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.
Wait, I like this better: Well, it's got a flat roof, doesn't it ?
But, to those with the most expansive definition of Usonian -- for whom much if not most of the residential work of the 'forties and 'fifties should be included -- Fallingwater would be the queen of the Usonian parade -- and Wingspread the king ?
gwdan wrote:Fallingwater... Usonian???
Personally, I have been a bit uncomfortable to observe discussion that uses the narrow definition, because I think it misleads with respect to FLlW's intentions in the latter 1930s, 40s, and 50s.SDR wrote:But you're right -- we should perhaps stick to the more limited-definition Usonians -- the brick and cypress ones, with a few excursions into stone or desert concrete, and redwood, pine or mahogany boards. . .
Now, can a pitched-roof house be a Usonian ?
I'll repeat here a story that I like. I think it illustrates that FLlWâ€™s interest in solving the problem of designing modest houses for "Usonian" families of modest means ought not obscure his equally devoted interest in designing houses for those of any economic level, including the very wealthy. The Hannas' house comes to mind as one for a family of upper middle class means; Fallingwater for a family of greater means. Much of the basic construction detailing of the Hanna house is very similar to the Jacobs house; it's larger and has greater geometric complexity in plan layout and, of course, has pitched roofs. All three of these projects were done at nearly the same time for families of "Usonia" that had a wide range of financial resources available, and each is aesthetically rich in ways that matter.
It occurred at Taliesin that an apprentice came forward with a question along these lines: â€œMr. Wright, would you say that the Pew house represents a â€˜poor manâ€™s Fallingwaterâ€™?â€�
Without hesitation FLlWâ€™s response was, â€œNo, I would say Fallingwater is a rich manâ€™s Pew house.â€�
Personally, I think itâ€™s a revealing story and worthy of reflection.
I wasnâ€™t present; this was told to me by a reliable source. (Donâ€™t quote me.)
"Â© 1990 by Old House Journal Corporation."
Yes; "time" as Alfred said, is relative. Upon removal of supporting structure, the cantilever is intended to settle more or less where intended. Of course, that is also "relative". The direct load of the bedroom terrace cantilever above was much more serious, requiring the recent post-tensioning.SDR wrote:Do you mean that the terraces-cantilevered-off-a-cantilever could have been constructed "high," with the expectation that they would settle with time to a more or less straight line ?
Seems the renovation architect planned the Trellis restoration as Alternate - A:
and included steel plates bolted to alternate rafters cantilevering the trellises.
But the construction photograph on page 43 has me bewildered again.
Sure we've been here before but can't find where.
Anyway, the builder put steel in this roof contrary to drawings:
Do I see correctly that there is smaller steel connected at 90 degrees
to the larger 10" Flange beam?
That is a VERY heavy roof and
If so, something MUST take that rotation.
And look at the main wood rafters 90 degrees to that 10" beam?
I find that it is all too easy to believe one has adequately described a condition verbally, when in fact one has done no such thing. Proper pictures -- photos and/or drawings -- are the remedy, as I see it, and these don't do the trick, for me.
I can attest to the inadequacy of relying on those doing the work to also record it, in many cases; I've found myself lacking in this regard, on many a job. One's energy is spent on the work, and one has to shift gears -- often at the end of a hard day -- into photographer mode, and this isn't easy. Having an independent individual aboard to do the photography is the solution, and that has to be arranged well in advance -- and paid for.
So the restoration architect added steel pipe
to the trellis not steel plate.
I can't quite make out the note: "1-1/4" Galv. Schedule (?) 2/10 Pipe (typ)...
Would be interesting to see that detail.
Second, how is the architect designating the steel beam?
His typical notation says: "10 WF 22"
I'm not familiar with that.
How is it read?
...The renovation contractor Don Price in the article describes the original steel beam as a 10" Flange beam.
He does not mention it's depth.