House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
Roderick Grant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Notice that the above perspectives don't show those flat "trusses," "horizontal beams," "buttresses," call them what you will. They keep the pitched roof from flattening out. Their necessity was obviously determined after the initial design was completed. Perhaps the zig-zag of the walls was regarded as sufficient to the task, then thought better of later on. The flat roofs also improve the aesthetics of the living room.

outside in
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I don't think you give Wright enough credit Roderick - he knew exactly how the structure wood work when he was designing the house.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Tom, I see an I-beam over the fireplace opening, but is that long ridge steel or glulam? I cannot tell from those small photos.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Outside, the perspective above, showing the end of the living room open, has no indication of a horizontal element on the glazed side of the room, so aesthetic or structural, an adjustment was made to the final built version of the house.

SDR
Posts: 18785
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The roof was changed after this elevation, from Monograph 6, was drawn, but the horizontal elements are there, in spades, in this version.


Image



Two of the construction photos from "The Masterworks." If plywood had been available before the war, perhaps it was not when this house was built ?


Image


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9862
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The elevation posted does indeed show the horizontal elements, but not as finally built. The plates form the underside, while the pitched roof is atop those elements. In this elevation, the horizontals hardly give any support.

Thanks for the enlargement, SDR. It does appear that the ridge is steel. Unusual for FLW, considering he fired Edgar Tafel for using an I-beam in Schwartz.

SDR
Posts: 18785
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I think the Old Man finally got the message, at some point. I'm sure the steel supporting the Sweeton carport, for instance, wasn't done behind his back.
The no-steel thing dates, wasn't it, to the period when the Usonian was conceived as a five-material structure, with steel confined to rebar, and a pure
wooden "overhead" constructed honestly (if cleverly) of standard lumber sizes ?

On page 85 of "The Natural House" (1954) Wright repeats those five materials: wood, brick, cement, paper and glass. But later, on page 155, we
have the short section "Steel and Glass," where we read, ". . . steel and glass; miraculous materials . . . [that are] enabling building to go in varied directions
with more ease; to go beyond the traditional constraint of the box . . ." from which I infer "carports and overhangs of whatever extent I deem necessary" --
among other things.

SDR

Tom
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Never bought the "no steel thing"
Wright's work is impossible without it.

juankbedoya
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Re: House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

Post by juankbedoya »

SDR wrote:
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.


And the built plan:
SDR: Do you have the final plan of Clarke..? with the final Y-shaped form.. it seems that increased considerably

SDR
Posts: 18785
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

Post by SDR »

The final (built) plan of Arnold (as I think you intend) is found on page one of this thread. It is not Y-shaped; it is a 120-degree V.

S

juankbedoya
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Re: House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

Post by juankbedoya »

SDR wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:18 pm
The final (built) plan of Arnold (as I think you intend) is found on page one of this thread. It is not Y-shaped; it is a 120-degree V.

S
Well what I tried to said is the plan with John Howe's later addition. It looks like an Y, doesn't it ..?

https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/e- ... ew/google/

SDR
Posts: 18785
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: House for E Clarke Arnold, Columbus, WI, 1954

Post by SDR »

Oh, right; sorry. Published plans of Wright's houses as enlarged are rare . . .

S

Post Reply