Did Frank Lloyd Wright create America's greatest office? | Hacker News Reader

Did Frank Lloyd Wright create America's greatest office?

news.cnet.com

76 pointsYhippa44 comments

That's especially true because their design seems upside down. While they're 18 feet in diameter at the ceiling, they are just nine inches across at the floor. How something like that could hold 60 tons is a small bit of Frank Lloyd Wright magic. But that's exactly what they do.

This sentence irked me. How something that is 9" across can hold 60 tons is not magic, it is pretty straight forward engineering. Doing the code required design calculation for this column gives a nominal capacity for this column of around 100 tons. Buckling of this column would most likely not be a an issue due to the generous taper of the column if one were to actually do the math.

This is not magic. This is basic engineering.

Basic engineering is like magic, for most people.

Was that code already published by 1937?

While I'm obviously not aware of what the codes in place were in 1937, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) has been around since 1906 I believe. In addition, my comment is not in response to whether or not the building codes or inspectors back then knew what we now know about concrete (they obviously did not), my comment is in response to a modern day visitor like the post's author looking at something with a relatively straightforward explanation using today's engineering principles and calling it magic.

> Doing the code required design calculation for this column gives a nominal capacity for this column of around 100 tons

You say "this column". Do you mean a single column of that design should hold around 100 tons, or do you mean that the complete set of columns should hold around 100 tons?

He's saying just one of those columns will support 100 tons. The self weight is probably something like 20 tons. 100 tons is not a very big load in construction terms.

The test column was showing cracks at 60 tons. Can you really go 40 tons past that?

With modern material sure back then 60 tons may have been the limit depening on how they added the material.

PS: Accidentally down voted you sorry. (Damm iPad)

Relax. The guy writing the article is likely a journalist, not an engineer.

Remarkable that 70 years of managers were able to resist their obligation to rip that crap out and put in cubicles.

  Manager - SC Johnson
  Oversaw renovation of 70 year old building. Placed 1000
  employees in building that previously housed 200. Saved
  $50,000,000 construction of new building.

"...imagine the columns -- as many do -- as lily pads, or even as a forest of trees."

I'm thinking of Christ Church hall [1] and also the cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral [2]. I always feel calm in a wood (we don't really have any forests left in the UK).

That office looks lovely with those desks as well, you can just see that lovely wood and the brass fittings. And diffuse overhead daylight. Magic.

[1] http://www.darknessandlight.co.uk/photographs/christ_church_...

[2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gloucester_cathedral_...

"we don't really have any forests left in the UK"

what about New Forest? There are plenty of others too, but that's probably the largest and most well known.

you just made me miss all the great architecture that I had the privilege of being around when I was in grad school (was at the "other" school for a year).

Gloucester Cathedral reminds me of the Fungus Forests from the Nausicca animated film: https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nausicca%20fo...

My dad worked in the Great Workroom. Made a huge impression on me as a kid.

I truly believe that investing in great architecture inspires the mind and invites you to give your very best. You rise to the environment you're situated in.

This rings true on so many levels.

I've actually found the opposite to be the case. I'm much more apt to concentrate and strive to build something great when I'm trapped in a run-down, somewhat distraction-free environment. If I'm in a really nice space, I often spend time just enjoying and admiring the space rather than working.

I've seen the photo of the columns before, but never the hallway with the arch of tubes above. And that elevator! A steampunk delight!

Thanks for this comment-- I missed the photo gallery the first time around. Here's a direct link: http://news.cnet.com/2300-13576_3-10017669-1.html

Frank Lloyd Wright is definitely a fascinating figure. I live in Oak Park, IL just a few blocks away from his home and studio; highly recommend checking it out if you are ever in Chicago.

OP here. I went to Wright Plus (http://gowright.org/wp2013) this year. It was real interesting to walk around your neighborhood and seeing all of the houses there.

Whenever I travel around the US (sometimes the world) I feel that a lot of the construction of houses are the same. It was refreshing to see the way a lot of those houses were designed regardless if they were designed by FLW or not. I'm hoping the next house I live in can share that ethos.

Here [1] is a newspaper story from the June 4th, 1937 Milwaukee Journal about the test to demonstrate the strength of the columns to building regulators.

Here's the explanation given for why the columns were stronger than the regulators expected:

   Secret of weight carrying ability of the new pillar,
   according to Wright, lies in its departure from the
   conventional way of building concrete pillars.
   Instead of using steel rods to reinforce the concrete,
   the architect has perfected a steel mesh core.

   “Iron rods in concrete represent the bones of a human
   foot. The steel mesh, however, plays the role of
   muscles and sinews. Muscles and sinews are stronger
   than bones. The concrete flows in unison with the
   steel mesh. It ’marries’ the mesh, so to speak,”
   Wright explained.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/flw/buildings/scjohnson/scjohnson_interio...

Just in case you're now really into the history and sicence of reinforced concrete, there was an excellent 99% invisible podcast episode about it recently:

http://99percentinvisible.org/post/52361601736/episode-81-re...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1MXuBAxcdM

That building is tremendous. I'm fortunate enough to live moderately close to Falling Water and go to see it frequently. I haven't had the pleasure of visiting any of Wright's other architecture, but would love to. I've always found him to be an inspirational figure that cuts across fields. I kind of think of him as the Tesla of architecture.

If you don't mind me asking, what is Falling Water really like? Would you recommend the in-depth tour?

I went on the tour about 10 years ago. It was incredible. You got to see every room in the house first hand and walk on the terraces.

As with most Wright buildings, it's one thing to see pictures and entirely another to walk in them yourself.

Cannot recommend the Fallingwater tour enough.

I really like the photos in the article. Also, this is one of those rare cases where the answer to a headline ending in a question mark is "yes"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

The Johnson Wax building is undeniably beautiful and a groundbreaking piece of modern architecture. For all that, however, it would be nice to find a “greatest office” that doesn’t have a leaky roof.

It's standard. Have a look at New Zealand design awards though the 90s. Leaky building, untreated/poorly treated wood, complete environmental unsuitability etc. Careful what trends you follow.

The Burroughs Wellcome building in RTP is also an amazing design that leaked like a sieve (they may have fixed it by now). It was used in the Christopher Walken & Natalie Woods movie Brainstorm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73172555@N00/1958939613/in/set-...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73172555@N00/1958939599/in/set-...

There's something about "bold" building designs and leaking like sieves that goes hand in hand...

http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/mit-sues-frank-gehry-ov...

I'm not a fan of his designs. I don't deny they're bold, and the titanium "scales" on them are a modern interpretation of slate roofing tiles. But the proportions are all wrong to my eye. It's like he's channeling Theodor Geisel.

That building is freaky. Do people work in it? Those angles make me very uncomfortable. Spending much time there would make me crazy.

A very different feeling from what I get looking at the SC Johnson building!

The triangle .net user group met there (and may still). Walking through it, you get a definite 70's sci-fi feel, and there's a lot of wasted space. But as a corporate showpiece, it's excellent.

I always think of the Simon & Garfunkel song when hearing his name.

"This could explain the disconnect over cubicles. Maybe the people in charge of facilities, not having any concentration to shatter, have no idea that working in a cubicle feels to a hacker like having one's brain in a blender." [1]

1. http://paulgraham.com/gh.html

nothing beats walls and a door. this open plan office would not be so nice once people are on their phones.

i adore FLW, but this is not his best work by far.

To be sure, most (if not all) of the workers in the great workroom here did not have phones on their desks.

You can handle the noise with decent headphones, but I'm never really comfortable without my back to a wall.

Without the close ceilings or walls it might not be as bad, if he got the acoustics right it might be more like being outdoors than the echoing-cave effect most open plan offices have.

To be fair to Wright, the open plan was probably a design requirement. I very much doubt he had a choice in that.

Yeah, I'd rather work in a shipping container. This kind of design is psycho-manager-centric.

I wish I didn't have a phone at my desk.

I just changed employers. Found the new desk does not come with a phone, and may never come with a phone. We communicate via email, or hipchat, or just walking over and saying 'hi'.

I might miss it .. but so far, so good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com