Larkin Administration Building visuals

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.
pmahoney
Moderator
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 am

Larkin Bldg ownership

Post by pmahoney »

The Larkin Administration building site is owned by the real estate developers who are renovating the two million sq ft former Larkin factories directly across the street(701 Seneca Street).
Although I have overseen the excavation they own everything recovered. It is my intention to exhibit the best of what we find in a museum being developed in the renovated factory building. Currently more people work in that building than at the highpoint of the Larkin Company.
The owners have been very open minded about how to interpret the Administration Building site to the public. My hope is that more of the subterranean complex can be exposed for interpretation. The owners have already funded a phantom pier / fence that interprets the lost enclosing fence (25' tall) on its original surviving stone base. Realize that they operate a business that has tenant commitments that would prohibit eliminating the parking area that occupies most of the Administration Building site.
There is a light glaze on the white brick. I call this the ground floor as at the front of the building the floor was approximately 3'-4" below grade. Grade was level with the rear of the building (where the arched door access to the street was).

David
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by David »

PAT: This is extremely interesting. Can I see pictures of those "Chestnut Ridge White Bricks"? It would help me a lot to understand the nature of the material. Is there anything left of the "magnesite floors"?

In this picture:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/143771393 ... 0/sizes/z/

I had to speculate about the color of the floor. Anyone know anything about this matter?

SRD: This brick detail is tough but I will try to improve it, Furthermore the color of the stone is an easy task, I will show you new images very soon.

I am David R., I am trying to change my username in the "profile" section, but i am not allowed apparently

JChoate: Midway Garden is on my list, but for now is a project of such scale that is difficult to carry out. As I explain in my website this is a personal project that has taken me eight months to undertake in my spare time... Imagine Midway Gardens.

Roderick Grant: Obviously you're right. I am European and I have to struggle with the imperial system in the same way that I strive to communicate in your language. You (all) have to be a bit patient with me and in return I will do my best to bring back some beautiful buildings which have been lost.
Last edited by David on Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

pmahoney
Moderator
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 am

Chestnut Ridge White Brick

Post by pmahoney »

Here is a link to images of the white brick, I have not found any trace of the floors in excavation. Some thin sections of concrete have been excavated but it is not conclusive as to where they were originally (in other words the floor is no longer in place)

http://www.buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/mat/b ... l#chestnut

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10126
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

David R, you are right to be cautious about taking on Midway. Its interiors are more complex by far than Larkin.

As I understand it, magnesite is a mixture of cement and sawdust, giving the material a natural color of a grayish wood tone. FLW's Oak Park Home & Studio uses this material in some areas, primarily in the Studio. He did not add color, but left it natural. The book "Building A Legacy," includes a few color glimpses of the flooring as restored on pages 111, 129 and 130. Contacting the H&S to find out exactly what the procedure was might be useful.

SpringGreen
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:00 am

Larkin

Post by SpringGreen »

I'm in the same boat as Tom - I thought the interior & exterior colors were the same.
"The building as architecture is born out of the heart of man, permanent consort to the ground, comrade to the trees, true reflection of man in the realm of his own spirit." FLLW, "Two Lectures in Architecture: in the Realm of Ideas".

JimM
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Per Quinian all floors were magnesite for sound absorption. A "chalky gray substance mined in Greece containing magnesium carbonate; it was mixed, poured and troweled like cement". For the floors magnesite was mixed with excelsior and poured over a layer of felt to impart resiliency."

It had a pale, gray surface, and under the weight of the steel furniture, chipped and cracked. Interestingly, the sculptural decorations of the piers surrounding the light court were magnesite (apparently it was poured into forms) as well as panels and beams surrounding the executive offices.

From "Building a Legacy"...

Image[/img]

The Studio originally had pine floors and Wright applied the magnesite after using it at Larkin. Unlike Larkin, a tan colorant was added.

SDR
Posts: 19300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Pat Mahoney sends these images.


Image


Image

pmahoney
Moderator
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 am

Larkin Brick

Post by pmahoney »

Not only are the interior and exterior bricks different colors, they are also different sizes. The red brick on the exterior is taller than a standard brick. Whereas the interior bricks are standard height and length (modular).

David
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by David »

This is only a test, but what do you think?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/143771393 ... 2/sizes/l/

Too subtle? I do not want to go too far

SDR
Posts: 19300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Pat provides evidence.


Image


https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.p ... rkin_1.jpg


There appears to be a marked difference between the trim stone and the material of the panel near the entrance. The twin sculptures at the top of the building seem to fall somewhere in the middle ?

SDR

Tom
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

David, what software are you using to model this?

Surprised me too to know that excavations of this building are ongoing.
Also surprised me to learn that there exists such a thing as a Brick Museum.

SDR
Posts: 19300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The book on the building, by Jack Quinan, mentions only red sandstone as the material for trim, presumably including the exterior sculpture and the intaglio panels above the fountains. So, relying on the material samples above, David should tint these parts of the model to match ?

It may be that the fountains were made of slightly paler red sandstone.

Older colorized images, as well as many black-and-white photos, seem to support these readings:

http://www.monroefordham.org/Projects/L ... istory.htm

http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/06 ... orybig.jpg

http://www.steinerag.com/flw/Periodicals/LarkinIdea.htm

SDR

Tom
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Nor ever knew there was an arched entry to this building.

SDR
Posts: 19300
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Yes -- they didn't publish that one for decades; it was a surprise to me, too, not that long ago. When certain features don't "fit the picture," they're ignored, or even suppressed ?

SDR

David
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by David »

I always assumed that the final appearance of the red sandstone was this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/143771393 ... 462092306/

(Not very red really) Is this a later addition?

This other picture shows what look like two different types of stone:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/143771393 ... 462092306/

??

Tom: The software I use is Autocad, 3ds Max, Vray and Photoshop mostly.

Post Reply