Wright Chat

[Tom]

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.
_________________
Nothing lasts forever
FLLW

[DRN]

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.

[Tom]

Nice, thank you
_________________
Nothing lasts forever
FLLW

[SDR]

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/2017/09/24.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&strip=all

Perhaps that decision was made to accord with the drawn elevation while bringing the glass closer to the sloped ceiling plane ?

SDR

[SDR]

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

[Tom]

"Custom Built Pre-Fabrication" ...?
_________________
Nothing lasts forever
FLLW

[SDR]

Heh. Mr Wright has it both ways, with that title on both later Erdman sheets. One thinks of the advertising trope of "hand made" -- as if most objects from the hand of man could be anything other than hand-made . . .

SDR

[Matt]

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.

[SDR]

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

[David]

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?


_________________
David Romero
www.hookedonthepast.com

[Tom]

Never noticed that window before.
Will keep my eye open for closer shots.
It seems it might consist of triangles:
two light pointing up and one dark pointing down
_________________
Nothing lasts forever
FLLW

[Roderick Grant]

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.

[Forest]

Matt wrote:

[j_f]

@ SDR - thank you.

SDR:

[j_f]

SDR: