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
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 13773
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, g.dorn. I thnk you could remove your oversized image, as the one in your link shows the drawings at their best. (You may also send me any files that you wish to display, as I can easily re-size them.)

These two drawings are published on page 478 of Taschen volume II, and are given this very brief caption:



The view drawing has the earmarks of a John Howe rendering.

Here is a previous thread concerning the house:

http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?t=9204

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



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1905
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's the dimension for the Sturges grid module?
Any clue?

Just now seeing the article g.dorn posted in Sept 2016.

Not sure it is correct to call the sloped members underneath
the cantilevered main deck "support brackets" for the main cantilevers.
At least re the drawings those diagonals bear only on brick veneer.

Regarding steel in the cantilever g.dorn refers to a "step beam"
What's that?
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1905
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

6'-6" grid module according to an earlier observation from SDR.
So the addition is 13' x 30' - or close to it.
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 13773
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://lamodern.com/frank-lloyd-wright-sturges-residence/next-best-architect-on-earth-john-lautner-and-the-history-of-the-sturges-residence/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1905
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the article:

"A few subtle refinements were made to the original design—support brackets for the great cantilever disappeared into the terrace’s sloped underside;"

I don't think that is accurate unless the author knows more than we can
tell from the drawings.
Because the drawings that SDR has posted here call out the major "support diagonal" as a mere nailer cut on the underside to accept the siding.

I'm sure if most of us had been designing this house we would have made
that diagonal a major structural member ... at least I know I would have.

But that is NOT what's going on in the drawings shown here.
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 7206

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom, the cantilever does not bear on the brick wall. The bricks start below the cantilever, which bears on a 12"-thick poured concrete wall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 13773
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The diagonals that support decorative boarding bear on the wall only at tippy-toe -- explained either by a desire for a certain profile at the juncture of boards and brick, or by the wish for the drawings to show that the diagonals have no real structural function ? Because these diagonals occur in plan only in the middle third of the elevation, they would only support the middle third of the balcony, an asymmetry troubling to any designer. Better not to rely on them at all for that purpose . . .

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



Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 5276
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"In September of 1938 the Sturgeses bought their land for 10 dollars." !!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JChoate



Joined: 04 Feb 2016
Posts: 615
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are several things about this structural configuration I don't fully understand. Upon seeing the cross sections in the Monograph I was surprised not to see an array of steel beams used to achieve the complex cantilevers.
Given the wood framing, the most surprising move is that what appears from below to be angled bracing framing in section does not take advantage of the chance to engage fully the concrete foundation wall.
In addition to fully bracing that angled framing against the concrete, I would've also extended the upper angled framing to the concrete wall, creating a truss frame underneath the floor plane.

Perplexing...

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



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 13773
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. We've just discussed that point, here: http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=60&sid=24a07e7a8a71b0f4301715f953cebed5

It's a puzzle. If the four central diagonals had been structural, they could have supported a cross beam part-way out under the deck, which in turn could have reached the outer-most projecting horizontals. Why Wright and his boys wouldn't have done so is a puzzle. But the house clearly works as it is, so . . .

An even stranger strategy, perhaps more directly related to the chosen "bracket" form, involving struts fanning out radially from the deepest portion of the hollow bracket, could have picked up each cantilevered beam as shown in the section above, rather than just the central ones.

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



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1905
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread goes into the issue as well starting on page one.
On page two RG kind of sums it up:"the entire underside of the house is non structural."
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom



Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Posts: 1905
Location: Black Mountain, NC

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Textbook cantilever.
You don't see too much of these around.
_________________
The foundation of the high is low
Tzu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 13773
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Wright said it himself: architecture must have "style" (but not "a style"). This will almost inevitably involve the addition of material which is not strictly necessary to the performance or longevity of the building.

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



Joined: 04 Feb 2016
Posts: 615
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I've shared this story with some people before (so forgive the repetition). Whenever Sturges comes up this comes to mind:
When Jane Fonda divorced Ted Turner she hired me to design her new home in Atlanta, which was a penthouse on top of a condominium building (she's since sold it and moved back to LA). She had this group of Warhol portraits we placed at the end of the long living space.
When the Sturges house went on the market last year I was surprised & intrigued to see a Grant Mudford photo on the internet, which includes this Warhol hanging over the Sturges fireplace.
I still don't know the backstory of how it came to belong to Jack Larson and/or James Bridges. Since there have been subsequent auctions of contents of the house, I wonder where the portrait is now.



Last edited by JChoate on Sun May 14, 2017 11:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JChoate



Joined: 04 Feb 2016
Posts: 615
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After posting above, I thought to do a Google search. Apparently Jane downsized and the Sturges House picked up an item, at least for a while:
https://news.artnet.com/market/jane-fonda-collection-at-juliens-auction-374624
(In discussing the rare Warhol for sale, they did not mention that she had a few spares.)

Then, I ran across an article about Warhol collector Ron Rivlin,
https://mashumashu.com/andy-warhol/
where it says:




(Which ... umm .... I know to be not actually true.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 4 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