Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^ I would have to agree. We went to see two of his buildings in the Pennsylvania highlands last fall, Fallingwater and Kentuck Knob. At Kentuck Knob, he wanted to use wooden pillars to hold up a porch roof. Our tour guide told us he wasn't real happy with the "Pennsylvania mountain contractor" who told him that wouldn't work and the beams would have to be concrete to bear the load. The solution was to cover the concrete with wood. Again at Kentuck Knob, he wasn't real happy with the homeowner's changes to the kitchen, which as a friend said, were more practical than what he had designed. (Maybe he didn't work in the kitchen of his own house.) He also seemed to carry this issue he had with "wasted space" to the exteme, with very narrow hallways in these homes. Some people think Fallingwater isn't really environmentally friendly, built as it is over a stream.
By the time FLW(rong) was practicing architecture the profession was something that you could go to school and learn. FLW had no formal education as an architect. His sole qualification as an architect was being a draftsman in somebody else's architecture practice. So FLW did not have the technical training that an architect needs to know how to build safe and durable buildings.
By the time FLW(rong) was practicing architecture the profession was something that you could go to school and learn. FLW had no formal education as an architect. His sole qualification as an architect was being a draftsman in somebody else's architecture practice. So FLW did not have the technical training that an architect needs to know how to build safe and durable buildings.
Architects still must go through internships, in real offices, before they can take the exam to be registered. And, most of what an architect needs to know to become an architect is learned in the office. Schools mostly teach how to design, and FLW needed no help with that.
Sure, schools have some classes in structural mechanics these days, but the science of structural mechanics wasn't even well developed when FLW would have been in school.
Architects still must go through internships, in real offices, before they can take the exam to be registered. And, most of what an architect needs to know to become an architect is learned in the office. Schools mostly teach how to design, and FLW needed no help with that.
Sure, schools have some classes in structural mechanics these days, but the science of structural mechanics wasn't even well developed when FLW would have been in school.
My understanding is that if any kind of exam or government license was required when FLW started "practicing" architecture, he had neither one of them.
By the time FLW(rong) was practicing architecture the profession was something that you could go to school and learn. FLW had no formal education as an architect. His sole qualification as an architect was being a draftsman in somebody else's architecture practice. So FLW did not have the technical training that an architect needs to know how to build safe and durable buildings.
That is a good arguement for education and standards, something very much scorned by many here on CD, though not necessarily on this forum.
FLW was reportedly quite difficult to work with, and his Prairie Style certainly doesn't have widespread approval, especially if you're not a fan of glass...
As far as standards go, perhaps he worked with civil/mechanical engineers..
FLW was reportedly quite difficult to work with, and his Prairie Style certainly doesn't have widespread approval, especially if you're not a fan of glass...
As far as standards go, perhaps he worked with civil/mechanical engineers..
Well, obviously not in PA, if you read my post about Kentuck Knob.
I love the aesthetics of his designs, but it is well known that many of his buildings lack practicality and have serious engineering flaws.
I'd like to see Fallingwater sometime. I've seen several of his homes near Chicago; toured the inside of one in Elmhurst, and it was gorgeous.
I do think, however, that he has been overrated to some degree. Seems that back in the day, there was sort of a FLW fad for a short time - "everybody who's anybody has a FLW home." He always went way over budget, and then there was the leaky roof syndrome......... *ha*
Obviously, I've got mixed feelings about his work.
I love the aesthetics of his designs, but it is well known that many of his buildings lack practicality and have serious engineering flaws.
I'd like to see Fallingwater sometime. I've seen several of his homes near Chicago; toured the inside of one in Elmhurst, and it was gorgeous.
I do think, however, that he has been overrated to some degree. Seems that back in the day, there was sort of a FLW fad for a short time - "everybody who's anybody has a FLW home." He always went way over budget, and then there was the leaky roof syndrome......... *ha*
Obviously, I've got mixed feelings about his work.
Fallingwater is really neat, mostly (IMO) b/c of the setting, not the house. The roof has been replaced, I believe. The hallways are narrow and the bedrooms are small.
My understanding is that if any kind of exam or government license was required when FLW started "practicing" architecture, he had neither one of them.
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that registration probably wasn't a requirement when FLW started practicing in the 1890's.
Until the end of the last century, (sometime in the 1990's) one didn't even need a degree from an accredited school of architecture to get a license in Ohio. (don't know about other states) As long as you interned with an architect for a number of years, and could pass the registration exam, you could become an architect.
What I'm trying to say is that FLW might be overrated, but it's not because he didn't have a formal education. A formal education is a relatively new requirement in the profession of architecture.
Lets use Fallingwater as an example, as that seems to be one of his most famous, and structurally deficient buildings. One of the main reasons it is such a mess, structurally, is that the exact science of reinforced concrete design wasn't fully developed yet. If it were built today, with modern materials and engineering know-how, it would probably work much better. (That's not to say it would be perfect, though. For all I know, some of the cantilevers might be too large even for modern materials)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
