Unbuilt home--Ludington Michigan

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
SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I think Deke may go too far with this line: "Other [apprentices] may have contributed entire designs that may or may not have been scrutinized and approved by Wright." I'd be very surprised to learn that buildings were begun without Wright's say-so. Other points made by Deke, Palli, and Laurie are undeniable, aren't they ?

SDR

Deke
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Deke »

I recall reading in the Curtis Bessinger book that one project he worked on was largely his design. I can't recall the project, but got the impression from the book that Wright basically handed off the client to him. I would imagine Wright would look at the designs before they left, but not sure if that was more or less a rubber stamp in that specific incident. John Geiger told me that Wright's involvement in a project depended in part on how much he liked the client.

I can only imagine that given the volume of work in the last decade of his life...the man was in his 80's after all...that in many cases the concept was his, but the details were left to John Howe and others.

Deke

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Right -- but that's not the same thing as saying that Wright didn't scrutinize or approve of the design before it was submitted to the client and working drawings begun. The Anthony house, which Besinger designed, was altered by Mr Wright in a couple of particulars, including the roof arrangement, before it went forward.

SDR

Deke
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Deke »

My point is we really don't know to what degree he was involved in every design in that last decade or more. I'd hoped the book "The Fellowship" would deal with a lot of the work-related process of the organization, but it didn't. And the Foundation is certainly not going to condone any sort of study on who did what on each design. They'd like us all to believe that Wright drew every drawing.

But this is the way it is with any creative work. People will want to examine exactly who contributed what to a masterpiece.

Deke

Jeff Myers
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: Tulsa
Contact:

Post by Jeff Myers »

One of my friends wrote me this on my "Schwartz Model" I showed him.
He writes" Well, Then it is a little puzzle. Because it is unbuilt, metion it as a "projection" as to what it is closely anticipated to be like if it was built. My secret weapon in this case is using best judgement. Use whatever of Wright's elemets you beive are best fit. There, I don't believe that should hold you back. I've seen in previous conversations in which you've wowed your friends, you've wowed me, and you are bound to wow others in the future. Like I said, because the house is unbuilt, people will understand that it was best guess."
It holds true, except Massaro got it right except the stone. This home would probably see less mistakes and more on the ball judgement, I hope.
JAT
Jeff T

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10537
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Though it's not always easy to determine the extent of FLW's involvement in certain designs, good or bad, there are some instances where his non-involvement is obvious, most strikingly the Dr. Victor Stracke Project of 1956 (M8/245). This is one example of a design utterly bereft of FLW's touch. Geiger and I agreed that it is a contender for the worst design ever to make it out of Taliesin, one to which his name should not be attached. Can anyone post the plan and elevations?

Tom
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Another shed roof design. Hmm.

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

I am doing research and organizing my thoughts on this topic.
Last edited by pharding on Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Palli forwards these images of Stracke from Monograph 7. For my money, this has more to it than almost everything at FSC -- to cite one possible example of weak and unconvincing design.


Image

Image

dkottum
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: Battle Lake, MN

Post by dkottum »

R Grant, it seems to me the Seth Peterson cottage is a derived from this idea, more than any other, and Seth Peterson is quite good. Why is Stracke so bad and Peterson so good?

This is one of those plans that seem so simple and complete, it would be difficult to mess it up if done according to plan. But then if its a mess already, doesn't matter. You'll just end up with a FLLW design that brings in more of the outdoors to more spaces than most. The NNE orientation seems a little odd in a northern climate though.

doug k

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

We don't have a lower-floor plan; there is a central stair which no doubt gives access to the room(s) which are lighted with the odd vertical windows -- one of which, in company with an oriel in the kitchen, bears an unfortunate resemblance to an Art Deco bauble, perhaps ?

The double roof-fascia detail, and the perf band with angled motif which must itself negotiate a trip up one side of the shed roof and down the other, are also a bit disconcerting.

SDR

dkottum
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: Battle Lake, MN

Post by dkottum »

I think the bauble is just a number reference to the window schedule.

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

No, I mean the whole window assembly from top to bottom. The chevron shapes certainly contribute to my impression -- of a piece of women's jewelry from the 'twenties or 'thirties . . .


S

Tom
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

The location of the fireplace! That's certainly not Wright. Also the way you enter immediately under the slope of the shed. Also maybe the spacing of the columns on the kitchen side. It gives the elevation a very international feel.

Cool idea for a separate thread ... speculating on attribution and contributions of the later houses.

(Never noticed this project before -thanks)

Palli
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Post by Palli »

I would have enjoyed hearing Roderick and John Geiger tear this project apart. In addition to the odd design elements already mentioned:
the literal hallway is closed and stubby although utilitarian (the clerestory gallery is such a lovely Usonian convention);
neither bedroom has direct access to the obviously shared lanai but the secondary bedroom sports that oversized peaked "picture window" directly unto the terrace deck (seems awfully odd to me although with the skylight the bedroom 2 might be intended more as a study);
the sculptural mass of the fireplace and the placement is uselessly pedestrian (in fact wouldn't a double fireplace between the screened porch and the living room be logical for cool nights?);
the chevron vertical "applied" decoration may relate to the peaked window and the kitchen box window but to nothing else in the design and it makes a jarring symmetrical break in roof lines to the north;
the additional space in the boxed out kitchen seems inadequate for all its attention;
the oversized 6 foot wide windows seem out of proportion to the house volume (why break with the 4" square horizontal unit?);
there does not appear to be outside access to the lower partially exposed level and that door down is cramped...
better stop it is only an unbuilt project.

? Where and when did Taliesin pick up the Hawaiian word lanai: was it common in California?

In perf design terms, there is a relationship between Stracke and the Sunday House (T5522 S.393)

Post Reply