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.
I think the unusual workspace placement serves with some success to break the long and unnatural run of windows. My experience with FLLW buildings is that such odd-looking elements look much better in person than on two dimensional drawings.
I am defending this design only to learn the opinions of others, and to consider how something on paper may work much better when actually constructed.
The following link leads to drawings from the John Howe archive at the University of Minnesota:
Howe was an artist and architect of very high caliber, but he was not on the level of Frank Lloyd Wright. Look through the drawings at the link above, then look at FLLW Monograph 7. The Howe archive is filled with good design and exceptional renderings and draftsmanship, but in almost every project there is a detail, a gesture, or a form that instinctively one familiar with Wright's work will think, "Wright wouldn't do that."
On the other hand, entering the Stracke House you would have to make an about face to see the hearth. It is not a defining element of the design. And because the front of the fireplace is in direct line with the hallway it does not invite the comfort of hassocks or easy chairs, making even the symbolism of the hearth as vague as the reason for a fire in Florida anyway. In a northern clime would the little ledge that emerges from the built-in seating have been a half inglenook? Correction: the House was designed for Wisconsin
The perf design, by the way, relates to the Sunday House T5522 S.393.
Palli, is Stracke for Florida? I remember an earlier scheme for Stracke built into a hillside apparently with an expansive overlook. I don't see Wright's Usonian fireplaces as a place to gather chairs. The placement of the central core, usually containing the workspace, left them in line with the entrance to the space, and often very close to the dining table. A pleasant description of how it may have been used at Fallingwater. A "path of discovery" exists in either design.
Roderick, this floor plan looks pretty decent to me, and for the most part typical Usonian. Is the problem with the plan, elevations, or both?
1) When would Stracke have been on the boards at Taliesin. Anyone know? We're calling it 1956--does that fit with around the time these drawings would have been produced?
2) Those lights recessed into the surface of the cabinets as indicated on the upper right hand corner of the first drawing. Were lights like that built into the cabinetry of any built design?
Keep looking at Stracke, inch by inch, and you will probably conclude that just about everything is wrong with it, including the plan. While superficially Usonian-like, if you were to imagine how one would use this layout, as opposed to say Jacobs I, it should become clear just how bad and un-Wrightlike it is. The fireplace, for instance (which I would not compare in any way to Fallingwater's): The placement of the Stracke fireplace is close to the entry, as it is in Jacobs I, but the orientation is 90 degrees off, making it a hot nuisance to pass by or dine near, but not a visual delight from the rest of the living room. The chevron window almost celebrates the basement, which, as can be determined by the elevation of the north facade which shows the foundation in dashed lines, was confined to the space under kitchen and bedrooms in the usual furnace-room-only Usonian style ... maybe room for laundry. Also, the elevation does not include the screened porch shown on the plan. Try integrating that with the sloping roof. Inoffensive, but not practical, is the arrangement of steps that lead from the front door, around the corner to the lanai entrance (and,yes, lanai was a popular term in the mid-50s, senseless as it may seem), cutting the usable width of the first carport bay to a trifling 6'. This seems a recollection of the similar steps in the Sunday interior (M8/181), which are successful ... though I'm not sure how FLW they are; it's a detail that doesn't appear often in his work.
Bit by bit, the flaws in this design bare themselves, not showing FLW in decline in any way other than unwisely leaving too much decision-making to apprentices.
Just a brief digression back to the original subject of this thread: Berdan is an example of one of FLW's finest late design types, which include Bachman-Wilson and Penfield.