17 ms·

I wouldn't want to live in it, though, because everything would be damp.

laserlight 7mo ago
I wish people talked more about the building's shortcomings: moisture, mold, mildew, etc. It's a good architectural demonstration, but not good architecture --- just like how an overengineered code might be interesting, but not practical.
- cube00 7mo ago
  The curse of the roof top garden, looks great but weighs a tonne when the soil is dump and often leaks.
- pseudohadamard 7mo ago
  Well TFA did sort of mention it, it said it was a work of art, not a house to live in. Lloyd Wright designed fabulous-looking buildings but also many that were eminently impractical, either because they started falling apart shortly after they were built and/or because they had so many problems that they were unfit for habitation.
robertlutece 7mo ago
Leaks are a given in any Wright house. Indeed, the architect has been notorious not only for his leaks but for his flippant dismissals of client complaints. He reportedly asserted that, “If the roof doesn’t leak, the architect hasn’t been creative enough.” His stock response to clients who complained of leaking roofs was, “That’s how you can tell it’s a roof.” Wright’s late-in-life triumph, Fallingwater in Pennsylvania, celebrated by the AIA poll as “the best all-time work of American architecture,” lives up to its name with a plague of leaks; they have marred the windows and stone walls and deteriorated the structural concrete. To its original owner, Fallingwater was known as “Rising Mildew,” a “seven-bucket building.” It is indeed a gorgeous and influential house, but unlivable. For its leaks there can be no excuse. —Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn
- 5kgs 7mo ago
  I wanted to find a quote of my favorite story about Frank Lloyd Wright, although not verifiable it fits well with what we know of his character: > Like the story of the client calling Wright during a rainstorm, saying water was dripping on his head, and what should he do, “Move your chair,” says Wright to Mr. Whateverclient depending on the source. https://franklloydwright.org/willey-house-stories-part-10-lo-on-the-horizon/ https://franklloydwright.org/willey-house-stories-part-10-lo...
- WalterBright 7mo ago
  I'm not in the least surprised!
keiferski 7mo ago
I visited Falling Water as a kid, so I probably had a limited ability to appreciate it. But I do remember finding it rather cold and uncomfortable, interesting with the waterfall flowing underneath but not really as somewhere I’d want to live.
klum 7mo ago
I always assumed that part of what made "the great architects" great was their skill in combining lofty visions with practical engineering, making houses that were at once artistic statements and durable, comfortable living spaces... utilizing the strengths of different materials, built on sound engineering principles and so on. But these architects seem to be more interested in the experience you get when _visiting_ the house in its environment, rather than the experience of actually living in it, and these houses are famously often impractical, hard to maintain, and in need of constant repair. That makes them less interesting to me.
- Rury 7mo ago
  That's just architects in a nutshell, and stems from the division of labor. They're primarily tasked with designing a grand vision, and because of that, aesthetics and features naturally end up being primary concerns they deal with (ie the "what" and "why"). Whereas engineers are tasked more about figuring out the details, the how, and ensuring that vision can actually be built, so naturally... practicality ends up being a primary concern of theirs, since they tend to have to deal with it more. That's not to say that architects don't or can't make practicality their primary concern, just that things naturally slant this way since this is typically how labor is divided.
WalterBright 7mo ago
I live in the rainy Pacific Northwest. I specified a lot of things about it that would keep it dry. The general contractor thought it was a waste of money, but I said it's my money and that's what I want to spend it on. There were still mistakes, but it can be managed. After 25 years, it has proven its worth. I've watched my neighborhood evolve, with older homes regularly getting dozed and new ones put up. After two or three years I see the water damage on them. Sheesh! Probably the most consequential feature is having large eaves, which keeps the windows and siding dry. Lots of modern houses around here have no eaves at all!!
- FireBeyond 7mo ago
  The lack of eaves blows my mind, also in the PNW. My home, and this little subdivision (really just a loop of ~50 homes) was all early 80s. I was bummed because the lot next to me was empty (and I'm on the narrow part of the loop so it's just inner corner, me, inner corner), due to a fire shortly after construction, and it came up for sale just after I bought here. But a developer bought it up, and built one of those new houses, no eaves, etc., about three years ago. And not a month or two goes by without (still, 3y later) some subcontractor there doing work. They've already had foundation repairs, driveway partly replaced, dry wall work, plumbing, electric and flooring. Oof.
  - WalterBright 7mo ago
    I see multimillion dollar homes being constructed with no eaves and flat roofs, and wood siding. Madness! The eaves also have gutters (missing on many homes) which pipe the water away from the foundation. The driveway and deck also slope (ever so slightly) The away from the house. The garage floor also has a slight slope to it, which keeps the rain out of it. Lots of little details!

I wish people talked more about the building's shortcomings: moisture, mold, mildew, etc. It's a good architectural demonstration, but not good architecture --- just like how an overengineered code might be interesting, but not practical.

cube00 7mo ago
The curse of the roof top garden, looks great but weighs a tonne when the soil is dump and often leaks.
pseudohadamard 7mo ago
Well TFA did sort of mention it, it said it was a work of art, not a house to live in. Lloyd Wright designed fabulous-looking buildings but also many that were eminently impractical, either because they started falling apart shortly after they were built and/or because they had so many problems that they were unfit for habitation.

robertlutece 7mo ago

Leaks are a given in any Wright house. Indeed, the architect has been notorious not only for his leaks but for his flippant dismissals of client complaints. He reportedly asserted that, “If the roof doesn’t leak, the architect hasn’t been creative enough.” His stock response to clients who complained of leaking roofs was, “That’s how you can tell it’s a roof.” Wright’s late-in-life triumph, Fallingwater in Pennsylvania, celebrated by the AIA poll as “the best all-time work of American architecture,” lives up to its name with a plague of leaks; they have marred the windows and stone walls and deteriorated the structural concrete. To its original owner, Fallingwater was known as “Rising Mildew,” a “seven-bucket building.” It is indeed a gorgeous and influential house, but unlivable. For its leaks there can be no excuse. —Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn

5kgs 7mo ago
I wanted to find a quote of my favorite story about Frank Lloyd Wright, although not verifiable it fits well with what we know of his character: > Like the story of the client calling Wright during a rainstorm, saying water was dripping on his head, and what should he do, “Move your chair,” says Wright to Mr. Whateverclient depending on the source. https://franklloydwright.org/willey-house-stories-part-10-lo-on-the-horizon/ https://franklloydwright.org/willey-house-stories-part-10-lo...
WalterBright 7mo ago
I'm not in the least surprised!

keiferski 7mo ago

I visited Falling Water as a kid, so I probably had a limited ability to appreciate it. But I do remember finding it rather cold and uncomfortable, interesting with the waterfall flowing underneath but not really as somewhere I’d want to live.

klum 7mo ago

I always assumed that part of what made "the great architects" great was their skill in combining lofty visions with practical engineering, making houses that were at once artistic statements and durable, comfortable living spaces... utilizing the strengths of different materials, built on sound engineering principles and so on. But these architects seem to be more interested in the experience you get when _visiting_ the house in its environment, rather than the experience of actually living in it, and these houses are famously often impractical, hard to maintain, and in need of constant repair. That makes them less interesting to me.

Rury 7mo ago
That's just architects in a nutshell, and stems from the division of labor. They're primarily tasked with designing a grand vision, and because of that, aesthetics and features naturally end up being primary concerns they deal with (ie the "what" and "why"). Whereas engineers are tasked more about figuring out the details, the how, and ensuring that vision can actually be built, so naturally... practicality ends up being a primary concern of theirs, since they tend to have to deal with it more. That's not to say that architects don't or can't make practicality their primary concern, just that things naturally slant this way since this is typically how labor is divided.

WalterBright 7mo ago

I live in the rainy Pacific Northwest. I specified a lot of things about it that would keep it dry. The general contractor thought it was a waste of money, but I said it's my money and that's what I want to spend it on. There were still mistakes, but it can be managed. After 25 years, it has proven its worth. I've watched my neighborhood evolve, with older homes regularly getting dozed and new ones put up. After two or three years I see the water damage on them. Sheesh! Probably the most consequential feature is having large eaves, which keeps the windows and siding dry. Lots of modern houses around here have no eaves at all!!

FireBeyond 7mo ago
The lack of eaves blows my mind, also in the PNW. My home, and this little subdivision (really just a loop of ~50 homes) was all early 80s. I was bummed because the lot next to me was empty (and I'm on the narrow part of the loop so it's just inner corner, me, inner corner), due to a fire shortly after construction, and it came up for sale just after I bought here. But a developer bought it up, and built one of those new houses, no eaves, etc., about three years ago. And not a month or two goes by without (still, 3y later) some subcontractor there doing work. They've already had foundation repairs, driveway partly replaced, dry wall work, plumbing, electric and flooring. Oof.
- WalterBright 7mo ago
  I see multimillion dollar homes being constructed with no eaves and flat roofs, and wood siding. Madness! The eaves also have gutters (missing on many homes) which pipe the water away from the foundation. The driveway and deck also slope (ever so slightly) The away from the house. The garage floor also has a slight slope to it, which keeps the rain out of it. Lots of little details!