1- Seth Peterson Cottage - [0:33]
2- Seth Peterson Cottage - [8:48]
3 Seth Peterson Cottage - [9:36]
4 Seth Peterson Cottage - [9:16]
David
Seth Peterson Cottage tour videos
No damper in the chimney flue ?
Why oh why must some people gild the lily and invent spurious analysis and explanation of the work of others ? I don't know the identity of the
speaker -- the present owner of the house, I guess -- but her explanation of the structural effect of the perforated panels is, to borrow an appropriate
phrase, full of holes. Even assuming that Wright had the intention, in this instance, of using a triangular-form perf to assist with shear resistance --
and assuming that such panels could in fact provide meaningful force, an equally dubious proposition in my view -- the subsequent equation of shear
resistance with roof stiffness is meaningless.
It really does the innocent public no service to fill their heads with cool-sounding but erroneous quasi-authoritative nonsense. I believe this and
other examples point to the difficulty of finding anything very dramatic to say about a silent but self-explanatory work of art, whose meanings are
not at all hidden but exist, plain as day, for those with their senses intact.
Now I'll look at the third and fourth videos. . .
SDR
Why oh why must some people gild the lily and invent spurious analysis and explanation of the work of others ? I don't know the identity of the
speaker -- the present owner of the house, I guess -- but her explanation of the structural effect of the perforated panels is, to borrow an appropriate
phrase, full of holes. Even assuming that Wright had the intention, in this instance, of using a triangular-form perf to assist with shear resistance --
and assuming that such panels could in fact provide meaningful force, an equally dubious proposition in my view -- the subsequent equation of shear
resistance with roof stiffness is meaningless.
It really does the innocent public no service to fill their heads with cool-sounding but erroneous quasi-authoritative nonsense. I believe this and
other examples point to the difficulty of finding anything very dramatic to say about a silent but self-explanatory work of art, whose meanings are
not at all hidden but exist, plain as day, for those with their senses intact.
Now I'll look at the third and fourth videos. . .
SDR
I'll congratulate those in charge of this property for pursuing and prevailing in the matter of the outbuilding. Imagine a state historical building authority
taking the "politically correct" stance that a gambrel-roofed tin shed would be preferable to what was ultimately built. Come to think of it, I guess that
isn't so surprising after all. . .!
Thanks for the links, TnGuy -- and the confirmation, Jim. Geez, even if the perfs were wrought bronze, the glass would come into play in shear before
those little triangular gussets would, don't you think ?
SDR
taking the "politically correct" stance that a gambrel-roofed tin shed would be preferable to what was ultimately built. Come to think of it, I guess that
isn't so surprising after all. . .!
Thanks for the links, TnGuy -- and the confirmation, Jim. Geez, even if the perfs were wrought bronze, the glass would come into play in shear before
those little triangular gussets would, don't you think ?
SDR
Actually, glass has no shear value either, as I'm sure you know. Shear needs to be transferred through a solid mass from top plate to foundation (or through a moment frame-which is what Wright probably did use in some manner for his later ubiquitous mullioned window walls. One can only imagine what his structures would look like today with the advances in materials and engineering).SDR wrote:even if the perfs were wrought bronze, the glass would come into play in shear before
those little triangular gussets would, don't you think ?SDR
Ultimately, it's really all about connections. If you look at some of the more interesting cantilevers, he used very creative anchoring methods. I imagine Peter's advised him on solutions in addition to his own intuition and experience. Of course, some earlier buildings such as Robie and Martin stand due to brute strength!
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
SDR, thanks for relieving me of the tedium of listening to the dialog. You are correct, Peterson is "a silent but self-explanatory work of art, whose meanings are not at all hidden, but exist plain as day for those with their senses intact." It's a wonderful building, slightly superior to Lovness Cottage in its simplicity and homemade quality.
The bedroom at Peterson would probably be improved by the removal of that self-serving cluster of approval certificates on the wall. I found the
tone of the commentary pleasant and informative enough, other than the portion I focused on, above.
I suspect that the orthodoxy of building technology may be on the verge of modifying its historic view of glass as entirely structurally passive.
There is already a building in place built entirely of laminated glass. I just spoke to a glass installer who volunteered that he had never broken a
piece of tempered 1/4" plate. In a light structure, it may be that a row of sheets, properly framed, could in fact be given some shear load. It is hard
for me to believe that in the large narrow-framed center-pivoted patio doors in Lautner's Schaffer house, the glass is not stressed to some
degree -- supporting its own weight only, granted.
But I fully recognize that this is not current practice. . .
SDR
tone of the commentary pleasant and informative enough, other than the portion I focused on, above.
I suspect that the orthodoxy of building technology may be on the verge of modifying its historic view of glass as entirely structurally passive.
There is already a building in place built entirely of laminated glass. I just spoke to a glass installer who volunteered that he had never broken a
piece of tempered 1/4" plate. In a light structure, it may be that a row of sheets, properly framed, could in fact be given some shear load. It is hard
for me to believe that in the large narrow-framed center-pivoted patio doors in Lautner's Schaffer house, the glass is not stressed to some
degree -- supporting its own weight only, granted.
But I fully recognize that this is not current practice. . .
SDR
Seth Petersen Cottage Tour
Thankfully my sound control would not allow me to hear above a whisper.
The Seth Petersen Cottage is operated by a NFP and owned by the State of Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources. We stayed there in 1997 and it was exceptional. I beleive it was Wes Peters who said that the SPC had more architecture per square "inch" than any of FLW's other buildings.
Even if just an off hand statement by Wes, high praise indeed.
Sadly tour guides are often not monitored, their interpretations not 'cleared' for correctness and I agree, many assumptions and incorrect conclusions are spewed out to an unknowledgeable public.
At T-W we continually strive to be as accurate as possible, regarding both factual statements and individual observations. It's been my experience that even asking former apprentices about the same occurance will generate wildly divergent statements !
Michael
The Seth Petersen Cottage is operated by a NFP and owned by the State of Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources. We stayed there in 1997 and it was exceptional. I beleive it was Wes Peters who said that the SPC had more architecture per square "inch" than any of FLW's other buildings.
Even if just an off hand statement by Wes, high praise indeed.
Sadly tour guides are often not monitored, their interpretations not 'cleared' for correctness and I agree, many assumptions and incorrect conclusions are spewed out to an unknowledgeable public.
At T-W we continually strive to be as accurate as possible, regarding both factual statements and individual observations. It's been my experience that even asking former apprentices about the same occurance will generate wildly divergent statements !
Michael
The tour guide's misstatements may be based on an incomplete understanding of John Eifler's writings about the cottage restoration. His book is the written history on which the guides base their talks.
In his book, Eifler noted that he found the roof framing to be rather light and that the perfed transoms were either by design, or by default, taking some compressive loads of the roof framing. The rafters are spaced on 16" centers with only some of them aligning with the structural mullions between the windows, the others bearing above the transoms. Apparently the headers above the transoms were insufficient or nonexistent and the transoms took on some vertical dead and live loads. Eifler revised the framing to correct this issue, and others, during the restoration by adding flush members within the roof plane with metal connectors.
I don't recall Eifler noting that the perfs provided any lateral stability or shear wall action to the structure, though they were kept in place during the time the roof framing was removed, to prevent warping/contortion of the structural mullions which remained.
In his book, Eifler noted that he found the roof framing to be rather light and that the perfed transoms were either by design, or by default, taking some compressive loads of the roof framing. The rafters are spaced on 16" centers with only some of them aligning with the structural mullions between the windows, the others bearing above the transoms. Apparently the headers above the transoms were insufficient or nonexistent and the transoms took on some vertical dead and live loads. Eifler revised the framing to correct this issue, and others, during the restoration by adding flush members within the roof plane with metal connectors.
I don't recall Eifler noting that the perfs provided any lateral stability or shear wall action to the structure, though they were kept in place during the time the roof framing was removed, to prevent warping/contortion of the structural mullions which remained.
-
Wrightgeek
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:21 pm
- Location: Westerville, Ohio
With regards to the above statement about the Peterson cottage, it is true that at less than 900 square feet this little gem packs quite an architechtural punch.I beleive it was Wes Peters who said that the SPC had more architecture per square "inch" than any of FLW's other buildings.
I would suggest that at only a bit over 1200 square feet, the Pew Residence in Madison gives the SPC a run for the money in this discussion. And then of course, let's not forget Jacobs I, or Pope-Leighy for that matter.
I have not personally seen Zimmerman or Sturges, but from what I have read and heard from others, my guess is that they would also make the short list in the category of "most architecture per square inch" by FLW.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Haynes and MM Smith are not too shabby either. Any others?
SDR: I'm not sure if the transom glass was replaced or not...I can check the book. I know the operable casements, awning windows in the bedroom, stationary windows, and french doors were custom made by Pella with double pane insulated glass. I recall the mitered corner glass was replaced, as original, with single pane.
-
outside in
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
- Location: chicago
Most of the houses that Wrightgeek cites are of a different character than the Peterson, Lovness, Teater, and Oboler Retreat structures (for instance), which were
essentially one-room houses -- some with a small bedroom, granted. The other houses, though small (to varying degrees), are multi-room residences.
Might this distinction mean as much (or more) than square footage alone ?
SDR
essentially one-room houses -- some with a small bedroom, granted. The other houses, though small (to varying degrees), are multi-room residences.
Might this distinction mean as much (or more) than square footage alone ?
SDR