Carlton D. Wall House (SNOWFLAKE) - Plymouth, Michigan

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: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Here is Stafford's second batch. I will key all photos with a capital letter. If the triangular portion of the skylight is really missing in the Google
view (I can't tell; HOJO made a comment about a different Google view which I didn't get) then it may always have been merely a light fixture,
despite what's shown on the drawing.


Image J


Image K


Image L


Image M


Image N


Image O


Image P
Last edited by SDR on Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

We've jumped to a new page, so here are the previously-posted photos showing the bas-relief:


Image Yukio Futagawa, Monograph 6 (1986), p 296


Image image c/o Stafford Norris III [E]


Image 1949, per Taschen II, p 464 (photographer unknown)

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Photo P, the last of the new batch, shows the carving through glass, lighted from above by the skylight. There is a parallelogrammatic shadow at upper left, and the light seems to extend all the way to the corner of the chimney mass; could this prove that both sections of the skylight were built ? The shadow would be the division between the two halves of the skylight ?

In the Monograph 6 photo all traces of the skylight have been (unnecessarily ?) removed, apparently flawlessly; there is no trace of damage or new exposure to the top of the carved panel, and finishes to the wood appear to match perfectly.

There are varying degrees of water damage to the ceiling (called out as 5/8" plywood on a drawing) showing in the photos; these might be useful in dating the series of photos . . .

S

HOJO
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:11 pm
Location: Belgium

Post by HOJO »

SDR wrote: HOJO made a comment about a different Google view which I didn't get) then it may always have been merely a light fixture,
despite what's shown on the drawing.
I only remarked that what I see when I surf to Google Maps today (and you also can, so don't need to get it) is different and blurrier from the Google view that you posted on the first page.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

That's interesting; perhaps the difference is found when one selects a different directional view ? I grabbed the Google view on the day that I posted it. I agree that the triangular portion of the skylight appears to be missing, or at least is covered at a lower elevation; the area is partially obscured by shadow cast by the masonry.

Looking at the detail drawings of the skylight I am struck by the fact that the skylight exterior glass is canted downslope toward the masonry, creating a well in the process -- generously inviting leakage ? The architect is following the slope of the roof at that point, but it would seem more sensible to have sloped the glass uphill, treating the object as a cricket.

S

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image



Thirteen Views of the Carleton D Wall Residence by Yukio Futagawa, 1991


Image 1



Image 5


Image 6


Image 8. . . . Image 9


Image 3


Image 2


Image 7 . . . . Image 10


Image 11. . . . Image 12


Image 13


Image 4


Copyright © 1991 A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo Co, Ltd, "Frank Lloyd Wright Selected Houses 6"
Last edited by SDR on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tom
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Is it possible the shot with Carl next to fireplace was taken at night?
Are there reflections up in that darkness?

Also, not sure if skylight details really do create a well that would pool water.
I think all of those detail sections of skylight glass to brick wall slope down.
Even the lowest end because the brick wall crosses the roof plane at angle - would creat a downslope.

Crazy thing about the skylight detail is the chaulk joint in the exterior wire glass. Gheeze

Lot of those new shots show that the skylight some form of it, was built.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Clearly it was built; the question is, in what order, and when -- and whether all evidence of it was removed from the living room, sometime before Futagawa's black and white photo from the 1986 Monograph was taken, and after his color photo, published in 1991.

The section indication C-C in the skylight detail looks upward, or roughly north, toward the roof peak; the masonry is downhill to the right in that view. Therefore, there is a pool created at the south (downslope) end of the skylight.

S

Tom
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

I think the section B-B is the south end of that skylight. That section also looks upslope.
The water falls down from section CC to section BB.
and I think BB is a downward slope too because of the angle that brick wall makes to the plane of the roof.
I'm not sure about this mind you.
Just kinda sure.

no, not even kinda sure now.
the glass would need to twist like a ribbon to do what I'm thinking of
... I think
Last edited by Tom on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I'm confident that you're feeling . . . something. That's good.

The flashing in the "pool" which B-B passes through, and up the brick -- also seen in C-C -- indicates where water is expected to collect. I see no indication of a drain. Please tell me I'm missing something . . .

S

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The note reads: "3/8" wire glass (to slope same as roof)." Indeed, the upslope away from shnitt C-C is shown in (lightly-drawn) elevation . . .


Image

Tom
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

I think I was wishful thinking ... I think.
Just seems really REALLY incredible that they would detail so meticulously a skylight with such a huge and obvious flaw.
That back corner where section lines BB and CC meet at the brick wall
would be like a four or five inch deep pool of water all the time.
You could put fish in there.
Eventually it wouldn't just leak it would pour.
Like you said earlier, why would they have not simply continued the angle of the roof with that glass?
Why reverse the angle there?
The word incompetence comes to mind.
... unless of course, as you ask, we're missing something.
Last edited by Tom on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I have to wonder if Mr Wright didn't find, from time to time, that he had to pull one or another of the boys back from the edge -- from going too far uphill toward the unattainable ideal, either formal or ideological . . .

. . . the old problem of the acolyte being more radical than the priest ?

S

Tom
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Ah
That sounds plausible.
Yes sir - quite
very good.

SDR
Posts: 19701
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Of course, that still doesn't explain a detail that wouldn't have gotten past any of them, from the top on down, most of the time at least ? Even Gene Masselink would have noticed that one, while he was making or mailing prints ?

S

Post Reply