This work was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s St. Marks project [link] and the built expression of it - the Price Tower [link]. Follow the links, above, “#4” for context and “1956” for a basic description of the project. While inspired by Mr. Wright there are several elements of this application that were new at the time. Unfortunately, many of these remain new 44 years later. I did not know it at the time that these unique aspects would turn out to reflect deep concerns of mine that still dominate my approach to architecture to this day. In general, the integration of the economics, use and social-ecological impacts of the work along WITH the lifestyle and esthetic results has remained my focus. Specifically, with this project, the creation of simple, compact, flexible floor plans without the need for extensive tearing out and replacing of “permanent” construction (by subsequent owners or renters) were primary design goals.

This work was my first serious effort on a complex problem that I took completely through the full preliminary planning process [link]. Over the years the drawings and models have succumbed to loss and the ravages of time so what is illustrated here is a diagram version redrawn in December 2001. This drawing is faithful to what was presented on TV in 1956 with some changes I made based on a dialog I had at Taliesin in 1958 [link]. Basically, the buildings are moderately taller, from the first version, allowing for some two story units (thus, larger “houses”) and the sun screening louvers have been replaced with a system that is built into the exterior glass wall fenestration. Also, the very top units employ a greater setback giving the building, as a whole, a more graceful finish. These changes make the building completely practical today. This is made more so by modern building techniques and materials - and energy systems - not available in the 50s.

The greatest innovation of this work - still rare today - is that the entire build-able footprint can be used in any way by the owner of the “floor.” In other words, the building is used the same as a lot in an on-ground subdivision. My base model, was the modest sized houses being built Eichler [link]. I admired these greatly but not their use of land in all circumstances. This peanut-butter-spread approach to land use did not make sense to me - it still does not. The reality, however, was (and is) that few want to live in an “apartment building” with all the restrictions, monotony and sameness of expression that this implies. I wondered if the basic SHELL of the building could create a sufficient integrating framework (today, called armature) [link] so that a wide variety of layouts, specific detailing and aesthetic expression can be successfully supported. Diversity within unity. This idea of building - as structural shell and utility infrastructure - was further developed by me in my mega structure [link] concepts and projects like Domicile [link]. In these cases, it means that all interior components have to be a system (like we do today with our AI WorkFurniture) [link] so that the interiors can evolve and change with the user/owners needs (another Wright idea) [link]. The scale at which these ideas are suggested by this 1956 work remains undone. The systems to allow it are not yet built. However, it is all feasible today and there are many projects being done that have the scale necessary to reach production economy.

Keeping the typical “coverage” of a subdivision in mind, a look at the Plot Plan shows how the landscape can remain almost entirely open while providing perimeter “wilderness” and interior recreation facilities to each cluster of buildings. It can be seen that a wide range of density can be accomplished by employing different building heights (thus number of units) and varying the distance between the Towers. In this case, 130 “houses” in 12 acres of land - approximately 445 people at a density of 38 people per acre. This number can be doubled without risk of over crowding. At the foot of each Tower certain commons facilities and shops can be provided. A project this size has the necessary critical mass for on-site generation of clean energy by employing good conservation and new technologies. Different densities, age mixes, social economic backgrounds can be provided along with different social and recreational facilities so that a wide range of costs and lifestyles can be served. Small adjustments in the design mix will lead to great differences in community character.

It is too often assumed that there has to be negative tradeoffs between density, open space, convenience to landscape, privacy and economy. If approached as a system, and if the design variables that effect each value are kept in mind, then the right mixes are a matter of design not intrinsic competition between the values themselves. Think of access. A large apartment building imposes a social context for those going in and out. In one of these Towers, a little over a 100 people are sharing two elevators which go directly to the single-ownership floors. No common halls; walk 22 feet from your living room, drop a number of stories and in a few steps you are in a park - or your car - or a friend’s house. The “sense” of inclusion and exclusion - openness and social density can be adjusted, with this schema, by selection of the “real estate” (which floor in which building) and by design (in terms of the specific layout and orientation to elevators and stairways). On a community scale, the same goes for how the “commons” areas are treated.

By employing well designed, multipurpose spaces with built-in and flexible furniture and wall systems, modest footprints can support an easy to maintain, economical yet varied and luxurious habitat. The total foot print as shown is 3,218 square feet per floor including the core and two story balcony areas. The builable area is about 2,100 square feet. In this layout - one of many possible - three bedrooms, two baths and a large living area are provided, as well as, the outdoor Balcony (804 square feet) and several garden niches. The plan is compact and simple like the Usonians [link], post WWII Case Study Houses and Eichler Homes [link] that inspired this kind of living style. In this case, they are stacked on top of one another and developed within a circular “lot.” This version is somewhat larger in diameter than the original as the core and elevators are expanded to meet ADA requirements. This adds to the overall square footage - again, coming closer to modern expectations while keeping the intent of a compact design. It reflects the refinements that I thought through while at Taliesin two years after conceiving the project. With minor modifications, it will work today although it remains a radical departure from present views regarding what is a “home.”

The interior experience is made from a number of prefabricated wall, Kitchen and Bathroom units that can be placed in a number of preset locations on the slab. The placement of these units, solid partitions and some folding door-partitions (solid of glazed) is all that is required to execute a floor plan layout. These prefab components have to be moved in and out through the exterior glass wall (the building acts as it’s own crane) as do larger pieces of furniture. HVAC and plumbing and electrical is feed from the central core via the bottom support struts of the cantilevered slabs which create an accessible area. The exterior glass (and solar-screen/insulating stuttered) walls are designed to fit anywhere on the concrete slabs allowing a variety of layouts. The slabs themselves have floor heating. In 1956, the technology to make this kind of flexible interior/exterior did not exist - the entire system would have been developed almost from scratch. Since then, a variety of components have been built and used in limited ways. The entire idea - as a system - however, has not been done. A recent design that follows the same strategy in office buildings is the Chris Allen project - see: Work # 98 [link]. Having to do demolition in order to make simple changes in a building arrangement is economically wasteful and ecologically unsustainable - it it also disruptive to schedules and living amenity. Large projects have the inherent “buying power” necessary to build the required flexible systems. Modern materials and fabrication methods make it possible.

This project was not conceived to be “luxury” housing. It was an attempt to build a “middle class” solution. I doubt at the time this would have been entirely possible. However, the buildings were designed to be economical as possible. One reason that the original design called for shorter building was the height limits then regarded as efficient for concrete. This restriction can be pushed somewhat today by employing greater strength concrete. Indeed, I built [link] a project in New York, just 7 years later, that used fast setting high strength materials adequate for this task. My intention then - and I would do the same today - was to slip form the central core and sheer wall in a continuous on-site pour. The cantilevered slabs would be prefabricated in sections and lifted into place and bolted with steel fittings. The bottom support arms of the cantilevered slabs to be made from fabricated steel and covered with a removable material to allow access to utilities. Because of the small size and geometric simplicity of these Towers, the cost of erection can be progressively reduced as the project progresses. The same with the exterior wall and interior system components. In 1956, this would have been an expensive building for a variety of reasons. However, then as now, the LIFE-CYCLE costs of the project are lower than conventional designs. Now, with today’s infrastructure and general building costs, this project may be competitive on the front end as well as the back. This WILL require - in any scenario - people accepting a smaller space that is built more like a ship than the oversized bloated floor plans so common today.

SolutionBox voice of this document:
VISION • STRATEGY • EVALUATION