Lake Tahoe Summer Colony

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: 10036
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

SDR, I can translate what's in my head onto paper, but I don't have the mechanism to transmit it to Mies, nor am I inclined to tackle this conundrum. Tahoe is interesting, but too limited so to entice me into this entanglement other than to kibitz from the sidelines.

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

. . . at which point it might become seat ? Or a desk or dressing table . . .? [to RG's first reply]

SDR

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

At this point, I'm thinking those little insets in the corners could handily hold a pair of built in dressers. I would have the prow be a seating area and then have the bed centered against the wall with no windows. Knowing Wright, there would probably only be a curtain between bedroom and living room and perhaps even bedroom and bath.

I realize it is substantially putting the cart before the horse, but what sort of furniture would be here? I'm not really sure what Wright was designing in the 1920s.

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The stick-built nature and the geometries of some Imperial Hotel furniture, like the little "Peacock chair," would seem to apply. (Maddex calls this the Imperial Chair; "Peacock Alley" refers to a furnished passage in the hotel adjacent to the Peacock Room or banquet hall.)

This is a country cabin, albeit a dramatic and decorated one, and not an urban environment; I wonder if Wright would have designed with wicker or reed ?

Wright did not design furniture suites for the Textile Block houses, as far as I know; Freeman is more often photographed with furnishings designed by R M Schindler. Roderick would know more . . .

SDR
Last edited by SDR on Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Imperial Hotel

Image


Image


Hollyhock House

Image

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Confronting, once again, the problem of too little -- or completely missing -- historical data, the modeler might take the hint, and show only what can be found in the available drawings, making choices in cases of contradictory
information but inventing nothing from whole cloth.

Granted, this calls for considerable self-restraint on the part of the creative artist with a rich palette of tools at his disposal. So be it. To make such an "incomplete" model worth looking at, perhaps the remaining time and
energy could be put into an attractive setting, and -- even more important, to me -- a well-considered and generous video tour, with long sequences of movement around, into, and through the model . . . all without drawing a
line or choosing a color that didn't come from the original designer's hand or mind, to the greatest extent possible ?

Perhaps the work might bifurcate at some point: two models could be the result, one as described above and the other with all the bells and whistles the artist might be capable of. The first model would satisfy the Wrightian
purist (and the owners of the copyright ?), which in an ideal environment would pay for the entire project, including the second, more self-indulgent and perhaps more entertaining version of the model.

SDR

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Image
Image
Image
Image

Here's the basics of it. Wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but still a challenge. I have no idea what to do on the inside of this for the ceiling - none at all, but that will be thoughts for a later time.

Ignore the view of the chimney from above. It needs work.

Generally this feels correct to me.

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image
Image

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Roof sections a little too tall. Chimney needs to be wider, and battered. Triangular prow bases a bit too steep (tall) ?

SDR

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

I completely agree about the roof being too steep. The heights were taken from the elevation, which is more extreme. I'll bring it down a bit.

The chimney is an issue for sure, but one I don't know how to fix. First, it is very wide in the perspective, but that does not jive with the plan at all. The only way I could get it to actually work that way is to have it sit on the four rectangular piers along the "hallway" between the kitchen and living room. That seems very awkward to me.

As for the stagger of the masonry, I tried doing that initially, having each course be set 1/2" behind as it went up. The result was that it basically disappeared by the time it got as high as it should. I am considering making the stagger only begin above the roof line. I would love for the chimney to be wider though. I think it makes a bigger impact.

I'm not sure exactly what your objection is to the retaining wall. Each block is set back 1" from the course below it. I initially started with 1/2" and it was so subtle it almost didn't seem worth it. I feel that the angle I've currently got follows the perspective pretty well. Eventually there will be terrain, which I'm sure will help.

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Can anyone please recommend other similar projects to look at - places I can steal some details from? I'm already looking at the E.A. Smith House, Nakoma Clubhouse, and Auldbrass. Any others, built or unbuilt I should be aware of? I know I need to just sit down and go through my Taschen volumes.

Tom
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Looks like a SketchUp model, am I wrong?
Would have loved to watched as you modeled that roof.
I struggle in SketchUp with complicated geometries.

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

It is Sketchup! The trick to the complicated roofs is to start small and just keep adding elements. Getting those skylights in there was the really hard part though.

Just keep at it and you'll get there. I'm completely self taught. And remember that Youtube is amazing for this kind of thing.

Tom
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Encouraging.
I miss the pencil though.
It had a therapeutic, meditative quality in it's use.

... may I PM you for Youtube/SketchUp recomendations?

SDR
Posts: 19105
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Very good. What I noticed about the side roof sections is that the parallelogram of the large surfaces appeared too tall for their width (or length).

I have no quarrel with the slope of the foreground walls. My comment about the prow was that it seems to come down a bit too far onto those walls, making its diagonal leading edge a bit too vertical, or long, to match the view drawing.

I haven't studied how the chimney might be made wider -- but if it had to grow at the bottom to encompass those colonnades, that would nicely explain their presence . . . !

Though Mr Wright did favor whole numbers -- as I do -- in designing, it may be that the correct set-back on walls and chimneys to achieve the right batter could be some fraction of an inch. Whatever achieves a recognizable correspondence to the drawing(s) . . . ?

SDR

Post Reply