Comments on: This Bold House: 5 Architects Who Defy Convention

By: Ash

Ash — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:29:53 +0000

Frank Lloyd Wright is and will remain the FATHER of ARCHITECTURE!!
get your facts right first buddy...its FALLINgWATER not fallingDOWNwater!!
as for Gaudi...no one has been able to create such masterpieces since him.. Hellish thinking!...awesome architect..which i doubt any one of us could EVER match standards with...so better shut it folks!

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:20 +0000

I heard that Wright hated the idea of having to use rebars in his concrete... why, I have no idea ...

And thanks for the link, Eugenio MartÃnez Sierra!

By: Yelda

Yelda — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:38:08 +0000

Good points... House has to function the way the owner wants it, not us, the architects... Sometimes we forget it and think that we are designing for ourselves.

I recommend this article "Does design = control?"
http://www.arkitectrue.com/?p=165

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:18:29 +0000

Sure, these guys make pretty buildings--but I think the most impressive home ever is Forestiere's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestiere_Underground_Gardens

By: Solid?

Solid? — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:53:47 +0000

A house needs to function in at least two areas to be successful in my view: 1. Keep the rain out 2. Provide a space in which I can live. Form follows function? My arse. He just made boxes a style and sold them as being cool.

By: DesignRefugee

DesignRefugee — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:40:32 +0000

Obviously Dan, you've never visited a home or building designed by Corbu. The structures he designed may be composed of simple forms (as are almost ALL buildings) but the spaces he creates are complex and fascinating. And one only has to look at the Chapel of Notre Dame du Haut (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ronchamps/ronchamps.html) to know he did not limit himself to "simple form."

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:06:21 +0000

To put Le Corbusier, who designs in such simple form that his buildings are ugly, in the same class as GaudÃ, Adam, etc., is an utter sin.

Yes, his buildings may be solid, but they are still ugly.

By: Sid Morrison

Sid Morrison — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:07:10 +0000

I'm totally in agreement with Jerrt. Being an architect is much more than just being a creative artist (which Wright arguably was); they must also understand building sciences and structural engineering. Wright ignored these aspects of his trade and as a result, his buildings have been a nightmare to conserve over just the few decades since they have been built. "Fallingdownwater" is just the most notorious example, but there are others. Yes, Wright "pushed the envelope", but he went well beyond the limits of the day's technology. This wasn't a surprise either -- there have been brilliantly skilled architects for hundreds of years who knew how to design beautiful structures that also lasted without crazily extraordinary preservation measures 20 years after they were built. Wright's creations are akin to many of the "concept cars" shown at autoshows. These are often built to look good, but not hold up in the real world or be strictly functional -- they are styling exercises and nothing more. When they are occasionally brought to production, there are always a myriad of engineering changes. If Wright's creations had been branded "concept buildings" that would be one thing, but instead they were real commissions from real clients. Straight talk from Sid.

By: jerrt

jerrt — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:56 +0000

wright defied convention, but his houses were more art than houses. My dad [an architect] always told me about all the structural and design problems his houses had.

By: Eugenio MartÃnez Sierra

Eugenio MartÃnez Sierra — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:52:31 +0000

Last week I was seeing the "capricho" of Gaudi

http://www.rutasporcantabria.com/capricho_comillas.jpg