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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
"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]
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.
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:
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.
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.
44 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 90.8 ms ] threadWhenever 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.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73172555@N00/1958939613/in/set-...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73172555@N00/1958939599/in/set-...
http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/mit-sues-frank-gehry-ov...
A very different feeling from what I get looking at the SC Johnson building!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
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_...
what about New Forest? There are plenty of others too, but that's probably the largest and most well known.
Gloucester Cathedral reminds me of the Fungus Forests from the Nausicca animated film: https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nausicca%20fo...
i adore FLW, but this is not his best work by far.
I might miss it .. but so far, so good.
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.
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.
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?
PS: Accidentally down voted you sorry. (Damm iPad)
1. http://paulgraham.com/gh.html
Here's the explanation given for why the columns were stronger than the regulators expected:
[1] http://www.pbs.org/flw/buildings/scjohnson/scjohnson_interio...http://99percentinvisible.org/post/52361601736/episode-81-re...
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.