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.
If you read the Prospectus, you will see that the exterior walls were shipped as panels, with sheathing, siding and windows installed. Interior surfaces were not pre-installed to allow for electrical work. Of course, the wall sections had to be limited to a dimension that would fit a trailer, so some field joinery would have been required. Interior partitions were likewise shipped as framed panels, ready for finished surfaces once the utilities were in place.
From the Prospectus I would assume that the roof system was constructed on site from components provided.
A pic of Rudin with the relevant details:
http://www.architravel.com/architravel/ ... din-house/
term for that vertical unit ?) below the top of the masonry base. How could that have escaped attention til now ? I find no section drawings of an Erdman
Prefab of any stripe . . .
A note at the top of this plan calls out the two perimeter walls -- foundation and planter -- at Datum + 2'-0"; the kitchen is Datum + 1'-0", the living room
Drum + 2'-0" (changed to, or from, 1'-0"). Stairs have been drawn and erased.
The pinwheel arrangement of the "moat" (planter) in the second (earlier ? later ?) plan is notable. A note to a unit line in the carport reads, "Edge of
Conc. Mat"; the driveway is called out as gravel. Does the note in the carport indicate that the majority of that space would have a graveled floor ?
Is the enclosed but doorless Erdman II carport more garage-like than the Usonian prototype ? An appeal to the average home-buyer ? Would this
space remind Mr Wright of outbuildings like the ones in his own courtyard -- and perhaps the flooring of the vernacular Japanese house wherein the
unpaved ground enters the enclosure, within which is the raised wood platform that is the floor of the house ?
Most of Wright's carports are gravel...some early Usonians had concrete: Suntop, Christie I know do...both were built by Harold Turner. Goetsch-Winckler, also built by Turner, has concrete now, but I'm not sure if that is original; the plan noted gravel. There are likely others."Edge of Conc. Mat"; the driveway is called out as gravel. Does the note in the carport indicate that the majority of that space would have a graveled floor ?
The incontinence of cars is not good for the tinted concrete finish. Shady carports, if paved, can become icy...again, salt on tinted concrete is not good.
The rough drawing is preliminary; the almost identical as-built plans of Rudin and McBean differ significantly from the prelim.
Another related question: how many, if any, Taliesin plan drawings indicate the planning grid when no grid is in evidence in the building ? Are there any
plans (besides Storrer's) of Fallingwater, or other stone-floored or carpeted Usonians, where the grid is shown on the plan ?
There are numerous plans -- and elevations -- where unit lines extend to the edges of the sheet. This may be a separate if related phenomenon.
(Anyone not interested in the question is free to ignore this post.)
The note "edge of concrete mat" in the most interesting preliminary of Erdman II, above, either indicates a change of intention, or shows the grid over the full
plan despite the partial paving of the carport in gravel.
Of all the FLLW unbuilts, this might be the one that could be reasonably executed with a high level of consistency to the original intent, provided its owner would be satisfied with a 1616 SF 3-bed, one bath house.
A Dave Anderson photo provides the perfect illustration to show that my fuss about the unequal lites in these windows may have been be misplaced. Could Mr Wright have anticipated that the effect seen in the elevation drawing -- where the eaves above the row
of windows at right cover the "extra" glass of the upper lites, making them appear equal in size to the lower ones -- would also operate in the flesh, thanks to the reflection of daylight being blocked by those same eaves ?
It is difficult to find an exterior photo in which this effect doesn't operate; only one pair of images below reveals the discrepancy to any degree. Magic !
(In fact, looking more closely at the elevation drawing, it appears that the windows in question were intended to have equal lites, perhaps with a row of narrow windows above, to take the glass to the ceiling. A photo of the LaFond corner bedroom shows a variance
from the elevation drawings.)
photo of the Jackson residence Ã‚Â© Dave Anderson