Article: "3 Years and Over $2 Million: What It Costs to Restore a Frank Lloyd Wright Home"

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
Post Reply
SDR
Posts: 22359
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Article: "3 Years and Over $2 Million: What It Costs to Restore a Frank Lloyd Wright Home"

Post by SDR »

The curious six-and-a-half figure arrangement of perforated blocks that exists on the finished building appears nowhere in the drawing set that's available at Artstor.

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

These perforations light three spaces within, a utility room, the workspace, and a bath. On most drawings there is a row of three simple horizontal rectangular windows, one for each room and equally spaced. On the largest and most complete plan and elevation drawings, these are present but appear to have been superseded by an unspecified arrangement of perforated blocks, denoted within a dashed rectangle spanning the three spaces but not otherwise detailed. Thus, it was the owner and/or the builder, it would seem, who came up with this most unlikely and lopsided deployment of perforations. Mr Wright could not have been pleased . . .

S
Post Reply