Unbuilt Design ... by Van Bergen

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.
Roderick Grant
Posts: 10403
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

What is odd about the plan is the gimmicky shape of the roof, a square hip that's been pulled apart at the corners. Also, the plan of the fireplace is common in WBG's work, but doesn't appear in FLW's until the Tahoe Project. That tight stair/entry arrangement is also more common in WBG's work.

(BTW, SDR, a note on usage: Discomfit was once used strictly in the sense of "to defeat," or "to frustrate." Now, through confusion with the unrelated word, discomfort, it has come to mean also "to disconcert, distress or make uncomfortable."
I imagine, in your usage, you intended "disconcerting"?)

SDR
Posts: 19775
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Indeed I did, and thank you.

Isn't the roof merely an elongated hipped roof, covering an irregular plan such that some windowed bays are nearly flush with the edge of the roof while elsewhere there is a deep overhang ?

The indication of rough stonework at the chimney is unusual for Wright, isn't it, and the irregularly-spaced ceiling beams and roof rafters are odd for him as well . . .

SDR

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Macrodex wrote:I don't know when WBG was employed by Wright; however, the plan is dated 1904, #0409, if anyone wants to look into it further.
WBG was employed by Wright from 1901 to 1906.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Macrodex,
The two-sided diamond-shaped fireplace hearth between the Living and Dining Room looks like others that WBG has done that were one-sided.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Macrodex
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:11 pm

Post by Macrodex »

I think we can safely assume the shape of the fireplace [not just limited to that design] could be an element "borrowed" by Wright from WBG -- wouldn't be the first time he was inspired by an employee.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Macrodex,
While I couldn't agree with you more about artists being inspired by and "borrowing" from other artists. I have not seen an instance of Wright building a fireplace with a triangular brick hearth(the floor of a fireplace, esp one that extends outwards into the room). Someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.
Last edited by Paul Ringstrom on Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

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

Post by dkottum »

Paul, would the Boulter house qualify?

http://wrightboulter.com/Pages/Image11.html

Also, the Walker house. I remember more in unbuilt designs, but not sure this is what you are referring to.

doug k

Post Reply