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.
In other action, council members voted unanimously to accept a special committeeâ€™s report on a block containing a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home and approved an ordinance to create a protected buffer zone at the entrances of health care facilities, including an East Side clinic that provides abortions.
Lamp House: The acceptance of the Robert M. Lamp House Committeeâ€™s report was met with praise from preservationists but scorn from the landmark homeâ€™s owner.
Last month the special committee adopted guidelines for allowing redevelopment on the Lamp Houseâ€™s block, bounded by North Butler, East Mifflin and North Webster streets and East Washington Avenue. The guidelines are meant to maintain the landmark homeâ€™s views toward Lake Mendota, mitigate the impact of potential new buildingâ€™s shadows and preserve some of the residences that surround the Wright-designed Lamp House.
But Bruce Bosben, who currently owns the home, told the council that while he supports preserving the house, the area, which sits just two blocks off the Capitol Square, needs to be allowed to grow taller and grow tax base.
â€œI think those are very serious considerations that are being overlooked in the enthusiasm for the idea of the view from this roof,â€� he said.
The City Council will consider adding the reportâ€™s recommendations to the Downtown Plan at its next meeting.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... l_roof.jpg
This is one of those books that every FLW library should have. The cover is the night view of Monona Terrace, the same drawing on Io's book, "Architecture, Man in Possesion of His Earth."
So, we can skip Willits, and say that the Griffin house is a direct descendant of Davenport.
The difference that a decade of experience in Prairie proportions and details makes, is clear ?
Or is the comparative luxury of space in the Carter house is a matter of budget ? (The scale of the two plan drawings doesn't match, as a look at the stair treads and doors makes clear.)
http://www.savewright.org/wright_chat/v ... hp?p=11273
Conventional wisdom has it that the design of The Small House with Lots of Room in It preceded the design of the Davenport House. My theory is just the opposite that the design of the Davenport House preceded the design of The Small House with Lots of Room in It. I have copies of the drawings for two iterations of the Davenport House. Sketches on the drawings modify scheme 2 to create scheme 3, the built version. Scheme 1 has a covered terrace out front with no bay. The roof does not sweep down from the second floor roof down to the first floor roof. Each of the gable ends of the cruciform plan is symmetrical. The house is completely stucco with horizontal wood batten strips. Each of the 3 schemes shows clear development with major changes from the previous iteration. Conventional wisdom has it that the Davenport House is the built version of The Small House with Lots of Room in It. If that were true why are there 3 schemes for Davenport that show major changes and continual development? The 3 schemes show development from a cruciform plan with rather ordinary exterior articulation to the very dynamic and modern built version. Even the interior wood trim morphs into The Small House with Lots of Room in It detailing. Why go through all the time and effort to develop the 3 schemes only to arrive at a smaller version of The Small House with Lots of Room in It? I personally believe that Davenport House design preceded The Small House with Lots of Room in It. I will post images this evening that further explain my theory.
I would say that the LHJ designs were prototypes that predicted work of the Oak Park years. "A Home in a Prairie Town," hip or gable, presaged Hickox, Henderson, Dana, A. P. Johnson, Westcott, D. D. Martin, Cheney, Sutton, Brown, Irving and a number of unbuilt projects. In 1909, the basic tripartite plan of LHJ was extended to 5 elements by the insertion of transitional spaces between dining, living and library, the cross axis moved to within 4' of the living room fireplace rather than through the center. This scheme was also used at Balch and finally Barnsdall. Such designs as Barton, Horner, etc. were variations on that theme.
The second LHJ house is represented by Bradley, Willits and Davenport, using Storrer's chronology.
When FLW got a good idea, he used the basic scheme repeatedly. Lotsa Room morphed more quickly into plans that only marginally resemble the original scheme, such as Heurtley, a compact spin on the pinwheel.
Another set of related designs goes all the way back to Winslow Carriage House of 1894. Rather than plan related, they are based on elevation, and include Rollin Furbeck, Fricke, W. E. Martin, Tomek, Robie, Booth (built) and its apotheosis, Booth, the first project. Each consists of a tower with radiating horizontal wings. The tower scheme was attached to a version of the LHJ #1 for the unbuilt Metzger Project, looking very much like the cross-species it was.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Content ... :All,Dxp:3