I’m posting this in the General Discussion folder simply because I think it has more to do with Building as a whole than it does specifically with our magazine… that said, I have a question:
With the 25th anniversary coming along very shortly, we want to celebrate the occasion by including an article in the annual Houses issue on the 25 most important houses in <!—-> <!—-> <!—->America<!—-><!—->–good or bad. Any opinions?
<!—-> <!—-> Have at it…<!—->
Justin Fink – FHB Editorial
Replies
Wow - sounds like an ambitious project
sounds like rather than an article it should be the issue
hope I find them "important"
View Image
View Image
"Eye of the Storm" is the first of the luxury thin-shell concrete homes. It was the inspiration for my house, and a whole generation of luxury houses, finally breaking away from the survival-hut mentality that pervaded this niche.
As a representative of this category, "Eye" shares these characteristics with the others:
* Strong--engineered to withstand tornado-force winds...impervious to hurricanes
* Energy efficient--require maybe .66 ton heat/a/c per 1000 sf, with thermal mass making them more controllable and comfortable than any other structural assembly
* Cost effective--cost no more to construct than any comparably-sized house
* Artistic--sculptural in a way that no other technology can match.
Edited 11/30/2005 12:29 pm ET by CloudHidden
I am always fascinated with the White House. I'll listen a bit to the speeches but I always look at all the trim, mantels, etc. The WH website offers some pictures and detail but not enough to due justice to the building and the workmanship.
Another is San Simeon, http://www.hearstcastle.com/
There is a hay bail and cob house overlooking the Susquehanna river in Wrightsville, PA that is somewhere between 4K to 6K square feet...complete with living roofs and solar supplemented radiant floors. The owner is the GC and is near completion of the project that was started in 98. If interested, I could get some more info for you or put you in contact with the owner.
There is also the famed shoe house just down the road.
'Falling Water' by FLW (in Pennsylvania) would be a consideration, I'd assume.
Several other houses significant for design (Venturi's mother's house, Gehry's Santa Monica house, Eisenman, Hejduk, etc.) but they're probably not what you're looking for.
Maybe not focusing on any particular 'house,' but instead on styles or construction types? Examples might be the Sears-Roebuck kit houses, Lustron aluminum-panel homes, post-WWII housing (how housing was affected by the population boom and demand for quick/efficient construction), the jump from balloon framing to platform framing, etc.. Maybe a historical restrospective, such as how pioneers used sod/haybale homes and how they're now coming back? The impact of the truss, engineered wood, concrete and steel?
Just some silly ideas. :)
Edited 11/30/2005 1:49 pm ET by draftguy
>Maybe not focusing on any particular 'house,' but instead on styles or construction types?That's what I was getting at, too. The one I showed isn't the only important one of the type, but it's representative of a genre that brings a lot of new stuff to the table. Same for SIPs, ICF. Houses that helped to create a new direction in residential design and construction.
Falling Water will inevitably be included, but any 20th century house lthat needs perpetual rebuilding to keep from falling apart is not a great house.
Monticello should certainly be on the list.
I'd like to cast a vote for the three-decker that housed so many people in Boston and many other cities for the last century or so.
My house, designed by some nameless farmer 200+ years, ago probably won't make the list, but I like it just fine.
"any 20th century house that needs perpetual rebuilding to keep from falling apart is not a great house"guess my house won't be on the list then ;)
I took specific note that Mr Fiunk used the word "Important" instead of 'great'. I think Falling Water is important even tho it is far from great!And Monticello is at the top of my list, for quality, for inspiration, for innovation, for the fact it was a DIY of sorts...
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!uality, for innovation, for design, for
"And Monticello is at the top of my list, for quality, for inspiration, for innovation, for the fact it was a DIY of sorts..."
Exactly what I was thinking - though you said it so much more eloquently!
I think a focus on home styles/trends (and their impacts on the industry) vs. specific buildings would be a far more interesting article. I grit my teeth when I mention this, but if the article aims to be comprehensive, don't forget about the one style that is seen in abundance virtually everywhere across the country for several generations, mobil homes. While they may not qualify as "Fine", they've provided basic shelter for a lot of Americans, are a part of our culture that is rarely discussed, and unfortunately, they do fill a need.
The energy shortages of the 1970s led to some significant changes in the way we build and think about building. I'd like to see something from that era represented. Many advances like super insulation, passive solar orientation, air change issues, floor space to glazing ratios, earth sheltering ideas, heat pumps, solar water heating...many more, grew out of this movement that I think of as somewhere between Fine Homebuilding and Mother Earth News.
Came back to mention the first Leger house.
Edited 11/30/2005 10:50 pm ET by jimblodgett
Regarding mobile homes,
I think that's a really good point. We don't all get to live in "fine" homes. (There's a joke around the office here at Fine Homebuilding that on the weekends we editors get to do "finally homebuilding--when you do what you do to just get it to stop leaking...)
anybody know where the first mobile homes took root?
Chuck
anybody know where the first mobile homes took root?"
Covered wagons?
Jon
It has been my understanding that mobile homes grew from the travel trailer and that modular ( factory made) housing has grown out of that generationally.another connection - those travel trailers as vacation modes created a need for parks. Thois parks then added small cottages/cabins which led to motels as a sort of cross between hotels and camps
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
OK, here's my favorite:
http://www.winchestermysteryhouse.com/
-- J.S.
Yep, my first thoughts were White House, Winchester House, Biltmore House. Maybe a Lusstron House, isn't that the trade name of the all-steel house from the WWII era ? I guess the first Levittown, PA house.
The first Mobile home ?
The first House of Ill Repute ?
House of the rising Sun ?
;>)
Greg
Shoot! You beat me to the Winchester house.
"25 most important houses in America--good or bad"
Sorta like the 1991 "Great Homes" Craftsman Styled houses??? One of my Favorites.
Problem is that most of the well known houses mentioned here (Falling wate etc) have received so much media attention in the past that the story would be a cut and paste re-run.
I think the suggestions of showing representative examples of various:
"styles" (Victorian, Craftsman, Colonial, etc), or
"time periods" (1800 to 1850, 1850-1900 etc), or
"types" (timber frame, log home, masonry, straw, geodesic dome etc)
would be more interesting.
Just thinking out loud.......
Any type of housing that influenced a lifestyle or culture could be considered important.
There are many great designs from famous designers, and some of them have trickeled down to something usefull for the masses. Even Frank Lloyd Wright had visions of affordable communities.
A well known home of a particular style could be the model or example of a current building trend. I have always been fond of the Green Brothers designs. Adaptations of their elements find their way into my projects.
As important as Falling Water was, the most important component of Wright's house design has to be the Prairie Style houses.
After all, they spawned about three generations worth of ranch-style homes.
And... You've GOT to include an Eichler.
And... How about the The Lustron steel houses?
K
"But for the Yanks, a few words of advice. For dark heaven's sake, do what the Brits do--put away those infernal scorecards and pencils to which you are so lovingly bonded.
"Treat yourself to a matchplay round where a few hacks from a vertically-faced pot bunker won't ruin your day. And remember, the gimme is alive and well here, as we like to get in before the rain starts again." -- Steve Carr, editor-at-large, Golf World UK
hi Folks,
Chuck Miller here from Fine Homebuilding. There are some really good suggestions popping up in this thread, and I appreciate everybody's thoughts on this. I agree that this shouldn't be a cut-and-paste sort of list of all the tricked-out houses that we've all heard about ad infinitum. (That said, I think there are certain chestnuts out there that should be included, Falling Water among them, because it really pushed at some boundaries.) But we want to get down to the grass-roots level too. What's the perfect little cape house? Where did one of Wright's Usonian houses morph into a ranch house? What inspirational energy-efficient house should more people know about? And by important, we don't necessarily mean "good" houses. There are some pretty dreadful ones out there that have had a big influence on our neighborhoods.
An Eichler house and Monticello on the same spread--I like it.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and participation
CM
Hi there Chuck,
How about "Fonthill" in Bucks Co, PA (ca 1910)? It is the home and museum of Henry Chapman Mercer. He owner Mercer Tiles.
Talk about a DIY. Has a "tile display room" that would knock your socks off.
Might not make your story, but you should check it out.
yeah, Fonthill is amazing. I haven't seen it in person, but we published it way back in issue #6. It had a cast-concrete roof yet. It is indeed one mother of a DIY project, and it's not far from one of the other greatest longterm serial remodels in American history: Wharton Esherick's house.
Chuck
Sounds like a great idea for an issue. As I kept thinking up houses, you all kept typing them in ahead of me. Let me second these ones:
Oldest surviving house
Falling Water
Monticello
White House
House of 7 Gables
then maybe pick homes that are best examples of the framing of that era or that show what people did to have shelter:
a sod house
log cabin
balloon framed
prefab
stone
adobe
multi-story city housing
-- Dusty and Lefty
The sod houses are important to our national history. It is doubtfull the midwest would have been settled as early or as intensively and productively without them. The praries became the breadbasket of the world. Those lands are where the buffalo and indian's transient way of life gave way to the open range of the cattle barrons for a generation and then to the sodbusters of the next generation. Soddies is where they lived for the first year or so while they got the crops producing and they could then afford the lumber brought in on the railroads.We think of a sod house as primitive, but the connection between sod dwellers and the locomotive steam engine - symbol of the industrial age - is symbiotic.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I think that on a visit to St Augustine, a tour guide pointed out what was claimed to be the oldest house in North America. By jiggling my memory a little more, I think it was claimed that it had been used as a brothel for part of its history. It was made of that natural concrete stuff they have down there. Cochinea or something like that
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Edited 12/2/2005 4:27 pm ET by Piffin
A friend toured it and bought me the book. Fascinating.......even has a lot of pencil sketches for various details.
Mr Mercer drew up 8 to 10 versions of every detail, then picked the ones he liked the best. Had to be a DIY, don't think any archy or contractor would have put up w/ him.
Genius at work I guess.
Andy Clifford's house, it was built in 1492, or thereabouts<G>...come to the next fest, stay in the tipi while you do the photo shoot, eh! Hey, pocket doors can't come off the track if they're nailed open
Consider an early last century/1800's Straw Bale house from Nebraska and area that is still being lived in. There is a small re-birth of these due for energy/resource efficiency, owner/builder sweat equity and costs. Not a main stream product but very interesting.
I've been to the Biltmore, and that's an awesome house. Just live a few miles from the Winchester House, and never been there. That one and the Hearst Castle are on my list for visits.Why not include a Habitat for Humanity house? Not really very impressive, but important, in my opinion. I don't think you could make a whole article out of that one, tho. LOL
Allen in Boulder Creek
The Chicago style bungalow.
http://www.chicagobungalow.org
> Why not include a Habitat for Humanity house?
There's a group of six that I worked on in Long Beach, CA. The design was donated by an architect, looks great, and is wonderfully efficient. "Sandy Homes" is the name of the project.
-- J.S.
Vail (?) Colorado also has a few Habitat houses that are built on verticle lots (the only ones that don't cost an arm and leg), with donated architectural design. High performance envelope to boot.
:-)
Hey pickings---------
I just toured Fonthill over Thanksgiving weekend------also the tile factory!
this was a big deal in the Hazlett household as we have just moved into a house with what was considered a fantasticly popular Mercer fireplace surround ( Moravian Tileworks---" Pickwick Papers").
I thought the house and factory fell into the category of " Really Interesting"---rather than "Attractive"----but super cool none the less.
Stephen
Actually---if I was making a list of houses NOT to include
1)Fallingwater would top my list of all time horrible houses---what a freaking waste.
2) Monticello---- I would NOT include----even though I have toured it several times and I am something of a Jefferson fan---- I don't really think much of the house in person---although it--and its gardens certainly photograph well
Actually----for a presidents house----a much more interesting choice would be Washingtons house Mt.Vernon----love the river frontage---AND the fact that it is sided in what might have been the "vinyl siding" of its day----wood blocks cut---and painted with paint containing sand etc. to look like cut stone.
also would like to see a lot of the houses in Salem Mass.--- 7 gables etc. and several of the houses all built by the same architect.
RE: the Sears houses-------- quite a few of them within about a 1-1/2 block radius of my house-------MUCH more interesting and photogenic than the typical stuff in developements today.
Stephen
BTW---- consider a house here in Akron, Ohio------ called Stan Hywett
built by one of the founders of Goodyear Tire and Rubber--( F.A. Seiberling)---it's a huge stone and brick Tudor---- fantastic slate roof, copper spouting---------- when built it was out in the sticks---Seiberling built his own railroad to bring in Materials---and ran a shuttle line to bring workers out to the job each day----beautifull hand planed woodwork, stonework,tilework, tapestries------the gardens and landscaping were famous in it's day---and are still big moneymakers.
a family friend worked on the grounds for years and years---she can maybe finagle you a fantastic behind the scenes tour if FHB wants one?
Edited 12/2/2005 3:47 pm ET by Hazlett
Sure, there are many things to knock about Fallingwater. But a "waste" it is not! The Kaufmanns were not building a 1930s version of a trophy mansion, built to impress. It is really quite small.
When we lived in western PA, I had a chance to tour it in every season of the year. How many times have you toured it?
I agree. I never get the anti-Fallingwater sentiment. I guess it is too hard for some to understand, that it has problems just like most of the repair work that keeps carpenters busy on almost every other type of structure. The fact that FLW was way ahead of his time and pushed design limits beyond the technology of the time seems to escape many. Hey, I'm sure there were a few problems with the Model T too. I have visited FW several times also, it is an amazing place, and it's virtues go beyond it's problems IMO. Anyways there are more than 400 of FLW's buildings around, so if you don't like Fallingwater, there are plenty of others - and they all didn't leak contrary to the myth. The Prairie homes, Oak Park, Textile block, Hemicycles, Usonians, etc.
Stinger,
I consider Fallingwater a waste of a perfectly good waterfall---and with a chronically leaking roof to boot.
the defects in Fallingwater became apparent almost immediately----and as such is an absolute failure in meeting even a houses most basic attribute---shelter.
It is also done primarily in materials I don't particularly appreciate, in a style I don't appreciate, by a man with less than appealing personal qualities and dubious ethics. I see NOTHING to admire in it.
Of course---that's just my opinion
you are welcome to yours
Best wishes all, Stephen
Steven, you didn't answer my question. How many times have you been through Fallingwater?
As for materials . . . steel, concrete, stone, glass . . . as Miles Davis said, "Wuz wrong wi' dat?"
The Romans used concrete to build their aquaducts.
stinger---- I didn't answer the question because I found it irrelevant.
number of times I personally have toured the house has nothing to do with wether I would recommend it-------- after all---as I believe I mentioned---- I have toured Monticello numerous times and I wouldn't include it in this list.
also--- Romans and Aqueducts ?---also irrelevant for this discussion
Re--- concrete----- Fonthill is a MUCH more interesting use of concrete----although---again, as I mentioned------- more interesting than particularly attractive
Monticello and Fallingwater are hugely documented for 2 main reasons
Thomas Jefferson and FLW.
Remove those 2 names from association with the projects---and they become much less of a factor----FLW was a publicity machine---all out of proportion with the livability of his projects.
All-in all---I would much rather see a collection of houses a bit less known----but of high caliber-----on the houses merit---not the personality of someone associated with it.
I can go to most any decent public library and pull out 10-20 books on either Jefferson/ Monticello or FLW/ Fallingwater----but so what?
Home Depot is well known also----but I wouldn't look to it for high quality lumber.
all that said--------- aren't we all entitled to our own opinions?---or must we all" drink the kool-aid" and march in lockstep ?
Best wishes, Stephen
As a structural engineer who has toured Fallingwater several times, including with the engineers who worked on the last rehab (out of many), I can say the house is attractive, but certainly not fine home building. FLW took pride in the fact that he ignored the engineer's and contractor's efforts to beef up the sructure during construction. Leaks, cracks, severe deflection, extensive and costly repairs were what resulted. [Putting on a helmet] I would have to say that FLW was a great artist, but a terrible architect who served his clients' interests very poorly. The S.E. Johnson Headquarters has been described as the leakiest office building in the country. It's similar to the "design furniture" world where every artist tries to create a "new" and "innovative" chair that are almost universally painful to sit on. Fine art, yes, fine furniture, no.
Fallingwater is important, no doubt, but not an example of fine homebuilding.
This sounds like a great idea, but everyone's entitled to feel for and against some things. The top 25 Most Important homes could be a great book. I don't see an article doing justice to anything of this magnitude. Maybe keep the list going, and hit 30-35 that are possible and give it to us to whittle down?
And while were at it, it seems that there is a lot of interest in the Top 25 Influnces in Modern/Fine Homebuilding.
Monticello, Levitown, Airstream Campers, HFH...I don't see a lot of castles lately, an no one in my area has built on a waterfall yet. McMansions are another story though.
How about an article on McMansions, and how we came to be building them.Instead of the 25 most important or influential residences, how about the 25 worst influences or trends? It might be instructive.McMansions are the very antithesis of fine homebuilding. Rather than being the result of wisdom and experience, such houses are really the result of unscrupulous real estate developers, builders, bankers, suppliers, and energy industries colluding and lobbying hard for decades for government assistance and regulation to work totally in their favor--encouraging individuals to buy or build houses that are actually designed to maximize the consumption of raw land, goods, and energy.
Thanks for posting your comments. I've long felt FLW to be overrated. Of course over the years I've come across much to read about him and his designs and came to feel that he was creative but quite bad with respect to sound construction. It is good to hear from a professional who has actually toured a house and knows what he is looking at to get a first hand perspective. It confirms the impression I've developed. You stated what I suspected, as well as I've ever heard it said, when you wrote, "I would have to say that FLW was a great artist, but a terrible architect who served his clients' interests very poorly."
"FLW took pride in the fact that he ignored the engineer's and contractor's efforts "No! Say it ain't so?An architect who had a big ego?
Who would have ever imagined?;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Piffen,
after ignoring the engineer and contractor
do you suppose FLW then turned around and blamed the resulting problems on " poor workmanship" ?
lol, stephen
Dang contractors. Good-for-nothings the lot of them.
Every once in a while you meet an architect who actually wants/knows how to build things correctly. I find they tend to have been trained at larger state schools, often in the Midwest. They tend to get beaten down very quickly here in NYC where every architect seems to have never heard of gravity. And the the more they try to make their buildings look different the more they look the same. Sort of like the rebellious teenagers who try to act independent wearing strange clothes that look just like those worn by every other rebellious teenager. Not to say I didn't do the same thing at that age.
you know Terence,
it's funny you mention that.
My son was considering going into architecture and getting considerable support and encouragement from his high school.
He went to investigate the possibility of attending Kent State University----and an architecture Prof. spent quite a bit of time making the case about how down to earth the KSU program was---with the emphasis on actually getting projects built-----compared to some more comparatively " artistic" east coast programs--------and how the actual school of architecture you attended would be forever more a shorthand designation for what " SCHOOL of ARCHITECTURE " you were fluent in.
that encounter ended any interest in studying architecture for my son---- he remarked that the Prof. couldn't put 2 consecutive, coherent thoughts together---and the prof. considered his training " down to earth"
Prof. was also in private practice---and I have rarely observed someone less visibly organized than this guy.
Best wishes, Stephen
Don't know if it's still relevant, but architecture schools vary widely. If your son is still interested and is willing to go outside of Ohio, I would point him to a school that also builds as part of their coursework (this is where most schools fail, IMO). Some good programs:Univ. of Kansas (?)
Univ. of Virginia (ecoMOD studio)
Auburn Univ. (Rural Studio, http://www.ruralstudio.com/intro.html)The last one (Auburn) is the one with the oldest/best known design-build program. Good investigative designs which are then built for the rural poor, wonderful concept. If you're staying in Ohio, Univ. of Cincinnati has a good program (my alma mater, program was rated #1 in the country a couple of years ago). They have a co-op program so students get a couple years of experience before they graduate, but no construction studios that I know of.
draftguy,
thanks for the tips on Arch School.
the son in question---- I don't think he ever seriously considered it because he wasn't really passionate about it----and he knew that the time commitment of Arch School would prevent him from concentrating on the thing he IS passionate about
Distance Running
His college selection process has been " can I run Cross Country there?--- Can I run track there?
Everything else is secondary
currently---his dream job would probably be writing for Runners World----- in fact I had one of his teachers tell me a couple of years ago that he put on a presentation in a Speech Class entitled " Why I Run"---which---according to the teacher---actually had students in the class crying.
He is also pretty creative and handy---interested in art , ceramics etc.
So--- I expect him to spend 4 years running through his college elegibility while majoring in Journalism and taking art classes on the side----and then heading off to law school. ( He handles Standardized tests like Sat, Act with absurd ease--- so I suspect the LSAT would be the same.
sorry to bore you---but I will seize upon ANY opportunity to shamelessly brag about EITHER of my sons.
Very best wishes, Stephen
Not boring at all. Was out running this morning . . . dark, degrees in the teens, and enjoying every bit of it. Nothing like the LD stuff your son is into, but can see why he's into it. He's doing what he likes and what he's good at. A great combination. More power to him.
architect blame list:1) contractor
2) engineer
3) surveyor
4) contractor
5) client
6) permit official
7) contractor
8) neighbor
9) neighbor's dog
10) some guy walking by the office ;)
It's old (very old), but the sign on my office wall celebrates the five phases of a project:
1 -- Exultation at getting the job
2 -- Disenchantment when you realize what you've got
3 -- Search for the Guilty
4 -- Persecution of the Innocent
5 -- Celebration and praise for those not involved
My other plaque reads: Meetings are no substitute for job progress.
Since this is architects' day on BT:
Construction Definitions:
Architect's Estimate- The cost of construction in heaven.
low bid process- poker game in which the losing hand wins
after a project failure/ company failure/bankruptcy:
damages- cost of failing to achieve the impossible
forensic accountants- those who go in and bayonet the wounded
Bankruptcy lawyers- last ones in to strip the bodies
Edited 12/5/2005 4:34 pm ET by experienced
"An architect who had a big ego?
Who would have ever imagined?"Scallawag! Ruffian! Your mockery makes a poor house, and your gnashing of teeth is like a broken cartwheel! Thou art the most base and ill-tempered of men to bring shame on a noble and pristine profession! i challenge you to a duel with one of those long wood thingies (i think they're called 2 x 4's . . .) ;)
You'd be out of your element. How bout pencils at two paces?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I thought the house and factory fell into the category of " Really Interesting"---rather than "Attractive"
You said it, not me. Actually you are 100% right...interesting, but not necessarily the best looking design.
Congrats on your "new" home.
> .... the most important component of Wright's house design has to be ....
the flat roof. They leak. Wright has probably caused more water damage than a century worth of hurricanes. ;-)
-- J.S.
I kind of like the House of the Seven Gables in Salem. It's a good example of a colonial. It's seen the 1600's 1700's 1800's 1900's and now the 2000's. Pretty cool.
http://www.7gables.org/
Someone else made mention... Think bigger! Howz bout an entire issue......25 seperate stories, each dedicated to a different "most important house".
I`m not a fan of the "Houses" issue.....but I`d run out to purchase the issue described above.
Not sure how much attention each house would get in a single article.
My two cents. (I expect change)
J. D. Reynolds
Home Improvements
ditto
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Somebody mentioned Levittown, & 3-deckers - add rowhouses, from Boston/NYC/Philedelphia/Baltimore & probably as many Eastern cities as you would care to mention -
McMansions
:-)
North America???
Would we all get to vote on them???
If it wasn’t for the Bank Payments,
Interest, Taxes, Wages, and Fuel Costs,
I wouldn’t have to charge you!!
I'm not sure if we are limiting this to North America...I will let Chuck Miller respond to that question as this is planned as part of his annual Houses issue.
Justin Fink - FHB Editorial
Should we expand the pool to include North America?. I guess I could be convinced if we could identify a house that has had some broad influence---maybe one of the highly energy-efficient houses that sprouted on the Canadian prairie and got Joe Lstiburek into the game. And I confess to having a deep appreciation for Arthur Erickson's work. What house would you put on the list if we go continental?
Chuck
I'd love to see a list of houses that haven't been seen widely in articles already. The sound of "most important" brings to mind the same ol' history lesson.
I'll take the new "largest residential log structure in north America" over Abe Lincoln's cabin every time. The former is in northern Colorado and should have been finished sometime this past year (?). Having only heard stories from a few subs, the scope and scale is supposed to be quite impressive. Surely one home from the rocky mountain states would fit to show the excesses in the "new west". (this house could also fit in the technology bubble category since the owner made his millions at a keyboard).
The White House sounds like an interesting read if focused on the architectural details.
Bill Gates' house has been covered numerous times in all sorts of magazines, but again, an article focused on the finish work (not the electric gizmos) would be interesting.
A normal-looking high performance house of some kind should be on the list as it represents the common sense direction that building is heading towards. This isn't simply an energy star home since even the track houses can meet that pretty easily. Heck, even Habitat is building high performance homes to improve the lifetime overall cost of ownership for the home owners. Insulation is cheap!
A New York luxury condo or apartment remodeled after 911 would touch on the most significant event in many decades.
Likewise something from New Orleans would be very interesting. There must be a number of large historical mansions that are getting a mega buck overhaul. A shack rebuild/upgrade would be interesting in the confusing mess of it all.
Tamarac, the only new major ski resort to open in the past 20 years has a lot of new construction in the surrounding area. Although not significantly different from the better rocky mountain ski towns, and a notch below the best, it's all new. Also a representative case of western sprawl, albeit a bit upscale.
There's no denying the impact of the big box stores and the DIY boom. A quality "house that Jack built" would seem fitting. Perhaps one with upside down crown.
A mega lotto winner would surely have a bizarly excessive house that would get a chuckle if nothing else. Boring.
How about a house built completely with engineered wood? Again, boring.
The Bush family most likely has some good woodwork in their Texas homes.
:-)
Cheers,
Don
By "important" I take that as a critic or connoisseur would mean as bringing about some result or influence or signaling a new era, and not merely odd or interesting.
Wayne,
Again this not my project, but I would guess that Chuck is thinking along the same lines as you.
In a truncated sense: Not important for being strange, but important for being influential. Justin Fink - FHB Editorial
Lots of good suggestions.A couple of others?Hearst Castle (maybe as an example of one of the first McMansions . . . a forerunner of residential decadence)pre-fab homes/example of future trends (not a new concept, but it's gaining speed. Lot of buzz in the architectural community about it right now. Included a couple of contemporary examples with this post . . . not to everyone's tastes maybe, but it could help stir the pot/be an interesting look ahead for construction trends)http://www.rocioromero.com
http://www.blueskymod.com
Hi Wayne,
Yep, "important" has a whiff of influential about it, but it also let's us put significant projects on the list that haven't had much of an impact, yet.
Chuck
"Important" is a hard word to deal with. Is it as, important to what we did afterward in home design? Or important as to helped it sustain America? Or important as to who lived there and later shaped our nation? Or important as to the assimilation of European immigrants in the late 1800's, early 1900's? If the latter, the three and four flats in New York and other northeastern cities were very important, but they aren't much fodder for FHB, except as how they've since been rehabbed into luxury dwellings.
Justin, the Gamble House is foremost on my list. After that, probably Wright's home and studio in Oak Park. Then maybe Monticello, or one of the old ones in Portsmouth, NH. The first Levittown house, and the oldest surviving house in the US. I don't remember the name, but it's in Massachusetts.Andy
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Shindler House in Los Angeles
Bruce
Between the mountains and the desert ...
Can't believe it took 25 posts to get to the Gamble House.
Certainly the most influential for me.
-KitTechnique is proof of your seriousness. - Wallace Stevens
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello.
Here is a 1860's farm house in York, PA that endured a 3 story addition. The house has 2 other period additions from the early 1900's.
http://www.redoakremodeling.com/awards.htm
http://www.redoakremodeling.com/project_gallery/whole_house_renovations.html
Edited 12/1/2005 3:53 pm ET by mcf
Hmmm - maybe a good way to go at this (and a bit off topic) would be take the median (or average?) home price and size for a given decade or two; double that, and then look at "average examples" in that range and pick an exemplary one to feature from a construction and design standpoint.
I know, I know "Fine Homebuilding" can happen in a small bungalow, too, but this approach might give you a look at the details, size, cost, and craftsmanship in what could be considered an upper-middle class home. It would be nice to put it up against bad examples of those periods, too.
Fine Homebuilding through the years as it compars to "average homebuilding" through those same years.
Just a thought.
The one that we've all been in at one time or another..............The dog house.
If you do a story on Monticello you might want to take the time to (tool around) Albermarle county. The surrounding area is loaded with all types (big and small)
What about the Sears (or equivalent) mail order houses from the early 1900's?
They've been suggested before. I agree that they're very important, in the same way the Volkswagen was important, because they made so many of them.
-- J.S.
Quick list -
Levittown, Long Island for the simple, efficient, attractive, and affordable design.
George Lucas ranch, California (skywalker?) for the woodwork and style.
Sears kit homes for their innovation.
The Ira Renett home in Sagaponec, Long Island, N.Y. - How to spend a 1/4 billion plus on a summer home with impressive results.
The Biltmore in R.I. because...
Buic
The Biltmore is in Asheville, NC. Are you talking about The Breakers?
Allen in Boulder Creek
Yes, the Breakers... can I blame it on a brain cramp ???? thanks Buic
I think, in addition or instead of your article on 25 houses. There seems to be enough interest in styles of houses and history to put a monthly article in the magazine for the entire 25th year. You could start by covering the homes and shelters used by the first Nations people of North America, with following articles leading to the present, and maybe the last one being, what might be in store for the future.
How about the house built by Henry Chapman Mercer out of concrete. Or Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion house? Or Dennis Weaver's Earthship. Bear's Zomeworks?
we want to celebrate the occasion by including an article in the annual Houses issue on the 25 most important houses in America--good or bad. Any opinions?"
Justin,
Are you asking for specific houses (not styles)? One nobody has mentioned are the Sears "kit" homes. Lots of people bought them in large #'s (before the days of portable power tools), just like the Levitt homes. While simple, they were impactful on the landscape of America.
Jon
6, 48, and 54 mentioned Sears.
Oldest timberframe house (1636):
http://www.fairbankshouse.org/thehouse.asp
By "important", what are we shooting for?
If it means "infuential"(as in most widely copied), you gotta give credit Royal Barry Wills for the Cape Revival style, which was crudely interpreted in Levittown and everywhere.
View Image
You could credit Edith Wharton/Ogden Codman for setting off the colonial revival style with their book "The Decoration of Houses (1897) and prototype "The Mount" in Lenox MA. (http://www.edithwharton.org/estategardens/1.php)
View Image
But Codman was of course influenced by his own 'real' colonial family home, known as "The Codman House" (1734) in Lincoln MA.
View Image
Codman later worked on "The Breakers" for the Vanderbilts and "Kykuit" for the Rockefellers, but the 'Beaux Arts' ornamentation was fading out. While they were inluential in these circles, their impact on architecture for 'common people' is significant. What could be more common than the 'plain box pseudo-colonials' everyone wants to buy today.
For 'Modern Homes', which architects still love to build, but no one wants anymore- you gotta give credit to Phillip Johnson in general, and his "Glass House" (1949). Elements of the Phillips/Van der Rohe style was evident in the millions of ranch homes built in the '50s and '60s
View Image
By "important", what are we shooting for?
Yep, "important" is a squishy adjective, and we picked it for just that reason. It's got an all-purpose quality to it. The houses that we want on the list aren't necessarily the best, most influential, or most famous houses. But I do suspect that the chief attiribute in the houses that make it into the article will probably be influence--whether good or bad. "Important" also gives us the cover to put a couple of houses in here that almost nobody knows about, but should. The Integral Urban House in Berkeley, for example.
There are some great suggestions in these threads. Thanks for posting them, and we look forward to seeing what else pops up.
Chuck Miller, Houses ed. here at FHB
Fallingwater bashing and FLLW bashing...Grrrrrr.
As a student of architecture, I'd have a hard time thinking of many houses that have had a direct and immediate influence on homebuilding trends, but it's easier to create a list of houses that are now, and were in their times well-known symbols of widespread new trends in style, building methods, or manners of living.
The problem is that there are a number of houses in America's history that are extremely singular, having had very little relation to any broad trends in America's history of homebuilding, yet are potent, compelling icons of American aspirations and ideals. Monticello would be just such a house, as would Philip Johnson's Glass House and perhaps Mr. Wright's Taliesin.
I assume we're not including the dwellings of Native Americans.
Fallingwater must be included. It was and continues to be the most famous, widely published house in the world. It's also one of the most thoroughly American buildings ever created. Mr. Wright, having been thwarted by the European Modernists in the low point of his career, appropriated Modernism, made it thoroughly his own, and threw back at the Modernists something more exquisitely rendered than they ever could have conceived.
In addition to Fallingwater, my personal list would have to include additional houses by Mr. Wright--he was, after all, our greatest American architect with a long, prolific life. I'd include a pre-1911 prairie style house because, as pointed out earlier, they did influence generations of ranch houses built all across America. If one compares the Heurtley house of 1902 (when some people were still building Queen Anne houses!) with a typical brick ranch house of the 1950's, the similarities are staggering.
I'd include homes built by Joseph Eichler and William J. Levitt on my list--representative of the best and the worst of mass-produced housing.
The Eames residence. I've never cared for it much aesthetically, but it is a perfect representative of a particular mindset of some postwar modernists--optimism for America's future, creative appropriation of industrial materials for residential use, the physical openness of new family living spaces.
Sears kit houses might not be a bad inclusion. They are just about the best symbol for the widespread trend in the small stick-built houses that started filling America's new suburbs. Bungalows and Four-Squares.
The 20th century is easy. The 18th century is easy. However, the 19th century seems really diffucult to sum up with a handful of houses. Of the prodigious efforts of Victorians, it's hard to think of any house in particular that is perfectly iconic of the broad trends of that century. In part, I suppose, because of the esoteric nature of so many Victorian buildings. Perhaps the Mark Twain house? Perhaps H.H. Richardson's Glessner house? Biltmore or The Breakers as symbols of the excesses of the Gilded Age? Something representative of Greek Revival? How about the pattern books? There are plenty of Shoppell houses across America.
and perhaps Mr. Wright's Taliesin"
Taliesin is very cool. Visited it this Summer, but it is a collection of buildings, AND what makes it special has as much to do with the siting and landscaping, and to appreciate it, you have to visit it in person.
It is as much about the surrounding terrain as the architecture. Similar to visiting Stonehenge.
WSJ
>>It is as much about the surrounding terrain as the architecture.True. The house's main living room wouldn't be nearly so dramatic without that sweeping, nearly vertigo-inducing view across the valley. Visiting that house and that room has had a profound and lasting effect on me.
"It is as much about the surrounding terrain as the architecture"Some portion of architecture is size, shape, and style, but site orientation is the forst step, exemplified there
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
> If one compares the Heurtley house of 1902 (when some people were still building Queen Anne houses!)
Personally, I'd take an average Queen Anne over anything FLW did. Wright, though, undeniably was important. As were Hitler and Stalin.
-- J.S.
>>Personally, I'd take an average Queen Anne over anything FLW did. Wright, though, undeniably was important. As were Hitler and Stalin. So much FLLW bashing. And so much of it based on totally apocryphal beliefs. It seems that individuals who haven't so much as opened a coffee-table book on Mr. Wright's work feel somehow qualified to condemn it. Blaspheme. Wright's work most deservedly places him in the ranks of our greatest cultural icons such as Handel and Beethoven, Shakespeare and Hugo. Just as nearly every significant accomplishment a modern author could hope to achieve can be found in the works of Shakespeare, so too can nearly everything an architect could hope to master be found rendered with unfathomable skill in Wrights works. The mastery of space, scale, procession, light--Wright had an unmatched ability to create spaces that affect human beings profoundly.The major difficulty of discussing Wright's works is that his greatest spaces simply have to be experienced to be truly understood. Wright's interiors relate to the human body and affect the senses in an almost supernatural way. It's something the best photographs in the lushest coffee-table book can't even begin to recapture.
> The major difficulty of discussing Wright's works is that his greatest spaces simply have to be experienced to be truly understood.
There's a Wright building in Barnsdall park. I've seen it in person. Sorry, but the cult of FLW just isn't my religion.
-- J.S.
Since your magazine pride"s itself of craftmanship, why don"t we try houses of other places in the world like in asia , truly it would be more interesting as variety breeds creativity and design varied.
Sounds good . But what do you mean by best houses ? Do you mean most well known , or oldest homes , most historical ? Please explain .
Mike - Foxboro
I have been actively following this thread and find some of the suggestions interesting and others typical and boring. I think you have to decide what direction the houses issue will take. Places like Monticello, Falling Water, and Biltmore are iconic and inspirational. But there are already dozens of books and magazines that chronical these homes. Are you going to regurgitate the same tired stories?
I would prefer to learn about lesser known homes in this country. The homes that are 2 counties over that you never knew existed. The homes that diverged from accepted practices of the times.
Recycling the same high profile properties is a boring waste of this issue. There are enough publications dedicated to those houses if I want to read about them.
Edited 12/3/2005 8:55 am ET by mcf
I second the post by MCF. As much as I agree with Tuffy's post regarding Fallingwater, is this the appropriate venue to do yet another story on this well documented house. It would really require a more in depth article than an issue of FHB might be able to devote (such as a Phaedon or Rizzoli publication). On the other hand I think we have seen plenty of the same old capes and colonials. It would seem to me that there might exist a middle ground of truely unique and/or simple but well crafted houses that are accessible to the readers of FHB.I think it is important to establish the geographical boundaries as well. Given most of the readership is in the US and Canada, limit it to North America. Not too say there aren't other worthy houses internationally, but the construction materials and techniques described in FHB over the years have primarily been indigenious to North America.Regardless what you guys decide, sounds like it will be an interesting issue. Good luck.
I think if you are going to do an ariticle on important houses you have to include the well known ones. Many of the important houses are also well known.
The article could, though, give less space to the well known ones, like Falling Water, and do quite a lot more depth on the lesser known ones. That would keep the list valid but the article more intersting.
Older folks should remember that not everyone who reads the magazine has been around so much. To a large number of the readership homes that are very familiar to those of us who read up on architecture with great interest even the famous homes are not known in depth to them.
Those ultra famous places could be all included in one article, sort of a "here's the accepted cannon" type piece. Maybe a small photo, along with references for further study.
Maybe a page of "Here's a list of some really great places we've featured over the past 25 years that are spectacular in their own right, even if not necessarilly "important"".
A number of great houses have been mentioned already. But the other sentiment that I agree with, is that there are countless houses that most folks will never hear of, that are "great" houses.
And since the name of the magazine is Fine Homebuilding, you should include at least a couple that include construction techniques that have been proven through the ages.
For example, if you look -- hard -- off the beaten pathways, you'll find log cabins that were built more than 150 years ago. And they are still standing, some of them still in use. I'll bet that the majority of them are now under their second or third wood roof (in 150 years), and NONE of them have ever been painted.
It's the materials, and the construction techniques (including position on the lot) that have allowed these gems to last.
Profile them, and those enduring techniques. Contrast those techniques with their modern counterpart.
Maybe, just maybe, it will start a trend in which the American market is once again fascinated with true quality and craftsmanship. And not simply "features".
Unless you're the lead dog, the view just never changes.
"With the 25th anniversary coming along very shortly, we want to celebrate the occasion by including an article in the annual Houses issue on the 25 most important houses in America--good or bad. Any opinions?"
Hey Justin,
This thread seems to have lived a long life, with a bunch of sentiment against "McMansions". How about an article comparing those of the past, with the current ones. You wouldn't even have to travel far, as the Hudson Valley, Hamptons, and New England are all filled with examples of both. So is the Midwest to a lesser extent, though the former are typically lakeside (unlike the East, which were typically river or oceanside), and the later (Mc Mansions) in former city lots, or like here..............cornfield.
Jon
Anyone here ever vacation on the northern outerbanks? This place exploded with residential construction over the past 20 years. Some of the premier properties will house over 30 people! I don't know what exactly it means but it definitely speaks to our culture today.
Check out some of these beach properties.
http://www.obxmls.net/Brindley&BrindleyRealEstate/index.php?fuseaction=search.resultsQuick&class=1&area=421,422
It would be interesting to learn about some of the 100+ year old properties that exist in areas that are under frequent attack from the most harsh of natural elements...and have survived. What sets them apart? What construction techniques and materials contribute to their longevity? Homes that suffer the bounding of the ocean climate and hurricanes, homes that get pounded by snow in the siera's, desert homes that suffer from a relentless sun and arid dry climate...
66508.103 in reply to 66508.1
Anyone here ever vacation on the northern outerbanks?"
Yup,
Me......
Most built like crap, just like the Dune Road houses in West Hampton NY......Wait ......parts of the road (and houses) aren't there any more after Gloria....and The Army Corps of Engineers finally gave up.
But the Outer Banks is moving (remember how they had to move that lighthouse?), so those homes probably won't be there in 150 years either. Disposable, high rent summer homes you ask me.
WSJ
Mcf,
the outer banks idea is an interesting one. I have been visiting there about once a year---sometimes twice a year since the '60's
most of the houses built since the late 70's are marginal( imo)
but I am intrigued by the lifesaving stations----- particularly the one on Portsmouth Island---- hire somebody with a boat on Ocracoke and go on out---( take a gallon of bug juice 'though)
I also like the lifesaving station boathouses----- one at Chicamacmico?
Actually---- that gives me an idea--------- " houses" meant to shelter larger groups of people than a traditional family are pretty interesting----like the life saving stations.
how about monasteries
how about the Shaker sect villages---- there is an interesting one not to far from Sphere and Greencu
stephen
BTW--- Mother Ann of the shakers had some good advice on workmanship that still rings true today
something like" do your work as if you had a thousand years to live, AND as if you were to die tommorrow"----- of course that whole shaker design thing is probably considered a little trite today---and not as popular ar 10-20 years ago.
Edited 12/6/2005 9:32 am ET by Hazlett
A lot of architect-bashing in this here thread. A lot of architect-bashing on this whole message board.
To make broad generalizations, there is a lot of criticism of architects that is justified. I'm a student of architecture, and I see a good many traits among other architects that I absolutely hate, and I feel a lot of that is the direct fault of the schools.
Perhaps the number one issue I have with my peers is the detachment from the realities of building. I myself have made a deliberate decision to support myself in school by building stuff, so I know quite well the practicalities of construction. Framing, roofing, masonry, remodeling, cabinetry, plumbing, electrical... In just the last couple of years I've designed and built a formal garden, a panelled library, a kitchen, a couple of bathrooms--all singlehandedly and all from scratch. I'm pretty proud to have given myself a range of abilities and knowledge very few architects have ever had.
That said, I feel the architect-bashing that goes on here is particularly unfair considering the occasional displays of blind ignorance I've seen on this board, and in the pages of Fine Homebuilding.
A great deal of what I see in Fine Homebuilding is classically derived, or generically, "traditional." Yet how many here are literate in the classical orders? How many are aware that crown moldings and all of the other stock molding profiles available at the lumberyards have classical antecedents? That such profiles are in fact meant to be applied in specific relationships with each other and with specific proportions?
I've seen far too many pictures posted in the picture gallery here of proud accomplishments where some pretty goofy stuff has been done: Interior trim used on exterior doors and windows, crown molding profiles stacked two and three high, colonial doors and trim installed in Victorian buildings or vice-versa, classical columns stuck randomly right under a roof with no entablature, a reliance on quasi-classical off-the-shelf columns that have the historic components totally mistmatched, a carefree mixture of Doric with Ionic with Corinthian all in the same room, keystones where keystones ought not be. Flaws not pointed out because we're too polite or we just don't know better.
There's a building I drive by nearly every day with Doric columns installed upside down. It's unlikely an architect was involved with that faux pas, and it's the sort of thing we should all be embarrassed by.
Over the last century, architects have gotten distanced from the majority of what gets built in America, and one needs only to drive through their nearest suburban sprawl or past their newest nearby bank branch to see the kind of shameful ugliness that is the result.
Instead of architects and builders bitching about each other, we ought to be figuring out how we can reconnect and teach each other what we need to know to build the sort of quality buildings we're all nostalgic for.
tuffy,
your puff piece on " St. Frank" is interesting.
Even more interesting--- or perhaps ironic---- is that your very next post laments some architects " detachment from the realities of building".
almost without exception----- the criticisms of FLW have centered on FLW's detachment from the realities of building.
If we are going to be fair------ why should FLW be held to be immune to the debate between form and function.
Btw---- who says we can't have read plenty on FLW, or experienced his work in person----and still object to it????? ( how else would I know about his ethical shortcomings?)
Best wishes , Stephen
Tuffy,
you are wasting your time on deaf ears here. The fact that the personal profile drop down menu for occupation does not have an option for architect should tell you something. Unless one spends 5 years studying architecture (and at least 3 years interning) many here are not going to get it.There are a few architects here at BT, but I doubt many modernists because FHB's focus is on traditional houses. On the flip side many architects are never going to understand building unless they invest the time into that. You will be doing your self and your own architecture a great service by learning the trade.
"A lot of architect-bashing in this here thread."Not really. And not overall, either. Sure, have run across some who choose to think whatever they do about the profession, but for the most part it's not an antagonistic free-for-all. For me, the comments are all relevant. It's easy to get lost in design issues, and the opinions and experiences from other viewpoints help to see my work from another perspective. I don't take it personally if there are remarks about egos, budgets, details, designs, etc. . . . all areas where architects typically tend to get slammed. Some of it's joking, some of it's a cliche, and some of it's true. Let's face it: the profession as a whole hasn't done a good job connecting with non-design trades and the general public. Look at all the McMansions, office parks, suburban development, strip malls, etc., to see where the profession has failed. But if you listen to the comments in this forum you know where to address issues that are often neglected. Keep your ears open and you'll get some excellent information here.And the negative comments about FLW are, IMO, more interesting than the positive comments. You learn as much from somebody's faults as their successes. And FLW does have a cult of personality that tends to diminish his failures (of which there are many). Everyone's got opinions, and all are relevant.It sounds like you're doing some good things by building and learning construction. And if you listen to the advice here, you'll learn even more. Remember that whatever is being said here is also being said by your future clients.
Informed criticisms of Wright do no bother me in the least. I've read all the biographies and a good many dissertations on his work, so I'm more aware than most of the man's flaws and failings.What does annoy me is the wholesale dismissal of Wright's work by individuals who don't exhibit any qualification to do so, and the dissemenation of myth and exaggeration as truth. To me it's like someone who once read part of a Cliff's Notes of a Hemingway story bitching about how much they hate Hemingway with no earned authority to do so.It annoys me when people talk as if every single roof Wright ever built leaked, and as if every one of his cantilevers sagged. To make a point, one might look at it this way: The man was responsible for over 500 built projects over 70 years, while often working on the very forefront of contemporary technology. A few misjudgements might be inevitable. Could anyone here do so much better? Besides aesthetics, one should keep in mind the practical successes of Wright's work. Wright was building homes with open floorplans and centralized, open kitchens decades before any other American builder. Wright was also integrating passive solar features into his homes decades before anyone else. Wright almost singlehandedly introduced radiant heat to American homes, and was largely responsible for popularizing thermal windows. Not a bad trade for a few leaky roofs and a famously failed cantilever.It's not like I take the architect-bashing too seriously, but It does happen frequently enough in these forums to be distressing. I'm glad to observe it because it makes me aware of a possible mindset that exists among builders out there, and knowing of the issue puts me in a position of being able to tackle it and work on ways to resolve it.An "us angainst them" mindset. I really don't care for that. It's not as if there aren't plenty of so-called builders out there who aren't deserving of criticism. In my little part of the world, any jackass with a shiny new dodge pickup and a contractor's account at Menards seems to think that alone makes him a professional.One cannot look at all the McMansions, office parks, suburban development, strip malls, etc. and place blame solely at the feet of architects. I do think a part of this failure in America goes to the architecture schools, but historically, builders, real estate developers, banks and our government are more largely to blame (Dolores Hayden's "Building Suburbia" is an excellent book on precisely this topic).I do really hate the passivity of most architects and architecture schools when it comes to dealing with suburban sprawl and the sapping of vitality from our cities. Suburban sprawl is not primarily our faults, but we're supposed to be the experts on this subject, and we should be in the best position to battle for better cooperation to work our way back to better alternatives.
"It's not like I take the architect-bashing too seriously"
Tuffy,
You just wrote a 495 word diatribe..........
"It annoys me when people talk as if every single roof Wright ever built leaked"
I don't think he ever built any roofs, just designed them.
"What does annoy me is the wholesale dismissal of Wright's work by individuals who don't exhibit any qualification to do so."
So you need to go to architect school to know what looks good?
Don't get me wrong, I like FLW's work, but the guy as a person was an a$$hole living off an inheritance...like most creative thinkers.
WSJ
>>So you need to go to architect school to know what looks good?That's not at all what I wrote. I've just never cared for the attitude of those who would totally write something off as worthless without bothering to learn something about it first.The simple fact is that there are a lot of things in life that we don't immediately like on our first encounter, but that we can learn to appreciate with time and experience. One may not like black coffee the first time they ever taste it. They might find it bitter and acrid, but that doesn't mean they should reject coffee for life. An individual can observe that lots of other people have learned to appreciate coffee, so there is perhaps some merit to it after all. They can continue to try coffee now and again and learn to appreciate it. Some very good things in life simply are acquired tastes. If someone tried to convince you that picasso was a great painter, worth of attention, you can either blithely dismiss that individual as an ivory tower elitist who's just full of it, or you can consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there's something in Picasso's better works that is in fact worthy of one's attention, or at least one's respect.>>Don't get me wrong, I like FLW's work, but the guy as a person was an a$$hole living off an inheritance...like most creative thinkers.Ernest Hemingway was a smelly drunken woman-hating bastard, but those who appreciate his works don't appreciate them less because of his personality. Actually, quite a few of his fans probably appreciate those aspects of his self-destructive personality. It probably adds to the mystique for them.I really don't care for the sorts of sentiments expressed in most of Hemingway's works, but I don't let that prevent me from respecting and appreciating the great influence he had on 20th century literature.
"The simple fact is that there are a lot of things in life that we don't immediately like on our first encounter, but that we can learn to appreciate with time and experience. .......................Some very good things in life simply are acquired tastes."
"">>Don't get me wrong, I like FLW's work, but the guy as a person was an a$$hole living off an inheritance...like most creative thinkers.""
Ernest Hemingway was a smelly drunken woman-hating bastard....................
"The simple fact is that there are a lot of things in life that we don't immediately like on our first encounter, but that we can learn to appreciate with time and experience."
Well, I have to say, that last statement you got right..........as a teen, I didn't like wine, now I have $10K worth in my basement.......................................waiting for the right occasion, and waiting.
WSJ
"as a teen, I didn't like wine, now I have $10K worth in my basement.......................................waiting for the right occasion, and waiting"does this mean you're hosting the next 'fest? :)
does this mean you're hosting the next 'fest? :)"
No, But if Andy Clifford hosts it, I'll bring some, along with that beer I brought him that he seemed to like so much.
WSJ
>>In my little part of the world, any jackass with a shiny new dodge pickup and a contractor's account at Menards seems to think that alone makes him a professional.Sometimes it's a Ford, sometimes a Chevy, even the occaisonal Tacoma.
You have Menard's out in LI now? Where will it end...........
WSJ
Where I am there are no box stores allowed, got to drive at least an hour to get to one. But as far as I know there are no Menards on LI, we thoug a Lowes popped up not too long ago.
"Sometimes it's a Ford, sometimes a Chevy, even the occaisonal Tacoma."Yeah, it's the magnetic sign that counts, right?;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I don't believe there is an us against them mentality here. I have made about as many negative comments on archies as anyone, but I have made plenty of praises too. Same thing on my jobs. I have had to work under archies who were absolute crooks - fraauds in every way, and I have worked alongside of archies who made up for their peeers by being saints who blinded me with their halos of inspirational ideas and thorough documents and drawings. I have learned plenty from them.So when I make a negative comment, I believe it is deservedFLW ? - He had a few good ideas , and some loony ones, but he had a lousy atttitude, which is the most common copmplaint here or on jobs about architects in general.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
tuffy
There's a building I drive by nearly every day with Doric columns installed upside down. It's unlikely an architect was involved with that faux pas
And you know that how???
I'm doing a kitchen right now where the architect has got his nose in the design of it. Theres going to be some bench seating, he wants me to put dentil molding around the bottom of it to tie it in with the breakfront cabinets that are in the same room. WTF is that all about.
I asked him if he wanted me to put some nice crown on the bottom as a base, he gave me some sh!t eating grin and said "well how stupid would that be" my response was not anymore so then the dentil.
The people that I'm doing the work for thinks hes a god, sorta like you and FLW, so I'll put dentil on the base of the benches!
We don't have to be schooled on FLW to know weather or not we like his works, or for that matter his persona. I personally don't like any of his stuff that I have seen, and I've seen several of his works. I have no problem admiting that he did inspire and was/is important.
Doug
>>>>There's a building I drive by nearly every day with Doric columns installed upside down. It's unlikely an architect was involved with that faux pas>>And you know that how???Actually, in this case it's because it's the sort of building that typically gets put up without any involvement from any architect whatsoever. If an architect were involved, it's a pretty strong indictment against them and their alma meter. I dunno--maybe it's someone's attempt at post-modern irony.
tuffy,
you are becominga little un-hinged about this.
Most of the critisism of FLW in this thread has been centered around inclusion of 1 project--- Fallingwater-------- in a list of 25 important houses.---and their relative
" greatness". In fairness Fallingwater is best considered a sculpture---because objectively it has too many defects to be considered even good homebuilding---let alone finehomebuilding.
also in fairness-----many of the positive aspects of FLW's work were also displayed by other "styles"---- japanese, scandinavian, Bauhaus,shaker, even mission and Craftsman--------- so it's not like FLW invented simplicity and light
consider also the possibility that a style more appropriate for a prairie enviornment------------ might reasonably be viewed with the repulsion of an abortion in an other enviornment.
but hey---that's just my opinion
BTW--- the Picasso analogy was pretty good.
the coffee analogy---not so good----there IS BAD coffee
cheesecake on the other hand----I didn't need to be educated into appreciating---it was good from the very first forkfull----and there is NO bad cheesecake---just different degrees of wonderfullness.( alsos0 GREAT with coffee LOL)
Best wishes, Stephen
the Beer Can house in Houston.
Jeff
Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
With the 25th anniversary coming along very shortly, we want to celebrate the occasion by including an article in the annual Houses issue on the 25 most important houses in America--good or bad. Any opinions?
1. If the key word is "important', what was the importance of each house. How about the Grossman pre-cut houses of the early sixties. They certainly helped explode the DIY market for economical housing as well as the giant DIY lumberyards which were the forefathers of Lowes and HD.
They also created thousands of jobs for the small contractors who could straighten out the messes of the DIYs.
2. I always thought the importance of Wright was his application of the "Sell the sizzle, not the steak" theory to modern home building.
>If the key word is "important', what was the importance of each house.It's like Time Magazine's Person of the Year...doesn't mean the "best" person, just the biggest newsmaker. Or People Magazine's Most Beautiful People. Depends on what they mean by beautiful...or is it Sexiest? Never remember. Just resent that they haven't asked me yet.This is gonna depend on how they define "important". Certainly I'd like to know in the issue why each is important.
This is gonna depend on how they define "important".
So of course I had to look up "important" in my American Heritage Dictionary.
1. Strongly affecting the course of events.
2. Having or suggesting an air of authority.
I assumed #1, but can see #2 as worthy of inclusion.
Certainly I'd like to know in the issue why each is important.
So would I.
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-ranch20oct20,0,4082801.story?coll=la-home-home
Stacy's mom has got it going on.
My house.
No, my house!
NOT my house.
I think its a good idea.