Demolished
“It was around the structural concept that the most discussion centered. ‘We have read the explanation and studied the plan and photographs,’ say Fehr [Arthur, 1904-1969] & Granger [Charles, 1913-1966], ‘but we still find it impossible to justify the framing system utilized over the living room… The sheer weight of the structure at this point seems to destroy the lightness and informality which exists through the rest of the house.’ Stubbins [Hugh, Jr, 1912-2006] also dissents: ‘The architects make a point of expressing the structure, regularity of supports, etc., This is certainly a commendable endeavor, but I do not think it comes off. The structure seems entirely too complicated and inconsistent with several different kinds of trusses and roof-framing systems. This is especially noticeable at the intersection of wings and in the living room.’ Regarding the structural situation at the intersection of the wings, Rudolph comments: ‘I agree that the clarity of structure is lost here. I do not agree, however, that too many kinds of construction have been used. The entire lower roof of the house has been constructed with trusses which vary only according to their span. The upper level of the living room has been elaborated with all of its structure exposed for contrast. I have nothing to add to the original explanation of the running of the trusses the long direction of the living room.’
In sum, Drake [Gordon, 1917-1952] says: ‘I find it difficult to find any major or minor faults.’ Fehr & Granger: ‘In general, this house is so simple and logical…that the house itself becomes a rather special feature in its entirety.’ Stubbins: ‘It has an informality of appearance which is disarming…It has a certain regional character and seems to belong in Florida.'”
“Round-Robin Critique: Four Houses.” Progressive Architecture 31 (August 1950): 68-69.