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.
All of the above names appear in the index of Taschen volume III with the exception of Paul Palmer.
The house has so much in common with Sturges---down to the knobby spindles rising from the 4x12 ceiling beams, and the steel cantilever beam that's longer past the fulcrum than behind it---here in steel, and unsupported by a diagonal.
And as at Sturges, the visible spread bracket doesn't meet the brick base at an angle, but levels off at the bottom before reaching it.
Could it be that the blueprinted section is the later version, and that the brick wall, which doesn't appear in other versions of this part of the house, is supporting one or more of the steel floor-support beams ?
These elevations and plan supply an answer:
I would define Sander as a poor cousin of Sturges, bigger, heftier, costlier, but not as elegant.
Swan, with all of that concrete, might have turned out to be a heavy-handed Sturges.
Were the balconies enclosed, or was the house built without them ?