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.
In this publication you can see some images not seen so far, such as the interior of the planetarium. One detail that may be controversial in these images is the fact that FLLW never drew seats inside the planetarium.
FLLW letters indicate that the "automobile observatory" part of the project was his real focus, and the many functions that filled the program changed over the course of design. He was probably flexible as to what the client might have thought appropriate for this tourist attraction.
after thinking quite the matter I decided to include the seats even if it is a highly speculative detail.
The sofa is taken from the design used in the imperial hotel
and the restaurant chairs, from Midway Gardens
Thanks SDR, I didnÃ‚Â´t know these drawings. Finally Wetmore came to build something of what Wright designed?SDR wrote:I was surprised to learn of a second Wetmore project. Perhaps the fact that the Monograph text doesn't specify (other than in the heading "Project") that the garage was an unbuilt Wright design, has led some to visit the site ?
Seeing what exists today, it is difficult to think that there is anything designed by FLLW:
I've always wondered about the waterfall; there is no water anywhere near the summit of Sugarloaf, and certainly not enough to make a big waterfall anywhere on the mountain. So, if Wright really wanted a waterfall, the water would have had to be pumped up there.
I had the chance to work with a complete set of scanned original working drawings, but even in this case, there is always room for speculation. Wright pointed out in his drawings which were the materials to be used in each case: Roman brick, poured concrete with special exposed aggregate and a skylight composed of plastic and copper, but in his project, he didn't decide the exact brick model or the color of the materials, postponing those decisions to the construction phase of the building. This way of working is also common today (At least in Spain!), but that leaves us in doubt of the choice he would have taken.
Due to the lack of time, I could not model the beautiful interior of this building, bathed in overhead natural light, which I hope to carry out someday.
You can see it with higher resolution here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/143771393 ... 766156671/
the second bank appears to have a slightly dished shed roof over an irregular-hexagon plan (Taschen III, p 182).
That dome must have been fun to construct in 3D !
With David's indulgence I will provide the supporting material, from Monograph 7 and from Taschen III.
A note on the section drawing indicates a double layer of "fibre-glass" at the dome, with "air conditioning space" between. Oddly, Pfeiffer fails to note the ramps at the rear of the building
providing access to a second drive-through teller window ("wicket") on the upper level.
all images Ã‚Â© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH, Ã‚Â© 1988 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
The skylight has its difficulty in modeling it, but nothing compared to the Gordon Strong and Roy Wetmore helical ramps... It is curious but, in general, what is complicated to model, it is very complicated to build.
Finally, I took the option to model the final version because having a complete set of working drawings freed me from the need to have to speculate (the other previous versions had several inconsistencies, as is usual in Wright's "in process" designs)
Both options have their attractions. Other unbuilt projects (and built ones, I suppose) will present the same question: to go with the earliest and
arguably purest version of a design, or a later one for which there is more useful data. In the case where either version is equally verifiable, I'd tend
toward the earliest; I would bet that the ramps were eliminated here for non-architectural reasons (client preference, presumably).
Because no one will be using the latter-day digital model for construction but rather for appreciation of the work as a visual treat, primarily, I wouldn't
worry too much about exact detail or dimension; there's enough info on the early plans as published to have included Wright's ramps in the model.
But I can't argue with the decision to omit them ...