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.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lamidesign ... 9981/show/
http://homes.longandfoster.com/Real-Est ... 19003-3117
http://modernhomesphiladelphia.com/fran ... 20327.html
Not exactly, but I can say that when I visited Suntop in the '80's as a student and saw the exteriors of multiple units, I could see that the light was common to all of the units I saw. When illuminated, it lights not only the dining mezzanine but also the living area and is noticeable from the exterior. Seeing it in multiple units causes me to suspect that the fixture is either a Wright design, or a ready made item specified at the time of construction. The drawings in the archives (or a Monograph) would be the definitive answer.Does anyone have any information on the wood ceiling lamp of with multiple translucent sheets of glass or plexi?
Wonderful home,if only I had the cash to buy it and to move then I would be in heaven but I will just look at through the window,so to speak.
The interior seems very comfortable and and open.
I think Storrer's scale is wrong. He shows 3'0" square, but all the plans show 2'9". Thickness of floors is 2 3/4"! Some of the writing is tiny and too faint for me to read, so I may not be getting everything correct, but it looks like 2" x 3" boards were laid adjacent and covered on top with linoleum.
The composition of the side elevation suffers, in my view, from the fact that the surrounding C-shaped frame, being mitered, is constant in width; because the slat frames slide into it, the vertical member of this frame is reduced in apparent width, weakening the proportions of the ensemble. Perhaps, somehow, this would not be so apparent in the three-dimensional reality of the construction -- but I doubt it. At night, with the lamps lit, the simple symmetry of the design would be disturbed, as each plane of the slatted surround would receive strong illumination from a different direction, from the two lamps immediately behind.
In any event, this gilding of a quite Spartan construction (perhaps Wright's piece-de-resistance of structural minimalism ?), was deemed redundant, or perhaps unaffordable ?
I've considered the possibility that the lantern would look right if the mitered seams of the frame were invisible; nope, say I, the proportions would be the same in either event. Poor Mr Wright just can't win, sometimes . . . with me !
The full width of the vertical is hidden by the slats, due to shadow and perspective -- but the simple line drawing in elevation presents essentially the same problem, clearly enough.
In this case there isn't a structural fault, since the frame is merely decorative -- face boards applied to the structure of the house. But the visual impression is the same in either case. One wants to correct the situation, at least by reducing the frame member above the lantern to the (apparent) width of the vertical member supporting it, say. But the three frame boards are mitered to each other (at the standard and expected 45Âº angle) so they must remain at identical widths.
As simple and straightforward as the present result is, it is inherently hampered by the problem I mention -- and the designer solves this by discarding the design in favor of one which avoids the conundrum. At least, that's how I work . . . and so does Mr Wright, with the occasional and (to me) surprising exception.
Tony Smith was the apprentice who worked on Suntop homes and Mr Wright was impressed with his efforts enough to make him Clerk of the Works on his next project as an apprentice: The Armstrong House in Ogden Dunes IN. After that, he made his way to Columbus OH along with laborer Ted Van Fossen and apprentice Laurence Cuneo to design/build my hew house: glen brow (aka the Gunning House).
One certainly can't blame Mr Wright for wanting to notch his lantern slats into their supporting frame. Nor can we be surprised to see him playing, here, with turning his board wall upright and over, with miters. Another drawing, also noted "Edited for Feb 10, 1940," shows an elevation with zig-zag treatment of one portion of the exterior wall. But in these drawings there is no brick yet; a unique patterned poured-concrete wall is substituted. By the time of construction both these features (vertical mitering, and concrete walls) are gone.
The construction of the stepped board wall is also in flux, in the mostly undated drawings found in Monograph 6. In the drawing above we have the boards simply fastened to themselves to make a canted plane; the tops of boards on the back-sloped face are protected and decorated with a special batten, whether exposed to the weather or not. But in another (undated) drawing (Pl 133) the canted wall is constructed of two thicknesses of boards, "Insulation paper between," reminiscent of the Pauson wall but without the air space, the boards assembled in a half-lapped manner. On this drawing the deck parapet wall is composed of a single layer of boards with gaps between, resulting in a greater cant angle for this wall. The construction is unclear; a note says "See F.S. Section Sheet 6."
The earlier Pew house shows still another solution to the problem of the canted lapped-board wall, perhaps the most elegant of all -- in all these walls Mr Wright clearly intends a plumb face to the boards. A Pew drawing in Mono 6 shows a canted 5/8" plywood core ("Low Grade Fir Plywood) with paper on both sides and a surface of "weather boards" -- tapered clapboards with a lap detail at the thicker edge, perhaps a standard lumber-yard item (Hosanna !).
How any of these walls were actually built is unknown to me.