8 the transformation of frank lloyd wright's prairie...

8 The transformation ofFrank Lloyd Wright'sPrairie houses into hisUsonian houses

Introduction

Frank Lloyd Wright is probably the best known American archteet and certainly one of the most prolific architects of his timBorn in 1867, his architectural career spanned some seventy yea- from 1889, when his first independent project was completeto 1959, the year he died. Two of his most impressive series l

works are the Prairie houses of his early career and the Usoniahouses of his later career. While much has been written abotthese two very distinctive styles of architecture, formal studies l

the designs of Prairie and Usonian houses are rare; analysis (composition is often subordinated to discussions of innovatiorin the use of materials and construction techniques.

Still less has been said about relationships between the desigof Prairie houses and the design of Usonian houses. John Segeant's spatial analysis of Usonian houses, I and his comparison (these houses with Prairie houses, draws on earlier analyses (Wright's work by Grant Manson> and by Richard MacCormacManson was the first to look closely at the relationship berweeWright's Froebel kindergarten education and his later architecnral work. MacCormac Carried the Froebel-Wright connectiofurther by likening Wright's Prairie and other early houses to thdisciplined play of Froebel blocks within rectilinear grids _ aactivity that Wright was instructed in as a child. Sergeant's sulsequent analysis, like that of MacCormac, focuses on the role (the grid, not only in Wright's Prairie designs, but in his lateUsonians as well. However, much is left unsaid about other, verbasic aspects of composition, for example, the spatial relati~[ships between the various building elements that occupy god!Sergeant's exploration of relationships between Prairie anUsonian houses is insightful yet relatively informal; tjsonia

The transformation of Frank Lloyd Wright', P a' . hr me ouses 2. I9

h)ollse.s are. described as a simplification and loosening of thep anmng gnds of Prairie houses.

In this study, Wright's Prairie architecture, his Usonian archi-tecture, and relationships between these two styles arapproache~ in a different and fundamental way. Prairie house:and Usoman, houses are characterized in terms of shape gram-mars. ysoman houses are further characterized as trans-fo~~tlOns .of Prairie houses by showing how a grammar forPrairie designs ca~ be t~ansfonned straightforwardly into agra~m~ .for Usonian designs. Basic, but largely unrecognized,contl~u1tles from the design of Prairie houses to the design ofUsonian houses are discussed.

From butterflies to polliwogs: the language of the PrairietransformedWright's Prairie houses have often been described as cruciform orbutterfly-shaped in plan. Figure 8.1 shows the main floor and theupper, bedroom floor plans of five of these houses: the Henderson(1901), Willets (I902), Roberts (1908), Baker (1909), and Robie(1909) houses. A shape grammar that defines a language of theseand other Prairie-style houses has been given in a very elucidatingand original study of the Prairie style by Hank Koning and JulieEizenberg." Based on Wright's compositional theories and pro-duced works, Koning and Eizenberg's grammar generates Prairiehouses in three dimensions. Only the most essential aspects ofthe designs of these houses are considered; many details con-sidered superficial are ignored.

Prairie designs are generated by the Koning and Eizenberggrammar in two stages. First, basic compositional forms aredefined with basic composition rules. Second, basic com-positional forms are elaborated and ornamented in various wayswith ornamentation rules to produce complete designs.

Basic compositional forms represent the main level of a houseand are built up in terms of simple spatial lelations betweenthree-dimensional Froebel-type blocks. These blocks correspondto the basic volumetric spaces of Prairie houses. The dimensionsof the blocks can vary to correspond to dimensional differences ofspaces in different houses. Blocks are distinguished functio?~llyas either living zones or service zones. Living zones include livingrooms, dining rooms, libraries, and so on. Service zones includekitchens, servants' quarters, main floor bedrooms, ~nd so ?n. Thegeneration of a basic compositional form begins With b~SlCcom-position rules for locating a fireplace, considered .by wright to ~ethe focal point of a Prairie design. A living zone .IS then. added 10relation to the fireplace and a service zone added 10 ~e~auo~ to theliving zone to form the rectangular coreun!t ~f a pratne design ..Tocomplete a basic composition, the core umt IS extended by adding

Transformations in design

Henderson house (1901)

Baker house (1909)

Willets house 11902.)

Robie house (1909)

smaller living and service zones (the wings of the butterfly) to ~t.Ornamentation rules then apply to articulate and elaborate hasiccompositional forms by adding upper stories, basements, roofs,porches, terraces, and other interior and exterior details.

The Koningand Eizenberg grammar contains ninety-nine rules.Basic composition rules apply to produce eighty-nine diffe~en1basic compositional forms; these can be ornamented in vanousways to produce over two-hundred final designs. Figure 8.2 showsa simplified derivation of a Prairie house design using the

8.,The pillns of fivePrIDrie

houses designed byWright. Both the main

floor and the upper,bedroom floor plans are

shown.

8.2The main stages of the

derivation of a newPrairie-style house [the

"Stiny" house) usingthe Koning and

Eizenberg shapegrammar. A more

detailed rendering of theexterior of the house is

also shown. Drawing,courtesy of HankKoning and fulie

Eizenberg.

The transformation of Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie houses 221

grammar. Only the main stages of the derivation are shown; labelshave been omitted. Grey tones, however, are used informally hereas labels; each different grey tone denotes a different function -dark grey corresponds to upper level bedrooms, medium grey toliving areas, light grey to service areas, and very light grey toporches. In the first four steps of the derivation, a basic com-positional form is generated. In the last four steps, the basic formis ornamented by adding porches, a basement, a second story, anda roof. The final design of the derivation - the "Stinv" house - isnot an original Wright design, but a new design in the Prairiestyle. In figure 2.2 of chapter 2, the designs of three other housesgenerated by the grammar are illustrated. Two of the houses - theLittle and the Robie houses - are Wright designs; one - the"March" house - is new. The upper level, main level, and exteriorform of each house are shown. Detailed floor plans, not generatedby the grammar, are also illustrated.

222 Transformations in design

The basic compositions of Prairie houses provide the basis forthe basic compositions of the later Usonian houses, in particularthe L-shaped or, what Wright called polliwog (tadpole), designstypical of this style. Like the basic composition of a Prairiehouse, the basic composition of a polliwog Usonian consists of atwo-zone core unit. One zone of the core unit is an open-planliving zone or body that incorporates living, kitchen, and diningareas; the other zone is a bedroom zone or tail that includesbedrooms and bathrooms. The core unit is sometimes extendedby adding smaller living or bedroom zones to the body or tail. Thelogical center of a Usonian design is a small area located in thehinge of the L-plan which Wright termed the work space. Anal-ogous to the central fireplace of a Prairie house, the work space isalways contained within the living zone and consists of a kitchenarea with an adjacent fireplace facing out toward the living room.Designs of Usonian houses are completed by ornamenting andarticulating basic compositions in a variety of ways. Unlike thePrairie houses, however, many Usonians are only one level. In thewords of Wright, Usonian designs are summarized thus:A Usonian house if built for a young couple, can, without deformity, beexpanded, later, for the needs of a growing family, As you can see fromthe plans, Usonian houses are shaped like polliwogs _ a house with ashorter or longer tail, The body of the polliwog is the living room and theadjoiningkitchen - orwork space- and the whole Usonian concentrationof conveniences. From there it starts out, with a tail: in the propeldirection, say, one bedroom, two bedrooms, three, four, five, six bed-rooms long ... The size of the polliwog's tail depends on the number ofchildren and the size of the family budget.e

Figure 8·3 shows the plans of six, one-level polliwog Usonians: theJacobs (I936), Lusk (I936), Rosenbaum (1939), Newman (I939],Garrison (I939l, and Pope (1940) houses.

The differences between Prairie and Usonian houses are, to acertain extent, reflections of changes in living standards betweenthe times in which they were built - Prairie houses during theearly 1900S and Usonian houses during the years before and afterWorld War II. The Usonian house was conceived partially inresponse to the urgent need for low-cost housing during thethirties. Hence, the core unit of a Prairie house which fonnedonlya Part of an expanded design became, in the case of many Usc-mans, the whole of a design. Extensions to the core unit of aUso~~an house were the exception, for larger or more affluentfamilies, rather than the rule. Since servants were no longer acommon fixture of households, the kitchen, which was segre-gated from the living and social areas in a Prairie house becameintegrated into the living area of a Usonian. A host 0; hostesscould cook as well as entertain and socialize from this new,centralize,d work space. The adjacent fireplace, however, remaineda focal point of a design.

I'LB

I

-~, ,

• r-i

j

i_:-7:':

,j

--

ji

j!

j

J


The design of Wright's Usonian houses and the design of hisearlier Prairie houses can he described with the two shape gram-mars illustrated in figure 8.4_The Prairie grammar is taken fromKoning and Eizenberg's grammar. The Usonian grammar is new.The initial shape, rules, and final state of each grammar areseparated into basic composition rules and ornamentation rules.Basic composition rules and ornamentation rules are further sub-divided into categories of rules with more specific compositionalfunctions. Rules in the Prairie grammar and rules in the Usoniangrammar that are identical or have corresponding compositionalfunctions are shown in the same row. When a rule in the Prairiegrammar correspondsto more than one rule in the Usoniangrammar, they are connected by lines as shown.

The Prairie grammar

The Prairie grammar is a simplified version of Koning and Eizen-berg's earlier grammar. Rules from the Koning and Eizenberggrammar have been translated into the standard format for shapegrammars described in chapter 3. Only those rules that havecounterparts in the Usonian grammar are given. These includetranslations of most of the basic composition rules from Koningand Eizenberg's grammar but none of the ornamentation rules.Readers may refer to Koning and Eizenberg's grammar for omittedbasic composition rules (these include, for example, rules forbeginning a design with a double-hearth fireplace and rules thatallow different zones in a design to interpenetrate one another)and for ornamentation rules. The basic composition rules that areincluded here generate a few new possibilities for basic com-positions not generated by Koning and Eizenberg's rules. Thesenew basic compositions are allowed since they appear to satisfythe same stylistic criteria satisfied by other basic compositions.

The Prairie grammar shown here, like Koning and Eizenberg'sgrammar, is a parametric shape grammar. The lengths and widthsof blocks in the rules are allowed to vary so that designs ofdifferent dimensions can be generated. For example, the length ofthe longer side of a living or service zone block that forms a part ofthe core unit in a basic composition can vary between one to fourtimes the length of the adjacent side. The height of a core unitblock, however, is fixed. The living and service zone blocks addedto a core unit to extend a basic composition must each be smallerthan the core unit but not less than one-quarter of its size.

The functions of different zones in a Prairie design are indicated~y different grey tones as in the Koning and Eizenberg grammar. Alight grey tone indicates a living zone, a medium grey tone indi-cates a service zone.

The initial shape of the Prairie grammar consists of a fireplacein a state o. Rules I through 8 depict all possible ways of placing a

,


PRAIRIE GRAMMAR USONJAN GRAMMAR

o ,'I

~o , o ,

~®I

~,

jI ~

~ o ,5 jO

~",a"•a~ c , o ,u II 0 jl

~" s"~

c t

jI

~o ,

o ,

~jl () II:

o ,adding a jI

~living zone e.

8A d shape grammar thatA shape grammar that generates Prairie houses an agenerates tjsontan houses.

226 Transformations in designPRAIRIE GRAMMAR USONIAN GRAMMAR

~-~ ~-~

10: ()-;f ~-~~ , ,~"g~ 11, ~-~•aa0"~

~-~12;

completing thecore unit: adding

,~a service ZOf1fl

(Prairie rules) or

a bedroom ZOOe

(Usonian rules) 13: ~- ~

, a

14: ~-~e a , z

obligatory ~-~ ~-~extensions rs(Prakie rules) oroptional exlensions a , ,(Usonian rules) ~-\) ~-~10 /he core unit 16:

8.4 continued

The transformation of Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairiehouses 227

PRAIFlIE GRAMMAR USONIAN GRAMMAR

• s

17: ~-,• s • s

18: ~-~ ~-,• s . ,

~~-~ ~-\"a0 19:

"•~

• s

~-~~s~ 20:

s , e

_ 21. ~-, ~-,, a

22: #-~a a a s

23: ~-~ ,-,a • ~-,axtensklns (con'~ 24: ~-,


PRAIRIE GRAMMAR USONIAN GRAMMAR

, s

25: ~, s , s

~ ,-~ ~"'0,g0;

~ , s , s>0

~ ~ ~ ,0

~-e0 27: , s

28:

~ ~~s e s

exrensions (con'l) 29: ~-t ~ ~_KooioganOEi,enborg grammarfor Pral,l. basic

comPO,itlon rule.not shown he,.

s"" Koning aridEi' ....berg grammar for

~Prairie ornamentatiOl1 ~'1_~'~rul.. ,.." shown he'.

0es numbering oj ,ules Is

• owro.im.te aft .. 35:

~ ~~ ooiIted Prairie basica composilioo rule,~~ extending the

-~"hinge" 01

~the core Uflff ae

8-4 continued

37:

39:

40:

42:

43:

interpenetratingzonas 44:



_A~, ,

~-~

$1~-~~~-

~~-~

23Q

~axrensions


P 8 P~6.7

~-~

~-~

~-~,-.

adding secondary

/ireplaces 55:

8-4 continued

45:

47:

49:

living zone in relation to the fireplace. The spatial labels • and 0

marking the comers of living zones are used subsequently todistinguish different ways of adding other zones to a living zone.

Rules 9 and 10 specify the two ways that a service zone ca~ ~eadded to a living zone to form the rectangular core unit of a Praine

The transformation of Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie houses

57:

inllecting exteriorcornetS 58:

PRAIRIE GRAMMAR

2JI

USONlIW GRAMMAR

~ljI> .'V-~

design. In rule 9, a service zone is added to the longer side of aliving zone; in rule to, a service zone is added to the shorter side ofa living zone. The labels. and 0 distinguish these two differentrelationships between the living and service zone of a core unit.

Extensions to the core unit are obligatory. These are determinedby rules 14 through 29. Rules in this group add smaller living andservice zones to the living and service zones of the core unit.Rules 14, 15, 22, and 23, define all possible ways of adding asmaller living zone to the living zone of a core unit; rules 17through 20 and rules 25 through 28 define all possible ways ofadding either a smaller service zone or a smaller living zone to theservice zone of a core unit. The labels. and 0 control the place-ments of extensions to the two possible configurations of livingand service zones forming a core unit. Rules 16, 21, 24, and 29erase the labels. and 0 associated with living and service zonesafter these zones have been extended. Applications of extensionrules are ordered by state labels so that extensions to both theliving and service zones of the core unit are obligatory.

The final state of the grammar is variable; it may be any stategreater than or equal to 6.6

Figure 8.5a shows how the basic composition rules of thePrairie grammar apply to derive the basic compositional form ofWright's Robie house. Figure 8.5h shows two other basic com-positions generated by these rules. One is the basic compositionalform of the Roberts house; the other is the basic compositionalform of the Henderson, Willets, and Baker houses.


,

-.rule 21

->rule 17

Ib)

The transformation of the Prairie grammar

8.,3. A derivation of the

basic composition of theRobie house.b. The basic

composition of theRoberts house [lett] and

the basic composition ofthe Henderson, Willets,

and Baker houses [right].

The shape grammar for Prairie houses can be transformed intoshape grammar for polliwog Usonians, as well as other new grammars, by deleting, changing, and adding rules. In the transformation, all of the Prairie ornamentation rules and some of the Prairi.basic composition rules are deleted, the remaining Prairie basi,composition rules are changed, and new, Usonian omamentatiorrules are added. Of the three grammatical transformations, rul,change illustrates most strikingly the close relationship betweerPrairie and Usonian designs.

Rule deletion: Prairie basic composition rules I, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14Il, 20, 22, 25, 28, and all other basic composition and omamentation rules from the Koning and Eizenberg grammar, not giverhere, are deleted.

Rule change: The remaining Prairie basic composition rule:are changed by changing the spatial relations and labels thadefine these rules. Changes to spatial relations and labels are a:follows:

Spatial relationsBetween a fireplace and a living zone (rules 2,5,7): These

spatial relations are changed by both repositioning shapes amintroducing new shapes. The fireplace is moved from the border 0'

a living zone into the interior of a living zone and, at the sametime, is changed into a fireplace/kitchen or work space.

Between a living zone and a service zone in a core unit (rule!9,10): These rectangular, core unit spatial relations are changecinto Lshaped and other new kinds of core units by repositioningshapes. New core units are produced by rotating 90° either a livingor service zone in either of the two types of rectangular Prairiecore units. This change is the most prominent compositiona:change in the transformation of Prairie designs into Usoniar


designs and is closely related to the change in state labelsdescribed below. Changing the rectangular core unit of a Prairiehouse into an L-shape allows extensions to be added to it option-ally, that is, to one, both, or neither of the zones in it, withoutdisturbing the integrity of the plan ("without deformity," asWright said). Any extension to an L-shaped core unit simplyelongates either the body or the tail of the polliwog. Optionalextensions to a rectangular core unit, on the other hand, wouldproduce a lopsided, unbalanced plan whenever only one zone isextended _ a plan analogous in form to a butterfly with only onewing.

In addition to the change in location, the service zone in aPrairie core unit, which may include bedrooms and bathrooms,changes functionally to become a bedroom zone in a Usonian coreunit, which includes only bedrooms and bathrooms.

Between a zone in a core unit and an extension (rules 15, 18,19,23,26, 27): These spatial relations are changed by reposition-ing shapes. Extensions are repositioned so that core unit zonesand extensions are always aligned along their longer sides."

The spatial relation changes outlined above are illustrated infigure 8.6. Spatial relations are numbered to correspond to thebasic composition rules they define. The change rules that trans-form Prairie spatial relations into Usonian spatial relations arealso shown. The new Usonian spatial relations are used to definethe new Usonian basic composition rules depicted in figure 8-4.The change rules shown can also apply to Prairie spatial relationsto produce new spatial relations other than the Usonian spatialrelations illustrated. These other spatial relations define othernew rules, leading to other new grammars. Other spatial relationsare discussed in the following section.

Spatial labels: In conjunction with the spatial relationchanges described above, the spatial labels • and 0 marking thecomers of core unit zones are changed as shown in the newUsonian basic composition rules illustrated in figure 8.4· As inthe Prairie grammar, these labels distinguish different ways thatzones may be added to core unit zones.

State labels: The state labels associated with extension rules16,21,24, and 29 of the Prairie grammar are changed as shown inthe new Usonian grammar. These changes make the applicationof extension rules optional rather than obligatory.

Rule addition: New ornamentation rules (rules 35 through 58in figure 8.4) are added. These rules are described in the next

section.Rule deletion, rule change, and rule addition apply to the Prairiegrammar to produce a family of new grammars. Included in thefamily is a grammar that defines a language of polliwog Usonianhouses. This is the grammar shown in figure 8-4.

234

a~

s~

,~


,"

"~,'

changing the spatial ,elation between a fireplace arid a Irving zone

" ~ ~

10:

~ ~-~ ~

,. ,

11:

~-~

~

.:», ,",

12:

13:

~~

changing the spalial relatio betwe r .n en a ""og zone and a service zone in a core unit

Pt<Nie SpatraJ rel<Jtioos ct"",,,,,es Usonian spatial relationS

8.6 Changing Prairie spatial relations into Usonian spatial relations.

15:

18:

19:

23; ~

as A27: ~

Praide spalla/ relarkms


..•~.~

changing Ihe spalial relalion between a zona in a core unil and an exlerlSion

<~ ..•~.~

cl1anginglhe spalial relation between a zone in a core unil arid an e>clensiOll

Ch8~rules Usorrian spawN rela/ions


The Usonian grammar

Although the outward appearance and spatial organizaticUsonian houses seems substantially different from that ofPrairie houses, the underlying composition of Usonian desigrclosely related to that of Prairie designs. Parallels between tltwo styles are reflected in analogous rules of composition inUsonian and Prairie grammars.

In the Usonian grammar, as in the Prairie grammar, designsgenerated by first defining basic compositional forms and 1ornamenting these forms to produce complete designs.generation of a Usonian basic composition hegins with aplace/kitchen or work space - the initial shape of the grammaliving zone is then placed in relation to the work space in anyof the three ways specified by rules 2, 5, and 7. The work sparalways located in the upper half of a living zone; the flreplaralways parallel to a side of the Iiving zone. The spatiallabeand 0 marking the comers of living zones are used subsequeto distinguish different ways of adding other zones to a Ii-zone. The core unit of a Usonian design is completed by ada bedroom zone, containing from one to three bedroomsall bathrooms, to the living zone. Rules 9 through 13 spethe five different ways an Lshaped Usonian core unit catformed.

Optional extensions to the core unit are determined by r15,16,18, 19,21,23,24,26,27, and 29. Application of either15 or 23 adds a smaller living zone to the living zone of a I

unit. This small living zone extension is used as either a wshop or a study. Application of one of rules 18, 19, 26, or 27 adsmaller bedroom zone or a smaller living zone to the bednzone of a core unit. The small bedroom zone extension inchone or two additional bedrooms and possibly a bathroom.small living zone extension is used as a workshop or a stand is sometimes converted into a bedroom. The labels. arin rules IS, 18, 19, 23, 26, and 27 control the placemenextensions. Rules 16, 21, 24, and 29 apply to erase the labeand o. Because the left-sides of these rules have no state lalthe rules can be applied to a design in any state; that is, to deswith core unit extensions lin states 3 or 5J or without core 1

extensions (in states 2 or 4). Applications of extension rulesthus ordered by state labels so that extensions to a Usonian 1

unit an~ optional rather than obligatory as they are for Prscore UOitS.

~he basic composition rules of the Usonian grammar appldenve basic compositional forms in much the same way thatbas~c composition rules of the Prairie grammar apply to debaSICcompositional forms. In particular, the recursive struciof the Usonian basic composition rules is isomorphic to


recursive structure of the Prairie rules from which they arederived. Thus, despite differences in the spatial relations and thelabels that define Prairie and Usonian basic composition rules, theways Prairie basic compositions and Usonian basic compositionsare generated are equivalent.

Figure 8.7 gives a catalogue of all the different basic com-positional forms that can be generated by the Usonian basiccomposition rules. The dimensions of each of these forms can bevaried to determine forms with different proportions in the sameways that the dimensions of Prairie basic compositional formscan be varied (see p. 224). Included in the catalogue are the basiccompositions of the Usonian houses illustrated in figure 8·3,These are identified by name. All other basic compositions arenew.

A line between a living zone and a bedroom zone in a basiccomposition as illustrated in figure 8.7 approximates either a realor implied boundary between spaces used for different purposes;in other words, it does not necessarily correspond to an actualwall or partition. A line between a living or bedroom zone and itsextension frequently does correspond to a physical boundary sucbas a wall, partition, or secondary fireplace.

When the living zone and bedroom zone in a core unit overlap,as in basic compositions I through 6, then a part of the living zoneand a part of the bedroom zone are contained within the samespace in the hinge of the plan. In the Rosenbaum house, fOIexample, both the kitchen and master bathroom are contained irthis area. When the living zone and bedroom zone are separated asin basic compositions 13 through 18, 25 through 30, 37 through42, and 49 through 54, then the intervening space could be either ecourtyard, terrace, or other open or semi-enclosed space. FOIexample, in Wright's Adelman house of 1953 - a Usonian houseclose in plan to Wright's L-shaped Usonians shown here - rwcseparate areas of the house ale linked by an outdoor terrace.

Usonian basic compositional forms ale developed further wittornamentation rules 3S through 58 in the Usonian grammar. AI:of these rules are optional and are analogous in purpose, but not irform, to ornamentation rules in the Prairie grammar. AlthoughPrairie houses and Usonian houses are closely related in basiccompositional form, their designs rapidly diverge with furthe:embellishments.8

Rules 35 and 36 apply to add a living zone, used as either sworkshop or a study, to the hinge of an Lplan. Because the state 0:a design changes when rule 35 is applied, the rule can be applieconly once. The area of the space added by rule 36 may varybetween one-quarter to one-half the area of the living or bedroorrzone in the core unit. The length of any side of this space may varybetween one to two times that of the adjacent side.

Rules 37 through 41 each apply to interpenetrate one zone in ~


~~~( e «, ,, __ , • 5 •

~( , ( i (7 __. • "-'-'_ '" """_,, t;/

'(' < ,~" " ,. fO " ..

c c e e «,. '" '" " '" -- '"

~~~~( ~ ( <25 '" '" 2Il .. '"~v~v~,"'--., J3 ,. '" '"

~@~~'@ ,~~~ ~" '" .. '" " '"~~~v~~... .. .. .. 47 ..

~@~~,~,~ ~~ ~.. '" 50 52 53 '"

8.7 Usonian basic compositions.


design with another zone. The depth of interpenetration is alwaysless than one-third the length of the interpenetrating zone. If anyone of these rules is applied to interpenetrate a zone of a core unitwith another zone of the core unit, then one of rules 42, 43, or 44can be applied to reattach an extension to the interpenetratingzone.

Rules 45 through 48 add spaces to extensions. In rule 45, thelarger space is a zone of a core unit and the smaller space is anextension. The label ... marks a side of an extension as shown.Because the state of a design changes when rule 45 is applied, therule can be applied only once. In rules 46,47, and 48, the area ofthe added space may vary between one to one-half the area of theextension it adjoins. The length of anyone of its sides may varybetween one to two times that of the adjacent side. Notice that abedroom zone can never be added to a living zone.

Secondary fireplaces may be added to designs with extensionsby applying rules 49 through 55· In rule 49, the larger space is azone of a core unit and the smaller space is an extension. The label• can be placed anywhere along the line that separates a core unitzone and its extension, but not at its endpoints. The extensionmayor may not interpenetrate the adjoining zone. Rule 50replaces the label. with a single-hearth fireplace; rule 5I replacesthe label. with a Single-hearth fireplace in a comer of a zone.Rules 52 through 55 create different double-hearth fireplaces fromsingle-hearth fireplaces. Whenever a fireplace is added, the line OI

lines it overlaps are erased thus preventing fireplace rules frombeing reapplied in the same place.

Finally, rules 56,57, and 58 each apply to cut off or inflect anexterior comer of any zone in a design. The dimensions of theinflection can vary. The total area of inflections to a zone cannotbe greater than one third the original area of the zone. These rulesapply recursively to produce the interior alcoves and niches aniundulating exterior facades characteristic of polliwog Usonians.

The final state of the Usonian grammar is variable; it may beany state greater than or equal to 6.

A design is in the language generated by the Usonian grammarwhenever it meets the usual provisos and whenever all areas in adesign distinguished by grey tones are completely bounded b,lines. This latter, supplementary proviso ensures that desigmgenerated by inappropriate applications of some of the omamenration rules are not included in the language.

In figure 8.8, a derivation of Wright's Garrison house is illustrated. Basic composition rules apply in the first five steps t(generate a basic compositional form. Ornamentation rules arcthen applied to produce the final design. The final designs for theJacobs, Lusk, Newman, Rosenbaum, and Pope houses, produce,by applying ornamentation rules to appropriately dimensioneebasic compositions, are illustrated in figure 8·9·


~rule 5

rule 45 .+.

rule 56 J.

e

-.. ••• --t

rule 56

~rule 10

,

~rule 4()

f- ... l-

rules 37,43

,

~rule 47

~rule 49

-+ ... --t

rules SO.52

~rule 57

8.8 A derivation of the Garrison house.

..~.ce se

e

--t . . . --trute 57

~rule 24

J.. ru~;

~rule 29

! rule

~rule 56

8·9The final designs of theIacobs. Lusk, Newman,

Rosenbaum, and Popehouses.


.kcobs hoose Lush house Newman house

Rosenbaum house

The Usonian grammar is only one of several grammars produced in the transformation of the Prairie grammar. Because thechange rules illustrated in figure 8.6 determine new spatial relations other than the ones shown, other new rules can be deflnecfor other new grammars. For example, the two change rules thaiapply to the rectangular core unit of a Prairie design can apply tcproduce new spatial relations other than the L-shaped relationsshown in figure 8.6. Figure 8.10 shows some of the other possiblespatial relations that result from different applications of thesetwo change rules. Each spatial relation is produced by rotatimboth the living and service zone in a Prairie core unit, rather tharjust one of these zones as in figure 8.6. Spatial relation I corresponds to some of Wright's early one-zone Usonians. spatial relanon 2 corresponds roughly to what Sergeant calls an "in-lineIjsonian."" Other spatial relations can be considered the bases facompletely new Usonian or other style compositions.


-.rule 5

rule 45 J,.

a

rule 56 J.

,

<-rule 40

+-- • • . ....rule 56

--. ... --+rule 56

-.rule 10

<-rule 57

,

....... t-rules 37.43

-.rule 47

~rule 49

,

e

rule 57

,

a

8.8 A derivation of the Garrison house.

--+ ... --+rules 50, 52

~rule 24

L roe ae

<-rule 29

.l.- rule 4

<-rule 56

8.10

Other spatial relationsbetween living and

bedroom zones in a coreunit that result from

different applications ofthe change rules shown

in figure 8.6


3

, s sDiscussion

This study illustrates again how the formal model described iPart II can be used to elucidate changes in styles. Wright's Prairstyle is described very easily in terms of rules based on spati.relations between block-like shapes. His later Usonian styledescribed as a transformation of Prairie rules. Central to thtransformation are the changes in the spatial relations and ttordering of rules for the basic composition of Prairie designThese changes are unexpectedly simple yet they have very sophi.ticated consequences - they are the basis for rules for a distinct]different style.

The way that the spatial relations for Prairie designs atchanged into spatial relations for Usonian designs illustrates orof the ways for changing spatial relations discussed in chapterThe shapes in each spatial relation for a Prairie basic compositioare simply rearranged to produce a Usonian spatial relation; nnew shapes (except for the work space) are introduced. Recahowever, that Wright's stylistic innovations also included rhintroduction of new shapes. (See figure 5.8a and pp. 88, 91). Thplans of three houses Wright designed around the same time as thUsonians discussed here - the "Life 1/ Jester and Sundt houses, ,have distinct stylistic characters. The stylistic differencebetween these houses, though, are essentially the result of intnducing new shapes into a fixed arrangement of shapes.

Descriptions of styles and stylistic changes are always interetrelative, and are biased in the way some aspects of styles arhighlighted while others are ignored. Certainly, Koning anEizenberg's characterization of Wright's Prairie houses as arrangements of blocks around a central fireplace is very unique. Nomtheless, it is compelling. This characterization is perhaps evemore plausible now since it can be shown how block arrangemente for Prairie houses are easily transformed into blocarrangements for Usonian houses. It would be interesting to seethe very different, earlier analyses of Prairie houses as projectionof two-dimensional planning grids could be placed as firmly anexplicitly in the tradition of Wright's other work.

8.10

Other spatial relationsbetween living and

bedroom zones in a coreunit that result from

different applications ofthe change rules shown

in figure 8.6


e e

,Discussion

s 6

This study illustrates again how the formal model described uPart II can be used to elucidate changes in styles. Wright's Prairistyle is described very easily in terms of rules based on spatiarelations between block-like shapes. His later Usonian style idescribed as a transformation of Prairie rules. Central to tilltransformation are the changes in the spatial relations and thordering of rules for the basic composition of Prairie designsThese changes are unexpectedly simple yet they have very sophisticated consequences - they are the basis for rules for a distinctl-different style.

The way that the spatial relations for Prairie designs archanged into spatial relations for Usonian designs illustrates onof the ways for changing spatial relations discussed in chapter 5The shapes in each spatial relation for a Prairie basic compositioiare simply rearranged to produce a Usonian spatial relation; n.new shapes (except for the work space) are introduced. Recalhowever, that Wright's stylistic innovations also included th.introduction of new shapes. (See figure 5.8a and pp. 88, 91). Thplans of three houses Wright designed around the same time as thUsonians discussed here - the "Life," Jester, and Sundt houseshave distinct stylistic characters. The stylistic differencebetween these houses, though, are essentially the result of intraducing new shapes into a fixed arrangement of shapes.

Descriptions of styles and stylistic changes are always interesrelative, and are biased in the way some aspects of styles ar.highlighted while others are ignored. Certainly, Koning antEizenberg's characterization of Wright's Prairie houses as arrangements of blocks around a central fireplace is very unique. Nonetheless, it is compelling. This characterization is perhaps evermore plausible now since it can be shown how block arrangements for Prairie houses are easily transformed into bloclarrangements for Usonian houses. It would be interesting to see ithe very different, earlier analyses of Prairie houses as projectionof two-dimensional planning grids could be placed as finnly aruexplicitly in the tradition of Wright's other work.

Postscript

The three case studies of Part m bring up important, but not ofterdiscussed, issues regarding the limitations and potentials of shapegrammars and grammatical transformations in studying individual styles and stylistic change.

Any analysis of a style with a shape grammar is a theory - ,particular, retrospective view - of the designs in that style. Tha'view mayor may not have anything to do with the way thosedesigns were originally conceived or with the process by whiclthey were made. When dealing with historical material anclimited supporting information, it is often impossible to knovwhether a shape grammar corresponds to historical fact. Everwith contemporary material and a living designer, it may still hidifficult to know definitively whether a grammar corresponds tlthe designer's own conception of his or her designs. Designers annot always willing or able to recount the true origins and methodof their work. Any analysis of a stylistic change using gram matical transformations has the same kind of uncertainties.

Yet, the purpose of most grammars developed thus far has nobeen to describe or even to conjecture about the historical genesiand actual making of designs, but simply to describe the designthemselves. The more compelling the grammar, the more iwould seem likely that the grammar corresponds to historicareality, but there is usually no presumption and certainly mguarantee that it does. Without a definite historical or cognitivbasis, however, the relevance of shape grammars to historians andesigners is no less significant. A convincing description of a srylwith a shape grammar points to the existence of some sort ansome degree of structure (including. possibly, a lack of structureunderlying designs in that style. Similarly, the description ofchange in style with grammatical transformations points to thexistence of some kind of structure underlying that changr

24

Postscript

Related to this work is an earlier, 1989 paper in which therepresentation of aspects of form, other than purely spatial ones,is addressed. In this paper by the author, the shape grammarformalism is extended to include the representation of qualities ofform such as color, texture, material, function, and so 00.2 Withthis extended formalism, designs are described with rules madeup of different pictorial elements used alone or in combinationwith one another: lines in two or three dimensions (as in standardshape grammars), colored (or other quality-defined) planes in twcor three dimensions, and colored (or other quality-defined) solidsin three dimensions.

A still broader generalization of shape grammars was discussecin chapter 2. Description grammars or schemes allow designs tcbe described in nonpictorial, verbal ways as well as pictorial waysWith description schemes, meanings and determinants of styleand stylistic change that may be addressed more appropriatelywith words, can be treated with the same formal clarity used hento treat spatial form.

The study of style and stylistic change is undeniably complexand difficult. More work is needed to realize the full promise 0:

the formal systems proposed in this book and in the researcldescribed above. Yet, even in the work done so far, many of thrvarying concerns and ideas about style and change are beginninrto be brought together more clearly; new and exciting ways 0

thinking about these ideas are being made possible.


Whether or not a shape grammar matches the original thoughtsactivities of a designer, the grammar demonstrates, at the veleast, that those thoughts or activities (whatever they may halbeenj led to designs with the particular properties described by tlgrammar. At the very most, the grammar may suggest, by isimplicity or intuitiveness, that the designer's original thoughor activities were the same or equivalent in structure to tlstructure manifested by the grammar. For example, ancient Oreepotters may not have worked by the rules exactly as definedchapter 6, but may have used a similar or equally systematapproach in order to produce designs with the simple regulariti.revealed by the grammars. Any claim stronger than this suggesion, however, could probably not be proven.

Nonetheless, even if a grammar is completely "false" from ahistorical point of view, the grammar may be just as accurate ithe classification of works chronologically or geographically arthe prediction of unknown, missing, or new works - and, in thsense, of equivalent value - as a grammar that is historical:"true." For designers, the historical truth of a grammar or granmatical transformations may be irrelevant. The knowledge gaineabout designs with a grammar or transformations can sugge:many new creative strategies and ideas that can be employed ifuture design work, regardless of historical facts.

Another issue concerning the limits of shape grammars is raiseby this study. Here, the examination of style and stylistic changis restricted to the study of form and, within the framework ~grammars, to the study of one particular aspect of fonn and orparticular representation of form. To what extent can other dinensions of form, and more generally, of style and change, texplored with the kind of formal rigor applied in the work henRecent and ongoing research suggests that the bounds on whatpossible to represent, describe, and know formally - in particulawith grammars - are broader than might be supposed.

For example, shape grammars as originally conceived represerform in only one way, that is, with lines. Although line represertations of form are common and traditional, other ways of repnsenting form are equally valid, even cultivated within variermovements in the history of art and architecture. Whereas limenjoyed a special status during the Renaissance, planes wetpromoted by De Stijl artists and architects, and solid volumes bthe modem movement in architecture. In a 1991 paper, GeorgStiny described an important generalization of shape grammars Iwhich designs can be described using any of these different repnsentations.' The representations that can be encoded in the ruleof a shape grammar are chosen from a hierarchy of spatiaelements used alone or in combination with one another: pointin two or three dimensions, lines in two or three dimensionsplanes in two or three dimensions, and solids in three dimensions

254 Notes to pages 207-245

9 Vantongerloo's parallel division rule is derived from his perpendnlar division rule, and Glamer's oblique division rule is derived frchis rectangular division rule inessentially the same way _ by rotatidividing lines. See pages 182 and 203.

10 Rilles 9 and 19 could be reintroduced in stage IV by rule additirather than by rule change. However, rule addition would not poiout the relationship between rules 8 and 9 and the relationshbetween rules 18 and 19.

8 The transformation of Frank lloyd Wright's Prairie houses into hisUsonian houses

I J. Sergeant, Frank Lloyd Wright's Usontan Houses (New York, 19762 G. Manson, "Wright in the Nursery," Architectural Review 113 (195.

143-146.3 R. C. MacCormac, "Proebel's kindergarten gifts and the early work

Frank Lloyd Wright," Environment and Planning B I l 1974): 29-50.4 Koning and Eizenberg, "Language of the prairie."5 F. L. Wright, The Natural House /New York, 1954), pp. 167-168.6 A variable state of 6 or more makes all ornamentation rules not show

in figure 8.4 optional. In the Koning and Eizenberg grammar, sonornamentation rules, such as those for adding roofs, are obligatorHowever, since these rules are not specified in the grammar given hera more exact range of final states is not specified. Rather than leavirthe variable final state undefined, it is defined here as 6 or morUnornamented basic compositions are thus included in the lenguardefined by the Prairie grammar.

7 Determining which Prairie spatial relations or rules are changed intUsonian rules is arbitrary to a certain extent. For example, anyone cthe Prairie spatial relations between a core unit zone and an extensiocould be changed into a comparable Usonian spatial relation by repoitioning shapes in the appropriate way. The rule changes defined herare generally the simplest ones for transforming Prairie rules intanalogous Usonian rules.

8 The Usonian ornamentation rules given here are not as detailed as tbPrairie ornamentation rules given in the Koning and Eizenbe.rgrammar. Basically, only those ornamentations observable in plan atincluded; variations in ceiling heights, roofs, and so on are ncdescribed.

9 Sergeant, Usonian Houses, pp. 52.-58.

Postscript

I G. Stiny, "The Algebras of Design)' Research and EngineeIing Desigs2.(19911: 171-180.

2. T. W. Knight, "Color grammars: designing with lines and colors,'Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16 {19891417-449.

Index

Page numbers rendered in bold type indicate references to illustrations.

Abraham, Pol, 16Ackerman, James, 18-19,1;0, :12,

24,26, 33, 34, ::&47n. II, 250n.l07

addition rulels], 49-50, 50, 52, 53,106-107,106. See also shaperule(s)

Alexander, Christopher, 25, 248n·36

Anavysos Painter, 12.0, 121,136-137

Archaic style, I I I

archetype, 12, 13Argos C201 Workshop, uS-u7,

"7Aristotle,S, 19Athens 894 Workshop, 124, 12.4,

134-1.lSAthens 897 Painter, Workshop,

r:l.I-1]2, 122, 136-137

Hanham, R., 249 n. p., n. 73, n. 76battlement meander, 114· See also

meander motifBauplan, 13, 37Birdseed Workshop, 118-120, II"

1]6-137Black-Figure style, I UBletter, R. H., 249 n. 60, n. 64gloudel, '.-F., 13biological classification systems,

'3Bosanquet Painter, 131BuffoD,13

Carpenter, R., 247 n. r r, 250 n. 82change rule(s), 95-1°4, fJ7,98, 101,

102, 10}, r ro, 233, 2}4-2)5,241. See also role change

character, UChinese tee-rev shape grammar, 18,

"Choisy, Auguste, 16-17, 21

Chomsky, Noam, 15Clark, W. E. Le Gros, 248 n. SSCohen, J. E., 250 n. 96Coldstream, J. N., 252 n. 2, n. 4,

253 n. 6complex (double, triple, quadruple,

etc.) meander, u6. See alsomeander motif

compositionls) of transfonnations,45,47

computer-aided design, xv-xviCorbusier, Le, 17, 165Croce, Benedetto, 4Cuvier, Georges, 14

Darwin, Charles, 6, 1SDavison, Jean M., 1I3, 152 n. 3derivation, 27, 5O-P. See also

shape grammarts]description scheme(s), 32-34, 35,

36,39, 183, 145oesan art, 110--217.See also

Glarner, Fritz; Vantongerloo,Georges

Dipylon Master, Workshop,u6-I18, llti, 117, r r S, 120,122, 134-1}5, 136-1}7, ISS·See also meander motif

Downing, F., 'lSI n. 7Durand, J. N. L., xiii, 14, 15, 34,

15

Early Geometric style, 112. Seealso meander motif

Early and Middle Geometricmeander shape grammar, 133,139, 131),140

Eastman, C. M., 150 n. 97Egbert, D. D., 248 n. 45Bizenberg, Julie, 119, 220, 221, 2204,

232,242, lSI n. 7, 154 n. 6, n. 8.See also Frank Lloyd WrightPrairie house shape grammar

Elderfidd, J., 253 n. 5Bilegserd, A., 250 n. 96emergent shape, 71empty shape, 43equality relation, 44, 45erasing rule(s), 58, 59, 71Ettlinger, L. D., 249 n. 60, n. 62euclidean rransformarionts), 44-47,

46,47,87,91in rule applications, 5I, p, 54,

SS, SS, 56, 58, 95, 96

Fence Workshop, utifinal state(s), 62-63. See also shape

grammar(s)changing state labels in, 83-85,

"Fischer von Erlach, J. B., 90, 91Flemming, U., 251 n. 7Focillon, Henri, II, 18,20,204,26,

36,39form and content (meaning), 19-20,

24, 34, 39Frankl, Paul, 9-10, 19, 33, 35, 36Froebel, Frederick, 28, )2, 'lI8,

'"Froebel block shape grammar, 32,

"Fu,K.S., 2SI n.2,0. 5

generative grammar, 2SGenova, J., 'lSOn. 106Geometric style, I I I-I 12. See also

meander motifGips, James, xiii, 25Glarner, Fritz, 168-170, 191-217,

100-101,101,106,201),211.See also De Stijl art;Vantongerloo, Georges

shape grammars for paintings of,170, 11)6-11)', 100-114, 117

GOller, Adolph, 8Goethe, 13, 14, 38, 165, 166

255

8 the transformation of frank lloyd wright's prairie...

Documents