[HN Gopher] "Final Usonian Home" by Frank Lloyd Wright Completed...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       "Final Usonian Home" by Frank Lloyd Wright Completed in Ohio
        
       Author : rmason
       Score  : 59 points
       Date   : 2025-04-07 21:50 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.dezeen.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.dezeen.com)
        
       | avonmach wrote:
       | This is awesome, they do tours of one of his houses near me,
       | thanks for sharing
        
         | Loughla wrote:
         | The houses he built are always very pretty, but they are just
         | really fancy Brady bunch houses to my eye.
        
       | brudgers wrote:
       | _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.
        
         | ryandrake wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | brudgers wrote:
           | 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.....
        
           | dfxm12 wrote:
           | _whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other
           | artist 's vision_
           | 
           | "Trying" is not a meaningful bar to clear. Love or care
           | doesn't matter, either. According to the article, the
           | foundation says that the building is simply not built to
           | Wright's spec, which is an objective measure.
           | 
           | The owners don't outright deny this, using a handful of of
           | qualifiers in response: "true to Wright's plan, _intent and
           | spirit while also ensuring that the home would meet current
           | building regulations. "_
           | 
           | Saying your house was designed by a famous architect,
           | especially one the stature of Wright brings a value and
           | prestige that is worth claiming, like any other brand. On the
           | flip side, if you own the brand, it is worth protecting from
           | knock offs.
        
             | brudgers wrote:
             | _meet current building regulations_
             | 
             | This is a synonym for "the worst construction allowed by
             | law."
             | 
             | If it wasn't designed to meet current building regulations,
             | the construction would be illegal.
        
               | gavinsyancey wrote:
               | That said, building code changes over time, and even if
               | Wright's original design met building code at the time it
               | was designed, it likely doesn't meet current building
               | regulations. I.e. it would be illegal to build exactly to
               | the original design, or at least if you did it would be
               | illegal to use the building.
        
         | masfuerte wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_of_the_Sun#Gallery
        
       | wnissen wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | Carrok wrote:
         | > 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.
        
           | TylerE wrote:
           | Worth pointing out that Wrogjt was usually wrong on such
           | matters. Fallingeater is structurally comprised and has
           | required substantial repairs over the years.
        
             | Carrok wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | dwater wrote:
               | I've always found Wright's work beautiful and was a fan
               | for some time, but after reading more about his life and
               | work, and happening to visit Fallingwater on a very rainy
               | day, my opinion has changed. His buildings are beautiful
               | art pieces but they are not good homes. He was too
               | cantankerous and self-righteous to accommodate the
               | reality that a home needs to be maintained and changed
               | over the years if it will continue to be functional.
        
             | IAmBroom wrote:
             | ... because, according to the engineering firm that
             | reviewed the original design blueprints in this millenium,
             | Wright's specifications for extra steel rebar in the cement
             | were ignored by the contractors. In their opinion/analysis,
             | the house would not have needed such repairs were it built
             | to his spec in the first place.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | 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...
        
         | themaninthedark wrote:
         | I too would be interested in knowing cost.
         | 
         | There is another comment that says that the contractor for
         | Falling Water didn't follow design and include extra cement and
         | rebar. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43621995
         | 
         | I don't know how I feel about the Wright organization's
         | pushback; on one hand this was built in 2025, well after
         | Wright's death abet to original prints(with only non-visible
         | modifications due to code) so I would not be willing to call it
         | a Wright house based on that.
         | 
         | However; if it is true to design, as much as possible(which
         | happens in current builds too), then it is a Wright house.
         | 
         | On the third hand, I think Wright would not agree... I remember
         | hearing stories of him going into houses he built and
         | rearranging the rooms back to how he had set them up. So
         | perhaps they are doing what he would do?
        
       | nothercastle wrote:
       | Beautiful and completely unlivable like most architecture works
        
         | Telemakhos wrote:
         | What makes it unlivable to you?
         | 
         | I did notice the lack of curtains or drapes on the bedroom,
         | which would make it hard to sleep in the summer at a high
         | latitude.
        
         | crote wrote:
         | Why do you believe so?
         | 
         | Looking at some virtual tours, it seems to be a fairly solid
         | design. I would probably disagree with a bunch of the
         | furniture, but the architecture itself is fairly close to what
         | I would expect in my ideal home.
        
       | defrost wrote:
       | Of etymological interest:                 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).
       | 
       | ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usonia
        
         | Pxtl wrote:
         | I don't get the need to make Usonian an acronym. Either way,
         | it's too bad the nomenclature got stuck in Wright's little cul-
         | de-sac instead of being more widespread, I think all of the
         | nations of the Americas would be ecstatic to have the word
         | "America" and "American" back.
        
           | badc0ffee wrote:
           | This seems especially true in South America, in Argentina for
           | example.
           | 
           | But, not here in Canada for some reason. We are fine with
           | terms like "North America" and "the Americas" being distinct
           | from America.
        
       | jamincan wrote:
       | @dang Surely this is mistakenly flagged? This is interesting and
       | hardly seems controversial or inflammatory.
        
       | jmclnx wrote:
       | What Beautiful a House. I wonder if any of his Usonian designs
       | are still being built these days.
       | 
       | Edit: Just found the reference and I need to learn to read :) So
       | yes is my answer
        
       | Pxtl wrote:
       | It's beautiful, but fundamentally I've always found Wright's
       | Usonian ideal - the US population living in rear-facing cottages
       | in the forest - to be repulsive.
       | 
       | I like forests. That's why I think they should be protected, and
       | the best way to protect them is to not smear the entire
       | population across them like very fine jam and carve infinite
       | roads through them to provide them with transportation and
       | government services like garbage collection.
       | 
       | The idea of presenting a bare facade to the street and turning
       | the front entrance inward only makes this vision even more
       | antisocial.
       | 
       | The man could make beautiful things but the planning principles
       | needed to provide that beauty were fundamentally ugly.
        
       | dylan604 wrote:
       | "According to Dykstra, who served as a general contractor on the
       | project with her mother Debbie, the three-bedroom, two-bedroom
       | house in Willoughby Hills, Ohio was built using plans of Wright's
       | Usonian called Project #5909, or Riverrock."
       | 
       | Assuming 2-bathroom house? Why oh why has editorial review just
       | become such a joke? This seems like such an obvious thing to
       | catch.
        
         | eszed wrote:
         | Ha! I read right past that - and in your quote, too - with my
         | brain filling in the expected "bathroom" instead of what's
         | written. Few publications - and probably few primarily for the
         | web - get _New Yorker_ -level copy-editor attention.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-08 23:01 UTC)