Page 1 of 2
Unbuilt Design ... by Van Bergen
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:09 pm
Following on the discussion of un-built designs, but, yes, off the chair topic ... here is one un-built house design that I like from Van Bergen. Unique. Would have been interesting to see.
http://www.johnvanbergen.org/johnvanber ... /wood.html
I think (perhaps more modern day thinking) it would be good to possibly include a built-in table, with high back chairs, to separate the kitchen from the living room, rather than a wall.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:07 am
I am reminded of another unbuilt plan:
(Kitchen and Dining Room top, Bedrooms middle, Living Room bottom)
By this date, Mr Wright had moved (temporarily) beyond the shallow hipped roof !
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:25 am
Was all the space under that T-P roof unused? Was there a purpose to it, or was it just for drama?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:58 am
Check out photos of the Davis House, Matt, and you can come to your own conclusions.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:08 am
I believe there have been problems relating to the ability of Davis' fireplace to successfully ventilate smoke that may or may not have been complicated by the expansive open volume resulting from the roof design.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:37 pm
Personally, I'm more reminded of this.
Also, I can't be the only one who spotted this pseudo-Coonley plan.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:07 pm
Macrodex, Van Bergen's Rogers Project is closer to FLW's Elizabeth Stone Project of 1906 (Mono 2/248-9), a one-story precursor to Coonley in B&B. Stone would have been a delightful house, much less refined and more "woodsy" than Coonley, which could have been to its advantage.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:10 pm
In any event, the co-incidence of plan is hard to miss. Van Bergen's work includes some of the most overt "borrowing" from Wright to be found in the portfolios of his imitators.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:06 pm
Does that drawing have a Taliesin number associated with it? Is it included in BBP's new Complete Works?
What book did you get the drawing from?
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:26 pm
Taschen 1885-1916, #0013
I didn't, at first, catch the reminiscence of the Stone residence; though, no plans exist, I can only guess Wright worked from that plan into the Coonley.
Much like this precursor to the Hardy residence: done in board-batten and then in stucco, etc -- with a level added.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:31 am
The plan Macrodex posted above by FLW reminds me of a plan by Walter Burley Griffin called Intersecting Squares which was the inspiration for the new Architectural Interpretive Center here in Mason City, IA.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:26 pm
Paul, I think the plan looks a lot like the work of WBG, not at all like anything else FLW did.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:39 pm
the placement of the stair is almost bizarre
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:52 pm
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:10 pm
It's amusing (or discomfiting) to hear Wright-o-philes claim that a plan or design is suspicious because "Wright never did that [before]. . ." . . . even were it the case.
There is no shortage of house plans -- starting perhaps with the Sullivan bungalow of 1890 -- in which asymmetrical function (i.e., room layout) is shoehorned (fitted neatly) into a symmetrical or nearly symmetrical building envelope. A list of such plans would include Charnley (bungalow and residence), McArthur (residence remodel and garage), Clark, Blossom, Emmond, Parker, Winslow (stable), Moore, Gerts cottage, Ross, Johnson, Walser, Westcott, Barton, and Cheney -- bringing us to 1904, the year of the Scudder project posted above. The list would go on: Brown, Hardy, Beachy, Hoyt, Fuller, Horner, Como Orchard (clubhouse and cottages), Gilmore, Stewart, Ingalls, Balch, etc, etc.
Of those listed, at least fifteen houses are planned within a rigorously symmetrical plan (like Scudder); several more are "spoiled" only by a stair, a chimney, or a small entry module. Several others are just a bit more asymmetrical and were excluded.