Lloyd Lewis sections

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.
Post Reply
SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Lloyd Lewis sections

Post by SDR »

In Monograph 6, two drawing sheets are presented on facing pages; most unusually, they are two versions of the same sectional views, permitting direct comparison.

My scans of these pages are shown here at full size, in hopes that many notes will be legible. If anyone desires close-up photos of any parts of these drawings, please ask.

There must be hundreds of differences between the two drawings; just for starters, at far left, two means of attaching the workspace ceiling joists to the brick wall are detailed. A notable difference is found in the second-level flooring material.

This house contains at least as many novelties of construction as any Usonian I have looked at, so the ability to inspect variances in these details may afford exceptional enjoyment and elucidation. We have read that Mr Wright typically had his drafters erase and correct, as opposed to starting over with a fresh sheet. That is clearly not the case here . . .


Image

Image

© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Lewis elevations and plans, Monograph 6. The bedroom corridor wall was built of wood, not brick.


Image


Image


Photographs, see http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?t=10281


SDR
Last edited by SDR on Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tom
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

First, These are great.
Thank you.

I see contradictory notes for the finish floor.
Living room floor is open between slats by 1/8" ...?
Slats are squared?

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

On the second drawing, I read 1 5/8" x 1 5/8" Pine, 1/8" gaps. On the bedroom balcony, 1/4" gaps. On the first drawing, 1 3/4" x 1 3/4" 'slats' on the bedroom balcony.

The second drawing sheet appears to come much closer to the built condition than the first one . . .

SDR

Tom
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

In "Letters To Clients", if I remember correctly:
Lewis wanted the balcony parapets open to see the river.
The argument became acrimonious and Wright ended up
giving Lewis the ultimatum of having the parapets closed or not having the house at all.
Always seemed to me the parapet could have been perforated
but Wright never ever did that.

Tom
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Jesus - are the heating coils drilled through the floor joists?

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I believe the story is about the height of the parapet; Lewis wanted it lowered by one board so he could see the river from a seated position (?), which
Wright resisted (leaving me to believe that the appearance of the house from the exterior meant much to the architect). I seem to recall something about
perforating the top board, as a compromise -- but I believe the house was built as Wright intended.


Pew section, showing heat pipes parallel to joists.


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10015
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

That was the situation, SDR. The solution was that FLW raised the living room floor by two steps, so the exterior was not altered, and Mr. Lewis could sit while he gazed at the river. Win win.

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Interesting; I was wondering about that, but I assumed that level change, odd as it might be, was baked into the design before the parapet contretemps. Boy, he really needed certain compositional results, didn't he . . .


Image


Image

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

In both versions of the section drawings the living room is at the same elevation and a couple of steps above the dining/kitchen level; perhaps both drawings post-date the change in LR floor level.

Pfeiffer makes a odd reference, in Taschen: "Along the bedroom gallery are bookshelves and wardrobes with perforations high on the brick wall above the shelves to let the light in." This describes the condition in the earlier drawing rather than the as-built version.

He also says this design comes directly from Willey I. That house also has the kitchen/dining three steps down from the living level . . .

SDR

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

SDR wrote:In both versions of the section drawings the living room is at the same elevation and a couple of steps above the dining/kitchen level; perhaps both drawings post-date the change in LR floor level.

Pfeiffer makes a odd reference, in Taschen: "Along the bedroom gallery are bookshelves and wardrobes with perforations high on the brick wall above the shelves to let the light in." This describes the condition in the earlier drawing rather than the as-built version.

He also says this design comes directly from Willey I. That house also has the kitchen/dining three steps down from the living level . . .

SDR
The floor plan is accurate.
There are perforated windows along the bedroom gallery. The design elevation above was superseded. look at the photo in the other thread.
The two steps down are there so that roof plane could drop beneath the clerestory windows without raising the entire house by 14".

The heating system still works quite well. There was no pipe deterioration issues with the piping between the wood joists. There is limited piping in the first floor slab and it was replaced.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

Tom
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Ha!
That's what accounts for the raise in floor level!
Makes the level changes more understandable.

... so the slats of the finish floor are structural - no sub flooring
and at least in some places there are gaps in between the slats,
I presume to allow heat to convect into the space as opposed to purely radiate.

Is the black and white, exterior birds eye perspective by Wright?

SDR
Posts: 19067
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

It's a Taliesin drawing, yes.

Tom asked the right question; it's a lot easier to run pipes parallel to joists than through them !

S

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

Tom wrote:Ha!
That's what accounts for the raise in floor level!
Makes the level changes more understandable.

... so the slats of the finish floor are structural - no sub flooring
and at least in some places there are gaps in between the slats,
I presume to allow heat to convect into the space as opposed to purely radiate.

Is the black and white, exterior birds eye perspective by Wright?
The slats are structural spanning approximately 46 1/2". The framing is 4' on center. The gaps between the wood slats exist throughout the house except at slab on grade conditions.

The B&W perspective is by Wright.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

Some unique things about the house.

The house is cranked to look upriver to a bend in the river which creates an incredibly beautiful view. When we got involved the river bank was completely overgrown and the view upriver was completely blocked. Invasive, non-native buck thorn created this dense barrier that largely screened the river even when directly looking at it. At the outset of our architectural services I was trying to determine why FLW cranked the house on an angle rather than siting it parallel with the river which is quite beautiful view in itself to the nature preserve on the other side of the river. The buck thorn was removed, dead trees cut down, dead branches removed and the tree canopies were raised to create incredibly beautiful view upriver to the bend as envisioned by FLW that was so critical to his design.

The house sits close to river bank and is on the 100 year flood plain. The northwest corner is approximately 20 feet off of the river at its normal level. In the last 54 years the house, including the rooms on grade has never flooded. The floor joists supporting the mid-level bedroom wing is approximately 14" above the 100 year flood plain.

The terrace insect screen framework is made of simple, yet very elegant cast iron pipe framework. Its restoration is part of the restoration project. It is also used eleswhere on the house as a trellis.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

Post Reply