How practical were the architectural designs of Frank Llloyd Wright?

Question

I understand that many of his structures have not fared well over the years. Can you tell me in what ways his houses and buildings have failed the test of time?

Answer 1

From a structural engineering perspective, not very. He valued form over function every single time. For instance, at Falling Water, the concrete structure cantilevers out over the water. He was told repeatedly by his engineer (and I believe that he verified with his own calculations) that they could not design that cantilever for the standard residential loading. Wright decided to build it anyway . . . which is why modern engineers have had to go back and reinforce that structure using newer, higher quality materials to keep it from becoming "Falling in Water".

A lot of his designs have the same fault. Once told that his sketch wouldn't work, he had it built anyway. Call me crazy, but if you build a roof that leaks, you've failed. If you build a floor that sags, you've failed. Regardless of how beautiful a space looks, first and foremost a building must protect you from the elements. Otherwise, what's the point?

Answer 2

Structures with flat roofs in areas where snow usually accumulates, do not do well.

As far as functional practicality, I thought thats what his designs were known for.

Answer 3

As with most architects, they want form over fuction.