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.
He was able, at least, to orient the plan to his second-most-favorite direction, with the glass wall of the living room facing south. The plan drawings for the house indicate this orientation, and that is how the building was placed on the site. (His preferred orientation would be 30º west of south, as exhibited in any number of Usonians when the lay of the land, the view, etc, permitted that placement.)
Of course it would make sense to overcome whatever limitations to adequate daylight were found in the particular situation the building found itself in. But many if not most Usonians not only turn their back on the street, as here, but also open themselves to daylight from that direction only a little, with a narrow clerestory band. Why does the Exhibition House double or triple the height of the street-side clerestories ?
In photos, at least, the main space strikes me as exhibiting what Mr Wright once decried, namely "grandomania," in its proportions and its vertical thrust. Was he speaking to Manhattan ? Did he adjust the homeliness and intimacy of his typical residence to accommodate what might be crowds of visitors to the space ? Did he find himself struggling a bit with the necessity both to meet the situation and the site, while retaining the features and character of his ideal residential environment ?
As we have seen, Wright's way with proportion and scale made it easy for his work to seem larger than it might be in reality. The ceiling here, he says, is 12 feet from the floor. This is not excessive, necessarily; many a century-old house in Manhattan would have 12-foot ceilings. Is it only his well-honed skill at maximizing the impact of his architecture, that here results in what appears to be Grand Central Station in miniature---as befitting "the greatest city in the world" ?
The second, radically altered 1953 section. The upper roof has been raised; has the lower one been lowered as well ?
Compare to Feiman. Ceiling is 11'-X" (illegible):
and Trier. Ceiling is 10'-X" (also illegible):
In his last caption to the photos of the Exhibition House, in "The Natural House," Mr Wright mentions the "14 boys of the Taliesin Fellowship" who assisted in the construction of the exhibit, led by "a former apprentice," David Henken. Little did the architect know that one of those apprentices was keeping notes, and writing to friends, about what was going on at Taliesin during his time there.
Here are the last nine pages of Besinger's chapter, "Summer 1953," from "Working with Mr Wright--What It Was Like" (Cambridge, 1995). I have included the page which contains the notes for this section of the book.
On the first page below is a reference to the designing of the Exhibition House. Besinger was apparently unaware that a drawing showing the first version of the living room had survived, as found at Artstor and posted above.
© 1995 by Cambridge University Press (New York)
You may let John Geiger speak for Mr Wright in the matter; I would have liked the Old Man's word. All we have, on the same page as a photo showing those windows, is a note about the opposite side of the room, where he writes " High, open side of living room, seen from entry, faces living terrace and view (walled in only because of New York City limitations). I suppose that is what you (or Geiger) are saying . . .
Missing from this first plan are the deep fins that separate the clerestory lites outside the glass line (see partial plan of house, extreme upper left of drawing). Nor are they present on the building section of the house with its raised roof. They appear in photos, however. Perhaps they were intended to partially obscure the view of buildings across 89th Street ?