Video/Talk by Grant Hildebrand: "Let’s Talk Science: Science and the Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright"

[DavidC]

Let’s Talk Science: Science and the Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright - (59:28)


David

[SDR]

There might be a few minor glitches in Hildebrand's recounting of Wright's life and work, in this video, but the author's writing has (as he acknowledges) contributed greatly to the understanding and the pleasure of the appreciation of the architect's buildings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Hildebrand

He is very effective, here, in recounting how he came to the ideas that are presented in his seminal "The Wright Space . . ." Among other revelations in the portion of the talk outlining the phases of Wright's career as a residential designer, the presentation of the Palmer house as being entirely from Wright's hand---including all the drawings, which I have yet to study in light of this revelation---was of particular interest.

https://library.artstor.org/#/search/Wr ... =1;size=48

Almost as an aside, early in the presentation, Hildebrand cites the Heurtley house as the first to move the main space to the upper floor---specifically to make use of the volume made available by the shape of the roof. Thereafter, he says, there are no Wright houses (ones with pitched roofs, we think he means) in which this is not the case. I think we can all cite exceptions to this attractive claim ?

The subject of "science," the title theme, was all but unmentioned. The video is nevertheless a priceless window into the professor's views and experiences, as I see it.

S

[Tom]

..... working from memory - the conceptual ground for Hildebrand's book claims to be scientific. I'll brush up on this and come back.

[Reidy]

A quick perusal of Storrer finds that Harry Adams in Oak Park, Mueller in Decatur and Brigham in Glencoe have pitched roofs and their main spaces on the ground floor, as do several others of the square-based fireproof-house type. Bogk is barely pitched. Gale and Bach, among others, are flat. Maybe the amended condition should be irregular, asymmetrical pitched roofs.

[SDR]

The observation that Wright took advantage of the possibilities inherent in moving the main residential spaces up under the roof (not least, the twin benefits of prospect and refuge) is an important one. It appears, however, that the opportunity didn't present itself nearly as often as might have been wished; the great majority of the two-story houses designed both before and after 1900 have their living rooms on the first floor with bedrooms above. Indeed, Heurtley, Tomek, Coonley and Robie are the exceptions, with Hardy, Davidson, Roberts, Baker and Steffens having two-story living rooms rising to the roof. At Cheney and Glasner all finished spaces are on a single level.

S

[SDR]

Of course . . . this is not to say that Wright ignored the possibilities of the roof space---the "overhead," I believe he called any ceiling opportunity---in the Prairie period and later. Many early houses have tented bedroom ceilings---although these do not always follow closely the roof shapes, given that the rectangle that is the perimeter of the roof will not usually be concentric with the individual room rectangles below. But I do not recall an instance where the pitch of these top-floor ceilings differs from the pitch of the roofs above. Mr Wright was far too disciplined, orderly and sensitive-to-form for that to happen. Perhaps it was even a matter . . . of principle ?

S

[Roderick Grant]

Though the number of flat-roofed houses are relatively few (especially actually built) before Jacobs 1, the idea of a flat roof took hold early on and seems to me of greater importance than the obvious tucking of a living room under a pitched roof. Consider the 1907 Project Lake Delevan Cottage (Mono 3/44; Tash 1/294). That would be striking today! But I believe he had a tough time selling the idea in the early days. Eventually, in 1916 FLW recycled the design for Clarence Converse with a steeply pitched roof again unbuilt (Mono 3/136; Tash 1/518) as if to say, "I give up!"

[SDR]

While Pfeiffer (the presumed author of the Monograph and Taschen texts) mentions the connection between the first and last iterations of that design in the Monograph (your last citation should read 4/136), that connection is ignored in the later Taschen volume. And in the Monograph, while Wright's note on the drawing about "flat-roof planes" is reported, this again is omitted from the later writing. In fact, I see no internal evidence, on the drawing in question, that this version of the house doesn't also have a pitched roof . . .

S