|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Pictures
- 2 Walter Burley Griffin
- 3 Organic Architecture
- 4 Commercial
- 5 Question about construction
- 6 Structural problems
- 7 Fallingwater: a criticism in song
- 8 Ferris Bueller's Day Off
- 9 New information resource
- 10 Peter Blume painting
- 11 Popular Culture
- 12 revise intorduction
- 13 Bibliography vs. Further Reading
I switched the placement of the image captioned "Fallingwater" (Image:FallingwaterWright.jpg) and the image captioned, "The cantilevers at Fallingwater" (Image:FallingwaterCantilever570320cv.jpg). I felt the cantilever picture was more appropriate in the section discussing Fallingwater's structural integrity, while the postcard-like picture of the house as a whole was more appropriate in the introductory section with general information. --Puddingpie 03:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have many images of the Fallingwater that i took myself during a visit to the house. Most of my scanned images contain my domain name on each image, i would like to share them; anyone interested in scanning from neg. originals? Can you use the images i have with the domain name on them? to see an image i.e. please see http://www.koutayba.com/flw/architectural/images/fallingwater-livingroom.jpg
let me know. --NEWUSER 06:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Walter Burley Griffin
Walter Burley Griffin (1876-1937) left FLLW's office in 1906. He had nothing whatever to do with the design of Fallingwater. There is no reason to bring up WBG's name in association with a project that began 30 years after he ended his association with Wright.
Architecture is always a collaborative effort, and there are many people involved in the design of a house such as the Kauffman house. However, the convention (whether one disagrees with it or not) is usually to attribute a design to the principal of a design firm, or to the name of the firm. I have little doubt that Griffin was involved in the design of Fallingwater, and may in fact have done most of the work, but the fact remains that he was at the time working for Wright. Gsd97jks 20:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"The active stream, immediate surroundings and cantilevered design of the house are meant to be in unison, in line with Wright's interest in making buildings that were more "organic" and which thus seemed to be more engaged with their surroundings."
This could be more accurate. There is more to the concept of organic architecture than simply being "engaged" with surroundings. Fallingwater is organic because the form of the structure organically (the term is inspired by the concept of a seed if I remember correctly) developed from both the needs that the structure is to fulfill and the specific building site. What confuses things somewhat is that the definition of organic architecture has shifted somewhat since Wright's time. The term is now associated with "green" building materials and such.
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but my Architecture and Environment professor certainly is. I am going to try to convince him to help with this and other articles, but it would be great if someone else could step in here.
Is it appropriate to list the (single) link for "Nearby Accomodations" to a specific business (the Four Seasons Guest Farm)? Perhaps a link to some agency or organization listing several locations would be better. Ieverhart 08:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. In addition, a link like that really would be more appropriate in Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. Commercial link removed. Gsd97jks 20:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Question about construction
Is there any truth to the story that some of the building's structural problems were caused by construction workers who went against Wright's instructions and added more concrete? Rampart 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I CANNOT READ. Rampart 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The section is wrong. The contractor actually added reinforcement to the under-designed cantilevers. MARussellPESE 15:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be revisited. The rehabilitation is complete. There are some misplaced comments on its style. The comments on the materials being experimental and flimsy are not true. Reinforced concrete had been around for nearly 100 years by the time this was built. The assertion that the contractor neglected to camber for expected deflections is patent nonsense. The contractor actually added reinforcing during construction over Wright's objections. The Structure magazine article is the best available on the forensic engineering and repair. Bottom-line: The building design was rushed and the cantilevers were woefully under-designed. I'll be revisiting this section as time permits to correct it. MARussellPESE 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done. MARussellPESE 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The Structure article references an earlier article from 2001 although the magazine's on-line archive doesn't presently go back that far. - Does anyone know if this is available anywhere else on-line? Lynbarn 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am the Web Developer for the company that publishes STRUCTURE magazine. We have noticed this discussion and are subsequently working on making an online version of the 2001 article. I will update this (Wikipedia) article when we have the STRUCTURE article available. --Nic.stage 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- We've added the article to our site. (See below) --Nic.stage 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding too much steel (or concrete) in the incorrect places could be detrimental to the cantilever by increasing the dead-load (weight) of the structure. Consider also that the criteria for deflection (sag) at the time of construction may have been less-restrictive than the current standard. Perhaps it is more appropriate to consider whether or not the placement of additional steel could contribute to the structural deflection beyond acceptable historic and modern criteria. Factors which would affect deflection include the structural dead-load and live loads such as furniture, people, and snow-drift. The idea that Wright might value-engineer the structure to such a fine margin is probably a losing argument, and not worthy of the research required to validate it; although, this may for once validate Wright's ability to corretly engineer the cantilver.
Proposal: Additional research into the analysis of structural deficiencies. I attended a lecture given by a member of the team that did the post-tensioning retrofit which some interesting insights where given about the structural integrity of the cantilevered platforms before retro-fit. They stated that when models of the structures where run, the decks where supposed to have already collapsed (according to the models). The team was confused about the results until they added the window frames from below the cantilever into the model, upon which the models become more consistent with what was being observed. As I do not know the accuracy or validity (though I trust the source), I hesitate to cite the individual at this time in case that info is misleading or incorrect (and of course, I have no physical citation I can make). If anyone can dig up a better source, I think it would be valuable to the section. Doublepedaldylan (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Fallingwater: a criticism in song
Tune: "London Bridge"
Fallingwater's falling down,
falling down, falling down,
Fallingwater's falling down,
needs more rebar!
(Rebar is steel rod, embedded in concrete, to give tensile strength)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
was this feature in the movie? I've shown pictures of Fallingwater to my friends and most remember it distinctively as being in the movie. BadCRC 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. You're talking about the scene where his buddy drops the car off the jack and it flies off through the window into the ravine? That house is a Mies van der Rohe inspired home and is on Chicago's North Shore in Highland Park. If you watch the scene closely, you'll see that it's a steel-and-glass house. The floor-to-ceiling windows make the scene work, and are not found at Fallingwater.
- This house is in Highland Park; and you can see that it's an entirely different conception.
- Personal note: I've seen both houses. MARussellPESE 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
New information resource
In response to this Wikipedia article, STRUCTURE magazine staff have prepared the August, 2001 article "Repair and Retrofit: Is Falling Water Falling Down?" (Authors Robert Stilman, P.E., and John Matteo, P.E.) for online viewing. We've added a link to our magazine's article in the "External Links" section of this Wikipedia article. We hope this helps!
Peter Blume painting
I moved the following paragraph here from the article:
Peter Blume (1906 - 1992), known for the paintings South of Scranton and Eternal City, was commissioned in 1939 by the Kaufmann family to create a painting of Fallingwater. The result was a year-long endeavor which resulted in a 10 x 14 oil, essentially a miniature, with which the Kaufmanns were quite pleased. The painting shows Mrs. Kaufmann fishing, the family dachshunds, and guests on the upper deck. It was last known to be in a private collection. The size of the painting was required by the fact that there was only one place suitable to hang the painting - the dining room. Blume felt the obligation almost drove him out of his mind. The Kaufmanns would later commission Blume to create The Rock (1944-48) which contains a Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired building in the left background and the same type stone as that used in the construction of Fallingwater along with several Kaufmann family mementoes. (Trapp 1987)
It seems to be an insignificant story, suitable only for a treatment of the subject matter that is book length, and doesn't fit in article. What do other people think? -DoctorW 17:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this should come out. It's almost entirely tangential to Fallingwater. And connection to Peter Blume seems out of place. MARussellPESE 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that important that a few celebrities have visited the house? Who cares? In a long term view isn't the house itself and the work itself far more notable than that it was used as a birthday venue or that some actors are rather fond it? It's just a bit obvious. We don't look at the statue of liberty and say, 'oh well it's nice looking but see a list of all these people who've been to it - THAT must make it important'. Thoughts removing or at least paring down the (already small) section? P toolan 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- frankly, i frequently find myself remarking "if it's good enough for kirk douglas, it's good enough for me." i wish the celebrities section hadn't been removed. was kirk douglas on the list, or not?--220.127.116.11 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the introduction seems to be about the geography of the location of the house. It should probably talk more about the architecture, because that's what people want to know about the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed it - it didn't belong, and frankly there's no mystery to it. Mindmatrix 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the introduction serves it's purpose well, but could be expanded. The idea that Fallingwater is the formal-name give to a Wright-designed house is not necessarily common-knowledge among those who are unfamiliar with it.
While it describes what it is, where it is, while pointing to it's significance within the cultural context, it does not properly assert it's significance in the history of architecture.Emgeeo (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography vs. Further Reading
Can someone tell me what the difference is between these two sections? They both list books about Fallingwater, which may or may not be duplicated in the citations. Is there some reason they should not be combined under a single title, and anything that is already used as a citation removed? Don Lammers (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)