UPDATE: Birdwing by Lloyd Wright to be moved to Polymath Par

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.
SDR
Posts: 19109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

In the matter of how closely a particular house suits the site it was designed for, it should be remembered that some designs are more closely fitted to
the land than others, the main difference being that a house on flat land will probably have a simple slab covering the entire plan, while a sloping lot will
demand multiple levels and other particulars. Moving a house built on such land will naturally require a more carefully-selected new site, and will make
the matter of correct solar orientation more difficult as well.

Those charged with the task twice had to find an appropriately contoured new site for the Pope Usonian, for instance.

Looking again at the early statement by Schindler, that "good looking drawing is always bad architecture and good draftsmen are mostly bad architects"
(Park's partially-paraphrased RMS quotation), we can't of course accept at face value; if so, Wright's practice, beginning to end, stands as a notable
exception. One can think of a few examples, however, which fit that descripion; John Lautner himself admitted, without apology, to being "not a neat
drafter." "In high school I had a drafting course, and it was so damn boring I couldn't stand it: the picayune little man, and keeping your pencils sharp,
and getting the lettering right. It had absolutely nothing to do with architecture."

I'm sure there were others. It brings to the fore how really exceptional Wright's standards were, and how well some of his men were able to carry out
the desired effect, both in construction documents and with the presentation drawings.

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10037
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

SDR, you are, of course, correct about the lay of the land playing a role in relocation. An extreme example would be the difficulty of moving any of the 4 textile block houses of Los Angeles to Polymath Park, while Westhope might not be such a problem. It may also be the case that the orientation of any of the houses for the sake of natural light is overstated. Ennis, for example, could be oriented in any direction, and still the interior would be flooded with sunlight from dawn to prevening.

I disagree with RMS's disparagement of drafting. There are many architects who did quite well in both architectural design and drafting, like Greene & Greene, Johnny Hill, Purcell & Elmslie. The two gifts are not necessarily related. Although, while Marion Mahony Griffin was a gifted drafter, her architecture left much to be desired.

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

Polymath Park is of a size not unlike one of Wright's "Usonias"...in fact it was originally intended as a subdivision by Peter Berndtson for a collection of vacation houses that he would design. I don't know if individual lots are platted or if the current constructions are based on individual sites determined by Berndtson or the Blums. One would assume Berndtson and the Blums sought to have the proposed houses visually isolated much the same way Wright did in his Usonias.

SDR
Posts: 19109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

That's interesting. Pardon my ignorance about Polymath Park. So the next question is, is there or has there been a plan to make these relocated or rebuilt houses available as residences---to make the site a working subdivision, in other words ?

S

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

To this point there has been no mention of an intent to sell houses or lots. This is a link to the Papinchak’s own description of the endeavor:
https://www.franklloydwrightovernight.net/about

David raises a valid point about succession....there are a number of car collections that were rolled into not for profit museums in the last 20 years that are now closing due to lack of visitor revenue and the passing of the their founders. Heirs and museum boards can sell off car collections relatively easily....houses not so much. The Papinchak’s are relatively young and dedicated, but time will march on.
Last edited by DRN on Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 19109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Ah---thanks. So, some or all houses are available for overnight stays ? That seems an ideal use---better, some would say, than selling or leasing them for long-term private use ...

S

jay
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 8:04 pm

Post by jay »

All houses are available for stays, and/or tours.

Polymath Park's proximity to Fallingwater should help with its long-term viability. I'd suggest that if the Park adds another handful of homes, that it'd be an even more attractive destination, leading to further success.

Question, what if a place like Polymath Park wished to construct an unbuilt design of Wright's? Is that even possible at this point?

Example, here's a small cabin-type design that I'd personally love to 'stay overnight' in.... One could image it being a decent fit in the Western Pennsylvania hills:
https://visionsofwright.wordpress.com/2 ... se-1947-2/

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

A version of the Keith/McBroom plan type was constructed as a TAA Legacy project. The built version used CMU for the masonry, rather than brick and was a mirror image of the McBroom source design.
https://www.usmodernist.org/wright.htm (scroll down to near bottom)

Given its similarities to the always booked Seth Peterson cottage, I think you are spot on that this design would be a very popular rental and consistent source of revenue for the enterprise. Revenue will be vital to the long term maintenance of what is now a collection of important and maintenance intensive buildings.

Chat’s Legacy thread:
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... 32f6539044

SDR
Posts: 19109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Ruth G Keith Scheme #2, Oakland County, PA, 1947.


Image


Image


Image

© 1988 A.D.A EDITA Tokyo Co., Ltd. and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation



Scheme #1 is an early version (three years after Jacobs II) of the solar hemicycle, with some interesting development, quite unlike later versions.

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10037
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I couldn't find McBroom in Mono or Tasch, but I assume the main wall of glass doors leading to the terrace was planned with the same offsets as Keith?
According to the photo of the house on Huck Finn Drive, that is one detail Rattenbury did not carry through.
Given that it is one of the few features to set it apart, that deletion seems curious.
It was used at the Robert Levin House in Parkwyn, and is a handsome detail.

DavidC
Posts: 7592
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Roderick - Wayne McBroom was the 2004 TAA Legacy client for the Ruth G. Keith (scheme #2) (1947) House.


David

DavidC
Posts: 7592
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


jay
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 8:04 pm

Post by jay »

Roderick---from DRN's link, the glass wall offsets appear to be intact:
Image

Looks like they did a great job on the building!

While it has similarities with Peterson, I enjoy the more mystery/discovery aspect of the Keith/McBroom house. (With Peterson you enter essentially into the height of the structure; Keith appears to have the more typical Wrightian path-to-expansion entry sequence.)

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

From my previous post:
The built version used CMU for the masonry, rather than brick and was a mirror image of the McBroom source design.


I mistakenly typed "McBroom source design" when I should have typed "Keith source design".
My bad.

Jay, I agree...Keith/McBroom is more articulate spatially than Peterson.
Last edited by DRN on Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10037
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

jay, the enlarged photo clarifies things.

Post Reply