House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:59 pm

We sometimes comment on Wright's recycling of a Usonian plan for a second client. In this case, the precursor was an unbuilt house for Robert Bush, in Palo Alto, CA, designed in 1950. As it turned out, the
"clone" was altered before construction, into a new and unique variation of the original plan.

The Bush project:

The initial plan for E Clarke Arnold:

And the built plan:

photo Ã‚Â© Juergen Nogai

Master bedroom:

photo Ã‚Â© Juergen Nogai

Guest bedroom:

photo Ã‚Â© Dave Anderson

Color images except as noted: Ã‚Â© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

Black-and-white images: Ã‚Â© 1988 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:37 am

I never tire of looking at the drawings or photos of the Bush/Arnold/Thaxton plan type, or commenting how much I like it.

The high perforated board windows in a stone wall seen in the Dave Anderson photo of the guest room lead me to believe that room is within the TAA/John Howe addition. It also appears that the gallery wall of the original house was designed to be wood framed with board and batten siding, but per the Mono pic it was built of stone.

Great house, in a nice little town with a LHS jewel box bank to boot, still held by its original client's family.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:12 am

DNR, I believe you are right. That stone-walled bedroom has a closet perpendicular to the wall, which doesn't exist in the original bedroom wing.

I bet the change from horizontal B&B to stone in the gallery was a FLW alteration. At the right end of that same elevation is the vertical wood screen; the two wood elements would have clashed.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:15 pm

The Arthur Mathews Usonian of 1950 has a wooden screen reminiscent of those seen in Futagawa's exterior photo of Arnold, above (though these screens
don't seem to appear on the plan). In the Mathews house the screen divides the entry and central gallery from the kitchen; it has boards cut and placed at
60Ã‚Âº from its faces just as these do, in keeping with the 30-60 nature of the planning grid.

That house also features rows of small windows placed at regular intervals in its masonry exterior walls, a detail seen here as well.

I wish we had a drawing to show how the elbow of the plan, between kitchen and central bath, was modified by Howe/TAA to permit entry to the new bedroom
gallery. There are minor differences between Storrer's plan (above) and the Taliesin sheet, including in the kitchen. Storrer in most cases shows what he found
at each built Wright property.

Anderson's undated photo of the guest room appears to show a dark stain to the woodwork, while Nogai's 2008 photo shows unstained wood in the master
bedroom. So far, the former is the only photo we have of the house perf -- though wth the dark stain it is difficult to read the design. (I wonder how many enlarged
Usonians have examples of reproduced "extra" perfs.)

SDR

HOJO · Post by **HOJO** » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:53 am

Roderick Grant wrote:DNR, I believe you are right. That stone-walled bedroom has a closet perpendicular to the wall, which doesn't exist in the original bedroom wing.

Both stone wall and closet are parallel to a side of the triangular light in the ceiling, so the closet is not perpendicular to the wall.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:41 am

Good catch, HOJO. Closets separating bedrooms is good for acoustic privacy . . .

SDR

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:42 pm

HOJO, you are right. The closet seems to be perpendicular, and the light is not that much of a gauge, but the bed, which is obviously perpendicular to the wall is not parallel to the closet, as can be seen by the closet hinges.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:20 pm

Found this searching for a Cedar Rock thread.
Never seen this house before - at least those first exterior perspectives.

But consider the structural section through the Mossberg Living Room
in relation to the section through the Arnold's Living Room.

Both cases: flat roof intersecting with pitched roof, stabilized by trussed rafters.
In Mossberg the truss is concealed and above the flat roof.
In Arnold the truss is exposed and below the flat roof.

... makes me want to take another look at Bazzett

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:28 pm

Bazett

HOJO · Post by **HOJO** » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:27 am

Tom wrote:In Arnold the truss is exposed and below the flat roof.

And at the other side of the living room there is also a truss, above the flat roof.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:55 am

HOJO: do you know where that truss falls online in the plan?

HOJO · Post by **HOJO** » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:51 pm

Tom wrote:HOJO: do you know where that truss falls online in the plan?

triangle trusses between horizontal ceiling plane, sloping roof plane and vertical part above windows.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:53 pm

Tom, about Bazett: In Mono 6/160, there is no indication of a truss to hold up the pitched roof over the living room. As built, in Tasch 2/381 there are thin, wide trusses on either side. No drawings to show what's going on inside them, however.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:24 am

One of these days I may own the Tasch Vols.
Only construction shots I've ever seen of Bazett are found in Sargent.
I think I remember seeing them place a steel beam along the line where the
slope roof and the flat roof meet - from one end of the living room to the other
... long ways.
That would contain some of the pitched roof thrust ...
but not all ..?

Concerning the beautiful color renderings of the Bush Project above.
Makes me wonder if he didn't begin by laying one big equilateral triangle down and then starting from there.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:28 pm

Well, he might have -- though I think most students of the man would suggest otherwise, as that's just a bit too arbitrary for a serious contextual environmentalist, even if a formalist . . . ?

Either way, no drafting table I've seen has sported a 60-60-60 triangle. But the 30-60-90 drafter's triangle is a universal staple. And it's hard to look at the Maginel Barney, McCartney
or Howard Anthony plans without seeing one of those staring you in the face . . . !