Cool, thanks
I guess I’m thinking of catalog order as only alternative
Still, I’m surprised.
Always assumed most of the windows and doors on Wright houses were
Built on site.
Rose and Gertrude Pauson house
I believe the issue may be better described as the increased prevalence, as the 20th Century progressed, of standardized window sizing by larger and fewer shops, and later, by major manufacturers. Wright, for the most part, specified his window profiles, proportions, and sizes which were fabricated at local shops and brought to the site, often, but not always unglazed.
The early 20th Century "house by mail" business, aided by assembly line methods and a vast railroad network, led to standardization. Wright's ASBH's were an outgrowth of that trend, but retained Wright's unique details and proportions, though Wright did tailor his ASBH designs to interchangeability of many components between plan types. Bespoke houses by architects such as Wright became the holdouts as it were for custom windows. Wright’s work on the prefabs with Marshall Erdman was I believe his first foray into standardized windows and doors from a major manufacturer....in fact, it could be said Wright used them as a generative design element for the prefabs.
The early 20th Century "house by mail" business, aided by assembly line methods and a vast railroad network, led to standardization. Wright's ASBH's were an outgrowth of that trend, but retained Wright's unique details and proportions, though Wright did tailor his ASBH designs to interchangeability of many components between plan types. Bespoke houses by architects such as Wright became the holdouts as it were for custom windows. Wright’s work on the prefabs with Marshall Erdman was I believe his first foray into standardized windows and doors from a major manufacturer....in fact, it could be said Wright used them as a generative design element for the prefabs.
Last edited by DRN on Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
No doubt true. The Erdman II design is surely based on the size of available sash; the vertical module appears to be 2 feet, on a four-foot square grid.
The Erdman I elevations show Andersen windows (noted on the south elevation drawing) of regular size which does not accord with the building vertical module. And an anomaly occurs at the La Fond house, where the two-lite sash at the rear consists of units with
unequal-sized openings.
© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2 ... &strip=all
Perhaps that decision was made to accord with the drawn elevation while bringing the glass closer to the sloped ceiling plane ?
SDR
The Erdman I elevations show Andersen windows (noted on the south elevation drawing) of regular size which does not accord with the building vertical module. And an anomaly occurs at the La Fond house, where the two-lite sash at the rear consists of units with
unequal-sized openings.
© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2 ... &strip=all
Perhaps that decision was made to accord with the drawn elevation while bringing the glass closer to the sloped ceiling plane ?
SDR
Last edited by SDR on Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Erdman Prefab #2 elevations do not call out the vertical unit; an interior photo makes clear the two-foot unit.
© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
photo © Arthur Siegel, 1959
The very last entry in Monograph 8, the final volume, is a third proposal for Marshall Erdman. Here Mr Wright is able to bring the Prefab #2 type "down to earth" with a Model C. The two-foot vertical module is specified at left on
the elevation sheet.
© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
photo © Arthur Siegel, 1959
The very last entry in Monograph 8, the final volume, is a third proposal for Marshall Erdman. Here Mr Wright is able to bring the Prefab #2 type "down to earth" with a Model C. The two-foot vertical module is specified at left on
the elevation sheet.
© 1986 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
Last edited by SDR on Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Another factor in the complexity of Wrights details is that the cost of skilled labor was very cheap through the 1930s. I don't see this as an excuse to make things overly complex, but you could have complex woodworking done for a few bucks an hour in labor cost.
I have always thought Wright should have operated his own pre-fab factory. But it should have been a panel system where wall panels (some with windows) would have been factory made and trucked to a site. Wright's idea of prefab was a smaller unit module, as in the Usonian Automatics use of a block. But that really is too small a module to be an effective prefab system. Likewise, some current systems make entire rooms in the factory and truck them to the site for assembly. That, in my opinion, is too big a module. The ideal module would be a wall SIP panel, about the size of a piece of plywood.
I have always thought Wright should have operated his own pre-fab factory. But it should have been a panel system where wall panels (some with windows) would have been factory made and trucked to a site. Wright's idea of prefab was a smaller unit module, as in the Usonian Automatics use of a block. But that really is too small a module to be an effective prefab system. Likewise, some current systems make entire rooms in the factory and truck them to the site for assembly. That, in my opinion, is too big a module. The ideal module would be a wall SIP panel, about the size of a piece of plywood.
That sounds about right. There is a photo of a wall section of a board-and-batten Usonian being removed from a truck. The issue there is that Wright's
preferred mitered vertical corner does not take kindly to being prefabricated -- unless the panel can be assembled and then mitered (on the world's largest
sliding horizontal panel saw ?) as a unit, making a perfect miter from top to bottom.
And the problem of connecting this fragile mitered corner, in the field and without excessive use of visible fasteners, remains.
It would seem that the most "honest" design for prefabrication/field assembly would acknowledge the joints rather than striving to disguise them. But this is
a philosophy of design -- at a whole-building scale, anyway -- that post-dates Wright's career, I think . . .
SDR
preferred mitered vertical corner does not take kindly to being prefabricated -- unless the panel can be assembled and then mitered (on the world's largest
sliding horizontal panel saw ?) as a unit, making a perfect miter from top to bottom.
And the problem of connecting this fragile mitered corner, in the field and without excessive use of visible fasteners, remains.
It would seem that the most "honest" design for prefabrication/field assembly would acknowledge the joints rather than striving to disguise them. But this is
a philosophy of design -- at a whole-building scale, anyway -- that post-dates Wright's career, I think . . .
SDR
Now that this thread comes up again I wanted to ask you something.
A room that I have unfinish in my model and that I would like to recreate is the master bedroom. Unfortunately I have not found any pictures of this room so my main question is about the fireplace. How do you think the design was?
In Wright's drawing it seems that the hole has a cylindrical or octagonal plan shape and next to it there is another hole, maybe a cabinet to store the firewood? Would it have doors?
On the other hand, the small window of this room that is located on the northwest facade does not appear in Wright's drawings. Maybe it was a request from the client that had to be designed at the last minute?
A room that I have unfinish in my model and that I would like to recreate is the master bedroom. Unfortunately I have not found any pictures of this room so my main question is about the fireplace. How do you think the design was?
In Wright's drawing it seems that the hole has a cylindrical or octagonal plan shape and next to it there is another hole, maybe a cabinet to store the firewood? Would it have doors?
On the other hand, the small window of this room that is located on the northwest facade does not appear in Wright's drawings. Maybe it was a request from the client that had to be designed at the last minute?
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Considering the height of the cabinet next to the circular fireplace, I doubt the entire thing was meant to hold fire wood. Possibly the bottom third or so, but it is a full-height closet.
Adding a window at the last minute wouldn't be out of the ordinary, especially if it was to provide for cross-ventilation.
Adding a window at the last minute wouldn't be out of the ordinary, especially if it was to provide for cross-ventilation.
Matt wrote:
I'll post the information in the Erdman Prefab thread.
Actually, the Erdman prefabs were produced as panelized wall sections as Matt described.I have always thought Wright should have operated his own pre-fab factory. But it should have been a panel system where wall panels (some with windows) would have been factory made and trucked to a site.
I'll post the information in the Erdman Prefab thread.
Last edited by Forest on Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@ SDR - thank you.
SDR:
Well I would put it like this, there are some constrictions as to the nature of a source.
Sources have to be verrified, evaluated and of course most important of all, mentioned.
Evaluation follows a hierarchy. Primary sources followed by secondary sources.
Secondary sources -prior works- are naturally a good source for primary sources and a huge help in regard to
interpret the findings resulting out of such sources. All the better if secondary sources followed academic standards.
That is the extend to which prior work is used, Which goes to authorship.
Comming from a country where -in recent years - findings of plagiarism in their academic "achievements" ended political careers very publicly,
and put a negative spotlight on the universities where this happend.
Besides one´s personal standards, there is a certain strictness in regard to the issue.
Having that said, I don´t know how if that is what you understand as the traditional agreements but I would think so.
Again thank you, I will take you up on that offer if higher resolution of any of your posted content is needed.
SDR:
"What can you tell me about the current thinking as to student research and subsequent publication ? What is the operating ethic, as to use of prior work ? Are the traditional recorded and tacit agreements still in effect, in academia ?"
Well I would put it like this, there are some constrictions as to the nature of a source.
Sources have to be verrified, evaluated and of course most important of all, mentioned.
Evaluation follows a hierarchy. Primary sources followed by secondary sources.
Secondary sources -prior works- are naturally a good source for primary sources and a huge help in regard to
interpret the findings resulting out of such sources. All the better if secondary sources followed academic standards.
That is the extend to which prior work is used, Which goes to authorship.
Comming from a country where -in recent years - findings of plagiarism in their academic "achievements" ended political careers very publicly,
and put a negative spotlight on the universities where this happend.
Besides one´s personal standards, there is a certain strictness in regard to the issue.
Having that said, I don´t know how if that is what you understand as the traditional agreements but I would think so.
Again thank you, I will take you up on that offer if higher resolution of any of your posted content is needed.
SDR:
Well one way or another, Ellis did build the lozenge-shaped mullions...
This picture appears to be a still from a longer version of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDL0FGC8Vio
or at least was taken at the same day as the video was shot.
"Of course, its possible that the drawings are intended to show only the desired forms, with the carpenter left to substitute preferable construction
detail on-site. In any event, that is likely what happened, again and again."
"Anyway, those drawings that WJS found are really interesting. The lozenge-shaped mullion section, for instance, is a complete surprise to me. Do we
believe that's what got built ?"
Well one way or another, Ellis did build the lozenge-shaped mullions...
This picture appears to be a still from a longer version of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDL0FGC8Vio
or at least was taken at the same day as the video was shot.