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.
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
It seems to have changed in parts a bit from the drawings as posted.
Have a look at these 2 photos -spot the difference - one has 5 boards to the dining balcony - the other 6 boards!
the drawing (dining room section) indicates 7 boards, whereas the elevation indicates 5 boards
so I gather windows were lengthened?
It seems unlikely that the dining-room windows would have been altered; if so, when ? And if not, then the extra board occurs at the bottom, not the top---despite the top board being of a different color in the larger photo ?
The section drawings on the first page of this thread may be of help. If they cannot be enlarged sufficiently, I will repost them at greater size. The initial point of the thread, of course, is that there are inconsistencies between the two published sections . . .
In Section 1, the living-room parapet is drawn at six boards (recall that the house vertical unit = 9"); its top aligns with the top of the brick pier separating the living and dining areas. The dining floor is c. 12" below that of the living room. In this drawing the dining exterior wall is 7 boards (thus, 7 units) high.
In Section 2, although large portions of the drawing are missing, it appears that the living-room parapet is now lowered by one unit; the outside face of the parapet would thus be five boards (units) high. Most of the dining-room section at upper right is missing; however we see that the bottom of the exterior wall now extends below the underside of the floor plate by two full boards.
this alamy photo also shows the 5 boards dining and 6 boards living to decks
where did you get Dining floor 12" below Iiv floor ?
On the revised April 1940 Living room section, looks like the dining room floor is on a unit line - which makes it 9" , which also means that the board coursing also matchs - note; the bottom of the board ( at FFL) is on the( vertical) unit line
This Getty interior shot shows internal septs - looks like 1" nosing and say 4" riser board which sorta equals 2 x 4 1/2 " risers
This photo also show the 4 boards to the inner face of the balcony balustrade
From what I can gather there is 3 brick courses / 9"unit
another aspect I find a bit funny is the Entry , interior stairs, planter box, stepped wall bedroom balcony and roof over etc .
Of the photos I've seen , none really indicate how this was resolved.
a long view - can just see the entry roof - what does the balcony balustrade wall butt into?
interior view shows planter - is there a gap between the planter and the wall - what is that dark square beyond - a window, flyscreen door?
is there a step in the roof line?
All photos of that parapet show six boards---don't they ? Looks like the architect won that fight, anecdotal accounts notwithstanding.
Here is a series of photos by Yukio Futagawa, published in the 1980s:
The published perspectives show six boards to the living and dining parapets:
My guess as to the main balcony is that it was always a 6-board height, and to accommodate Lewis, the living room floor was raised 12". That way FLW could have his cake and eat it, too.
In both section drawings, the living room floor is elevated above the dining/workspace level; in the first drawing the difference is 12" (one and one-third units) while in the second it is 9" (one unit). That would account for the 4 1/2" riser estimation of G Dorn.
In the first Willey scheme the living room is elevated two or three risers above the dining/workspace floor; one might reasonably assume that this feature was a part of the Lewis design from the start ? I take the lowering of the living-room parapet by one board in Section 2 to be the solution to Lewis's complaint; that the built house apparently had 6 boards from the start suggests that he lost that argument. Do we know for a fact that Lewis got Wright to make the change ?