I don't get this:
Roof section of Tarantino restoration documentation shows long steel angles
being introduced to reinforce cantilever.
The angles are installed open side down.
Without notching the steel angles, I don't understand what I'm looking at
in these pictures:
http://www.tarantinostudio.com/FLLW_Ric ... _97.html#5
For sale: Richardson House - Glen Ridge, NJ
Hmmm... once the loads were calculated and the steel angles were deemed adequate, one leg was installed vertically to minimize the amount of 2x material removed to accomdate the steel, while the flat of the other leg worked perfectly to maintain the plane of the flat roof.
It looks like photos 5&6 show the new angles spanning between a pier not clear in the foreground, and the next one located right before the man on the far end. The steel then continues beyond that pier as a cantilevered beam to support that line as well as a secondary double 2x beam clearly shown in photo 1.
I think what their saying is that the cantilevered intersection of those two wood beams originally did not contain steel. I think.
The only other thing is, even though the outriggers which the steel was inserted between are not very long, there must be a new connection to replace the original, unless that "interesting" support detail actually offers support for the 2x beams as well? The short outrigger would less be structural and more of a nailer for the roof sheathing and fascia.
It looks like photos 5&6 show the new angles spanning between a pier not clear in the foreground, and the next one located right before the man on the far end. The steel then continues beyond that pier as a cantilevered beam to support that line as well as a secondary double 2x beam clearly shown in photo 1.
I think what their saying is that the cantilevered intersection of those two wood beams originally did not contain steel. I think.
The only other thing is, even though the outriggers which the steel was inserted between are not very long, there must be a new connection to replace the original, unless that "interesting" support detail actually offers support for the 2x beams as well? The short outrigger would less be structural and more of a nailer for the roof sheathing and fascia.
I suppose these chairs, not original to the house nor made during Wright's lifetime, deserve a provenance of their own---build quality notwithstanding.
Whether they are worth, together, what the seller is asking is beyond my pay grade.
But, perhaps by way of sour grapes, I can report my opinion, that these are among the architect's least stable furniture pieces: they would clearly be apt
to dump an unwary sitter onto the floor if that sitter were to shift his or her bulk too far off-center. This is because the rear legs are so close together,
making the base a triangle rather than a rectangle---essentially.
And, to make matters worse, the back is made almost ridiculously wide---the same width as the seat, so that, lined up as in the first photo, they make a
presentable version of bench seating.
A version of this chair is found in several late-period Usonians. Owners will have their own anecdotes, no doubt; I have not come across one in my
reading---yet.
S
Whether they are worth, together, what the seller is asking is beyond my pay grade.
But, perhaps by way of sour grapes, I can report my opinion, that these are among the architect's least stable furniture pieces: they would clearly be apt
to dump an unwary sitter onto the floor if that sitter were to shift his or her bulk too far off-center. This is because the rear legs are so close together,
making the base a triangle rather than a rectangle---essentially.
And, to make matters worse, the back is made almost ridiculously wide---the same width as the seat, so that, lined up as in the first photo, they make a
presentable version of bench seating.
A version of this chair is found in several late-period Usonians. Owners will have their own anecdotes, no doubt; I have not come across one in my
reading---yet.
S
Two handsome chairs in the Wrightian mode, designed by John Eifler's office for the Seth Peterson residence, share some of the same forms as these "Richardson" chairs, but appear more reasonable in their
design. A lounge chair has the same close-set rear legs, but the chair seems to hold together better because its back is integral with the seat panel; the extra weight could be expected to reduce the tendency to
tip. The dining or side chair is sufficiently narrowed to the point where stability seems not much at issue.
design. A lounge chair has the same close-set rear legs, but the chair seems to hold together better because its back is integral with the seat panel; the extra weight could be expected to reduce the tendency to
tip. The dining or side chair is sufficiently narrowed to the point where stability seems not much at issue.
I had the opportunity to sit in the chairs being offered for sale when I visited the house a couple of times. The chairs were positioned as shown in the first photo as a long bench in the entry leading to the living room. In this arrangement they seemed stable likely due to adjacent chairs steadying the one being sat upon. When distributed throughout the living room individually for a party, stability may be at issue as SDR suggests.
The Eifler designed variants on the theme at the Peterson Cottage were stable in all cases that I recall from our stays there.
The Eifler designed variants on the theme at the Peterson Cottage were stable in all cases that I recall from our stays there.
Thanks, Dan, that's useful input. There may be a good reason why the chairs at Richardson were displayed as they were !
One wonders why they were removed from the house---by the present owner ?
I have no doubt that the Peterson chair designs were tested by the architects before final fabrication. I wish I were as confident that the same was done at
Taliesin, during Wright's period of practice. The number of modifications to ottoman design, post-manufacture, alone would bring into question the rigor of
Mr Wright's furniture-design procedures ...
S
One wonders why they were removed from the house---by the present owner ?
I have no doubt that the Peterson chair designs were tested by the architects before final fabrication. I wish I were as confident that the same was done at
Taliesin, during Wright's period of practice. The number of modifications to ottoman design, post-manufacture, alone would bring into question the rigor of
Mr Wright's furniture-design procedures ...
S
The chairs for sale were made for the house relatively recently, I believe by or for the Paynes. The photos of the chairs are all taken at the Richardson house and its garden path. The house is under contract now...the chairs for sale may not be wanted by a buyer, and might be up for sale by either the buyer or seller. They were not part of the original build.One wonders why they were removed from the house---by the present owner ?
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
The listing had a quantity button---which usually means the price listed is for each item. So, $4000 per chair, x 6."This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing."
Hmmmm I wonder what the error was? Should the price have been listed as $40,000? Four grand for 6 FLW chairs seems like a give-away.