Wright Chat

Conventional wisdom has it that the "Small House with 'Lots of Room in It'" published in the Ladies Home Journal in 1901 was the precedent for the Davenport House. As part of my extensive research on the house I backtracking over all research and conclusions previously made about the house. I am currently exploring the theory that the Davenport House was the precedent for the "Small House with Lots of Room in It". This much is known:



1. According to Margo Stipe and Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer, there are no dates for the drawings of "The Small House with Lots of Room in It". In the FLW 12 Volume Monograph, "The Small House with Lots of Room in It" is dated 1900. This is an assumption only. It is based upon one fact. In mid 1900 the Ladies Home Journal, published in Chicago, solicited proposals from architects for the purpose of developing prototypical custom houses for publication as unbuilt works in the LHJ that could be purchased their readers. FLW's "A Home in a Prairie Town" was published in the LHJ in February 1901. FLW's "A Small House with Lots of Room in It" was published in July 1901.



2. All of the Davenport drawings are dated January 1901.



3. The contract between FLW and Webster Tomlinson with the Owner, E. Arthur Davenport is dated March 1901. I have a copy of that contract. The Davenport is one of five 1901 projects by Frank Lloyd Wright with his business partner Webster Tomlinson.



4. Final close out documents, including final accounting, are dated early November 1901. I have a copy of that important document. The implication is that the house was substantially complete in October.



5. The drawings that exist show three significant iterations of the project. Significant differences exist in the exterior design of the house. As an architect, I can see that the plan development comes first. The first iteration is marked by localized symmetry and is relatively banal. The second iteration does not change the plan but the high roof extends forward over the bay and the house is vertically tightened down to make the massing work and reduce cost. Localized symmetry remains. The third iteration consists of sketches by FLW on the blueprints with more significant changes to the facades including the introduction of the octagonal bay. The iterations clearly show a young FLW exploring, developing, refining as he works through three iterations of the design.



Based upon the above and my understanding of how an innovative architect designs, I offer this theory. If the Davenport House used the "Small House with Lots of Room in It" as the precedent FLW would not have been working through three iterations of the design to arrive at a design which remarkably close to the "Small House with Lots of Room in It". He would have saved a lot of time and effort and just went right to the final design solution. All that we actually know about the date of the "Small House with Lots of Room in It" is that it was published in July 1901. Based upon the documented iterations and development of the Davenport design drawings, it appears that the Davenport House is the precedent for "The Small House with Lots of Room in It".

I think you will not get very far proving the order of design one way or the other, but keep in mind that the lead time for a publication can be many months. The July date of the LHJ issue would imply that the drawings were finished and delivered long before, possibly six months to a year. The principal difference between the project and Davenport is that Wright did not have to fit the project into a specific lot or budget, so it was a much easier design to develop. I woudl call the project the egg and the built design the chicken.



As to your earlier post about the built-in seating: In the early houses, FLW was just doing what was commonplace at the end of the 19th century. Built-in benches were everywhere in Queen Anne, Victorian, Craftsman, etc. I doubt comfort was a major priority at a time when good posture was almost a moral imperative. In later years FLW used the built-ins as the "guest" suggests, to accommodate large groups, and for that purpose, they work very well. I'm not sure I followed your description exactly, but if reconstructing the bench in any way interferes with head room in the stair hall, don't do it. That is not to say FLW did not do it that way; many of his houses had treacherous stairways. One anecdote has Wright arriving for a meeting with a client, told by the maid to meet Madam upstairs, and as he was climbing, short as he was, he bumped his head. The client, standing at the top of the stairs stated emphatically: "That's what I wanted to see you about!"

I'm not sure the Davenport House should be considered as precedent in this case. First, there is the instance of the Henry Wallis Summer Cottage, Version No. 1 (an unbuilt project designed for Lake Delavan, Wisconsin). The 11" x 11" conceptual drawing of the floor plan for this structure (FLW Archive Number 0006.001) has a signature date of September 15, 1900 and is quite similar in plan to the LHJ Small House design. Second, my uneducated guess is that Small House derives as a termination of a series of projects developed by Wright throughout the nineties. Historians have been all to willing to blow-off this early work as immature wandering. But, there is a sophistication to the group, a continuity and a sense of steady, consistant evolution that terminates in the two LHJ protypes. That these were considered as important designs by Wright is indicated by the expansive June 1900 summary of his work published by Architectural Review. He carefully prepared presentaion drawings for this publication that display a strong illustration consistancy throughout and a striking characteristic FLW graphic organization of the grouping of images on each page. In his plans for the Foster Cottage, Bagley House, Mrs. Robert Eckart House, Heller House and the Husser House I see germs of conceptual thinking that led directly to Small House. Similarly, other projects seemed to lead to the LHJ "House in a Prairie Town" and to later protypes such as the Fireproof House. Several articles in Robert McCarter's "Frank Lloyd Wright: A Primer on Architectural Principles" address Wright's use of typology in his design work, but I don't think adequate attention has been paid to how his work of the ninties propelled him in the early 1900's.

I agree completely that the FLW buildings and projects of the nineties are evolutionary and incredibly important as FLW moves toward the masterful Prairie School Houses of 1900 and beyond. In my opinion the "evolution" of FLW's design language has not been suficiently discussed or explored. Something that is never mentioned is the evolution of the technology and detailing. The Davenport House has technical problems, including significant structural problems, that are fixed in the great projects to come, including the Ward Willets House. In terms of the refinement of detailing, the progression from Davenport to the Mrs. Tomas Gale House, with which I am very familiar, is pretty amazing. Wright may have been shaking designs out of his shirt sleeves in the late 40's and the 50's, but early in his career his architecture was evolutionary. He had this wonderful capacity to be innovative and learn from each project. Ideas and details that had potential were further devolped in a later project. Less than satisfactory ideas and details were dropped, never to be used again.



When I look at Henry Wallis Summer Cottage, Version No. 1, I see an evolutionary predecessor to the LHJ "Small House with Lots of Room in It" in terms of plan only. However I do not see it as being "quite similar". The Davenport plan does not materially change in the iterations of the Davenport House. What is changing is exterior architecture, including the massing and facades which toward the LHJ project.