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.
the best surprises are ones that have the most content, I think -- I will offer a couple of general observations.
The Sun's rays are essentially parallel as they affect objects lighted by them on the surface of the Earth. So, for the purposes of investigation of spaces
like those found in the average Wright residence, the image cast on a surface opposite a silhouette will appear at virtually the same size as the silhouette
casting the shadow. For reasons I cannot fully supply, the outline of the object's shadow may begin to lose resolution -- edge definition -- in proportion to
its distance from the object casting the shadow.
The angle of the light rays as they encounter a vertical surface -- a house wall, for instance -- is dependent on several factors: location and orientation
of the house, time of year, time of day. This needn't affect the height and width of a shadow, as long as the surface is parallel to the plane in which the
silhouettes are installed. But unless the shadow is cast "normal to" -- directly opposite -- the object, the shape of the object will be altered. That is, a
rectangle will become a parallelogram with any deviation from a "normal" orientation.
You want an average wall-to-perf number, and a distance from a slab to the centerline of a clerestory with perfs ?
No determination was made as to plan orientation relative to solar orientation.
Bell (built as Feldman) -- perf band c. 10'-2" AFF -- Dist. to opp. wall c. 14'-6"
Pope; gallery, bedroom -- perf band, gallery, 6'-11 1/2" AFF -- Dist. to opp. wall c. 37 1/2" -- perf band, clerestory lantern, c. 97 1/2" AFF -- Dist. to opp. wall (windows) c. 8'-0" (lantern not constructed) -- dist. to opp. plywood 5'-0"
Van Dusen (project) -- perf band, c. 97 1/2" AFF -- Dist to chimney breast, c. 7'-8"
Christie; living room, bathroom -- perf band, living room, c. 97 1/2" AFF -- Dist. to opposite wall (windows) c. 14'-0" -- perf band, bathroom, c. 97 1/2" AFF -- Dist. to opp. wall, c. 9'-6"
MoMA Exhibition house (project) -- perf band, bedroom lantern, c. 97 1/2" AFF -- Lantern is 8'-0" wide -- dist. to opp. wall, left: 8'-0" lantern + 4'-0 = c.12'-0" -- dist. to opp. wall, right (windows): 8'-0" lantern + 2'-0" = c. 10'-0"
Asking why something is beautiful or interesting, often leads to a series of why questions (the 5 Why approach) trying (not always successfully) to define a root cause. Generally, I find that a good definition of a characteristic needs to have some metric associated with it. Of course, its a matter of personal interest- there are things I keep asking "why" and other things I just accept at some level of understanding.
The remarkable 30+ pages of this thread that have moved the description way beyond "Nice fretwork!" (the zero order observation), have created better understanding of perf boards design. I've looked at some pretty basic characteristics of the geometry of openings and their relationship to each other. To me, these are more fundamental characteristics than say, the dimensions of the board they were cut into. I'm very open to suggestions for other characteristics to investigate- that was one of the motivations for sharing investigations on this forum (the largest collection of perf board admirers I've seen). I view this as exploration; sometimes leading to something valuable, but not guaranteed and usually fun. Trail guides wanted...
I'm still investigating, but SDR is getting close to guessing what I want to figure out. The blur with distance is due to the Sun being an extended source rather than a point source (which would give perfectly crisp shadows).
You've given me enough to work with... need a bit of time to work through an idea.
St. John, Schubert's Mass in G and Berlioz's Requiem are the three pieces I never had the chance to sing, and now, alas, it's too late!
I was going to suggest a couple more parameters for your consideration -- number of shape edges that are parallel to each other; number
of shape edges that are parallel to the constraining rectangle -- but your devised perf exhibits those characteristics, so I have nothing to add.
I look forward to further developments. In fact I don't have a clue as to what you will propose next . . . !
In my view, there are a number of perf designs, apparently making up the majority, that fall into a group which shares a "look" (that's non-
scientific lingo), and a smaller number of perfs which are idiosyncratic. I think this aspect of the catalog will be worth pursuing as part of the
overall perf study ?
for reasons that will become clear. Here is one of the score-scrolling videos; this is a particularly entertaining prelude and fugue to watch unfold, and by
some miracle it seems also to be the best performance available on YouTube, of almost half a dozen: it is at once transparent, straightforward, and subtly
registered. The performer isn't credited.
Hmm. Once perforated, the panels could provide effective support only at their ends, one would think. The use of the perfs as structure would depend on their being fastened securely in place, and not hinged . . .
On the other hand, being made of plywood they might assist in absorbing shear loads. Maybe that explains the more or less unrealistic 1/16" clearance between sash and frames, on the drawings ? Again, the
Swiss-cheese-like nature of the panels would make them largely ineffective, it would seem.
The struts (so-called on the SDS) are visible at Rosenbaum, where at first glance they appear to be 1x material; what's going on at Jacobs: 2x2s ?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... terior.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... oom_01.jpg
How's this for organic ? Let the clerestory glass be 1/4" plate, and let it take a vertical load . . . even if some of the sash is operable. Unorthodox, sure -- right up Wright's street . . . !
The glass in the clerestories at Jacobs is all double-strength glass as well - so SOMEONE knew of its potential load bearing function.
wall and board wall, respectively. Neither is anything like a structural header, as you say. No header or blocking appears immediately above these.
"Plan of openings," far right, shows the composite mullions or posts of the window (French door) wall. Did any reason surface during your work with
this house, John, for the shape of the join in the middle of these posts -- the angled "prow," as if intended to be exposed ? How do you suppose Mr
Wright thought the female half of that molded joint would be milled ? The mind boggles. Look at all the angled cuts and moldings to the soffits, fascia
boards and "nailing heads"; would any of those beveled joints be strictly necessary or even advantageous ? They certainly make a nice drawing.
Of course I have no idea whether this is the final drawing nor if it represents the built condition. I note that the center of the wall sandwich is given an
end-grain wood indication, as if the drafter had momentarily forgotten the intended means of construction . . .
Many of the details looked like a HS student had drawn them, so its difficult to determine if they were attempting to duplicate sketches or developed them on their own with little direction. Obviously someone simplified these details during construction.