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.
And, for good measure, here's a photo of a driveway gate at Sander, and an 18-foot closet-door mural by Gene Masselink, on the west wall near the entry of the house:
photo Ã‚Â© Dave Anderson
Of course I know NOTHING about Sander, but the black gate strikes me as something Wright would not have done, first the color and second - overall just too heavy.
Then there is the surprising hipped roof over the carport. Then the Zimmerman perfs. It all seems a big mash up, striving for creativity, only achieving eclecticism.
I'll go look for the Sander thread and review it.
Yes, there is that quality of "big ado about nothing" to the cantilever. I wish we could see it as built, without the perimeter glazing.
Here are a couple of further illustrations. The section reveals that the house straddles---and hides---a huge boulder or rock formation.
The gate might be called "Darth." Pfeiffer credits Wright with the mural; Storrer gives it to Masselink.
Storrer---a photo caption explains the glazing:
Ã‚Â© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ã‚Â© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
Ã‚Â© 1993 by William Allin Storrer
As I have pointed out before, it is easier to take a large structure down a notch, such as Beth Shalom did to the Cathedral for a Million People, than to take a modest-sized building and amp it up.
The hemicycles, for instance, at the scale of Jacobs II are more successful than Rayward-Shepherd, even as originally built without all the add-ons.
Sander is not a bad design, but just a bit hefty compared to Sturges.
The hipped roof and concomitant plastered ceilings are unfortunate.
I believe the balcony was enclosed after construction, and the master bedroom was expanded to include the balcony as a workspace for Mrs. Sander, who was a writer, I believe.
Aesthetically, it doesn't work from the exterior, but the interior is not bad.
If Sturges had not been built, Sander would probably not be criticized harshly, but by comparison it fails.
Would you say that the newly-revealed Swan version of Sturges (see p 7) is a more successful expansion of the earlier design than is Sander ?
It, unlike Sander, does not try to become a new animal, opting instead to retain virtually all of the fabric devised for the Sturges prototype.
Does Swan satisfy (aesthetically) more than Sander---or is the reverse the case, do you think ?
Swan would have benefitted by placing that third bedroom where the Sturges' expansion was to have been located. Where Sturges' upper reaches are slightly battered and provides for a roof terrace,
Swan is vertical and without a terrace. That, too, makes Sturges superior to Swan.
Overall, I think Swan looks like an apprentice-edited Sturges, and the changes don't help.
Looking for a photo of the Sander balcony without storm sash in place, I find instead a view of the gate that's at odds with what's seen in Dave Anderson's undated photo: