Jacobs 1-derived home in New Zealand: contract signed.

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.
Mobius
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Jacobs 1-derived home in New Zealand: contract signed.

Post by Mobius »

With a grand total price of $710,000 including the land, and an $80,000 kitchen by Matisse. We are finally on our way.

The working drawings are now submitted for building consent, and ground will be broken about 7 weeks from now. The construction phase will last 120 working days, and we hope to be in residence in mid-May.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will post some detail drawings and a new render of the video of the house, which now runs for 15 minutes. The full screen version tops out at 630MB which I will be happy to upload to my web site if anyone is interested.

More likely I will render a 320 x 240 movie which should come in at under 30MB.

Once construction begins, I will post our progress here, as well as at my web site.

It's all very exciting - and not a little nerve-racking; if the house turn out to be less than I think it will, there's no one to blame except me!

Image
Last edited by Mobius on Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
DRN
Posts: 4457
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

Mobius: Congratulations! Enjoy the process, and take lots of pictures...both for us and you. Construction photos are both fun and useful to look back on as you live in the house.

My wife and I designed our house 5 years ago. Its construction was intense and at times nerve wracking, but most importantly, it was also very rewarding.
Mobius
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

23MB Movie Added!

Post by Mobius »

Thank you. I will!

Finally, here is the most recent movie of the house. The original is 630 MB, so you're getting off lightly at just 23 MB. Running time is excessive; over 14 minutes.

Image

Produced in Sketchup 5/6 from almost nil 3D experience, and there's about 250 hours of work in it. The shadows represent 5:20pm on August 8th, that's winter in the southern hemisphere of course.

The Aston V8 Vantage in the driveway is only a dream. All I can claim is the 928 in the garage. I have carefully created or downloaded our furniture, to try and give the movie a feel for what the house will actually be like.

Landscaping is TBA.

I have also uploaded an obfuscated set of Consent Drawings, minus the construction and engineering detail, to protect the IP of my builders. Sorry they aren't higher quality. Here: 545KB PDF

Enjoy.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
flwright
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:32 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Post by flwright »

Hmmm... I'd like to say I loved your Sketchup video except that when I downloaded it, I got 14 minutes of the same overhead shot seen in the post above (i.e., it didn't do anything). Anybody else with the same problem?
Morgan
DavidC
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

I, too, would very much enjoy seeing your work, Mobius. But when trying to open it in Windows Media Player (most recent edition. OS=Vista), I get the following message: "Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The Player might not support the file type or a required codec might not be installed on your computer".

Anyone else getting this response on Media Player? Anyone know of a remedy?


David
Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4777
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

I got it to play on Mac OSX 10.4 Quicktime after I installed the Divx component.
Michael Shuck
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Nzonia Video

Post by Michael Shuck »

The video plays just fine as is under Nero Showtime.
Mobius
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED!

Post by Mobius »

Well, I promised Emma we would be living in the house before Christmas. After she kills me, and I come back to haunt her.... I'll be able to take her to the site and at least see some holes in the ground where the house will be....

Image

The boxing should be in place by January 9, and slab pouring will begin around January 13th. After a Building Location Certificate has been issued for the foundation boxing work. Don't ask - here in New Zealand we like to make it near impossible to build a home.

More photos coming over the next weeks and months.

We anticipate moving in at the end of May.

Apologies for the video. Windows Media Player does - as we say in the trade - blow goats. Just don't use it! It is a DivX video, and as such plays best on DivX Player - or any player other than WiMP.[/img]
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
SDR
Posts: 22359
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

What material is represented by the tan and gray-lined surfaces ?
Are the gray blocks standard CMUs ? What will the sash be made of ?

The one element that might be easily improved, in my view, without disturbing those alterations made to the prototype that you have said are important to you, is the fireplace/video wall. It seems quite bland, for a focal point. You are not alone in placing the video screen high on the wall, but this is a tendency that I fail to understand. Perhaps you intend to stand while viewing, or have been spending a lot of time in tap-rooms and sports bars ?

It seems to me that placing the screen at a comfortable seated viewing height might be a help, not only to comfort but also to the appearance of that wall. In addition, would an asymmetrical element or placement on that wall help bring it a little closer to the essential asymmetry of the room as a whole, as well as relieving the monotony of that panel ? I wouldn't move the screen and fireplace off the same axis, probably, but moving both away from the centerline of the wall, and/or stepping the wall plane in depth somewhere, perhaps just to the right of the screen and fireplace, would be two suggestions. Is recessing the fireplace a bit, to recapture the classic depth and shadow of the traditional fireplace, impossible ?

It's surely a competent and potentially pleasant home design. I'm sure you can understand that it might be disappointing to Wrightians to see a house that appears to be (and is said to have been) extracted from a well-known Usonian -- with its hat askew, with much of the expected life and spirit, rich yet simple material, and subtleties of proportion, missing ? To be fair, you have previously explained each of the changes from the Jacobs design that you have had to make, for one reason or another.

Others less devoted to Wright will be able to judge this opus free from that bias, of course. You've bravely submitted to your harshest critics, here at Wright Chat !

Congratulations on seeing your dream onward to reality. In the meantime, Happy Holidays and best wishes.

Stephen
JimM
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

SDR wrote:It's surely a competent and potentially pleasant home design.
SDR!! Give him a break! :D

With an experienced and good eye your comments are surely valid, helpful, and probably appreciated. But remember, few people take such a chance and get that involved for the right reasons. Perhaps if he were a practicing professional, he could be called to the carpet for choices strictly as a function of design.

How can we harp about bland buildings on the landscape when such efforts can only help upset the status quo? Look at the neighboring houses; that alone will make his effort a success. BTW, I've seen more than a few apprentice and professional wannabes do much, much worse. I like that fact that it is not a direct, derivative spit into the Masters coffee.

The cost is what blows me away.
SDR
Posts: 22359
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I certainly don't want to be the Grinch at this tenderest time of year -- but there are unintended ironies-in-the-fire (!) with this project, for Wright fans, the first of which is: If Mr Mobius had copied the Jacobs house verbatim, an act I'd applaud, he would be liable to be sued by Taliesin for copyright infringement, whereas what he is building will be ignored by Taliesin (and others) as irrelevant, if not harmless.

I've never built a home and will most likely not have the means or the opportunity to do so in my remaining time. Anyone who does has my respect, more or less. As I said, the reasons for this home NOT being a replica of Jacobs have been stated. But reasons are not what I'm looking for -- I just wonder why the owner wanted to start with Wright in the first place, if the result was predetermined (by codes and owner preferences) to be what we see here. Virtually every significant Wrightian material, detail, and refinement is missing -- though the owner will point to the gratuitous mitered window and stacked lites in the living room proudly, no doubt, as evidence of the "roots" of the project.

Pardon me if I say "it's not enough."

Is it admirable to ask for one's own "version" of the Mona Lisa -- with a pink dress and "a different smile because I don't like that smirk" and the owner's wife's favorite necklace around it's neck ? Would the proud commissioner of this painting expect to be greeted warmly at the annual meeting of owners of Leonardo's work ? Is it hoplessly rude of me to make these comparisons ?

No, no, and yes, probably. But like I said, there's irony aplenty with this one ! :oops:

Others are maintaining a respectable (perhaps respectful) silence ? Admirable. I'll be the goat on this one, and stick up for "art for art's sake" -- as that's what the Old Man was about, in the end, I believe. The final irony is that poor Mr Mobius is only trying to put a roof over his head, in the best way he can think of to do that. I feel like the grandmother I used to rent a room from when I was just out of school, trying to smile and not cry when her young grand-daughter brought her the only blossom from the fledgling rhododendron in the back yard. How do you yell at a kid who brings you a sincerely-meant gift ?

SDR
Last edited by SDR on Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ozwrightfan
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by ozwrightfan »

Yes, I would love to sell an eighty grand kitchen, some of my clients complain when the kitchen might be twenty grand.
SDR
Posts: 22359
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I suppose I've put the hex on any reasonably positive reception to my own work in future, but. . .so be it.

Yet another irony. . . :roll:

SDR
Mobius
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Mobius »

I appreciate the feedback people - even the back-handed compliments - and a good question has been raised: Why Wright?

The answer is simpler than you might imagine: it is not Wright, but Jacobs 1 which inspired me. It was the house first, and the architect second. I recognised, in the plan of Jacobs, a dwelling design that I knew would work for us (both Emma and I) with some minor changes.

Indeed it is a shame I can not build the home in the original manner, or with the original materials or interior detail. I have chosen the most practical and (I believe) sympathetic materials I can. Brick is out of the question as is not possible to build a home from bricks - today, in NZ anyway, they are an affectation only - a cladding over a wooden wall. This I simply can't abide with - so stack-bond concrete it is.

The cladding is called "Shadow Clad" and is a marine-bonded 7-ply wood with a rough-sawn finish. The "battens" will be aluminium inter-story flashing the same colour as the aluminium doors and windows: silver pearl. It looks grey, but sparkles a little in direct sunlight. The un-stained and un-painted shadow clad should also turn silver/grey as it ages.

As to the design of the fireplace and the location of the TV - I have made my bed, and I will just have to sleep in it. Despite my view that a Television in a lounge is the cultural equivalent of having an open sewer running through the home, it is what it is. Indeed you are correct, much TV will be watched while standing (working) in the kitchen, and also, I fear, from the dining table. *SIGH*

The 3-degree roofs are another practical money saving scheme, but there is a method to my madness here as well. The house is sited such that from the sidewalk, persons in the height range from 5'4 to 6'4 can easily see right through the house via the clerestory windows. The lounge roof, as a result, will appear to float over the building. This is completely intentional, and the effect can not be achieve with a flat-roofed design. Remember, the ceilings are diaphrams which are in integral part of the engineering of the structure. I despise parts of a house which do only one job - and this is an example of double-use of a component - something Wright would approve of, I feel sure. The ceilings are also 3 degrees in slope, except above the corridor in the bedroom wing. The thickness of the roof to the ceiling does not exceed 30cm in total. so the roof will appear very light-weight. At least I hope it will.

We are definitely spending too much money on the home, and it is not the best location in town - but we are building it for us, rather than for the people who will buy it when we decide to eventually move. I have made very few compromises in this regard.

The price of building in NZ right now is positively insane, and the laws and regulations in place are rather draconian (Search Google for "NZ leaky building syndrome" to see what the knee-jerk reaction of the Nany-state has been to shonky building practices in the 80s and 90s.)

However, we are where we are, doing what we can, to put as nice a roof over our heads as we possibly can. The fact that several of you are interested in our experiences is great; we are taking a risk with such a project, but we believe it will be well-justified when we move in and begin to enjoy the life our home will afford us.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
DavidC
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Mobius - thanks for posting your home building adventure/excursion. I continue to enjoy and learn from it, too.


David
Post Reply