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.
It raises the question, however, of "what are the differences between the original and the 'inspired' version," in each case. Houses with differences in
dimension, proportion, fenestration, etc, cannot feel identical, though both might be pleasant and even delightful to be in . . .
-master bedroom is on the first floor...no beds on first floor of original
-the fireplace has been pulled toward the living room such that it is at the edge of the second floor, rather than its middle...high ceiling at fireplace not as cozy
-galley kitchen on the original is widened to be the full width of the house..it is now part of the entry sequence
There are other changes. The Lindal house is reminiscent, but not a copy by any means, and is a very good house on its own terms. To a lay person it may be just the same, but I believe it would be different experientially in many respects.
I haven't compared plans on any of these designs, yet. The open kitchen is a post-war development, for the most part -- and how much "post" I couldn't say, though my impression is 'seventies or later . . . ?
up their own experience of building a home. Forewarned is forearmed ?
"Questions to ask," would be another way to frame that point. One imagines that many successful transactions have taken place over the course of the
company's history -- a great majority of them, indeed, if the longevity of the firm is any evidence. Still, some interesting-if-true items or issues were raised.
I had a friend who bought a "Yankee Barn Home" kit from an outfit in New England, and erected it on her property in the town of Sonoma, out here. She
suffered some disappointments, stemming in large part from her failure to take the company's advice in the matter of construction supervision, and in
selecting an inexperienced and over-committed builder.
I'm recalling what I read in the Erdman Prefab literature that was posted here not long ago, in the (informal) list of supplied parts that curiously omitted
mention of roof sheathing material . . .
Ã‚Â© 2018 by Lindal Cedar Homes
As the guest suite might be expected to be on the ground floor, rather than at the end of the second-floor bedroom row, perhaps this is just a case
of mis-labeling, Roderick ? In any event, the actual use of the house is certainly at the option of the owner . . .
(Pfeiffer and Storrer remind us that the Gordon plan is a version of Schwartz; Pfeiffer relates Schwartz, in turn, to Jester.)
Rather than judging this group of designs for what they aren't, perhaps the progressive option would be to appraise them for what they are. Two
designers well placed, it would seem, to interpret Wright (or at the very worse, knock him off), are present at the creation, here. The plans seem
sound from several points of view, and if they aren't literal interpretations of Wright's work, I would say that's what we've been expecting -- and in
some cases recommending -- all along ?
You might be right about this, but boy is it hard to do. For me at least.Rather than judging this group of designs for what they aren't, perhaps the progressive option would be to appraise them for what they are.
I notice that the "Silverton" plan is enlargedÃ¢â‚¬â€�Gordon was 2100 SF while this is 2800 SF. They've also added a 4th bathroom, which seems somewhat un-"Usonian" for each room to have its own bath.
afford for each bedroom to have its own bath, who are we to object ?
My belief is that the architect stretched the budget to gain his non-negotiables, namely generous roofs and masonry, and fine woodwork, sacrificing square
footage and certain technical niceties like adequate weatherproofing and drainage, in exchange.
Presumably, the owners of Lindal Wright-likes will not be subjected to such oversights and the resulting indignities . . .
The fact that these examples have been modified for the current expectations of the potential buyers will result in a more successful business plan than a direct re-creation of the originals that we built at a time when the owners weren't as spoiled and/or affluent as now.
I purchased the printed booklet and was impressed, not because they were copies of the original, but because they were very suitable Wrightian-inspired creations.