I'm curious what, specifically, the foundation claims is contrary to the plans. It's not like Wright himself built the houses (or did the drawings, for that matter). There's always been a process of modification when the contractor gets onsite and builds something. When Wright was alive he (or his secretary) would review pictures of the the resulting home and award a glazed red tile with Wright's signature engraved. That was the official recognition that you had a Frank Lloyd Wright home. Perhaps with all the litigation (such as with the Jean-Michel Basquiat authentication committee) the foundation is scared to get involved.
I saw Riverrock over Christmas when it was 95% complete, and it does look really cool. Similar in a lot of ways, especially the living room, but quite a different floor plan. I hope the doors are a bit wider than the Louis Penfield house on the same site; even folks of normal width have to rotate sideways. Toilet in a narrow alcove, narrow cushions on the furniture, etc. Absolute commitment to design integrity, not always comfortable. Still a fascinating place to stay.
> There's always been a process of modification when the contractor gets onsite and builds something.
And famously, like in the case of Fallingwater among others I believe, he forced contractors to remove supports that the contractors deemed structurally necessary and had added, against his designs. In one case at least the contractors refused and Wright himself took a sledge hammer to them personally. At least that’s what I was told by the tour guide.
Worth pointing out that Wrogjt was usually wrong on such matters. Fallingeater is structurally comprised and has required substantial repairs over the years.
The house has received pushback from official Frank Lloyd Wright organisations such as the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (The Foundation) and the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conversancy
From a practical standpoint this usually means that if you put this house in a publication about Wright, the Foundation and Conservancy will deny you use of their archival material and photographic access to their sites.
Their behavior is why you rarely see Wrights work at Florida Southern College in books on Wright despite Florida Southern being the largest collection of Wright designed buildings anywhere, one of a few examples of his commercial work, absolutely amazing designs, and actually in ordinary use…worth a visit if you are passing by Lakeland on I4.
I was wondering if there was some practical, legalese reason for this "pushback." It seems that whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision, the original artist's foundation or estate or representatives will always chime in to say something like "Well, we disavow this work and it has nothing to do with the actual artist!" No matter how much love, care, and attention to detail in the derivative work. Happens a lot when a movie is based on a book. The adaptation is never good enough.
Usonian homes were supposed to be for "middle income" people. What did this one cost?
Of course it would need some structural improvements. Wright had some problems on the structural engineering side.
Fallingwater is currently getting major structural upgrading.[1] There are arguments about whom to blame in the original construction, but it's clear that the aggressive cantilevered design didn't have enough safety margin.
The word Usonian appears to have been coined by James Duff Law, a Scottish writer born in 1865.
In a miscellaneous collection, Here and There in Two Hemispheres (1903), Law quoted a letter of his own (dated June 18, 1903) that begins "We of the United States, in justice to Canadians and Mexicans, have no right to use the title 'Americans' when referring to matters pertaining exclusively to ourselves."
He went on to acknowledge that some author had proposed "Usona" (United States of North America), but that he preferred the form "Usonia" (United States of North Independent America).
I'm curious what, specifically, the foundation claims is contrary to the plans. It's not like Wright himself built the houses (or did the drawings, for that matter). There's always been a process of modification when the contractor gets onsite and builds something. When Wright was alive he (or his secretary) would review pictures of the the resulting home and award a glazed red tile with Wright's signature engraved. That was the official recognition that you had a Frank Lloyd Wright home. Perhaps with all the litigation (such as with the Jean-Michel Basquiat authentication committee) the foundation is scared to get involved.
I saw Riverrock over Christmas when it was 95% complete, and it does look really cool. Similar in a lot of ways, especially the living room, but quite a different floor plan. I hope the doors are a bit wider than the Louis Penfield house on the same site; even folks of normal width have to rotate sideways. Toilet in a narrow alcove, narrow cushions on the furniture, etc. Absolute commitment to design integrity, not always comfortable. Still a fascinating place to stay.
> There's always been a process of modification when the contractor gets onsite and builds something.
And famously, like in the case of Fallingwater among others I believe, he forced contractors to remove supports that the contractors deemed structurally necessary and had added, against his designs. In one case at least the contractors refused and Wright himself took a sledge hammer to them personally. At least that’s what I was told by the tour guide.
Worth pointing out that Wrogjt was usually wrong on such matters. Fallingeater is structurally comprised and has required substantial repairs over the years.
I don’t know if “usually” is fair. “Sometimes” sure.
TBF what I’m referring to was not part of the building itself and not in need of repairs. It was a walkway area.
The house has received pushback from official Frank Lloyd Wright organisations such as the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (The Foundation) and the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conversancy
From a practical standpoint this usually means that if you put this house in a publication about Wright, the Foundation and Conservancy will deny you use of their archival material and photographic access to their sites.
Their behavior is why you rarely see Wrights work at Florida Southern College in books on Wright despite Florida Southern being the largest collection of Wright designed buildings anywhere, one of a few examples of his commercial work, absolutely amazing designs, and actually in ordinary use…worth a visit if you are passing by Lakeland on I4.
I was wondering if there was some practical, legalese reason for this "pushback." It seems that whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision, the original artist's foundation or estate or representatives will always chime in to say something like "Well, we disavow this work and it has nothing to do with the actual artist!" No matter how much love, care, and attention to detail in the derivative work. Happens a lot when a movie is based on a book. The adaptation is never good enough.
Typically this type of organization exists to protect the “brand” in the interests of heirs…for example, https://shop.franklloydwright.org/?_gl=1*fsfezc*_gcl_au*NTk1.....
Usonian homes were supposed to be for "middle income" people. What did this one cost?
Of course it would need some structural improvements. Wright had some problems on the structural engineering side. Fallingwater is currently getting major structural upgrading.[1] There are arguments about whom to blame in the original construction, but it's clear that the aggressive cantilevered design didn't have enough safety margin.
[1] https://www.architecturelab.net/fallingwater-undergoes-7-mil...
This is awesome, they do tours of one of his houses near me, thanks for sharing
Beautiful and completely unlivable like most architecture works
Of etymological interest:
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usonia