


3970910396_a33ef99e9e_b.jpg


3970910080_693d9fe4c8_b.jpg


An astonishing, hand-crafted masterpiece. The gravitas of Richardson trumps even the finest Beaux Arts monuments. I'm sad to say we didn't have time for the tour (Chicago is full of distractions).

I made a (wild?) assertion here, and now I'll try to offer some evidence. As my middling snapshots show, the Glessner House presents a fortresslike face to the street, and turns inward to a private garden, sheltered from the noise of the street, and the prying eyes of neighbors. An aerial photo of the house in context may help.

Glessner was built in 1887. To me, it's futurist, a premonition of the inward-turning homes Wright designed late in his career, and even more, the free-form, self-contained worlds crafted by his student, John Lautner. Consider this home, completed exactly 100 years after Glessner. The forms are free, but the sense of peaceful containment and protection should be obvious. Lautner's design includes several Styrian arches (not visible in the aerial). The board-formed concrete holds the same gravitas as Richardson's rugged stone. Coincidence, or genius?

Next post: The Robie House
 
Beton Brut and his lovely assistant are really loving Palm Springs.

(I know I owe you a shit-pot of pics from Chicago last fall. Now that the kitchen at Chez Brut is finally finished, I need to take care of that...)
 
have you seen chemosphere? it's about a mile east of laurel canyon on mullholland at the top of torreyson. you can get some good views of it from different parts of torreyson drive.
 
I was nearly killed by an electrician's van photographing it in 2005.
 
glad you survived. the hills are treacherous.
 
My next trip out west will include a couple of nights here, wallet permitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top