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.
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.
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.
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.
Unhinged comment. Is the Parthenon not architecture because it’s not ADA-accessible? If someone installs an elevator does it become architecture again?
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
Worth pointing out that Wrogjt was usually wrong on such matters. Fallingeater is structurally comprised and has required substantial repairs over the years.
... 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
In the early 90s, my parents undertook and completed an ambitious project to expand our home, after owning it for about 20 years. Without adding a third story or encroaching too much on our open yard space, we managed to double the kitchen and expand/renovate several other rooms and the results were really wonderful.
However, the process was painful for me as a young adult. I recall first a controversy over whether a professional, licensed architect should be retained, or if the contractor himself should draw up the plans. We were told that architects often had ivory-tower type plans that were impractical, expensive, or needed modifications by the contractor anyway. I can't actually remember which side we came down on.
Mom and Dad also permitted me to specify a bunch of elements in my own room, and being a rebellious goth in the throes of PTSD I made some really bad decisions, before permanently moving out two years later. My dad has the room now: it's got pitch-black carpeting with an incense burn in it, the miniblinds are also charcoal black with dark-grey accents in weird middle stripes, and two windows may be cranked open for fresh air, but one is ridiculously narrow, and I suspect that the design intent was "prevent AStonesThrow from jumping out of this one". (Well I did climb out of windows, but more for exploration's sake than self-harm.)
The demolition was also mindblowing as I got a taste of just how sturdy our original construction was. It was a tough "chicken-wire" lath embedded in plaster/stucco, and it was a Faraday cage fortress that took weeks to tear down. They replaced it with ordinary gypsum drywall, and I was incredulous about the sheer quality difference, but it was clear that matching the original style would need to be superficial unless we were spending millions of bucks at that point.
It really turned out well despite all my efforts at sabotage. I'm not sure about my parents' motivations; I believe it was mostly Mom who received a really awesome modern kitchen, and a modicum of "keeping up with the Joneses" because that decade saw so many of our neighbors adding stories and Granny Flats and renovations, commensurate with rising property values. Yay!
"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.
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.
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.
Almost always cold, impractical to clean difficult or impossible to maintain hvac not properly integrated or simply areas that look cool but don’t work with how people live their lives.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
If it doesn’t meet code, it is not architecture.
Steady, we’re taking things like having outlets every three feet of countertop in kitchens.
Unhinged comment. Is the Parthenon not architecture because it’s not ADA-accessible? If someone installs an elevator does it become architecture again?
I used “architecture” to refer to the discipline not as a synonym for “a building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_of_the_Sun#Gallery
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...
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?
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.
> 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.
Worth pointing out that Wrogjt was usually wrong on such matters. Fallingeater is structurally comprised and has required substantial repairs over the years.
... 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.
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.
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.
Of etymological interest:
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UsoniaI 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.
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.
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.
In the early 90s, my parents undertook and completed an ambitious project to expand our home, after owning it for about 20 years. Without adding a third story or encroaching too much on our open yard space, we managed to double the kitchen and expand/renovate several other rooms and the results were really wonderful.
However, the process was painful for me as a young adult. I recall first a controversy over whether a professional, licensed architect should be retained, or if the contractor himself should draw up the plans. We were told that architects often had ivory-tower type plans that were impractical, expensive, or needed modifications by the contractor anyway. I can't actually remember which side we came down on.
Mom and Dad also permitted me to specify a bunch of elements in my own room, and being a rebellious goth in the throes of PTSD I made some really bad decisions, before permanently moving out two years later. My dad has the room now: it's got pitch-black carpeting with an incense burn in it, the miniblinds are also charcoal black with dark-grey accents in weird middle stripes, and two windows may be cranked open for fresh air, but one is ridiculously narrow, and I suspect that the design intent was "prevent AStonesThrow from jumping out of this one". (Well I did climb out of windows, but more for exploration's sake than self-harm.)
The demolition was also mindblowing as I got a taste of just how sturdy our original construction was. It was a tough "chicken-wire" lath embedded in plaster/stucco, and it was a Faraday cage fortress that took weeks to tear down. They replaced it with ordinary gypsum drywall, and I was incredulous about the sheer quality difference, but it was clear that matching the original style would need to be superficial unless we were spending millions of bucks at that point.
It really turned out well despite all my efforts at sabotage. I'm not sure about my parents' motivations; I believe it was mostly Mom who received a really awesome modern kitchen, and a modicum of "keeping up with the Joneses" because that decade saw so many of our neighbors adding stories and Granny Flats and renovations, commensurate with rising property values. Yay!
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
"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.
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.
If my level of reading attention is New Yorker-level copy-editor attention, we have fallen greatly.
@dang Surely this is mistakenly flagged? This is interesting and hardly seems controversial or inflammatory.
Beautiful and completely unlivable like most architecture works
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.
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.
Almost always cold, impractical to clean difficult or impossible to maintain hvac not properly integrated or simply areas that look cool but don’t work with how people live their lives.
This is awesome, they do tours of one of his houses near me, thanks for sharing
The houses he built are always very pretty, but they are just really fancy Brady bunch houses to my eye.
[flagged]