Wright Chat

Part 1: https://martineztribune.com/2017/04/14/ ... city-hall/
Part 2: https://martineztribune.com/2017/04/21/ ... city-hall/
Part 3: https://martineztribune.com/2017/04/28/ ... ne-wright/
Part 4: https://martineztribune.com/2017/05/05/ ... city-hall/
Part 5: https://martineztribune.com/2017/05/15/ ... -building/

For a current view, start here https://tinyurl.com/lupm6up

One can circumnavigate the building with the mouse. Nice color. The projecting "roof" seems to have been trimmed back, while retaining an original-looking profile. Most unusual.

SDR

Parts 1 thru 5 now posted above.

Wait a minute....
The five articles note the building as being in the Prairie Style, of which Frank Lloyd Wright was a leading proponent or "father", that the building was designed by the firm Stone & Wright, but nowhere does the article identify the Wright principal of Stone & Wright, Louis S. Stone is noted...is it being implied FLW was part of this firm?

The summation in the last article is troubling...is the author making a case that Frank Lloyd Wright had direct involvement with the design of this building...or, is this just obtuse writing?

That's not how I assess the piece -- though the enthusiastic author briefly comes close to the kind of fuzzy thinking that characterized the arguments of the owner of the Texas property we dealt with recently. In this case, though, I don't see the advocate actually claiming Wright as the designer.

Looking for Stone & Wright, I first find this:

http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/2425/

. . . which in turn leads to a look at Stockton schools.

A site found online has 91 photos of Stockton schools; these images were found there.




This is the only building identified by its architect.





The architect of this Stockton school is not identified; I could find nothing about it online, though a newer school bears the same name.

The link indicates George Alexander Wright (1858-1918) as the other named partner in Stone & Wright....nationality is noted as U.K./U.S.