Hacker News Reader

> I just googled him. He's super famous. So he probably has that Frank Lloyd Wright thing going for him, where his buildings have glaring flaws but they are let off the hook because their work is so acclaimed.

Architecture as a discipline has a real problem with this. Far too little attention is given to usability and the prosaic question of how a building turns out in practice; there's far too much back-slapping about "vision".

I remember reading back in 2004 a suggestion that MIT should force its architecture students to study in the building designed for the CS students and let the CS students have the nice architects' building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_and_Maria_Stata_Center vs https://foursquare.com/v/mit-building-7-rogers-building/4ab9... (Amusingly MIT sued Frank Gehry over the building later due to flaws, but it's been settled.)

Yeah, that Stata Center building is such a joke. It makes me mad, and I haven't even set foot in the building. Such a waste of resources and yet another example of what happens when you try to push form over function.

I'd say they've successfully deconstructed what it means to be a building though.

If I remember correctly, my university constructed a new building for the architecture department but it was so impractical they gave it to computer science instead.

My university had a building for the architecture department that was originally designed to be completely covered in vines so as to "hide" the actual architecture of it, to clear the students minds of preconceived notations, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, this was in the late 60s, so the concrete they used turned out to be poisonous to plant life, so no vines ever covered the building, there were some sad scrawny things in a corner, but that's it. And the underlying building was of course really ugly, so, yeah, that was a pretty big fail:

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkitekturskolans_byggnad,_%C3...

That building singlehandedly represents everything that's wrong with the profession that used to be architecture.

Fact: the building was so ugly that it self-ignited.

I did computer science, almost all our lectures and classes were around the gorgeous castle courtyard. We pitied the architecture students... :-)

There's a great BBC TV series (and book) which covers exactly this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0

Same with the Sydney Opera House. The original design had shells flatter to the ground. They were brought more upright for engineering reasons.

I think the result actually looks a lot better.

FWIW, all these points can apply to IT architects :-(

> So his buildings tend to require a lot of repairs, and many have structural problems, leaks, as well as general safety issues.

The Fallingwater House has some (really fancy) cantilever balconies, and even though the contractor building them silently doubled the cross section of the reinforcing steel -- in disagreement with FLW -- they were still too weak.

Fallingwater is aesthetically pleasing but belies FLW's poor understanding of structural engineering of the very materials he liked to use.

It was the client, Edgar J. Kaufmann (1885-1955) and his wife Lillian Sarah Kaufmann (?-1952) who started to second-guess some of Wright's decisions early on to the benefit of the house [1]; when Mr. Kaufmann shared some of his concerns with Wright he took them as a personal attack [2]. Mr. Kaufmann proceeded to hire structural engineers after the construction finished to get a second opinion, and continued to personally measure the deflection of the balcony as the years progressed. In my opinion the house is as much of credit to Kaufmann as it is to FLW, as without his informed skepticism the house would have been more famously remembered as a disaster than as a crowning achievement.

[1] http://old.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20011208lowry1208fnp3.... [2] https://failures.wikispaces.com/Fallingwater

The Kaufmann's had great taste. They commissioned the two greatest (IMO) modern american residences, Falling Water w/Frank Lloyd Wright, and the Kaufmann House in Palm Springs w/Richard Neutra.

https://pleasurephoto.wordpress.com/tag/kaufmann-house/

There was a famous incident with the Johnson Wax building, where Wright had designed Some concrete support columns which the building code authority was reluctant to approve, so Wright tested one by loading it up with 60 tons of sand, 5 times the structural load it was required to bear.

http://evstudio.com/johnson-wax-building-concrete-and-glass-...

The difference being that FLW's designs are beautiful while Viñoly designed the walkie talkie. Seriously, I see that monstrosity on a regular basis and it's super awful. Guy should be kicked out of aesthetics club.

The First Rule of Aesthetics Club is that you'll know when you see it.

Not everyone agrees on aesthetics though.

That being said, I find FLW's designs more aesthetically pleasing.

I spent two nights at the Inn at Price Tower:

  http://www.pricetower.org/stay/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Tower

They offered two types of rooms: a standard room and a two-story loft. My partner and I stayed in both--the standard the first night to save money, and the loft the second night.

I haven't seen the interior of other Wright buildings, but I _loved_ Price Tower. I'm no architect, and I'm sure there's plenty to criticize, but for something that was first conceived in the 1920s and built in the early 1950s, it's amazing. (I'm not sure how much the final draft was changed, but AFAIU the design is substantially the same as conceived of in the '20s.)

One noteworthy thing about the loft apartment in Price Tower is that it was loaded with electrical outlets. I distinctly remember our docent discussing the quantity and spacing of outlets, and IIRC those were a part of the 1920s design. There was a surfeit of places to plug in our chargers. And the general layout of the loft was very comfortable and pleasing, not to mention the incredible views.

I'd also note that the building seemed to be kept in fairly good condition. Given it's remote location, complex architectural features, meager financial support, and general public disinterest until recently, I doubt it's a complete maintenance nightmare. (AFAIK it's not killing people or setting them afire.) That said, the design clearly pushed the envelope, perhaps even by 1950s standards, so I'm sure it keeps some lucky building maintenance engineers busy and their employer stressed.

> On a somewhat hilarious note, when I went to visit Taliesin, there were several rooms which I thought were poorly designed, but had an element that I considered a saving grace. In literally every single instance, it was something his wife had added/altered after his death.

Sounds like Frank Lloyd Wright was the George Lucas of architecture.

That is exactly who I compare him to.

Coincidentally, 99% invisible has episodes for that too:

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/usonia-1/

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/usonia-the-beautiful/

If you're in Silicon Valley, visit the Marin Civic Center, sometimes called the Martian Embassy. That's one of Wright's later projects. It looks vaguely Star Wars. George Lucas, who lives in Marin, got some of his ideas from it.

I'm in Chicago, hence the plethora of Wright buildings I've been able to visit. (Plus I went to school in Wisconsin)

The Marin Civic Center looks super familiar, I guess is probably because I've seen Gattaca 3 or 4 times. I'll definitely check it out if I'm ever in the area.

I'd highly recommend the tours at Taliesin in Spring Green, Wisconsin, and the one at the Johnson and Johnson Wax Headquarters in Racine Wisconsin if you ever get the opportunity. The J&J is largely a long marketing pitch for the Johnson family, but the buildings are fascinating. Taliesin is a lot more academic, and I learned a lot on that tour.

Taliesin West is probably more accessible to SV, and I'd assume the tour is quite good.

his buildings have glaring flaws

One of them being that they tend to be hideous