What Wright thing haven't you done yet?

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Clifton: interesting plan !


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Clifton is an interesting plan, and one I believe FLW really wanted to get built; like Sundt and Jester, FLW proposed the same scheme for other clients, Jankowski and Gross. I especially like the way the long, narrow roof continues past the truncated enclosure, over the porch.

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

This design has something in common with Wright's first significant house, the Winslow residence: they are both exercises in the fitting of functional spaces under a virtually symmetrical roof. The differences between them, however, would take a full page to enumerate . . .

How do readers perceive the symmetrical building envelope ? Is it always the self-evident choice of form, a shortcut to architectural order which necessarily ignores the realities of solar orientation, vehicular and pedestrian approach, and interior function, to name just a few particulars ? On what grounds is it justified; on what grounds might it be found ideological indefensible -- in the modern era, at least ?

In what ways are this plan like and unlike another repeated one, for McCartney et al ?


Image

DRN
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

You read my mind....while I see the Clifton/Jankowski/Gross as a unique plan type, I have wondered if it began in Wright's mind as an evolution of the plan type used for McCartney. Possibly recognizing some tight spots, or a grander formal gesture for a sloping site...? Mirroring the right triangle, and extending the utility spaces out from the apex.

I've always found Clifton to be a unique mix of symmetry and asymmetry: the plan form is outwardly symmetrical, but the placement of spaces breaks from that; the building sillhuette is symmetrical from one side, but not so from the others.

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

". . . the plan form is outwardly symmetrical, but the placement of spaces breaks from that . . ." In this the plan may be virtually unique in Wright's work -- do you think ? What happens beneath the roof (and beyond the chimney) is completely asymmetrical.

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Actually, the McCartney model began a year earlier with the unbuilt cottage for Maginel. McCartney's contemporary for Howard Anthony combines the layout of McCartney with the material of Maginel. (The Anthony interior is one of the wonders of FLW's late career.)

I can see a close relationship between Maginel/McCartney/Anthony, and Clifton/Jankowski/Gross, but the latter 3 are a purification of the scheme. (Well, maybe Maginel is perfect!) A major difference between them is that C/J/G cry out for a spectacular view. That is all the window wall is about, which seems not to be as pronounced in M/M/A.

The rakish slope of the Gross roof was not an improvement.

KevinW
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:41 pm

Post by KevinW »

1.(2) origami chairs for the living room.
2. Visit Fallingwater
3. Second honeymoon back at Taliesin. 25 years ago this year we went to Spring Green on our honeymoon.
KevinW

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Sweet, Kevin. I say go for it !

SDR

Tim
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:52 pm

Post by Tim »

I'll be at Stanford in April. The Hanna house is closed. Denied!

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Granted it was fifteen years ago, but a colleague and I were on the Peninsula one afternoon and decided to seek out the house and hope for the best. We found it shut and empty, no one about to see us wander the property and drink it in from the exterior. I say go for it; what's the worst that could happen ?

Of course, a full tour would be much much better !

This was ten years after the Loma Prieta quake that damaged the house. We saw no sign of that damage, though we assumed it might be found inside, upon closer inspection . . .

SDR

EJ
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

My list:

1) See the FLW works in Northern California (Morris Gift Shop, Hanna, Marin County buildings).

2) Tour the interior of at least one of the textile block houses. I've seen them from the exterior, but have never been inside.

3) Own a FLW barrel chair.

4) Write a book on FLW.

It's only a matter of time before #1 and #3 happen, but #2 will require a bit of serendipity and/or vigilance for an opportunity. Hopefully a Conservancy event or the like will get me into one of these houses. If anyone ever hears of these houses being accessible, please let me know. This is something I would drop everything and travel for.

I have (I think) a great idea for a FLW book, and I will just have to make the time to do it.
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

EJ, when Joel owned Storer, he had many events, including a dinner for a McIntosh group from Scotland. After that event, someone found a way into the back of the property and stole a repro of the outdoor table and chairs from Midway, and that was the end of Storer being open ... until January, 2008, when the new owners held a $1500 fund-raiser for the Conservancy. They, too, have moved on, and I don't know who owns the house now. Sold for over $5M.

Ennis was saved from falling apart by Ron Burkle, with an easement that allows public viewing 12 days a year. I don't know how to contact the house other than snail mail. Send a request, including a self-addressed return envelope.

La Miniatura also recently sold. The house stood vacant for a long time, and the grounds became so overgrown that the Rosemont side is virtually impossible to see. But there is now a new owner, about whom I know nothing.

Freeman is a mess. I'm not sure it's even safe to enter. USC seems not in any hurry to address the problems.

HenryWhiting
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Post by HenryWhiting »

To finally, after 30 years of friendship, tours, conferences, and dinners with famous architects, coerce Roderick Grant into visiting Teater's Knoll.

Tom
Posts: 3145
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Strikes me as being a difficult thing to coerce RG into anything.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Henry, I would love to see Teater, but I can't shoot straight.

Post Reply