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.
Mies, I agree with SDR, the returns in the bedroom windows should be glass, not solid wall. SDR's drawings are convincing. Between the innermost windows and the retaining wall would be a small planter, as suggested by the perspective where there seems to be flora dangling from the right bedroom.
All windows and doors should be the same height. I am also convinced that the apertures in the two hallways should be outward-swinging, glass double doors, 32" wide. FLW would not have those loggias accessible from only the doors in the kitchen. My guess is that the exterior wall of the kitchen was simply not completed. It might possibly be a single wall of perforated blocks, or a non-structural wall of windows.
I think the Rand design owes more to the Noble apartment project than the metal houses. The Foreman project...of Wa D.C. I believe...is my fav unbuilt house. It is my "if I had a lot of money" house. I think there is more Wright in its compact form than any other project. It makes me wonder why there weren' more designs using the Fallingwater palette of glass, rough-cut stone, and concrete (or stucco) elements.
I don't suggest that Wright intended to alter the design -- but (if we accept that all graphite marks on this drawing are in Wright's hand, and that they post-date the completion of the drawing in another's hand), it may be
that he was toying with the idea, even briefly.
Not only does the left-hand parapet addition -- which involved a lot of surprisingly successful erasure of colored pencil -- have an outward-canted corner, clearly evident when compared to the nearby stone pier, the other
verticals in the drawing, the central page gutter and the left edge of the drawing, but there are other faint but discernible canted pencil lines, seen at the right-hand end of the building.
That one of these suggestive lines cants inward, while three others (including the fully rendered left hand parapet) cant outwards, only adds to the mystery. They do not, however, suggest hysteria or mesmerism, to me.
Where presentation drawings of half- or 3/4-baked schemes typically done? I'd have thought you'd only go to a perspective if a solid plan and elevation had been worked out.
I think this seems to be the option shown in the perspective. That definitely has the angled portion without the secondary triangle flaring out. It's difficult to tell though. In both reproductions, there is a blurriness around where the prow connects to the main building. (Incidentally, at high magnification, I think you can see that there has been a bit of smearing of the image between the two photos. Not surprising after 90 years, but still sad.)
It's the same as option 1, but with the extra angle. I agree this should be some kind of planter, but I'm not sure that what is shown on the right hand side of the rendering is plants dangling down. It's so straight I wonder if it's a decorative element. The Lodge Cabin has some elements like this and I wonder if that could be a variant.
If you look carefully at the plan, you can see that this is an option, faintly drawn on the left side. When I built the model, it lined up perfectly with everything else. It would also enable the room to lose the corner piers, which I find very awkward.
The conclusion I'm coming to is that Wright considered option 1 to be the last word. Personally, I think I prefer option 3 the most, but I don't feel comfortable overruling Mr. Wright (unless one of you can give me a justification!).
The whole space is a bit awkward and needlessly complicated to my mind. The steep angle below the jutting prow means that the floor area in the prow is reduced - what does that become? A planter? Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Wright could see the room in his mind and there are a bunch of design elements he never put down on paper that would have explained the rest.
What do you all think?
doesn't prevent the floor from being a continuous plane throughout the space . . . does it ?
The plan diagonals that you found, the ones that parallel the terrace wall and prow face, might be a part of the composition -- but I see no evidence anywhere on the plan drawing of the outward cant to a triangular section of
the prow structure below the glass line. And I think the plan drawing takes precedence over any other document, despite previously giving support to the view drawing as a possibly definitive version of the scheme.
Those canted triangles are unnecessary; though they do connect two plan elements in a novel way, they introduce yet another and novel angle to an already complex affair. They may or may not be inferred from an elevation
-- itself a surprise entry with novel features -- or from the perspective drawing -- but I'd lose them, I think -- just as my previously-posted projected modification to the beltline is extraneous and suspect, being supported only by
that elevation drawing and not by the plan.
That's my reaction, for what it's worth.
Each of those vertical and canted prow planes must in the end be faced with parallel boards, with nipped corners suggested by the view drawing, perhaps, and those boards would ideally be of a common width throughout, in
keeping with Wright's demonstrated preference for continuity of form and of detail.
But I'm sure you'll persevere. No twisted planes, please ! I know that SketchUp makes those impossible -- or at least very difficult to achieve. (What would Candela or Calatrava do with SketchUp ?)