Fit into the landscape?

2blowhards post on Frank Lloyd Wright prompted one reader there to comment that part of Wright's claim to fame (and BTW, I, at least, am not saying Wright was without merit --- simply that his reputation seems to have run ahead of other matters) is that he helped in promoting "[t]he idea of making a house fit into the landscape..."

That is indeed a common thought and I have heard it many times, and not only in connection with Wright, but as a general proposition, though Wright may have indeed helped that idea become popular.

But is the idea of any value? Should houses "fit into the landscape"? And indeed do Wright's houses "fit into the landscape" any better than houses by architects of his era who proclaimed their own genius not quite so loudly? And putting the drama of Frank Lloyd Wright aside (and judging by many comments, our interest in him is as much about celebrity as architecture) what does it mean for a house (or any structure) to "fit into the landscape"?

I have questions here, not answers. But my sense is that having a "fit into the landscape" is a largely meaningless idea. Or maybe a phrase with so many potential meanings that it becomes useless. Certainly one can agree that in modern terms we should build so that our impact on the environment is minimal. (At least I would hope we could agree on such a truism.) But Wright can hardly be thinking of that; Fallingwater, by its very location spanning a stream, has a high potential for adverse environmental impacts. And it's expensive construction. By both environmental impact and cost, "Fallingwater" as one instance can hardly seem to offer any larger social lessons of fitting into the landscape. In fact, building over a stream is a text-book example of brazenly imposing oneself on the landscape and would not be allowed, for example, under the Shoreline Management rules of the State of Washington. (I guess Wright could have applied for the "genius variance.")

Could "fit into the landscape" refer to tree houses or subterranean houses such one can learn about here?

Could "fit into the landscape" mean that one should plant lushly around the house? Or that one should adapt the house to the climate? Those are ancient practices, well beyond a mere "idea," and hardly something started in Wright's era.

So what is it? What does that idea ("fit into the landscape") mean? Does it mean to make the house invisible or at least visually obscured etc etc? If so, why? (Not that Fallingwater can be remotely said to do so, at least from the photos I have seen: no wallflower that house) Why would one want a house to blend in so you can't see it? I mean if that's what you want, fine; that's a personal choice. But why any imperative to make the house unobtrusive? Some of the most marvelous landscape combine the natural setting with human alteration and with human alteration which can hardly be missed. (Sackville-West's house & garden at Sissinghurst pop to mind for some reason.) Is "fit into the landscape" a different concept from "working gracefully with the natural setting"?

Honestly, I have no idea exactly what it means but if I have heard the phrase once I have heard it ten thousand times. I suspect that it's a verbalization designed to provide a rationale where none truly exists, a way of characterizing something so that when one sees it, the words supercede one's own reactions. (Calling dull, boring brown an "earthtone" would be another instance.) There is a power of words to dull our own perception of the physical world so that our conclusions follow the words which preceded. I wonder if "fit into the landscape" is one of those phrases. Somewhat like "designed by an artist" maybe it's a phrase which seeks to end inquiry rather than start it. There are a lot of awkwardly-sited and poorly-proportioned buildings but I wonder if the term "fit into the landscape" reveals much about their problems.

More later, I suspect.

Comments

[acdouglas]

The answer to (almost) all your questions may be found in this concise essay.

ACD

[bandiera]

I have just finished reading Christopher Alexander's The Timeless Way of Building. Alexander takes a swipe at FLW by noting that none of his precepts, which are largely focused on achieving that fit within nature - a living architecture - can be built if ego is allowed to enter the picture.

I know I am just cherrypicking from the article that ACD links, but

"So here I stand before you preaching organic architecture"

sort of sums up the impression one gets of FLW.

Alexander suggests that the buildings need to have a purpose. You can't just slap them up because they will be lacking the underlying orientation to the nature; the "pattern language" that governs their construction. What was it that drove the Kaufmanns to want to build a weekend house in the woods at Fallingwater? To me it seems they were parachuting their urban desires into the countryside; a juxtaposition that I think Alexander would challenge.

I have been out to Fallingwater a few times. It's an interesting idea, and maybe was pioneering in getting people to think about building in place. But I'd agree with the essay from the 2BH website where it talks about Fallingwater being a horrible place to live. I remember how damp it felt (and what did you expect?). I have never forgotten the comment that one guide made about the big kettle in the fireplace - how you could not use the fireplace, because each time you did you would burn off the orange paint on the kettle. And really, how practical is it these days to have a big kettle in your fireplace?

It looks nice, but it's a showpiece - not a place to "live." I guess, even before encountering Alexander, that is what I've always held as a valid criticism of FLW's work. Maybe form following ego following function. Maybe FLW was too tied up in the "starchitect" mould to do anything more than point the way.

[JRoth]

Um, Fallingwater was never intended to be a place to "live." It's a weekend getaway - 90 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh. Why on earth would you hold it to the comfort standards of a year-round primary home?

The Kaufmanns (as you must know if you toured the place) were expecting a cabin-style house facing the waterfall. I suspect that, too, would have been a bit damp. I don't see any way of claiming that it would have been better, or more special, or preferable. I suppose you allude to Alexander suggesting it shouldn't be done at all, a concept that eludes me (my failure, I guess).

I find Alexander far too dense. What I know of him is that he had to be fired from designing a mini community at a lake near Austin because, although his concepts were great, nothing was getting _built_. Damning situation for a master builder.

As I wrote in the previous FLW thread, most of Wright's work is eminently livable - winess how many of his clients were repeat or word of mouth. And witness how few were the showy egotists you might expect to desire "showpieces." College professors, young families, modestly successful entrepreneurs - these were FLW's bread and butter, from 1893 to 1959. The ones who are still alive tend to be in the houses still. Wonder why....

[acdouglas]

Alexander, eay? You need to read another view of that wannabe cult leader and Savior Of The World with his fascist 60s sensibilities and prole-pandering rhetoric.

Here.

And for a quick take on his wannabe co-priest Nikos Salingaros, Here.

These are not sterling gentlemen, and their utopian ideas of little substance, no matter how soothing to the prole soul.

ACD

[bandiera]

JRoth - without wishing to belabour the subject(s), I think it is reasonable to assume that supply and demand will always guarantee a premium will be paid for FLW properties, even as they become fixer-uppers. The 2BH piece made a (snarky) comment to the effect that FLW was short and designed ceilings to be impossibly low and cramping to taller folk. This could just be apocryphal bitching, I suppose. Just because people live in them doesn't mean they are built for 'gracious living'.

I can't remember exactly, but I thought the FLW fees for Fallingwater were reported to be quite sizeable and subject to scope creep, as they were for other properties he built. He was well-regarded and genuinely trailblazing in his time, so neither his fees nor the fact that people sought him out is all that surprising. I might argue that the Kaufmanns were interested in something a bit showy, and Fallingwater is indeed a showpiece. Didn't FLW basically demand free rein and override some of the Kaufmann's designs for living? I probably remember incorrectly that young Kaufmann lived there continuously for a while (few years?) before he gave the place to the Conservancy.

I don't think that Alexander suggests that it shouldn't have been built, but maybe that FLW didn't fully understand what he was unleashing, maybe because his concept of "organic" had more to do with looking at the form and less with the function. Alexander's concept of repair might begin to take hold. FLW didn't want any tinkering with his designs; Alexander might say that it was a good starting point, but it needs this here and that there that was not considered because the original design did not foresee...now, about that kettle...

The 2BH article made a good point: FLW had a long career with some hits and some misses. He created a name for himself which scarcity dictates will always be collectable, if not really comfortable places to live (what I do like about FLW is that he designed furniture to go with the houses, some of which is singularly beautiful).

Alexander comments that there are 20k architects for 6bn people in the world. He really suggests that everyman is the architect in the wider world. That we know from where we live what the built environment both asks and needs from us. I don't find that so much 'dense' as threatening to the establishment. And I suspect that it is easy to diss his approach, since it is easy to suggest that what the layman builds will fall down. Perhaps as a layman looks at the pricetag on the Fallingwater repairs and says, "And you were saying, Frank?". Talk about the total cost of ownership!

I haven't come across any comment on the Austin project, but his website does have a photolog that suggests at least some success and a desire to continue to associate his name with the project:

http://www.patternlanguage.com/picturegallery/pictureframe.htm?/picturegallery/../housecommunity/housecommunity.htm

I have read elsewhere that the project at Oregon also encountered problems, and that he has had problems getting things done in England as well. But that doesn't mean that he is wrong, only that he has not convinced others that he is right, I suppose.

When I read his approach, I think, "How the heck is this going to work?" Because what seems easy for him to step into, I suspect I still find intimidating (he does a lot of living in these environments through his imagination, and maybe I lack one).

But what I really wonder is how the layman, in so much of the world, will ever get the opportunity to work with Alexander's methodology. He seems to strike a harmony with some of the stuff that David writes about: you can tie things up so much with codes and cant that the layman, well, can't decode.

But don't get me wrong...I didn't come here to harangue about FLW, or to praise CA. I am just a rank amateur reading the latter and sharing some possibly relevant thoughts on the former.

[bandiera]

ACD - thank you. I did read your view of Alexander, which is an example of a critical view, which I have been seeking. Quoting you, Alexander is a "wannabe cult leader and Savior Of The World with his fascist 60s sensibilities and prole-pandering rhetoric", but:

"I've not read the book"

"his categorical assertion that utilization of those principles cannot do less than produce a genuinely beautiful piece of architecture, and his further assertion -- nay, insistence -- that those principles in the hands of ordinary people is a viable alternative -- is in fact preferable -- to the design work of gifted architects, is nothing other than what I declared it text unread: New Age populist gibberish. "

Dear sir, with respect to your precious time, do RTFM. I, in turn, shall be scratching my head about his "fascist 60s sensibilities", whatever those are.

[acdouglas]

Bandiera wrote: Dear sir, with respect to your precious time, do RTFM

Only if I'm paid to -- up-front, and in cash in meaningful amounts.

As explained in the piece, in order for one to make the assertions I made, one doesn't have to RTFM in order to come to the justified conclusions I did. You'll note, please, I made no comment on those parts of the books which one would have to read in order to make comment; i.e., his "patterns." I've little doubt that if an amateur homebuilder wanted to build his own house, or make additions to an existing one, Alexander's "patterns" would be quite serviceable. After all, the books are best-sellers, so it would be surprising were those "patterns" other than useful. I made no objection to those "patterns" or their implementation per se. My objection was to the rest of the crap, the nature of which may be had in its totality just from the quotes I used from Alexander himself, and from the detailed article by Wendy Kohn.

ACD

[JRoth]

Going back to the start of Bandiera's riposte, I don't think scarcity has a damn thing to do with it. My point wasn't about the fine prices that Wright houses fetch - it was about people happily living in them 50 years later. When, it should be added, they could be sold for quite a sum, allowing those people to live in putatively greater comfort elsewhere. People like to _live_ in FLW houses, not collect them.

Edgar Jr did live there full time for a few years, but that's a testament to the design's strength, not its weakness: although intended as a weekend getaway, the house was so great that it was used for much more. Yes, it was overbudget, and yes, certain preconceptions of the Kaufmanns were discarded. But they had the money, and they loved the house, and they continued to patronize the man.

The ceiling thing is largely apocryphal. I mean, he certainly included remarkably low ceilings in most of his designs (Edgar Kaufmann was no taller than Wright, it should be mentioned), but I'm 6'1 and don't feel oppressed in the houses. Furthermore, those low spots are generally in halls or at the the room's periphery, where they have little physical impact on living spaces while having great impact on living experiences.

Actually, I think the ceiling thing pretty well illustates what is at the core of our host's Wrightian misgivings. There's this whole aura around FLW, and it's mixed - funny stories, pretty buildings, leaky roofs, low ceilings - all in one convenient, memorable narrative of an interesting personality. That narrative gets in the way of looking at the work. As someone who likes FLW and the work, I laugh at all the anecdotes, including some of the less flattering ones. But I have no interest in the anecdotes obscuring the work or, I should add, the ideas behind the work.

I earlier alluded to architects working at varying scales. Wright included the broader landscape and even (a conception of) the nation in his range of scales. To me, his conceptions resonate, grounded as they are in the very American thinking of Emerson. But the ideas weren't some philosophical gas to lend weight to flighty designs - the buildings (mostly) work, the ideas (mostly) work, and they both work together.