Definitive List of Extant Wright Structures

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.
SREcklund
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Definitive List of Extant Wright Structures

Post by SREcklund »

Twice during the morning sessions of the recently-concluded Annual Conference speakers made reference to a specific number (I believe 355, but not sure) of Wright structures that still exist. I know from the experience of trying to develop my own list that a number of individuals (starting with Storrer, but including others) support or dispute the pedigree of different structures associated with Wright.

Both speakers made it seem that this was an unimpeachable number, which leads me to believe that there must be an equally unimpeachable list. Do you all believe that list exists, and if so, where?

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10622
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

no

ozwrightfan
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by ozwrightfan »

If the speakers are so definite as to the number of Wright structures that still exist, then they should reveal their sources or provide "their" list.

jmcnally
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:23 am

Post by jmcnally »

ozwrightfan wrote:If the speakers are so definite as to the number of Wright structures that still exist, then they should reveal their sources or provide "their" list.
That's what the Q&A portion is for.

I agree there is no definitive list. Whether it's due to destruction of records or uncertainty about the extent of FLW's involvement, there will always be disputes. Even Storrer adds and takes away from his books, sometimes in controversial fashion.

SREcklund
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Post by SREcklund »

I guess I'm most surprised that the Conservancy doesn't have what it considers to be "the list". After all, we're in the business of saving Wright structures; you'd think in order to save them, you'd need to know them ... ;-)

SDR
Posts: 20300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Wouldn't it be possible to make a list that's 98 or 99 percent complete, by totaling the remaining structures as compiled by Storrer, adding those to the extant structures contained in the Taschen volumes, and dividing by two ?

The problem isn't whether structures exist, or not -- it's whether the structures are correctly attributed. Isn't that right ?

SDR

jmcnally
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:23 am

Post by jmcnally »

That's basically correct - the big issue is attribution. I think another way to handle it would be to list everything that Wright was associated with - even if marginally - and assess a percentage of responsibility or degree of involvement. I am not sure how practical the application of percentages would be (it would still be opinion), but it would at least be a more complete guide as far as the actual structures are concerned.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10622
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

All of the projects still on the boards when FLW died can be questioned. The posthumous changes to Gammage and Marin were significant. Some unbuilt projects that were realized later (Feldman, Haddon, Lovness Cottage) were done with such care that attribution should not be a problem, while others (Chahroudi, Burlingham) were altered in ways that would have set His teeth on edge. Even while he was alive in the post war era, there are questions about his involvement in many projects, mostly unbuilt, but some that were constructed as well. An approximation is enough. As buildings become endangered, the FLWBC can make decisions about these things, case by case.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4426
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Considering houses designed and built prior to Wright's death, does anyone (who has actually visited) consider the Don Schaberg House to be designed by Wright or Howe?
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10622
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I suppose Howe would be a natural guess after FLW, but I'm not sure either one of them was responsible. Don was such a pleasant person, out of respect, I would say it's entirely FLW, even though ... Howe did do the addition, which is as good as the original house.

One odd detail is the peak of the living room and master ceilings, which should be a sharp edge where the two planes meet, but is a soft curve ("FLW, MCM" pp 172-3). That does not suggest Howe's work to me, even though he was in charge of construction.

SDR
Posts: 20300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Mmm. Note the same detail in a bedroom. After seeing the bedroom photo, where the support column does not coincide with the ridge, the living room's prosaic centered support is a disappointment. Is either condition "right" -- or Wright ?

SDR

SDR
Posts: 20300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image

Image

photos © Alan Weintraub

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10622
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

It is obvious that detail was not accidental, nor an impromptu fix. I find it hard to believe Howe would have done it. The living room, which is only 24'x22' but looks bigger, seems kinda blank in person. The built-in seating is taken too far; it should have stopped at the column. The room lacks a cozy corner, which FLW's big rooms always had. Although just around the fireplace is a charming dining room that is cozy. Overall, whatever shortcomings it has, the house is sunny and cheerful, a work of its time, a true MCM. The Schabergs loved it.

SDR
Posts: 20300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

That radiused plaster peak could be a solution to the problem of a deep ridge beam and shallower rafters ? One wonders why this doesn't happen more frequently. I guess many MCM builders were content to expose the ridge beam . . .

SDR

RA
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:10 pm

Post by RA »

Was that a Wright or Howe design element to insert the glass directly into the ceiling plaster? Great idea but weathering, cob webs and movement take their toll beyond the glass not to mention the single pane glass in colder climates.

Post Reply