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 was wondering whether anyone here as given some thoughts as to what made FLW prefer one unitsystem over the other. ItÂ´s been bugging me for quite some time now, did he choose the triangle or the hexagon instead of the square cause he felt like it (I doubt it), or whether there were specific site conditions that made him prefer one over another, or perhaps a third reason?????
Why would "because he felt like it" be a doubtful or an inappropriate motivation, for an artist-architect ?
It is possible that site conditions would dictate (or at least suggest) a 60Âº module (and thus a 60Âº grid, of triangles, hexagons, or parallelograms) rather than a rectangular one. Others have suggested that the mountainous landscape of the desert Southwest was the inspiration for the triangular plan module.
A look at the history seems to indicate that Mr Wright engaged only fitfully and at intervals with non-orthogonal plan forms and units, even in the rapidly-evolving Usonian house. It is true that from the architect's earliest work we find the 45Âº angle included in plan, sometimes in the form of an octagon or portion thereof. Rotation of major plan elements is rare, however.
To find evidence of other than 45-degree angles we could begin with the Tahoe summer colony project of 1923. Here we find a couple of the individual house plans employing 45-degree plans -- that is, orthogonal plans in which major elements are rotated at 45Âº from the main square or rectangle. One of these plans, however, contains a 60-degree development; wings radiate at 120Âº angles from a central space. And one of the barge cabins is a hexagonal agglomeration, as well.
(Also in 1923, Mr Wright designs three houses for the proposed Doheny Ranch scheme in Los Angeles. Again, only one of these incorporates diagonal plan elements, this time at 45-degree angles.)
Then, in 1929, Wright is invited to the Arizona site of a projected resort hotel. His response is, first, to construct the "Ocatillo" camp and studio, incorporating many 30 and 60-degree angles in both plan and elevation, and then to design an elaborate and multi-level masonry structure for Dr Chandler which is based alternately on the square and the equilateral triangle grid, with the triangle taking a central role.
As part of this project he also designs two dwellings; one of these is based on a square plan module, the other on a 60Âº triangular one. The latter, at least, as well as the hotel itself, are sited on wildly irregular topography.
In the same year, Mr Wright designs a house for cousin Richard Lloyd Jones, on flat land in Oklahoma. The first version of the design is a 60Âº one, while the second and final design is rectangular in plan.
An early and seminal Usonian house, that for the Hanna family in California (1936), is based on the hexagon, a variation of the equilateral triangle. Three years later, two further hex-grid designs appear, for the Bazetts (on another suburban plot not far from the Hanna property), and for Leigh Stevens, in rural lowland at the other end of the country. Throughout the period encompassing the above-named projects, no other work, including major forays such as the House on the Mesa, Fallingwater, the first Jacobs house, or Johnson Wax and its private adjunct, Wingspread, is based on an angular grid.
Between Hanna and Bazett, chronologically, we have Taliesin West. Obviously another desert-based project, this one is laid out on a site plan which contains major 45-degree rotations.
As the Usonian period unfolds, further 60Âº plans appear, though none on the complex hexagon module; only a few with 45Âº plan shapes are produced. From here forward, 60Âº triangular and parallelogram module designs occur in clusters; 1940-41, 1948-51, then with decreasing frequency through 1956, with a final spurt in 1958. Most of these plans are placed on flat or gently sloping sites, and in all parts of the country.
Rood, what would be the approximate date of Cornelia Brierly's design exercise ?
The question, in full, must be "Why did he choose one system instead of another for any particular commission ?"
We've mentioned the Richard Lloyd Jones house; are there others where one unit was exchanged for another before the design was finalized ?
http://www.savewright.org/wright_chat/v ... t=brierley
But more to the point of the original question, I would say that FLW chose whatever geometry he wanted at the time. I don't believe there was any sort of inevitability connected with his choices. Hanna didn't cry out for the hexagon any more than Jester needed circles and squares. They were just choices FLW made, and no one can do anything but speculate about why.
The inclusion in Manson's book of the desert cabins -- twice (a model photo and a drawing) -- seems a case of stretching truth to suit an argument. That is, there is no evidence that the work illustrated (but not named) actually originated, as the author appears to claim (on page 7), within the timeframe of the "first Golden Age" of Wright's career. Manson seems to have desired to show a project that was derived from, or related to, one of the Froebel exercises, namely folded paper forms, and, finding none at hand, reached forward to a different period for his example.
I seem to remember having read in one of FLWÂ´s books that he preferred to orient his houses at an angle (45/45 or 30/60) as opposed to orienting them directly towards a North/South axis, which leaves a large part of the house in constant shadow.
So instead of creating a box and simply turning it at a desired angle (a concept we know he sought to destroy, cause it is boxlike) he might have found a solution where "the cell" or unitsystem could "grow" into an organism in accord with the suns movement. That would suggest ofcourse that the site-conditions dictates what unitsystem (cell) would be preferable in order for it to "grow" into an organism (house).
Hope IÂ´m making sense English is not my primary.
I could only wager the reason he chose what grid for what houses was just whatever entered his head -- much like if he chose a flat roof over a pitched one.