Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:43 am
I had four built "honeycomb grid" houses in mind: Hanna, Bazett, Stevens, and Richardson. Trying to assure myself that the list was complete, I went looking in Storrer's "Companion" for a page on the unit modules, as there are on plan types, materials, the vertical unit, etc. These little illustrated essays aren't indexed, however, and there is no table of contents. I didn't find a page on the unit types.
Any planned but unbuilt hex-grid houses -- besides Vigo Sundt, that is ?
The community plans -- Galesburg, Parkwyn, Usonia -- were typically laid out, at least initially, with circular lots. Why not hexagons, to fully employ the available land with no leftover bits ? Perhaps that would have been seen, by Mr Wright, to conflict with the rectangular or triangular plan modules of the individual properties, in a way that the circle (or disc) would not ?
I suppose the hex-plan Guggenheim, as in one of the early studies, would have been built on a honeycomb grid ?
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:07 am
I understood that the circular lot concept at Galesburg, etc. was to ensure that the areas in between lots remained in a "natural" and non-landscaped state (probably mostly forested), thereby guaranteeing privacy and a somewhat wild environment for the residents. The communal idea was rejected by the building department. And maybe circular lots would have created new problems for surveyors and bureaucrats to solve?
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:12 pm
peterm wrote:I understood that the circular lot concept at Galesburg, etc. was to ensure that the areas in between lots remained in a "natural" and non-landscaped state (probably mostly forested), thereby guaranteeing privacy and a somewhat wild environment for the residents. The communal idea was rejected by the building department. And maybe circular lots would have created new problems for surveyors and bureaucrats to solve?
The 1948 plat for Parkwyn Village was done with circular lots, and the homeowners' association retained ownership of the spaces in between. In 1958 a new plat was recorded with squared-off lines and no blank spaces.
The Galesburg plat in 1949 was also done in circles.
These are the plats recorded with the county and state:
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:17 pm
I think builders had a problem with the hex-grid plans, few if any having taken geometry in high school, perhaps. In the Hannas' book, they mention that they had trouble figuring out the distance from side to side, as opposed to point to point.
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:46 pm
Roderick Grant wrote:The late John Payne was a very active, important member of FLWBC, a one-time head of the board.
Last I checked, Mrs. Payne is the current
FLWBC president, which leaves me concerned for the circumstances that would lead her to consider selling her Wright.
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:04 pm
From Roland Reisley, "Usonia, New York: building a community with Frank Lloyd Wright," drawings, and a condensation of text found on pp 24-5:
Â© 2001 Princeton Architectural Press and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, Scottsdale, AZ.
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:36 pm
the radii in the two Michigan projects are described as "114 feet," which pretty matches up to the 217.5-foot diameter
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:38 pm
Any carpenter who could make an equilateral triangle could construct a hexagon. But the mechanics of impressing the hexagonal grid into curing concrete -- and then placing brass or zinc strips into that grid at pre-determined locations -- and do the whole thing accurately, would confound many, including me I'm afraid. The Hannas describe the process on pp 62-3 of their published saga; the hex grid was constructed from a triangular grid chalk-lined onto the wet cement (after a mixture of red oxide and lamp black was worked into the surface, "to give a rich brick color"); "When the metal strips were in place, a tool was used to complete the marking of the hexagons. When the six sides of a unit were tooled, the remaining chalk marks were eliminated by troweling."
There follows a recipe for calculation of the elevation of the hexagon, starting with the unit measurement of 13", doubling it to make one side of the hexagon. (Essentially what was required was the elevation of an equilateral triangle with a side of 26".) When this had been done and marking of the mat begun, a measurement of a run of ten units found an error "of 0.33 of an inch." This would have the effect of lengthening the house by three inches; further calculation, carried this time to eight places, showed that the originally deduced 45" elevation of the hexagon had been (very slightly) in error. The necessary adjustment was made before proceeding.
Perhaps the carpenter's task wasn't so simple after all !
Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:39 am
It is simple. If you know the measurement of one side of a hexagon, you can eliminate measuring altogether. Just construct a template.
Stan, Mrs. Payne is getting on in years, and perhaps that is the reason she has decided to downsize. If she finds maintaining the house difficult, the best thing to do for it is to place it in the hands of someone who can take care of it more easily.
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:03 pm