Heritage Auctions' site

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.
Post Reply
Tom
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Never heard of this house before.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I've added a driveway view of the house, to the images on the previous page.

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:


Image

photo © Dave Anderson


Image
Last edited by SDR on Tue May 07, 2019 11:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tom
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

with Zimmermanesque perfs.
One can't help but wonder just how much Wright really was involved.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Why is that ?

We had a discussion about this house, a couple of years ago. The house was being restored, I believe. We looked at the west end of the terrace/balcony.

S

Matt2
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Post by Matt2 »

Did the site change for Sander? the drawing indicates a steep ravine but the photos look like a gentle slope. Sort of negates the intention of the design.

Tom
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

I agree with Matt2 - kinda reminds me of the cantilever at Wingspread over undramatically flat ground.

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.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I hope you can find it; I couldn't, using Google . . .

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.



Image

Image


Image

Image


Storrer---a photo caption explains the glazing:

Image


Taschen:

Image


© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., © 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

© 1993 by William Allin Storrer

Tom
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Oh! - the whole thing has a hipped roof.
I didn't realize that.
I thought the balcony side was like Sturges and then somebody threw
a hipped roof over the carport.

These drawings change things for me.
Thanks for posting them, look forward to studying -
Couldn't find the Sander thread.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10022
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

"Alien" is a bit extreme. It is an overblown version of a scheme that seems much more comfortable at the Sturges scale than Sander, but the kinship remained obvious even upon construction.
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.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

You may have missed the last post, wherein I find a caption to Storrer's photo (shown previously) in which he mentions that the glazing as "storm windows"---so, presumably, installed seasonally.

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 ?

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10022
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

SDR, I haven't scrutinized the Swan plans adequately, but at a glance, it would seem that it is a better scheme than Sander. But Sturges got it right in the first place, so Swan seems to be unnecessary.

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.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Right. The revised structural strategy at the cantilever is interesting; it seems to benefit only the center third of the balcony---and then the symmetry is thrown off by the extra section(s) to the left, where there is a flat soffit indicated. Messy . . .

S

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I had hoped this thread wouldn't become a study of one or another of the house projects seen at the auction site---but that was perhaps a futile hope.

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:

http://www.dsoderblog.com/springbough/

S

Tom
Posts: 3077
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Yeah, the Soderburg shot of the gate is more attractive.
Still the all black surprises me, but ok.

The vertical mortar joints in the brick are a distraction
The plaster ceiling is less than what one would have hoped for.

Still, not the mash up then what I previously thought.

SDR
Posts: 19085
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

So---which other projects on the list (p 5) caught readers' attention . . . ?

Still unknown is how long these listings will be up on HA's site.

S

Post Reply