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.
OutsideIn mentions bearing points for the roof along the main window wall. From what I can tell of the framing plan there are two bearing points that carry continuous framing members over the window wall terminating at the edge of the roof. It is hard to read the plans but I think I see them called out as "stl. plate flitch beams" ... Is that correct?
Odd thing is that this project would be done differently today - more laminated lumber supports and open-cell insulation. The framing concept would remain.
For the 1982 edition, Lovness Cottage was given number A435 with the following text:
"This and the Seth Petersen [sic] cottage (430) were built from the same basic plan. Here, however, no compromise was allowed in plan or materials. The butterfly [sic] roof projection was engineered by William Wesley Peters. A full basement foundation was required by the sandy, hilly site above Woodpile Lake. Furnishings are from the first designs by Wright for Aline Barnsdall's Hollyhock House (208)."
Later editions deleted the cottage.
FLW designed the cottage for Peterson in 1958, and Lovness chose to build it in 1976, after Storrer's first edition had already appeared. What may make Lovness seem over-designed is not the architecture, but the furnishings. When I first visited in 1984, Don and Virginia had moved into the Cottage and rented the House out for $500/month! Along with them, they brought a lot of their personal collection, which was extensive. I think the cottage may have been a bit overwhelmed by it all.
It's worth noting that while Virginia laid the stone for the house (while hubby was away at 3M), professional masons built the cottage. Yet the stonework in the house is superior to the cottage.
The discussion of the roof and especially the photographs of the framing were very helpful. It's taken me awhile but I think I've finally understood that Wright eliminated the header in his framing construction. At least in the Usonians. I may be wrong but I don't think in anything else I've ever read that this fact is so explicitly stated. Sargent certainly does not say that ... I think. It's amazing to me. Frank Lloyd Wright eliminated the header in his residential construction. Or maybe it's best said that he eliminated the traditional header. Still, amazing to me in either case. The Usonians really are a complete and total rethinking of basic construction practices. Remarkable.
Anyway, the book is concisely written and I'm glad I own it.
And if I am not mistaken the headers behind the fascia at the edge of the roof in a Usonian house do act as "traditional flush headers" (to use Eifler's term.) because they are the sole means of support for the roof joists that do not rest directly on the vertical columns. So I agree, even more so, with what you are saying here if I understand you correctly. The guy turns the roof eave into a structural support. Blimey that's shrewd.
The window wall could then rise all the way to the bottom of this plane. The ceiling/soffit material appeared continuous from inside to out, especially in some later Usonians when even the window sash was eliminated and the glass set into a grove in the ceiling/soffit material.
It is fascinating to see how Wright would simplify traditional building ideas to create his art, then develop clever (and sometimes difficult) methods to make it work. The Seth Petersen Cottage has much of the Usonian idea in a very small package, a good building to study.
http://www.savewright.org/wright_chat/v ... c&start=75
The header has worked well in most places, gathering and transfering the load of rafters (on 16" centers) that are situated between the rafters that bear directly on the structural mullions which are on 48" centers. The only failure has been the notorious living room corner eave sag, which is rooted in a header made from too many short pieces spliced together, supported at the cantilever by undersized perpendicular double 2x6 beams extending from the masonry pier at the NE corner of the room, AND a double 2x6 sloped beam behind the gable end fascia, that itself is sagging due to an undersized ridge extension at the gable end. Some weight has been taken by the corner glass, which cracked long ago as a result.
All to be corrected in due time with 6" depth flitches and sistering with engineered lumber.
First, apologies I have not read your Seth Peterson book, though I tramped over the property in the late 70s and early 80s before you important work there was even envisioned.
Do you have any knowledge about the perforated board unit design. I am interested in tracking the iterations of particular perf designs. The presentation drawing shows a different design with different proportions. Sometimes presentation drawings use a simplification of a perf design or an early proposed schema that was refined as the design process moved forward.
Do the original Seth Peterson building plans show the built perf design? Which page contains the perf unit drawing?
Have you seen any early plans that contain a measured perf unit drawing?
Can you confirm the date of the presentation drawing; it is difficult to read in the book. October â€™58?
And finally, do you know which apprentice(s) drew the final building plans for Seth Peterson and Loveness Cottage?
Also, given what you say about the deflection over the doors at Jacobs it also seems odd that your solution of traditional flush header was never (to my knowledge) snuck in by some apprentice here and there in some Usonian house.
If I ever build a roof like this I'll do it your way.