5 ms·

She Wanted to Make Her Frank Lloyd Wright House Greener

23 points by voisin 3y ago

newzisforsukas 3y ago
Must have been some AC bill to balance $800,000 of renovations.
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  $300k on the AC/heat portion, but that included switching from a gas furnace to geothermal (and all the equipment that entails), reinforcing the basement (for that equipment), adding ducting for more efficient airflow through the house, and some other things. She also spent a lot to replace windows (single pane originally) and to fix a leaking roof. And this has to be done while preserving the character of the home. If this were a home you could gut, you might be able to do all this for less or more quickly since less care would be needed to preserve the original elements. And the motivation were things like not being able to get the temperature above 55ºF in the winter with the furnace running constantly. That probably won't get $300k in savings over any reasonable period (her lifetime), but it does make it habitable. It will probably also increase the value of the home by a good amount for the next time it's sold. ("Hey, you can actually survive here year round now!")
  - roughly 3y ago
    > And the motivation were things like not being able to get the temperature above 55ºF in the winter with the furnace running constantly. Well, that was the impetus, but the motivation was definitely to make an ecological point - which, to be clear, I’m for, but there’s no part of this that pencils out for $300k solely on the money. Taking a work of art like that house and making it net-zero energy while preserving what makes it so special would have been a hell of a feat.
annoyingnoob 3y ago
WSJ paywall renders a blank page, no content.
- surteen 3y ago
  The actual article is at https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-lloyd-wright-illinois-e1db058e https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-... https://archive.is/4mHXg https://archive.is/4mHXg
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  https://archive.ph/lI13N https://archive.ph/lI13N pro tip: go to archive.ph and enter the URL. For most big sites, it's already been archived.
gdubs 3y ago
Intriguing, but frustratingly little detail in the slideshow of what the changes entailed, and to what degree the could preserve the historic character while modifying the building envelope.
- thebigspacefuck 3y ago
  If you hit “Read More” it opens a full article with more detail.
  - hedgehog 3y ago
    Direct link to article: https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-lloyd-wright-illinois-e1db058e https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-...
AlbertCory 3y ago
I might have even been in that house, since I was in one FLW house that he lived in. He wanted to be open to nature, not be insulated from it. Taliesyn in Wisconsin was uninhabitable in winter. So this is an obscenity. If you buy a FLW house, you should know what you're getting into.
- pm215 3y ago
  A house that is uninhabitable in winter is not fit for purpose; it would be a work of art, not of architecture. Any architect who builds impracticable houses should expect their subsequent owners to fix the problems as best as they can. The alternative is usually that the building falls into disrepair, because how many people can afford to own an entire building just for its looks?
  - yinser 3y ago
    Unless you’re FLW and you built a work of art and it’s not fell into disrepair because it’s a work of art.
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    It is completely fit for purpose. That was an era of millions of rural and lake cabins built for a season or two and not intended for year round habitation. There are many of these in rural areas and now we have problems with people wanting them to be year round when the seasonal infrastructure is from the 50’s. And as far as FLW was concerned, it was art, and you were just being given the luxury of living in it.
    - coryrc 3y ago
      It's right in the Chicago metro area, not off on a rural lake.
      - UIUC_06 3y ago
        Oak Park in the 19th century was not quite as urban as it is now.
thebigspacefuck 3y ago
My understanding of FLW is that his houses are beautiful but impractical to live in. It would be great to see a comeback of his style if the problems with livability could be fixed, though in this case it seems like they couldn’t fix them all.
- nightski 3y ago
  She was trying to make it "net zero". That is in no way a requirement to have a livable house.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Yeah but insulation is. 55 F with the furnace and fan at max is unreasonable. That's barely shelter.
    - echelon 3y ago
      > My understanding of FLW is that his houses are beautiful but impractical to live in. That's the problem. These are art pieces that barely attempt to fit the role of suitable human living spaces. A number of these houses flood, have structural issues, or develop mold problems. Some have been demolished due to their disuse and impracticality.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        And many are owned by nonprofits, or ultra-rich people.
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        I wonder what the feasibility is, if funds are no object, of redesigning and building from scratch to create a replica built to modern standards vs rehabbing in place.
        3y ago
ConnonEvelyn 3y ago
[dead]
tetris11 3y ago
very relatable article... I guess it would be too much for WSJ to ask how a typical millenial is making their lives greener.
moribvndvs 3y ago
FLW is my favorite architect, ever since I first saw Fallingwater as a kid. Back in 2016, I was in the market and found an incredible albeit somewhat run down home built by one of his understudies. The sellers had it built in 1970, and it hit a lot of familiar notes: long, rectangular, vaguely Japanese aesthetic nestled into a niche in a ravine that overlooked 6 acres of fairly unspoiled nature, angled just right to let light scoop down to all three levels, which of course were 100% glass on two sides and a good portion of the other two. It also leaked like a sieve, drafts coming in around all the panes, the ceiling, and had moisture everywhere. It didn’t have AC, and the owners admitted they couldn’t afford to go on heating the place despite it breaking their heart to leave it. At the end of the day, it would have prohibitively expensive to fix up, try to combat the heating and cooling issue, and I feared would require so many changes to the aesthetic of the house that it just wouldn’t be the same. On top of that, it had an almost non-existent kitchen (I read somewhere that is common in Wright design philosophy, which his student clearly took to heart with this house), and bathrooms awkwardly built into the central support columns that felt more like dungeon pits my partner and I would guarantee slipping and falling in… but I digress. Anyways, I think about that house a bunch. So many incredible, charming homes that are becoming impractical, if they weren’t right off the drawing board but where past energy costs were low enough they could make the dream work. The house I ended up buying is from 1951 with much more traditional construction, but we’ve still been putting an assload of money (for us, at least) into making it more sustainable and comfortable… but it still just isn’t there yet. Yet I am loathe to just start knocking stuff down.

23 points by voisin 3y ago

newzisforsukas 3y ago

Must have been some AC bill to balance $800,000 of renovations.

Jtsummers 3y ago
$300k on the AC/heat portion, but that included switching from a gas furnace to geothermal (and all the equipment that entails), reinforcing the basement (for that equipment), adding ducting for more efficient airflow through the house, and some other things. She also spent a lot to replace windows (single pane originally) and to fix a leaking roof. And this has to be done while preserving the character of the home. If this were a home you could gut, you might be able to do all this for less or more quickly since less care would be needed to preserve the original elements. And the motivation were things like not being able to get the temperature above 55ºF in the winter with the furnace running constantly. That probably won't get $300k in savings over any reasonable period (her lifetime), but it does make it habitable. It will probably also increase the value of the home by a good amount for the next time it's sold. ("Hey, you can actually survive here year round now!")
- roughly 3y ago
  > And the motivation were things like not being able to get the temperature above 55ºF in the winter with the furnace running constantly. Well, that was the impetus, but the motivation was definitely to make an ecological point - which, to be clear, I’m for, but there’s no part of this that pencils out for $300k solely on the money. Taking a work of art like that house and making it net-zero energy while preserving what makes it so special would have been a hell of a feat.

annoyingnoob 3y ago

WSJ paywall renders a blank page, no content.

surteen 3y ago
The actual article is at https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-lloyd-wright-illinois-e1db058e https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-... https://archive.is/4mHXg https://archive.is/4mHXg
AlbertCory 3y ago
https://archive.ph/lI13N https://archive.ph/lI13N pro tip: go to archive.ph and enter the URL. For most big sites, it's already been archived.

gdubs 3y ago

Intriguing, but frustratingly little detail in the slideshow of what the changes entailed, and to what degree the could preserve the historic character while modifying the building envelope.

thebigspacefuck 3y ago
If you hit “Read More” it opens a full article with more detail.
- hedgehog 3y ago
  Direct link to article: https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-lloyd-wright-illinois-e1db058e https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/net-zero-frank-...

AlbertCory 3y ago

I might have even been in that house, since I was in one FLW house that he lived in. He wanted to be open to nature, not be insulated from it. Taliesyn in Wisconsin was uninhabitable in winter. So this is an obscenity. If you buy a FLW house, you should know what you're getting into.

pm215 3y ago
A house that is uninhabitable in winter is not fit for purpose; it would be a work of art, not of architecture. Any architect who builds impracticable houses should expect their subsequent owners to fix the problems as best as they can. The alternative is usually that the building falls into disrepair, because how many people can afford to own an entire building just for its looks?
- yinser 3y ago
  Unless you’re FLW and you built a work of art and it’s not fell into disrepair because it’s a work of art.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  It is completely fit for purpose. That was an era of millions of rural and lake cabins built for a season or two and not intended for year round habitation. There are many of these in rural areas and now we have problems with people wanting them to be year round when the seasonal infrastructure is from the 50’s. And as far as FLW was concerned, it was art, and you were just being given the luxury of living in it.
  - coryrc 3y ago
    It's right in the Chicago metro area, not off on a rural lake.
    - UIUC_06 3y ago
      Oak Park in the 19th century was not quite as urban as it is now.

thebigspacefuck 3y ago

My understanding of FLW is that his houses are beautiful but impractical to live in. It would be great to see a comeback of his style if the problems with livability could be fixed, though in this case it seems like they couldn’t fix them all.

nightski 3y ago
She was trying to make it "net zero". That is in no way a requirement to have a livable house.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Yeah but insulation is. 55 F with the furnace and fan at max is unreasonable. That's barely shelter.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > My understanding of FLW is that his houses are beautiful but impractical to live in. That's the problem. These are art pieces that barely attempt to fit the role of suitable human living spaces. A number of these houses flood, have structural issues, or develop mold problems. Some have been demolished due to their disuse and impracticality.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      And many are owned by nonprofits, or ultra-rich people.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        I wonder what the feasibility is, if funds are no object, of redesigning and building from scratch to create a replica built to modern standards vs rehabbing in place.
        3y ago

ConnonEvelyn 3y ago

[dead]

tetris11 3y ago

very relatable article... I guess it would be too much for WSJ to ask how a typical millenial is making their lives greener.

moribvndvs 3y ago

FLW is my favorite architect, ever since I first saw Fallingwater as a kid. Back in 2016, I was in the market and found an incredible albeit somewhat run down home built by one of his understudies. The sellers had it built in 1970, and it hit a lot of familiar notes: long, rectangular, vaguely Japanese aesthetic nestled into a niche in a ravine that overlooked 6 acres of fairly unspoiled nature, angled just right to let light scoop down to all three levels, which of course were 100% glass on two sides and a good portion of the other two. It also leaked like a sieve, drafts coming in around all the panes, the ceiling, and had moisture everywhere. It didn’t have AC, and the owners admitted they couldn’t afford to go on heating the place despite it breaking their heart to leave it. At the end of the day, it would have prohibitively expensive to fix up, try to combat the heating and cooling issue, and I feared would require so many changes to the aesthetic of the house that it just wouldn’t be the same. On top of that, it had an almost non-existent kitchen (I read somewhere that is common in Wright design philosophy, which his student clearly took to heart with this house), and bathrooms awkwardly built into the central support columns that felt more like dungeon pits my partner and I would guarantee slipping and falling in… but I digress. Anyways, I think about that house a bunch. So many incredible, charming homes that are becoming impractical, if they weren’t right off the drawing board but where past energy costs were low enough they could make the dream work. The house I ended up buying is from 1951 with much more traditional construction, but we’ve still been putting an assload of money (for us, at least) into making it more sustainable and comfortable… but it still just isn’t there yet. Yet I am loathe to just start knocking stuff down.