Harmony: Neutra and Wright
Both Richard Neutra and Frank Lloyd Wright designed homes with the intent to create harmonious living experiences; however, harmony was defined and expressed in drastically different ways. Neutra believed that a strong connection to the nearby environment was important to house design and was important to the user. Wright, on the other hand, primarily focused on the built environment to improve harmony and simplicity. This poses the question; is there a right way to create harmony or should just the existence of harmony be reason to celebrate? Both designers applied natural materials and seemed to think about the relationship of the house with its place [sun, views, etc.], should this still be an important aspect to homes today? Both designers strategically utilized and programmed outside space as an extension of the interior, why is this a valuable practice to the quality of living?
 |
| frank lloyd wright |
 |
| nuetra. |
i think this posts can start to really talk about the importance of materiality and the single family home. both designers are more similar than it seems and have strong notions of REGIONALISM...designing with context, place, and climate. along with NATURAL materials vs. synthetic. how does this relate to today's residential environment? how is corbusier's ideals different or similar? both nuetra and wright are concerned with bringing the outside in...creating connections with site and expansions of programmed outside space. what do we have to learn from this? what were their specific methods?
ReplyDeleteI think both designers put a strong emphasis on the relationship between nature and the built environment. Nuetra seemed to focus more on the community setting and neighbors in the surrounding area by stating "one can really judge human dwellings anywhere only with a comprehensive look at their neighborhoods" (Nuetra, 31). Wright on the other hand tended to look at the environment to shape the design of the home. Even though their approaches were different, both designers were successful in their venture to create harmonious living spaces by creating a connection between the interior and exterior. In the homes built today, we could learn a lot from this idea of creating a harmonious living environment. Instead of increasing the square footage of the home while decreasing the lot size, we should take a cue from Nuetra and Wright and design homes that incorporate the exterior as an extension of the interior living environment.
ReplyDeleteOn whether or not there is a right way to create harmony, I think there can be various ways to create harmony, or what one perceives as it. The way that Wright and Neutra created harmony through connecting interiors with the natural environment (in their own ways) should certainly be taken into consideration in homes today. Through the way that both architects “brought the outside in,” much can be learned. By creating an interior environment that reaches towards the elements of nature and the exterior, one doesn’t feel confined by walls, but rather connected to the outside world. This can allow an opportunity to decrease the inside of the home size while provoking a stronger connection with the exterior. Wright started doing this on different levels, one being the idea of getting rid of less-used space in homes such as attics and basements (pg 37, natural house). He also began to view the wall as a screen (pg 38, natural house) to bring the outside in and the inside out. Wright created harmony through balance of interior spaces and exterior elements. Other ways harmony can possibly be created is 1) balancing private/social spaces within a home, 2) positioning a home to fully utilize nature’s elements such as wind, sun, heat and cold and 3) by creating a sense of community within a neighborhood by placement of homes.
ReplyDeleteWhere do we even begin to fix the issue of implementing the purity of materiality and the environment in today's housing? There is too many restrictions on landscape and synthetic materials used. I think there is too much settling in the design, and if you look at the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, who was infamous for bringing personalization into a home, we totally are. His intention to connect surrounding nature to the interior and its materials, was done in such a dynamic way every time. Wright was very intricate, which probably isn't too sufficient compared to Corb's idea of housing, however you come to respect the thoughtfulness that goes into one's environment. Corb uses materiality in a complete different manner. Rather than taking the surrounding environment and tying it in with interiors, he simply implements the sense of nature within materiality used from its direct state. Comparing to today's housing, we see too much synthetic materiality and nature. We are mocking the purity of the a natural landscape and what it has to offer, and this has molded society in return, setting a standard for how we live and the environment we surround ourselves in.
ReplyDeleteI applaud Neutra for using materials the way he did in his House M-A-K in Long Beach. Not only did he use natural woods throughout the house but he was able to link them with exterior views of manicured landscaping. I think its one thing to use materials that reveal naturalistic characteristics, but Neutra used them in such a way that brought a true connection between house and environment (Neutra 187).
DeleteLauren, I agree that society is settling for homes that they feel the need to fit into, rather than having the home fit their needs. The use of synthetic materials does nothing to enhance the features on the homes, if anything, it offers plain, boring facades. I don't know what it is specifically about pure, natural materials that makes the built environment beautiful and warm, but I think there needs to be more natural materials incorporated into standard homes.
DeleteWhile I admire the harmony that was created in the designs of Wright and Neutra I think about today's society and how times have changed. Could it be stated that most homes lack the harmony with nature because of privacy and security sought out by the homeowner? As we have discussed before, many homes are double income meaning that they will often be empty for hours each day. People don't want to attract crime or unwarranted attention brought on by the transparent home. Additionally, if the development remains defined by the current plat process (10 ft from your neighbor) people would not be in favor in the harmonious nature homes that both architects created. Not to mention by the time they get home from working a 9-10 hr shift, it is dark and they cannot enjoy the view anyways. Society is too fast, people don't stop to smell the roses or sit and enjoy nature.
ReplyDeleteThe homes I think of when thinking about this are those in California up in the hills, overlooking the ocean. Secluded, private drives, gated communities. I know that Wright had the prairie homes and many designs in Chicago and in some areas (even Omaha in Dundee mimics these designs)it is not successful in create harmony because of the lack of attention to the existing area and the tight property lines.
Maybe current homeowners feel their homes are in harmony with their lifestyle and that fulfills their needs enough...Having a private space to retreat to that is filled with furniture and surrounded with family is what they want... Maybe they want the views that Wright and Neutra introduced, when they go on their family vacations or weekend getaways?
candace.
Deletei think you have a point, but i am sure that dan [our landscape student] could help us understand the use of landscape both natural and manmade [walls, etc] that could bring one privacy, but also create greater relationships with our outside space.
today are window openings, and doors are truly just established off of a generic spec and have little to do with views, sun, wind, etc. [as mentioned in my very first post about my own house.] having at least some morality to think about our views would be a step forward. also today, many of the "porches" truly do not allow for one to occupy...and if we want outside space and privacy in our backyards...we put up fences...further creating separation from our neighbors.
but it is also one thing to desire privacy due to lifestyle change...its another to be satisfied with a house that turns its back on all things that natural...turns its back on place...and context...and truly has reverted back to a "synthetic cave" of prehistoric times. [perhaps too dramatic, but in essence it is often what it feels like for most standard middle-class 140,000-180,000 dollar homes]
The success of Neutra and Wright's theories lies in the emphasis both placed on the human factor and appealing to the senses. Through simplicity and implementing nature, it seems that both were able to get these important elements down and make all design decision with the resident in mind. It was stated in Life and Human Habitats that "what satisfies human beings is rarely fully new and unheard of" (p. 36).
ReplyDeleteLifestyles today have definitely changed, but we as human certainly still desire these basic principles in a home. However, the problem may be that we are conditioned, as mentioned before to work with what we've got and "make it our own" (through upgrades, furnishings, etc.) We are used to having "box-to-box" floorplans, as Wright put it, with tall privacy fences, and little views of nature. I'm sure if many homeowners thought a "usonian" type home would be accessible, they would welcome the chance to relax each time they walk in the door, much like on a vacation (as Candace mentions).
After the Industrial revolution, synthetic products came into our lives and natural products began to become expensive in every filed of life like organic foods, cosmetic products and clothes. That is the reason why using natural materials in architecture became overpriced. The builder are always thinking to construct by minimum profit and so, they use cheap material which are synthetic.Nowadays, living in ecologic houses is richness. By the way, when I first came to the USA, I realized something while I was looking for an apartment in Houston that number of windows are usually low in apartments or size of windows are really small and, the houses are very dark in the daytime. If you want to live for sun drenched homes, you have to pay more money than the others for these homes. Recently, living in a this kind of house is almost luxury. In contrast to that using small size of windows increased in Europe for minimizing heat abduction and preventing loss of energy. Actually, construction law was changed about that in some countries in Europe. Besides that Wright and Neutra believed Natural Homes but, the age in which we live has been deemed the era of technology and the technology causes locking ourselves in the houses and cut themselves off from outside world.
ReplyDeletegreat conversation. i think that overall we have to think about living WITH site/place/context...rather than separating ourselves with it. this first act of divorcing ourselves from the natural occurs when developers prepare the land for development...flattening and creating artificial landscapes in order to permit quick and easy construction of stock homes. we were educated on this during the week of reading and discussion based on the developer. we also learned that there are mega [walmart-esque] housing developers who control a vast majority of the developments occurring nationwide. with this approach houses are actually generic boxes meant to be "plopped and dropped" anywhere at any orientation. this is problem number 1. being more conscious of regionalism. taking advantage of local materials. taking advantage of climate. look to the differences between wright's homes and nuetra's. we have california versus. prairie/east coast. wright requires thicker walls to serve as thermal mass...both depend on large overhanding roof structures to protect from the summer sun. this does not exist today.
ReplyDeleteone real obstacle as well is costs. what we are looking at now is custom built and designed homes. therefore the costs will go up. but i wonder if governmental incentives to build with the landscape and there is proof of more efficient energy consumption and boosting local economies and resources that perhaps this could help. how natural materials omit no VOCs and help contribute to the physical HEALTH of the community. i am also sure that the value of these homes would rarely depreciate due to the natural qualities that one truly values. the house becomes valued...not just the things you put in it.
another point on the costs...is methods like breuer and wright to create BUILT in custom furniture...or MODULAR furniture that can be re-arranged is a way to save on buying furniture once occupied, no?