Is Frank Lloyd Wright overrated? (houses, plan, space, architects)
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 don't understand why Frank Lloyd Wright is held in such almost religiously high regard.
While I LOVE Prairie style, and he did several buildings I really like (especially in his earlier years), it really seems the guy's achievments are WAY overblown.
All personal traits aside... Wright clearly built for himself, not his clients and was well known for getting upset with owners of his designed buildings "messing" with his "vision", which many times proved to be poorly functioning (The old joke is that it isn't a FLW desigin if the roof doesn't leak), unadaptable, unmaintainable in the long term (just look at the problems Fallingwater has) and just plain sucky.
Sure he popularized a new direction in domestic architecture, but his basic ideas don't seem too incredibly revolutionary to me and seemed to have been refined and actually made practical by many other architects. So why does Wright get all the love?
^^ 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.
FLW and urban planning don't necessarily go together that well. FLW's vision of cities was everyone would have a one acre lot and get everything they needed by automobile. We have since seen the array of problems created by this paradigm and (mostly) figure we are worse off for it.
In fashion, there is couture-the fantasy of the runway where the designers want to convey the impression that anything is possible. And then there is ready to wear, where elements of the coture fantasy morph into the practical for everyday life.
Compare architecture to the fashion world, and FLW was couture- the bold ideas that would influence a whole bunch of other things, even if what he created himself wasn't highly practical.
I don't understand why Frank Lloyd Wright is held in such almost religiously high regard.
While I LOVE Prairie style, and he did several buildings I really like (especially in his earlier years), it really seems the guy's achievments are WAY overblown.
All personal traits aside... Wright clearly built for himself, not his clients and was well known for getting upset with owners of his designed buildings "messing" with his "vision", which many times proved to be poorly functioning (The old joke is that it isn't a FLW desigin if the roof doesn't leak), unadaptable, unmaintainable in the long term (just look at the problems Fallingwater has) and just plain sucky.
Sure he popularized a new direction in domestic architecture, but his basic ideas don't seem too incredibly revolutionary to me and seemed to have been refined and actually made practical by many other architects. So why does Wright get all the love?
Just a quick note, as I don't have time to get into whether I think FLW was overrated or not:
As I see it, in today's world, there are 2 kinds of architects: the bread-and-butter variety, who interpret the client's needs and give them what they want, and the "starchitects" (I didn't con the term) who have a unique/innovative/signature style who are sought out by clients who want that architect's vision for their project. FLW was obviously the latter. This is not to say that starchitects ignore the needs of their clients. But, often, the client hires that architect specifically because the client is looking for that architect's unique approach to fulfilling their needs.
I despise the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. He single-handedly RUINED community life by turning houses to the side so that there were no more front porches (thereby isolating communities). All of the windows are tiny . . . so not much natural light . . . but the loss of community is his biggest "sin" as far as I am concerned.
In fashion, there is couture-the fantasy of the runway where the designers want to convey the impression that anything is possible. And then there is ready to wear, where elements of the coture fantasy morph into the practical for everyday life.
Compare architecture to the fashion world, and FLW was couture- the bold ideas that would influence a whole bunch of other things, even if what he created himself wasn't highly practical.
Nailed it. Perfect assessment of Wright right here.
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.
