Wright Chat

 
FAQ FAQ Register Register
Search Search Profile Profile
Memberlist Memberlist Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups Usergroups Log in Log in

>> Return to SaveWright Home Page

Sturges House
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JimM



Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1330
Location: Burlington, WA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The dotted lines are 2x4's bracketing the 4x12. Perhaps the face 4x12 gives more "meat" between the 4x12's to connect the terrace parapet.

SDR your "compression" against the stemwall theory is interesting, and nothing Wright did would surprise me. My problem with any structural necessity beyond the 4x12 beams is the bracket members themselves. The 1x10 nailers are narrow and wide for rigidity and weight consideration for sure. The 2x4's occur only at the brackets and are hardly structural elements in such an application-but you never know with Wright! I will say, that the stacked 4x's at either longitudinal end where the configuration changes, gives some pause as to... why not at the other brackets, if they are not structural?

Also, IMO the shallow angles of the diagonals are inefficient as support brackets. A steeper pitch connected farther back would make more sense. I still think the nailers are for aesthetics, with modest structural importance.

There is only a uniform floor load along the beam, and a point load of the roof and wall mid cantilevered section. A simple analysis will see if the beam itself is adequate. If so, applying the "100's of feet" of boards below as both a uniform load along the beam, and then applying it as a point load on the beam end would indicate its adequacy as worst conditions. Checking the adequacy with the diagonal as a structural support can also be done, which would shorten the effective cantilever length.

Frankly, for me to be even close, the 4x12 would ideally need to be adequate enough to potentially handle all these loads, which is my assumption. I admit it's not a very large beam, but we'll see.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 14141
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. I hadn't looked closely at the structure of this house before, and made certain assumptions based on cursory study of the sections. The truth is somewhat surprising, I must say. (Wright even builds the sunshade/trellis of 4x12 lumber ! I guess none of that is in the house, as RG tells us that 4x12s weren't available when it came to construction.) Deflection is clearly evident at the far corner of the trellis -- the double-cantilevered portion -- in the photo below. I don't know if this is pre-Lautner repairs . . .

(I pity the poor carpenters who had to spike all those 3x4s together for the decks. Wright's idea of economy seems to have been based on cheap labor ?)


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1957
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why would there be a 2x4 in the bracket in this position?

The top 4x12 on the furthest stack may only be blocking, although it is not labeled as such, but how else are the sides supported? They must be, to use SDR's term, double cantilevered, meaning they cannot be coplanar, right?
The cantilevers must extend from unit line no. 3 back just short of no.1.
And from unit line no.8 back to just short of no.10.
Those cantilevered beams must be carried by the main 4x12's, at least for the suspended part of the house. Once they go back beyond that the masonry has to do it, no?

What's the living room floor finish?

But wait, there's more! At the roof level the double cantilever must be coplanar. How is that possible?

This is the point where I get frustrated with the history of publications from the archives. Aside from the Monographs we've got lots of nice photographs and renderings. GRRRRRR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 14141
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait til you find out how the Goetsch-Winckler carport roof is hung off the chimney . . . !


I haven't deciphered or postulated how the Sturges deck ends are handled, judging by the one drawing we have. I'm not sure I have the nerve to know the worst.

Does anyone wonder why there is a clear passage from the entrance area to the deck without passing through the house ? Is this designed to make burglary easy ?

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1957
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(I own a copy of Affordable Dreams. Framing plans seem key to Wright's work. I only wish more publications would include them. Yeah, those steel beams with the ends stuck into the masonry at G/W are surprising. I would have thought the elasticity of the steel would have succumbed over time, or at least the entire assembly, but it appears not to. Of course there is some question as to if it was built according to those back of the book drawings in A.D. Yet I think it would have to be something like that.
The magazine article that is posted on this forum about re-roofing G/W remarks that to their surprise they uncovered a large IBeam running down the window line on the entry side of that house which does not appear in the drawings. So who knows really ... right? Was the apprentice on that job fired?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
george nichols



Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 90
Location: Huntington Beach,Ca

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:44 am    Post subject: Sturges "Improved" Reply with quote

Two other houses similar to the Sturges maybe worth looking at as Wright considered them to be "improvements" to the type.

Swan(T5210) Project
M:V.8,52.
T:V.3,324.

Sander(T5304) Built
M:v.8,44
T:V,3,321

G.N.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1957
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GN, thanks for the tip. These projects are new to me even though I'm sure I've passed over them paging through etc.

So, in the Swan house he switches to steel for the main floor cantilevers and lays a concrete deck on top. the diagonal nailers in the drawings are obviously in no way structural, 2x4's only. this might lead one to suspect that the Sturges house nailers were intended to carry some stresses as in SDR's theory.

Too bad the Swans did not build that house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 14141
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Harold Turner built Goetsch-Winckler, so I expect if anything he would have improved on Wright's detailing to good effect. The roof sagged slightly as soon as it was built -- the result can be seen in the early photos -- but it has remained in place. I don't believe any substantial change was made to the structure when the roofing job was done. My surprise was due to the fact that no advantage was taken of what would be, to me, the obvious strategy: to balance the weight of the roof by running a beam perpendicular to the fireplace mass and through it into the roof structure beyond, tying it to the slab at the far wall via a steel rod passing through one of the window mullions and down.

(Does the Old House Journal article still appear here, somewhere ? I couldn't find it when I looked, a while back.)

I don't have access to the Swan project -- but as it is apparently from the 'fifties, its detailing (the 2x4 nailers) doesn't necessarily have to reflect back to the Sturges' heavier nailers -- does it ? That is, there is still no sound evidence that the Sturges nailers are structural (other than to carry the weight of the "dressing"). Even at that, the way that 1x10 is tapered at the bottom seems to be crying out for it to split and drop . . . ! All to effect a little flat, with perf board, at that point ?

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 7412

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SDR, the b/w photo is recent. Look at Weintraub/Hess "FLW Mid-Century Modern" pp 108-113: The chairs are the same, and the trellis droops on pg 110. On that photo, you just barely see the gray steel supports Lautner added to the topside of the trellis. Tom, as you can see on pp 112-3, the floor finish is red asphalt tile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 14141
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, RG. I see the photos and effects you mention. One could ask whether Mr Wright didn't anticipate a picturesque sagging and curling of some of his roofs and other "overheads" -- in keeping with such comments as the one about TWest "making a great ruin, someday" or some such. One is reminded of the upturns of the eaves of many Chinese (extreme) and Japanese (subtle) roofs, and of the picturesque deflecting ridges of many a Craft-style home.

It is difficult, once recognized, to ignore the one parallel, among so many differences, between the Sturges residence and an earlier LA structure, the Kings Road home of R M Schindler. The similarity is in the bones: both houses feature a raised flat roof below which widely-spaced beams run from a masonry wall, past glazed openings, and out into the open, where they support a shade or brow. (If the windows are eyes, then the brow shades them, while, at Sturges, the deck becomes a chin and the soffit-work below a [redundant] wattle ?)

By the way, my question about the path around the house to the deck (the street-side balcony) is answered in the first photo in the "FLLW: MCM" piece: there is a gate or fence closing off the beginning of that path, to the left of the bathroom window. Wonder how long that's been there . . .

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1957
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Revisisting this thread I realized the answer to something I was asking about before. I was asking about how the extreme side decks of the house were supported and it was not until now that I realized the obvious that they are supported by the cantilevered ends of the 4x6 beams that cross above the main 4x12 cantilevers at 90 degrees. These beams retain the 6'-6" spacing and therefore the decking of the floor itself, usually an afterthought, which rests on those 4x6's is brought into light as essential to the engineering of this structure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
g.dorn



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Perth, Western Asutralia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

according to this article
https://lamodern.com/frank-lloyd-wright-sturges-residence/next-best-architect-on-earth-john-lautner-and-the-history-of-the-sturges-residence/

"t is no great secret, however, that construction was not a smooth process. First and famously, Wright’s structural conception, which consisted purely of concrete, brick, and wood, was not acceptable to the building department: steel beams were introduced to replace the timber joists and diagonal braces. Next, the solid mass of concrete was re-engineered to comprise a series of hollow cells. While Falk’s name still appears on an additional permit (October 3), Lautner’s drawings were checked and revised by a new engineer, Sidney Bamberger. Bamberger is also listed as the engineer on a third permit (November 15), a small revision to add a “4 inch pipe column + 3 inch x 3 inch [angles] over stairway.” Wright, understandably, was not happy to compromise the purity of his design. But the necessary change also dramatically increased the cost from an estimated $7,000 to $11,000. Sturges, unfairly, complained that “John [Lautner] is not a great overseer! Money does not exist for him.” Almost immediately after completion a new problem appeared: the house leaked. Lautner did some repair work on the house in 1941, but ultimately Wright and several apprentices brought from Taliesin had to make the final repairs in March of 1942."

So appears that step beams may have been inserted instead of the timber bearers .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 14141
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. So, there's steel in there, not shown on the section drawings we've looked at. I for one am relieved. (A gentle drape to the east parapet, behind Mr Larson, is easily detected in the last photo, nevertheless.)

The article contains several useful new bits, including the dates of construction (the last four months of 1939), that the diagonal braces to the terrace were initially to be exposed, and Lautner's modifications and additions are listed. The photos show that the parapets come up only to crotch level (as at Fallingwater ?); I wonder what it feels like to stand next to them.

All this, and hippie carpenters c. 1972 !

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
g.dorn



Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Perth, Western Asutralia

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this "additions drawings on a site called visionofwright

https://visionsofwright.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/sturges-addt-persp-plan.jpg

sorry I dont know how to control the size

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1957
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great addition to the thread.
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP