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.
I am currently looking at my options for the dining room furniture in the Davenport House. There is no record of what the house had originally. I am looking at the medium height high back chairs similar to those that were similar to those of the Isabel Roberts House. This house is similar in scale to Davenport so there is a logic to this choice. Another option is to use the Copeland iteration of the unbuilt original Boynton dining room furniture.
Although I have not sat in these chairs the appear to more comfortable than the vertical high back chairs of the period. I have flexibility on this because of the lack of information on what the house had originally and because whatever is chosen, it is easily reversible in the future. What are your thoughts on the dining room furniture for the Davenport House?
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
pharding wrote:I am currently looking at my options for the dining room furniture in the Davenport House. There is no record of what the house had originally.
Is one of your goals to try and furnish the house with FLW furniture as close to Davenport's date (1901) possible? With Roberts and Boynton dating from 1908, could these Dana-Thomas (1902) designs - Dining Room Table ..... Large Side Chair ..... Low Side Chair - possibly fit the bill?
In addition to considering the date of the house, the style should also play a part. Davenport is simple in the extreme, and calls for furniture of the same mode. The set you show looks about as basic as possible, and would fit well into your house. Don't get too fancy.
I agree with Mr. Grant. IMO, the high backed spindle chairs do not at all work with Davenport. Even not knowing what the room looks like (hint hint) the choice shown is excellent, and although there is little curvature in the elements of Davenport as far as I can tell, Wright often made geometric detailing combinations throughout his houses.
I am looking at Hitchcock's "In the Nature of Materials", illustration 63, sections of "A Small House with Lots of Room in it", from which Davenport was derived. Several pieces of furniture are indicated, including dining room table and chairs. This is about as close as you may get to what FLLW would have put in your house. Looks like high spindle-back chairs and a rather basic-but-elegant prairie table. A similar library table is in the living room, and there is an interesting chair and table in the entry.
This book does not have sharp details, but perhaps someone can reference these drawings in another publication where they are more clear.
Given that the Davenport House has a square spindle motif that repeats throughout the interior and screens the main entrance, I will do dining room and living room furniture with square spindles. I will probably do straight back chairs in the dining room similar in design and scale of the mid back dining room chairs in the 1902 Dana Thomas House in Springfield, Illinois. These chairs will also be similar to the dining room side chairs of the 1908 Isabel Roberts House. It is comparable in size to the Davenport House. I do not care for the compromised dining room chairs with angled spindles. I will probably make the seat bigger by 1 inch in each direction and add a removable lumbar support cushion for comfort.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
SDR, you are rather amazing in your encyclopedic knowledge and resources. Thank you.
As much as I like the high back side chairs, the scale of these side chairs strikes me as being more appropriate to the size of the dining room in the Davenport House.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
I think there is something to be said for having the freedom of movement that a chair back below head height provides. The chairs in that Dana photo seem so handsome. . .
Thanks to Doug Kottum's post, I found that the plan of the Small House With Lots of Room In It is very like the Willits house plan -- more so than any other ?
SDR
I've found other views of the Willits living and dining rooms so I'll post them, along with that new view of the splayed chair, at the Willits house chair thread -- tomorrow.
Conventional wisdom has it that the design of The Small House with Lots of Room in It preceded the design of the Davenport House. My theory is just the opposite that the design of the Davenport House preceded the design of The Small House with Lots of Room in It. I have copies of the drawings for two iterations of the Davenport House. Sketches on the drawings modify scheme 2 to create scheme 3, the built version. Scheme 1 has a covered terrace out front with no bay. The roof does not sweep down from the second floor roof down to the first floor roof. Each of the gable ends of the cruciform plan is symmetrical. The house is completely stucco with horizontal wood batten strips. Each of the 3 schemes shows clear development with major changes from the previous iteration. Conventional wisdom has it that the Davenport House is the built version of The Small House with Lots of Room in It. If that were true why are there 3 schemes for Davenport that show major changes and continual development? The 3 schemes show development from a cruciform plan with rather ordinary exterior articulation to the very dynamic and modern built version. Even the interior wood trim morphs into The Small House with Lots of Room in It detailing. Why go through all the time and effort to develop the 3 schemes only to arrive at a smaller version of The Small House with Lots of Room in It? I personally believe that Davenport House design preceded The Small House with Lots of Room in It. I will post images this evening that further explain my theory.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
Paul, it is interesting to consider that Davenport preceeded "Small House", and that it is wise to disregard conventional wisdom in the study of Wright.
The question on your furnishings is what would Wright have preferred for this house at the time it was built. A relative to this house is the "Small House". How could Wright have designed them independently? There is a strong relationship in plan, and the elevations speak for themselves. The detailing for these houses does not look elaborate. The sections Wright sketched for the "Small House", and the companion "Prairie House", indicate tall back chairs. The "Small House" has a rectangular table to fit the dining room, and the "Prairie House" has a square table to fit its dining room. To me, this is how Wright may have furnished such a house.
A note on scale, relative to room size, and to other furnishings. On a visit to the Stockman house in Mason City, I thought the dining room table and chairs were clearly too small for the space, and looked out of scale with the other furniture in the house. The tour guide then advised that this table and chairs were on loan from Joel Silver, and belonged to another Wright house (I can't recall which). The other relatively oversized furniture was craftsman pieces of the era, maybe some Stickley or Roycroft pieces. I was struck by the importance of furniture scale to the space, and to other furnishings. It seemed to me the high back chairs relate to vertical scale, and are much better in these high-ceiling prairie houses than the low back versions.
In a recent prairie-inspired house (yup, I did it) I designed for a wonderful family here on Battle Lake, the only way I could convince them and the builder of the proper scale of various interior elements was to make plywood mockups. Only when these were in the space could they clearly sense proper relative scale. Could you place high and low backed chairs in the space, so you could walk around, sit, and sense their presence?
I am trying to justify use of your (and Wright's) favored high backed chairs.
