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.
the land than others, the main difference being that a house on flat land will probably have a simple slab covering the entire plan, while a sloping lot will
demand multiple levels and other particulars. Moving a house built on such land will naturally require a more carefully-selected new site, and will make
the matter of correct solar orientation more difficult as well.
Those charged with the task twice had to find an appropriately contoured new site for the Pope Usonian, for instance.
Looking again at the early statement by Schindler, that "good looking drawing is always bad architecture and good draftsmen are mostly bad architects"
(Park's partially-paraphrased RMS quotation), we can't of course accept at face value; if so, Wright's practice, beginning to end, stands as a notable
exception. One can think of a few examples, however, which fit that descripion; John Lautner himself admitted, without apology, to being "not a neat
drafter." "In high school I had a drafting course, and it was so damn boring I couldn't stand it: the picayune little man, and keeping your pencils sharp,
and getting the lettering right. It had absolutely nothing to do with architecture."
I'm sure there were others. It brings to the fore how really exceptional Wright's standards were, and how well some of his men were able to carry out
the desired effect, both in construction documents and with the presentation drawings.
I disagree with RMS's disparagement of drafting. There are many architects who did quite well in both architectural design and drafting, like Greene & Greene, Johnny Hill, Purcell & Elmslie. The two gifts are not necessarily related. Although, while Marion Mahony Griffin was a gifted drafter, her architecture left much to be desired.
David raises a valid point about succession....there are a number of car collections that were rolled into not for profit museums in the last 20 years that are now closing due to lack of visitor revenue and the passing of the their founders. Heirs and museum boards can sell off car collections relatively easily....houses not so much. The PapinchakÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s are relatively young and dedicated, but time will march on.
Polymath Park's proximity to Fallingwater should help with its long-term viability. I'd suggest that if the Park adds another handful of homes, that it'd be an even more attractive destination, leading to further success.
Question, what if a place like Polymath Park wished to construct an unbuilt design of Wright's? Is that even possible at this point?
Example, here's a small cabin-type design that I'd personally love to 'stay overnight' in.... One could image it being a decent fit in the Western Pennsylvania hills:
https://visionsofwright.wordpress.com/2 ... se-1947-2/
https://www.usmodernist.org/wright.htm (scroll down to near bottom)
Given its similarities to the always booked Seth Peterson cottage, I think you are spot on that this design would be a very popular rental and consistent source of revenue for the enterprise. Revenue will be vital to the long term maintenance of what is now a collection of important and maintenance intensive buildings.
ChatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Legacy thread:
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... 32f6539044
According to the photo of the house on Huck Finn Drive, that is one detail Rattenbury did not carry through.
Given that it is one of the few features to set it apart, that deletion seems curious.
It was used at the Robert Levin House in Parkwyn, and is a handsome detail.
Looks like they did a great job on the building!
While it has similarities with Peterson, I enjoy the more mystery/discovery aspect of the Keith/McBroom house. (With Peterson you enter essentially into the height of the structure; Keith appears to have the more typical Wrightian path-to-expansion entry sequence.)
The built version used CMU for the masonry, rather than brick and was a mirror image of the McBroom source design.
I mistakenly typed "McBroom source design" when I should have typed "Keith source design".
Jay, I agree...Keith/McBroom is more articulate spatially than Peterson.