Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

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: 19419
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

A souvenir, something made for a gift shop ? One wonders when, where, and by (or for) whom ...

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Which one is it? The monochrome or colored? What happened to the trellis on the uphill side of the house?

I would buy it, but I already have a gold, bejeweled model of Mt. Rushmore, which is quite enough.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4326
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Roderick Grant
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Though you may be inclined to do so, don't mute this video. The angry music is perfect for this vast, sterile mess of a house. I can imagine the cast of "Game of Thrones" settling in comfortably.

DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 19419
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Both these houses derive their exterior composure---the unity of form, the consistency of detail---from Wright's example, and this gives them whatever quality they possess as architecture.

And one has to admire, in the La Cañada example, the integration of second-floor terraces into the hipped roofs of the main level. It surprises me that Mr Wright seems never to have considered this possibility, inherent in his chosen roof form ?

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4326
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Interesting house, but there is no focus. It's a collage of bits and pieces, without any control.

JimM
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Roderick Grant wrote:The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap.
Have to agree. A second level terrace similarly concealed between two fully ridged single floor wings would be fine, but not as a primary feature as is the case here, IMO.

SDR
Posts: 19419
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

"The hip roofs, truncated to allow for second story terraces, is one detail that I find extremely unattractive. I am glad FLW didn't fall into that trap."

Funny, I don't see it that way; but I respect that it could seem so to other designers. To me it seems the logical solution to the problem created by the
choice of roof pitch, the desire for a no-taller-than-necessary building profile, and the difference (when it occurs, as here) between first-floor and second-
floor enclosed footage.

The design doesn't suggest convenient drainage---and perhaps the discontinuity of the ridge of those lower roofs, from the body of the house, just
feels wrong---or looks wrong from the ground ? It makes for tidy elevations, of course . . .

S

DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7784
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Post Reply