Lake Tahoe Summer Colony

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: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I get a batter to the east and west edges of the Fir Tree chimney mass of 3 1/4º, as depicted on the view drawing. Does that sound right to you ? Maybe it would be 3 degrees in (south and north) elevation ?

S

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Image

Here is the latest attempt at the roofs. I think this looks much better. In your comments, please only look at the angles of the roofs. Yes, I realize the diamond shaped windows are gone - they're very difficult to make and I don't want to re-insert them until I know I'm good on the angle.

Looking at the perspective, I'm having a hard time figuring out the angle of the roof face over the bedrooms that has the window in it. It doesn't appear to be drawn the same on each wing, when you look carefully. I like what I have and may just go with it. While we can endlessly debate what things should have been, some of it is just unknowable (and some of it doesn't really matter in the long run.)

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The roof volumes look right to me. As you have apparently chosen the same view angle as in the original perspective, it is easy to compare the two images.

With your indulgence, these are the adjustments that I might make, to get even closer to Wright's drawing. I'll put everything I see out there, at one stroke.


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Guessing how the interior would look if the chimney were an extension of the 8 columns surrounding it is hopeless unless you can actually construct it as a section. The chimney is only 32" deep, with 16" columns centered at each end. Reconciling those single columns, or all 8 of them, in such a way as to terminate in the chimney without an intersecting horizontal plane is not feasible, and certainly not Wright.

The ceiling above the door height has to become either point-symmetrical, like Nakoma (which is so highly unlikely as to be not worth consideration since the center point is not buried in the chimney mass) or along the lines of Arnold Friedman, with at least a slight horizontal ridge.

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

That would appear to be the case; I was forgetting that the chimney in the plan is so shallow and is centered on the third pair of columns. One could
conceivably make a case for a low masonry V-roofed vault encompassing the eight columns, supporting the chimney while creating a "nook" space
around the fireplace -- but it would be unlike anything else I can recall in the work, though I do have a strong image in mind of a low pointed vault or
arch, in Wright or elsewhere, surmounted by something steeper . . .

We have to recognize the fact that the chimney in the exterior views does not readily accord, in its breadth at least, with the one shown on the plan.

SDR

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

We have three totally different chimneys here. The compact one in plan, the gargantuan cliff in elevation, and the in-between version of the perspective. For now I'm going to keep it with the plan. Once I've got the roofs figured out, we can start playing around with the interior spaces to see what the ceilings should be. I'm hoping, though not optimistic, that the solution will present itself once we start thinking about it logically.

SDR, thank you for the mark-ups to my drawing. Very helpful.

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Good enough for the nonce. The conundrum is one of the predictable side-effect risks when undertaking to honestly replicate/complete one of the Master's designs. Knowing that might happen, it is still a worthwhile pursuit -- in the abstract, at least ?

It isn't so much the "replicate" part that gives real trouble; it's the "complete" part. In the world of, say, painting, it would be the difference between a perfect copy of a known canvas, and the appearance out of nowhere of a work very much in the style of . . . or a believable new entry for the catalog ?

What's next ? Anyone ready to take on the complete Arch Oboler campus, or the seaside John Nesbitt residential compound of 1940 . . . for instance ? Can we learn enough from the extant drawings to properly model them -- or any of a several dozen even more desirable unbuilt works . . .

S

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

The John Nesbitt residence is very high on my list of future projects. My understanding is that a full set of working drawings exists, so it really shouldn't be terribly difficult to figure out.

I was unaware that Arch Oboler was meant to be extensive. There is just so much Wright out there, eh?

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image

Image

https://www.tripsavvy.com/arch-oboler-g ... at-4123886

Maybe not an "estate," exactly, but a multi-piece compound nevertheless. I like the color presentations, surely the must lurid of any of them:


Image

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Lurid indeed, but I adore it. The drawing sold back in 2008 for $11,280. Quite frankly, that seems like a deal for such a striking piece, and at 18x30 it's a very good size.

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot ... tails.aspx

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I just saw a companion piece, apparently on similar warm-colored stock and similarly horizontal, showing more of the house. I passed a small reproduction, I'm sure online -- but where . . .

S

SDR
Posts: 19286
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thus:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/27/56 ... 00e74e.jpg

The vertical masonry surfaces appear to be plumb throughout, not battered. Note the overhead of Desert Masonry -- a floating concrete tray.

S

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Image

I'm quite happy with this. The roof angles look good, and I adjusted the angles under the bedroom overhangs. To me, the elegance of the design is really starting to show.

The chimney is for a later date.

I've been thinking about the best way to tackle the mess of the interior, and I have decided that I want to start by detailing out the bedrooms. They clearly are meant to be open to the rafters, with the inclusion of that diamond shaped skylight in the roof. Figuring out how that works, how the ceiling relates to the walls, how thick the walls are, etc. should go a long way to making the main space easier. I'll have a lot of questions for you all.

I don't know if I say thank you enough to you all as a group, but "Thank you!" All the contributions from this forum were invaluable for Spaulding, and will be even more so for this project. I appreciate all the time, thought, and advice immensely.

Post Reply