Professional Documents
Culture Documents
#6
The Prairie Houses and the European Reflections of American Domesticity
#6
Robert McCarter, Frank Lloyd Wright, Phaidon Press, 1997
Donald Langmead, Donald Leslie Johnson, Architectural excursions: Frank Lloyd Wright, Holland and
Europe, Greenwood Press, 2000
Vincent Scully, Modern Architecture and Other Essays, Princeton University Press, 2002
H. Allen Brooks, “Frank Lloyd Wright and the Destruction of the Box”, JSAH, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar.,
1979), University of California Press
Louis Sullivan
1856–1924
“What was the matter with the kind of house I found on the prairie?” he asked, “Just
for a beginning, let’s say that house lied about everything. It had no sense of Unity …
To take any one of those so-called ‘homes’ away would have improved the landscape
and cleared the atmosphere… My first feeling therefore had been a yearning for
simplicity.”
— a new way of living away from 19 century aesthetics, away from historical styles,
linked to the American landscape, suitable for the traditional house, in tune with its
environment (its place, time and scope)
The Prairie School
Percy Dwight Bentley
John S. Van Bergen
Lawrence Buck
Ransom Buffalow
Barry Byrne
Alfred Caldwell
Alden B. Dow
William Drummond
George Grant Elmslie
Marion Mahony Griffin
Walter Burley Griffin
Edward Humrich
E. Fay Jones
Henry John Klutho
George Washington Maher
John Randal McDonald
Dwight Heald Perkins
William Gray Purcell
Isabel Roberts
Robert C. Spencer
Francis Conroy Sullivan
Claude and Starck
William LaBarthe Steele
Trost & Trost
Andrew Willatzen
Taylor Woolley
The 'Home in a Prairie Town' was formed
from long low horizontals stretching
parallel to the flat land of the site. The
sprawling roofs extended to the
surroundings and drew the porches, the
porte-cochère and the main volumes into a
vital, asymmetrical unity. Windows were
reduced to simple screens – there were few
solid walls – and the spaces inside were
linked together. Much of the furniture was
built-in and the character of the interiors
was commodious yet elegant. At the heart
was the hearth and all the diverse spaces
of the house were placed relative to this
centripetal element. There was still axial
control and hierarchy, but the rotational
and asymmetrical were combined with this
in an architecture of sliding and
overlapping planes enlivened by an
intense rhythm.
Second. To associate the building as a whole with its site by extension and emphasis of all the planes parallel to the
ground, but keeping the floors off the best part of the site, thus leaving that better part for use in connection with
the life of the house.
Third. To eliminate the room as a box and the house as another by making all walls enclosing screens — the ceilings
and floors and enclosing screens to flow into each other as one large enclosure of space, with inner subdivisions
only. Make all house proportions more liberally human, with less wasted space in structure, and structure more
appropriate to material, so the whole more liveable.
Fourth. To get the unwholesome basement up out of the ground, entirely above it, as a low pedestal…
Fifth. To harmonize all necessary opening to ‘outside’ or to ‘inside’ with good human proportions and make them
appear naturally […] Usually they appeared as ‘light-screens’ instead of walls […]
Sixth. To eliminate combinations of different materials in favour of mono materials so far as possible: to use no
ornament that did not come out of nature of the materials to make the whole building clearer and more
expressive as a place to live in […]
Seventh. To incorporate all heating, lighting, plumbing so that these systems became constituent parts of the building […]
Eighth. To incorporate as organic architecture – as far as possible – furnishings, making them all one with the building
and designing them in simple terms for machine work. Again all straight lines and rectangular forms.
Ninth. Eliminate the decorator. He was all curves and all efflorescence, if not all ‘period.’
in William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture since 1900, Phaidon Press, 1982, 80-81
Frank Lloyd Wright
1867–1959
Here finally was a master-builder drawing upon the veritable fountainhead of architecture. . . . The
more deeply we studied Wright's creations, the greater became our admiration for his incomparable
talent, for the boldness of his conceptions, and for his independence in thought and action. The
dynamic impulse emanating from his work invigorated a whole generation. His influence was strongly
felt even when it was not actually visible.
Donald Langmead, Donald Leslie Johnson, Architectural excursions: Frank Lloyd Wright, Holland and Europe, 28,30.
Frank Lloyd Wright
1867–1959
(from) H. Allen Brooks, “Frank Lloyd Wright and the Destruction of the Box”, JSAH, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 1979)
University
8 of California Press
Den. Porch.
Parlor.
L!V O 7
VIRkNDA,
Terrace.
U .O~
Q,7
0o u Nr
N D
O
L ;
~LGC:
C .
Fig. i. FrankLloyd Wright, CharlesS. Ross house, Delavan Lake, Fig. z. Bruce Price, William Kent house, Tuxedo Park, NY, 1885,
WI, 190oz,plan (Hitchcock, In the Nature of Materials). plan (Sheldon, Artistic Country-Seats,1886-1887).
he never resolves all visual questions at once; rather he
Frank
holds Lloyd
in reserveWright
p k
Wright's first step is destroying the box. Rooms are interlocked, .. `418 A
of similar
usually at thedate by Robert
corners, Spencer
with each ;?makes abundantly
relinquishing part of its space clear
Frank Lloyd Wright, Ward Willits house, Highland Park,
the difference
to the other. Sometimes
between this occurs at and
Wrightian different
"open" levels spacecreating (Figs. Fig. 5.
IL, 190oz,plan (Hitchcock, In the Nature of Materials).
and 6).split-levels, and varying floor and ceiling heights. The
balconies, x:
5
corner has been dissolved (author).
The axonometricalso indicateshow two spaces of differ-
ent height can interpenetrate,the Fig.one imparting
3. Shingle Stylevs. Frank to the Lloyd other
Wright.Left:typicalShingle Fig. 4. Left: typical house composed of box-like rooms. Right:
Style plan with large openingsbetween the principalrooms. Wright's first step is destroying the box. Rooms are interlocked,
its ceiling and/or floor height. Right:Ininits simplest
a Wright house,form,one roomthispenetratesinto the other, usually at the corners, with each relinquishingpart of its space
at thecorners. to the other. Sometimes this occurs at different levels creating
creates a balcony (Roberts,Baker, Millard at Pasadena)
A, B, and C show the
or COLD and varying floor and ceiling heights. The
angle of vision, taken from identical balconies, split-levels,PANTIZY KiTMIE/
has dissolved
"split-level"type of house (Davidson, positions, into the
Pope, Grant). But in
neighboring room. Wright achieves more pri- corner been (author).
vacyandvariety.
the sophisticated arrangementpreferred Roomdimensions
p k
by in thesetwoit
Wright areidentical(author).
pro-
plans
duced two or more ceiling heights that overlapped and
_ __ .._ is_ an
_ essential . element in Wrightianspace;
LAVATOP
the quence.
house Mystery on the . . .exterior E/NTR
interpenetrated throughout (and i n
... .
he never resolves all visual questions at once; ratherVE2ANA
:
r c oL he
as well) r.$ with the
height carefully related . . to the
........
......-?? human
......
.......
IZ. t'
AIZ.." DWINhlQ-0tt,
t?.'-•. ........, ......? ?L.~ , .; ... ... .:?.OfVICe.fTC
p k
?.".Z."
.........TcK
holds in reserve something
-- to be examined later. To assist
L.IBRARY VE.A/.DA
activity underneath.Althoughin K, this process
Wright perfectedof limiting thisand forcontrolling
his the view and
"• .._ _ _ . . . .
_ __
I•.....,i !....../
... i
... .
the of the Wright screens :
Usonian houses, he masteredthe guarding
idea prior privacy to 1910.2adjoiningspaces, r c oL
(from) H. Allen Brooks, “Frank Lloyd Wright and the Destruction of the Box”, JSAH, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 1979)
University of California Press
I2.
IO
::::'1 ?i?
_a::I?;?ra Tem
I I
??.:?--
:;;:: trim
I I defin
~i~l rgi ~ ~8~s~i~i
sepa
I I -" the
I I -_--
I I surf
I I ?I:?
II I the a
I I
r.
dest
i:::
;
room
I I
of th
also
:*Y
by t
i:: :::
;i9 Wri
~~liLwow rl next
32 Ito
::;:i
:B r
mat
I I ! :Ii ;
III T
:?:~?J~:
the
coun
;??,
_ wall I:::?
I I_
P--
;:C;:?i Inst
subs
---" arou
LII
of th
wall
Fig. ii. FrankLloyd Wright,Browne'sBookstore, Chicago, 90o8, room
demolished, hanging light fixture consisting of four squares of
pendant glass that do not touch at the corners; compare with
the s
Figure io-B (AusgefiihrteBauten. i9i). mas
Fig. io. A: typical room with walls joined at four corners. B: Fig. 7. Frank Lloyd Wright, Unity Temple, Oak Park, IL, 90o6,
Wright'sfirst step: eliminate the corners, thus turning the walls interiorpier(JohnSzarkowski). look