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.
I don't like playing architect if I don't have to, but I may be forced to in order to get this thing to simply function.
Also, the elevation doesn't match the perspective in terms of the skylight in the central roof. And I don't think the perspective matches the plan in terms of the recesses on either side of the protruding window element in the bedrooms, though this is less easy to see. Decisions will have to be made, but I am leaning towards the perspective as the final (and best looking) version.
order to whatever selection of images the editors have chosen to reproduce. In the Monographs B B Pfeiffer gave up on that entirely, it seems, in the choice and display of drawings -- though one will find lists of drawings and
their catalog numbers, at the back of each book, for what that may be worth. Does anyone believe that the number suffixes were chosen only after a thorough study of the project, in each case ?)
When you say asymmetrical, you mean about the principal axis of the plan ? I see that the red lines fail to be quite parallel to the ridge of each wing -- one of them, at least, which I guess explains the asymmetry ? I'm surprised
to hear you hesitate to put on your architect's hat, as it will be necessary in order to solve Wright's problem for yourself (and the rest of us). How else ?
(If you mean do the wing roof ridges center on the rooms below, I don't necessarily expect that, no . . .)
I certainly do expect to see the roof appear symmetrical, yes. And the perspective view would be the one most likely to contain whatever resolutions and "best choices" the architect had reached; the perspective drawing, even
without color, is the most labor-intensive of the set, of course . . .
What you have is an arrangement that is symmetrical about only one axis, CG. The slope of each roof element is not consistent all around, except insofar as each roof slope has a matching slope opposite line CG.
It seems clear that the diagonals in red which radiate from approximately the center of the hearth/prow are intended to be ridge lines. What surprises me is that they are not mirrored, exactly,
about axis GC. The left-hand one fails to center itself over the pointed terminal of the left-hand bedroom; compare to the one at right. Thus, they also fail to meet exactly on the GC centerline.
Why, oh why ?
It has bothered me from the get-go that as drawn it lacks symmetry. If you look at the black and white copy of the plan a few pages back (the grid lines are stronger) you can clearly see that from the point of the fireplace prow, there are 14 squares to point G but only 13 squares to point C.
What confuses the matter more is that the red horizontal line E-X-A does not line up with the actual floor plan. Why would the roof be designed to be less symmetrical than the plan? I think it has to do with the way the two bedroom wings interact with the octagon but I can't be sure just yet.
All this is very helpful from the point of correctness, and I'd like to single out Roderick for being the king of the nit-pickers (and I truly mean that as a compliment, one nit-picker to another). I just wish it wasn't so convoluted.
As an aside, I have a question about the masonry. Assuming that the retaining wall and chimney are some form of block (rather than poured in place concrete) how tall should a course be? Measuring off of the elevation it seems to be 1'-4", which is our grid unit. However that seems a bit tall to me. That's fine if it's a stone block, but not if it's concrete. Could this all be dressed stone? That's a heck of a lot of carving for a cabin.
As always, thank you all for your wonderful analysis.
time) would be simple simply because they typically employ orthodox angles --15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 degrees.
It seems to me that, with this plan and many another, by Wright or whoever, bilateral symmetry is the game of the day. For whatever reason, the
designer chose to swing his bedroom wings toward the down-slope; with this move he abandons quadrilateral symmetry -- and so should we, to
keep up ?
The off-center X-point of the roof, if Wright has finished with it at this point (I have my doubts, based on the error I pointed to), need not keep us from
accepting this work as complex yet orderly. Yes, I suspect the answer is in the deployment of the bedrooms: their width as it intersects the main body,
their placement on or off an axis that runs either through the geometric center of that figure, or off-center, as seems to be the case.
I'm not sure that I'd employ the term "symmetry" when examining these part and pieces in their various relationships to certain axes -- other than to
specify that whatever happens to the right of the GC axis occurs, mirrored, on the left ?
Matt, the cleaner a drawing, the less likely it is to be FLW. Many employee or apprentice drawings were edited by Himself, but going all the way back to the early days of Oak Park, FLW did not do the bulk of drawings. He could, as evidenced by his "Project: Drawing Shown to Lieber Meister When Applying for a Job 1887," and "Project: House for Henry N. Cooper, La Grange, Illinois, 1890," which is the plan of the earlier project. Those were done before he had an established practice of his own, when he had to rely on his own abilities. But once he was in charge of employees, especially the gifted MMG, he relegated much of the drawing to them. He did, however, draw the view from the shore of Lake Michigan, looking up toward the Thomas Hardy House; MMG later added the magnolia blossom.
A much later drawing in his own hand, beginning to end, is the very rough "How to Live in the Southwest," 1950, the original scheme for the David Wright House which he famously drew in less time than it took him to draw Fallingwater. But all the rest of the drawings were done by apprentices.
Geiger once said FLW wouldn't do anything that wasn't fun. He had lots of people around him to do the drudgery, so he could concentrate on the fun stuff.
Roderick's comment suggesting a means of recognizing a Wright from an apprentice drawing is so apt. And there's a gradient, from lightly-improved to fully abused, in the degree to which the Old Man
(I'm sorry, to me that's an affectionate moniker) took pencil to another's sheet.
The cover of John Sergeant's Usonian book sports a dandy example, enlarged:
And in this view of the Ayn Rand project, even at this scale, it is easy to spot the heavy hand in graphite corrections to the operable fenestration, again, as well as some foliage
shadows -- and a major alteration of the terrain ? An addition to the masonry at the crown ?
Exploit Tahoe's shoreline and mountain conditions, and there are such a significant number of Lake Tahoe winter season exercises in the distinctive towns to do.
There's a possible larger building at far left in one of the drawings below.
By way of context, this entry in found, in Mono 6 and Tachen II, adjacent to Wingspread, Suntop and Florida Southern College. One would love to know how steel connections were to be made without "bolts, screws, or mechanical fastenings" . . .