Wright & Corbuiser. Two very influential architects of modernism with very strong and convicted views towards the ideal intentions of the affordable single family home.
Wright// designed houses to focus on something beyond the industry of construction and advancements of materials, but aims to focus on the "organic", the "interior-space concept", specific relationships with place. a movement beyond just the exterior. While Le Corbusier’s plans for emerging architectural shifts involved maxing out standardization and industrialization, Wright’s ideas became the brain-child of discovering the human factor- the purpose of architecture itself.
Then there is the influence and intentions of the Eames. There aim was to literally create something wonderful, modern, rich in space, with relationships to its place with truly OFF-THE-SHELF products. They did not customize a new structural scheme, but utilized common standardized kit of parts. They allowed for variance within one system, but limited the variance of customization that could occur. The Eames seemed to understand the embedded social norm of the American as a consumer of products and it can be perceived that they aimed to create a beautiful shelf to contain the things for living. [the Eames addition was added by Lindsey Bahe]
who was right? which is a better approach and option to the creation of and the living in a single family home? are they both as extremely in opposition as it seems at first glance? whose approach are we closer to in today's home developments? is there perhaps the perfect blend/balance/formula of all the ideals listed above that should be exercised when designing today's 21st century house?
i think this posts lends itself to really digging into the core of what each designer[s] intention was to how one can create a home of value, that is affordable and that has methods that we can still utilize today. i think that the posts allows us to look into and offer some new perspectives, i considered combining dan's posts with this to include nuetra into the conversation, but liked how dan's posts set up the argument of designing for the occupant from the inside - out [FRANK] vs. nuetra's blending of outside and inside and perhaps suggestions an emphasis on bringing the outside - in.
ReplyDeleteI think the developments of today couldn't be further from what Frank Lloyd Wright envisioned, designed, and built. Wright believed in organic simplicity and explained it as "to know what to leave out and what to put in; just where and just how, ah, that is to have been educated in knowledge and simplicity - toward ultimate freedom of expression" (Wright, 42). This simplicity touched every part of his designs. He believed that every piece of furniture and artwork should be designed into the house as integral features. His clients, however, did not feel the same way. Once Wright was done and the house was built, the clients would move every piece of furniture they owned back into their house, against Wright's wishes. He stated that because of this, "very few of the houses, therefore, were anything but painful to me after the clients brought in their belongings" (Wright, 43). Today, instead of designing houses that are unique and speak to the character and likeness of the homeowners, people purchase homes with no character or uniqueness and they have to fill their home with "stuff" to make it stand out from everyone else. Although I think designing every feature into the home is a good way to express pride and ownership, it's not practical for everyday homeowners. I think the Eames' influence on the prefabricated elements of homes allows for the building of affordable houses. The variety within the prefabrication also allows for the home to fit the unique style and needs of the homeowner.
ReplyDeleteI agree when your statement about today's designs being far from Wright's vision. The idea of bringing simplicity, nature, organic materials and light is desired, however many developments have ignored these features. In the recent past, homes have been created with plastic siding, artificial flooring/wall materials and small box-like windows placed with no valid intentions. I have walked past houses before that were missing windows on a whole side/back facade. Simplicity and connectedness with nature through materials such as glass (pg 53, natural house) and natural and simple concepts could be easily implemented in affordable homes (especially if square-footage were decreased). Corbusier had a strong interest in mass production, this is more like the idea in developments in recent times (but perhaps lacking the thoughtfulness of his work). "A town that is well laid out and built with mass-produced elements will seem calm, ordered and neat- it will pose discipline on the inhabitants(pg 268-9)," would or do consumers today favor this idea/statement?
DeleteI am also in total favor of Frank Lloyd Wright's vision and it's a shame that today's housing is the complete opposite from what was invisioned. However, Krystal brings up Corbusier's mass production approach,which I actually favor even more. Through the simplicity of design and materiality, Corb created wonderful communities of the future. I question I always wondered with today's housing is... why vinyl? Why all this synthetic nonsense that mocks the colors of nature? Frank Lloyd Wright and Corb held true to the purity of natural materiality. We're so far into the game that I also wonder if anyone would ever accept these forms of housing. Why didn't anyone listen to these guys?
DeleteI believe that today's designs have drastically changed from the designs of these authors for primarily one reason: money. Just as we have talked about before, cookie cutter houses are appealing because they are inexpensive to design, build, and sell. Creatively designed houses are now (for the most part) built for the rich. Unfortunately, as Krystal has stated, people prefer to build their homes with personal "stuff" than create beautiful designs. Home owners tend to purchase their mass produced box and piece together what they feel is comforting. Art, furniture, and landscaping are often add-ons that have nothing to do with the overall design of the house. Housing units today lack all continuity and simplicity that Neurta, Wright, and Corb brought to the industry.
DeleteDan brings up a great point, money of course has affected the change in housing designs. Inexpensive housing is hard to design using all natural materials. However, it seems as though the simplicity and continuity in designs displayed in the work of these architects could at least be used as an inspiration. Instead, these examples or forms haven't been displayed in the least bit when looking at suburban developments. Attics are back (and who uses them), basements are included (some never finished), and other elements. Instead of adding square footage to homes, and other unnecessary elements these qualities of harmony, continuity, natural elements and simplicity could be revisited and integrated in any type of home. This goes back to Lauren's question, why weren’t these qualities considered more- the idea was introduced years ago by these architects. It almost seems as though there is a high respect for their designs but not a lot of motivation to re-use their thoughtful ideas?
DeleteI agree that most of the time money plays into the fact that materiality becomes only a surface veneer rather than actually taking the effort to put in quality natural materials. The same goes for unfinished basements as long as it is considered unfinished that square footage cannot be taxed and it becomes a glorified inexpensive storage space.
DeleteBut how much of it is because the materials are too expensive or the fact that people are building houses that they cannot even furnish because they are building beyond their means? Homes are getting larger and inflation is only increasing and materials are only becoming more scarce. People expect the largest and most expensive "looking" homes to show off to others and to hide the fact that now they are going to be swimming in mortgage payments. Where buying a home that has a modest square footage and true potential could be remodeled in prime materials (real wood floors, stone fire place, green construction, wood siding,etc...). This would allow for the quality and longevity of the home to increase.
Also, other than the size of the home effecting how "inexpensively" the home is constructed... How has the immediate nature of society started to form these types of communities. The introduction of Pre Fabrication in homes decreased construction time and the demand from society for immediate turn around (fast food, increased transportation, internet, etc) has caused a mentality among communities that custom homes are too much work. They require an immense amount of time from the homeowners, increased construction time, and the uncertainty if they are making the right choice (material selection, floor plan layout, electrical) where most homes now you can pick out of a catalog and see that you like it because there are three show homes that you can walk through. We must remember today people want to see what they are getting and they want it now.
DeleteLe Corbusier was successful in cranking out homes and thinking about them as a machine. One of the main reasons his mass production of homes was so successful was his choice of materials. The price of steel and cement allowed for his communities to be built at a very rapid rate (some homes could be done in 3 days) (Cohen 256). He used standardized pieces and offered a new look to homes by introducing roofs with no pitch, large windows and massive pieces of wood. The concrete exterior offered an aesthetic that had not been typical for residential housing. With the demand and shift in the economy he saw an opportunity. He wanted to create stronger relationships between tenants and landlords, a change to urban and suburban sites by making them “vast and orthogonal (Cohen 259)”, and finally defining homes as solid and secure. He felt that towns laid out and built with mass-production elements would seem calm, ordered and neat imposing discipline of the inhabitants (Cohen 268).
DeleteI think that Le Corbusier’s concept of mass production is still going strong, (although lacking visual aesthetics in terms of challenging architecture). His statement about the feelings resulting in calm and order may be true but there is a definite lack for personality and originality.
Frank Lloyd Wright created homes and developments that were in harmony with their surroundings. He maintained his belief that the human scale was to be used when creating homes and that existing homes wasted precious interior space and lacked detail. He would create residences through the marriage of form and function. He had a focus was on ending the ‘cluttered home ‘(Bramhall 40) through the declaration of the lower level as one room and bedrooms separate or on a second floor.
In terms of his community designs, Usonia (a term coined by Wright) demonstrated his continued efforts to create homes and have a continued sense of integrity. He “believed architecture could be a means of perfecting American society, a kind of moral grammar that included a harmonious relationship between dwelling and natural site, between house and materials, and between outer and inner space (Princeton 5)”. His plans would demonstrate his use of organic architecture in that he would allow the ground to predetermine all features, building with nature not against it. He knew that there was “no one right way to organize American communal life, and that any such organization might never be a settled matter, but a dynamic unfolding environment always in progress (Princeton 6)”. Today, Mr. Wright’s architecture is seen as historical and timeless. While he completed 500 works, I wonder how many were homes. Perhaps the reason his designs didn't catch on and stay was because of the numbers? Usonia was a great concept but because of a lack of funding the numbers dwindle and the concept never really had a fair shot to be successful and prove to America a strong community dynamic.
In looking at both of their theories and focuses and what you have all stated, I personally think that America is still focused on the ideal that bigger = better and displays the ideal status. We read about how the residents of these large homes don't even know their neighbors. How many rooms in their homes are furnished? Are they living the Wright mindset in regards to lacking furniture because they have spent all of their money creating this 'rich facade'? Are these people happy? How do they feel in a home at such a scale?
DeleteBuilders are still stuck in the mindset that they want top dollar and they want to make it the quickest way possible. While the resources are out there to introduce more plans in a mass produced neighborhood and the opportunity to create harmony with the environment it is just not wanted.
People often live in excess. They fill their homes to the brim, spending money and for some each year they throw thousands of dollars into their city dump because they cannot be content with what they have. People often add on because they think they don't have the right amount of space for their family when a spring cleaning or a realistic scale of furnishings would provide the relief in the existing home that they are looking for.
Using longer lasting materials, greener choices and changing plans would help, but until the home buyers stop buying their only options or make a stink about it, America will continue in this cycle. I would like to know how much more these materials cost, are they harder to make, find and mass produce? Would they offer America more factories and more job opportunities? Could we recycle existing materials and create even better resourceful options for home design?
People are content and have the instant gratification mindset. How many people (current residents) are actually bothered by the cookie cutters? We know why many of us are :-)
Krystal, You bring up a very good point about the overall connectedness of the home to nature through windows is generally missing in developments of today. The use of windows in Wright’s designs enhanced the overall appeal of his homes and the connectedness to nature. I also think he was way before his time in using windows to that extent. I think that Dan is correct in saying that the design of homes is not as thoughtful today because of money. It’s cheaper and quicker to design, build and purchase homes that do not take into account the landscape and every detail of the design like Wright would have done. It’s also cheaper and easier to materials such as vinyl siding. Corbusier wanted to move away from using natural products, so he may have been pleasantly surprised to see that material in such heavy use.
DeleteLaura, you nicely stated the continuous problem of people buying houses beyond their means (whether they see it as an investment in their future, or a status symbol) and have nothing left over to furnish the house with quality, lasting materials. I don’t understand why homeowners want to invest in a home that is well-beyond their means. Like you say, they will be swimming in mortgage payments, which will leave them without being able to take care of their home’s upkeep the way it should be taken care of. Personally, I think Wright was on the right track in his beliefs that everything should be designed into the home, down to the smallest detail. Society’s thought process about what qualifies as a status symbol house needs to change from the idea of having the biggest house in the area, to having the best designed house in the area. I agree with Candace: society thinks “bigger = better”, when “quality should be more important than quantity.”
Present architecture is totally different from their ideas. I agree with Candace's approach about Le Corbusier. Mass production is very popular today and that is why we can't say his idea is valid now. On the other hand, we can mention that his perception and today's mass production conflict with each other. Le Corbusier's goal about mass production is for benefit of clients as quiet an architect. But, now, it is definitely for money. Aim is more house, more clients and more money with low quality and lacking of aesthetic. This is also a response about Wright's idea. Wright always defended naturalness about construction and materials. He wanted to create houses like garden within interior. At the same time, he used organic materials in his construction. In contrast that synthetic and lacking quality products instead of natural materials are used in present buildings especially in mass production houses.Also, with advertisements this kind of construction materials are offered like reasonable and so, unhealthy buildings emerge. I am sometimes thinking maybe do we give a chance present builders as buying this kind of houses?
ReplyDelete