LA fires: Arch Obler, etc.

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.
Roderick Grant
Posts: 10136
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The drawing is of a blocky addition (unbuilt, of course) west of the gate house. Oboler "Continuation." Tasch 3/375 shows both images plus a site plan. The drawing with the pool is looking west from the gatehouse. The other is looking toward the SSW with the gatehouse in the distance.

Matt2
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Post by Matt2 »

Who drew those more colorful eaglefeather renderings? They don't look like Howe drawings.

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I wish I knew. Howe organized the drawing file (rolled drawings laid and stored flat) and Pfeiffer took on the archive when he got
there after the war. But in work published both before and after Mrs Wright's death Pfeiffer makes little mention of the authorship
of the drawings, naming no names as far as I can recall. These bright gouache renderings are most unusual.

Thanks, Roderick. Here is what Taschen (2008) has to show of the Continuation project. The paintings, clearly made on colored
paper, are shown one above the other...the color of the first one differs markedly from another published image, appearing here
in a much pinker (salmon ?) tonality compared to what I found previously. Which one is more nearly correct ?

Image


Earlier publication:

Image


Taschen:

Image


Image

The plan drawing contains a bonus: elevation drawings, on the reverse of the sheet---or photographed accidentally to give that impression: the sheet translucent enough to show the elevation sheet lying beneath ?


Here's the above plan rotated to match a Taliesin plan of the Gatehouse:

Image
Color images and text © 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10136
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Four drawings, elevation, plan, section, in Mono 8/149, reveal the theater on the lower level and the bedrooms above.

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Oho. Some of these projects hide within our texts; if you don't know the name of the project, and/or its approximate date, you may never find it. The
Monographs would have benefitted greatly from the inclusion of a proper index, in place of (or in addition to) the chronological listing at the front of each volume.

S

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

From Monograph 8:


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

© 1988 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

An alteration to the plan, made after the colored drawings and before the black-and-white set, above, is the removal of the chimney and fireplace from the south end of the structure to the north---the approach side of the property, aligning with the pergola.

In the earlier (colored) version, the four steps down to the fireplace are missing from the plan. Also, the ramp at the south end is elongated. Are there other differences between the two versions ?


Image

Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10136
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

"Continuation" might have cost more than "Eaglefeather."

It's an interesting building in its own right, but it isn't a match for the structures that were actually built.
They are (were) a rough and tumble collection, while Continuation is much more formal and refined. I prefer the first-built.

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Eleanor's Retreat had just been restored; now it's gone (but for, I assume, the masonry base). Wonder if it will be rebuilt a second time . . .

http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/6793/

S

Matt2
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Post by Matt2 »

Yes, the massing of the continuation is rather bunker-like. There's none of Wright's usual grace and delicacy. Maybe I'm missing something in these drawings that a model would reveal.

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The relocation of the chimney seems counterproductive; wouldn't one want to reach the fire as the culmination of the procession, rather than "tripping over it" at the elbow of the plan ?

S

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

Post by Tom »

The West elevation seems particularly depressing to me.
SDR - like the way you described the relocation of the fireplace.
wonder if this is one of the ones that slipped through without the benefit of clergy.

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

Post by Tom »

relocating the fire to "the elbow" does open up the culmination of "the procession" to an open vista ... yet the glass on the southern elevation is small.

In some sense maybe one is intended to "discover" the fire after one has arrived at the vista and turned around.

SDR
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Sure---that works. Maybe he wanted to drop the floor in front of the fireplace, and couldn't do that at the south end because of the theater below . . . assuming he didn't want to reverse that too ?

S

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

Post by Tom »

Interesting, another difference - in the color plans of the livingroom block the masonry piers on the east side align with the vertical slit windows on the west wall - atypical construction.

Whereas in the B&W Monograph plans those piers align with the masonry on the west wall - as one would expect in standard construction.

Post Reply