I wouldn't want to live in it, though, because everything would be damp.
I wish people talked more about the building's shortcomings: moisture, mold, mildew, etc. It's a good architectural demonstration, but not good architecture --- just like how an overengineered code might be interesting, but not practical.
I live in the rainy Pacific Northwest. I specified a lot of things about it that would keep it dry. The general contractor thought it was a waste of money, but I said it's my money and that's what I want to spend it on. There were still mistakes, but it can be managed.
After 25 years, it has proven its worth.
I've watched my neighborhood evolve, with older homes regularly getting dozed and new ones put up. After two or three years I see the water damage on them. Sheesh!
Probably the most consequential feature is having large eaves, which keeps the windows and siding dry. Lots of modern houses around here have no eaves at all!!
I visited Falling Water as a kid, so I probably had a limited ability to appreciate it. But I do remember finding it rather cold and uncomfortable, interesting with the waterfall flowing underneath but not really as somewhere I’d want to live.
Leaks are a given in any Wright house. Indeed, the architect has been notorious not only for his leaks but for his flippant dismissals of client complaints. He reportedly asserted that, “If the roof doesn’t leak, the architect hasn’t been creative enough.” His stock response to clients who complained of leaking roofs was, “That’s how you can tell it’s a roof.”
Wright’s late-in-life triumph, Fallingwater in Pennsylvania, celebrated by the AIA poll as “the best all-time work of American architecture,” lives up to its name with a plague of leaks; they have marred the windows and stone walls and deteriorated the structural concrete. To its original owner, Fallingwater was known as “Rising Mildew,” a “seven-bucket building.” It is indeed a gorgeous and influential house, but unlivable. For its leaks there can be no excuse.
—Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn
I always assumed that part of what made "the great architects" great was their skill in combining lofty visions with practical engineering, making houses that were at once artistic statements and durable, comfortable living spaces... utilizing the strengths of different materials, built on sound engineering principles and so on.
But these architects seem to be more interested in the experience you get when _visiting_ the house in its environment, rather than the experience of actually living in it, and these houses are famously often impractical, hard to maintain, and in need of constant repair. That makes them less interesting to me.