Cities 07

There is a reason that Frank Lloyd Wright is considered “America’s greatest architect” and not “America’s greatest city planner. As a design major, I have studied Frank Lloyd Wright numerous times. In terms of designing spaces that are organically intertwined with nature, master the concept of prospect refuge (i.e., the ability to see without being seen), and efficiently laid out — Wright is a rock star! However, in terms of planning a city that meets the needs of all “individuals,” Wright’s plan fails to live up to his buildings. It is not surprising then, that the one part of Wright’s plan that is truly desirable is the houses — or at least the ideas behind them.

The houses Wright proposes are in some ways standardized (e.g., “stacked utilities, the use of fireproof synthetic materials”—p.329). However, he recommends using “older-nature” materials when given the opportunity and throughout his city plan emphasizes individualization. I am intrigued by the idea of standardization that allows for individualism. In a perfect world, everyone could live in the house of their dreams and it would be a unique expression of who they are. But obviously, this cannot be, and ultimately – is not all that important. What is important is that people can function, feel safe and secure, and ultimately enjoy living in their homes. I am not an environmental psychologist, but from the little I do know, environment affects individuals on multiple levels (social, psychological, etc.) and makes a difference in behavior.

Recently, I read an article about how architects should be more involved in affordable housing, specifically in the rebuilding of New Orleans. In general, architects are much less involved in home building than they have been in the past. And when they are involved, it is typically with luxury homes. However, they have the knowledge and expertise to design truly efficient, stable, and authentic homes. The role of the architect in Wright’s plan is desirable. However, in order for it to truly work, architects and designers need to get more involved in the field of home design at an affordable level (e.g., through developing plans for plan books).

One aspect of Wright’s plan that I found peculiar was the underlying assumption that everyone is an individual, but deep down we all want to live in a spread out city, a good distance from each other, with limited contact with one another, but enough to create a community (p. 325). And Wright believed, that if society provided that for us, we would see an “automatic end to unemployment” and “unwholesome life would get no encouragement.” It is almost an oxymoron, assuming that all individuals will ultimately adapt to the same way of living.

There are many reasons that Wright’s plan would never work in today’s society. He was, first and foremost an architect, and his incorporation of architects in city planning is noble (even if it does seem self-promoting at times). However, he failed to consider numerous aspects of city planning and even his own desire to promote individuality did not come across in his plan. Ultimately, I think he could probably design a pretty astonishing prototype for affordable housing that would ideally, fit into someone else’s plan.

Rachel Bickel