In "Frank Lloyd Wright - Masterworks" is printed a copy of a "Standard Detail Sheet for Usonian Type Houses", showing typical building details of the Usonians of that time period. This particular one is a 1940 revision on a 1938 sheet.
Does anyone know if:
- there were ever any later (late 40's and/or 50's) SDS's that included different details as Wright's Usonian vocabulary changed over time?
- there ever was a SDS for built-in's?
- there ever were any SDS's for furniture?
and if the answer happens to be 'yes' to any of the above questions, then one more:
- have any of these other SDS's ever been printed/available anywhere?
David
Usonian Standard Detail Sheets
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
One of the annoying things about FLW's books and many books about him published by Taliesin (especially BBP) is the lack of an index, such as with "Masterworks." When referencing something in a particular book, it would help those of us not predisposed to thumb through the entire book to list the pertinent page.
Having said that, I doubt FLW paid much attention to anything standard if it interfered with his muse. In a previous post, mention was made that the b&b walls begin with a batten the floor, but end with a board at the ceiling. Well, that's not always the case, as a review of interior photots will show. Perhaps "standardized" and "Frank Lloyd Wright" should not appear in the same sentence.
Having said that, I doubt FLW paid much attention to anything standard if it interfered with his muse. In a previous post, mention was made that the b&b walls begin with a batten the floor, but end with a board at the ceiling. Well, that's not always the case, as a review of interior photots will show. Perhaps "standardized" and "Frank Lloyd Wright" should not appear in the same sentence.
-
outside in
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
- Location: chicago
RG - I think you're completely right! Perhaps there were a few Usonians that were similar, but I doubt if they matched the wall section. I think the question should be "were there any Usonians that followed the SDS in construction" - that would be a good start.
In the end, Wright was forced to follow more traditional building techniques, i.e., 2x4 walls (with studs flat) for wiring, etc. which were then covered with mahogany veneer panels - no board and batten, no sandwich wall construction. He was smart enough to change with the building industry and the associated costs.
In the end, Wright was forced to follow more traditional building techniques, i.e., 2x4 walls (with studs flat) for wiring, etc. which were then covered with mahogany veneer panels - no board and batten, no sandwich wall construction. He was smart enough to change with the building industry and the associated costs.
-
Palli Davis Holubar
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
- Location: Wakeman, Ohio
From my limited experience: I think there is a generic Standard Detail Sheet (Usonian Type House) that was drawn by new apprentices as a learning device. Anyone: Is this a correct assumption?
Individual house building sheet sets with homeowners do not include usually a SDS. The Weltzheimer (1948) building sheets do not include a SDS- sheet #5 MILLWORK DETAILS includes the board & batten sandwich wall construction drawing with perf. The house is constructed in that method. (There are 2 stud walls in the bathrooms: one exterior, the second is the interior shared wall both accommodate plumbing.)
I hope to see more of these sheets at the Archives. Perhaps new member Margo Stripe would have time to comment about this.
David has opened another fruitful field for this free-flowing on-line seminar. A listing of these sheets that are published, in homeowner collections and/or in the Taliesin Archives would be very useful.
The Rosenbaum book includes one which may be the same as the one on
page 10 of the perf thread SDR posted: a 1938 SDS from the Masterworks.
Individual house building sheet sets with homeowners do not include usually a SDS. The Weltzheimer (1948) building sheets do not include a SDS- sheet #5 MILLWORK DETAILS includes the board & batten sandwich wall construction drawing with perf. The house is constructed in that method. (There are 2 stud walls in the bathrooms: one exterior, the second is the interior shared wall both accommodate plumbing.)
I hope to see more of these sheets at the Archives. Perhaps new member Margo Stripe would have time to comment about this.
David has opened another fruitful field for this free-flowing on-line seminar. A listing of these sheets that are published, in homeowner collections and/or in the Taliesin Archives would be very useful.
The Rosenbaum book includes one which may be the same as the one on
page 10 of the perf thread SDR posted: a 1938 SDS from the Masterworks.
Thanks TnGuy-It's interesting for me that this subject is coming up now. I just had a lengthy discussion with Stafford Norris 111, where I told him about the 13" module beginning with the batten at the bottom which had been discussed here a few weeks ago. He was curious about this and began researching, studying various plans, and told me that he found at least five different vertical modules that Wright employed.
I guess we get a little spoiled with the 4' floor grid which is the rule, and then we find the exceptions. Wright's elevations do not seem to be as predictable.
At Lamberson, because we have no board and batten, the one dimension that is a constant is 27", the height of the top of many shelves and dining tables, etc. In the living room there is a shelf below that at 13 5/8". In the bedroom is a shelf and top of headboard at 40". I think this would mean that Lamberson seems to have a 13 inch module, with certain elements lining up at different points above or below the vertical grid. (1'2", 2'3" 3'4", 4'7", 5 8", 6'9" (the exact dimension of the underside of our soffits)
I think Wright adjusted for Jack Lamberson's tall stature. Isn't Wright's "typical" deck height lower than this?
Is this height for dining tables common to other Usonians? Stafford tells me that the Willey house already had dining tables already at 27" (quite low compared to typical 29 - 29 1/2" table height)
I guess we get a little spoiled with the 4' floor grid which is the rule, and then we find the exceptions. Wright's elevations do not seem to be as predictable.
At Lamberson, because we have no board and batten, the one dimension that is a constant is 27", the height of the top of many shelves and dining tables, etc. In the living room there is a shelf below that at 13 5/8". In the bedroom is a shelf and top of headboard at 40". I think this would mean that Lamberson seems to have a 13 inch module, with certain elements lining up at different points above or below the vertical grid. (1'2", 2'3" 3'4", 4'7", 5 8", 6'9" (the exact dimension of the underside of our soffits)
I think Wright adjusted for Jack Lamberson's tall stature. Isn't Wright's "typical" deck height lower than this?
Is this height for dining tables common to other Usonians? Stafford tells me that the Willey house already had dining tables already at 27" (quite low compared to typical 29 - 29 1/2" table height)
At the Sweeton house, vertical dimensions are tied to the 8" concrete block coursing: the FLLW chair back is 32" high, as were the dining tables and desks per the drawings (they now in someone's "trophy case" not relating to anything). Their tops aligned with the top edge of the second batten up from the floor on a plywood wall, and the top of the fourth course of block on a masonry wall. The 1x3 batten strips on the plywood walls are on 16" centers vertically which coincides with every other block course. The soffits in the living, dining, and bedrooms are all at 80" which translates to: 10 block courses or 5 battens.
Even the hassocks tied in...they were 16" high from floor to top of cushion, which is 2 block courses or 1 batten, and 12" high from floor to top of wood base. The french door bottom stiles are 11 1/2" tall, add in the 1/2" glass stop and the bottom edge of glass aligns with the top of the wood base on a hassock.
Order, order everywhere.
Even the hassocks tied in...they were 16" high from floor to top of cushion, which is 2 block courses or 1 batten, and 12" high from floor to top of wood base. The french door bottom stiles are 11 1/2" tall, add in the 1/2" glass stop and the bottom edge of glass aligns with the top of the wood base on a hassock.
Order, order everywhere.
Schindler too used a 16" vertical module. I would hope, however, that he never drew a dining table at 32 inches high; this is just too uncomfortably tall, even
with a customary chair seat height of 18 inches -- much less a hassock which starts at 16" and descends from there under the weight of the user. (Were
there dining chairs at Sweeton ? What was the seat height ?) The Lamberson dining tables, which are intended to be used with the built-in
seating and the hassocks, are drawn at 27" -- a bit lower than the 28-30 inches that is considered normal for dining. Considering that Mr
Lamberson was on the tall side, it seems odd that Wright would provide him with lower than normal dining accomodation.
It is clear to me that aesthetics, including a modular system, appealed more to Wright than almost anything else. The revelations recorded here
seem to support that contention. It's too bad that the human anatomy doesn't universally accommodate man's favorite numerical dimensioning
systems -- but thems the facks.
SDR
with a customary chair seat height of 18 inches -- much less a hassock which starts at 16" and descends from there under the weight of the user. (Were
there dining chairs at Sweeton ? What was the seat height ?) The Lamberson dining tables, which are intended to be used with the built-in
seating and the hassocks, are drawn at 27" -- a bit lower than the 28-30 inches that is considered normal for dining. Considering that Mr
Lamberson was on the tall side, it seems odd that Wright would provide him with lower than normal dining accomodation.
It is clear to me that aesthetics, including a modular system, appealed more to Wright than almost anything else. The revelations recorded here
seem to support that contention. It's too bad that the human anatomy doesn't universally accommodate man's favorite numerical dimensioning
systems -- but thems the facks.
SDR
DRN-
Interesting with the 8"-16" module... Is it possible that other concrete block and Usonian Automatics use the same?
Do you have an existing dining table or drawing showing table height? I am now becoming more curious about a possible "constant" in Usonian dining dimensions, regardless of the vertical module. The 16" hassock cushion height is a little higher than ours, the top of the wood being at 12", with about 3 inches of cushion above that.
Would a logical height for a dining table at Sweeton be 28" or 3 1/2 units?
http://www.architonic.com/4104579
Rayward house dining table at 27 1/2"...
Interesting with the 8"-16" module... Is it possible that other concrete block and Usonian Automatics use the same?
Do you have an existing dining table or drawing showing table height? I am now becoming more curious about a possible "constant" in Usonian dining dimensions, regardless of the vertical module. The 16" hassock cushion height is a little higher than ours, the top of the wood being at 12", with about 3 inches of cushion above that.
Would a logical height for a dining table at Sweeton be 28" or 3 1/2 units?
http://www.architonic.com/4104579
Rayward house dining table at 27 1/2"...
I stand corrected! On looking at the drawings I found the dining tables to be 2'-5" or 29"!
The drawings for the Sweeton house only indicate one chair type and one hassock type, and they were to be used universally through the house. The hassock is as noted above, 16" from floor to top of cushion; the chair seat from floor to top of cushion at the leading edge is 16", the seat then slopes downward at 5 degrees for a distance of 24" to the base of the seatback. Having lived with the chair for a while, I can see it as a lounge chair like one would a sofa, but I agree it is too low and deep for dining, especially with the 29" height of the tables.
Per the furniture plan, it was intended that there was a line of 5 chairs along the south wall in the dining area to form a banquette, the three sections of the dining table each 2'-0"x3'-6"x 29" high forming a single table of 6'-0"x3'-6"x 29" high. Hassocks were to be used at the head of the table and along the side of the table that faced the living room.
peterm: We don't have any of the dining tables, hassocks, or desks; just one chair is left. I have prints of the drawings for the furniture. The Sweeton furniture that I have seen on auction sites is consistent with the drawings.
To minimize handling/wear and tear of the prints, I have the drawings scanned as electronic files. If you PM me with your email address, I can send you the sheet with the furniture for your research.
The drawings for the Sweeton house only indicate one chair type and one hassock type, and they were to be used universally through the house. The hassock is as noted above, 16" from floor to top of cushion; the chair seat from floor to top of cushion at the leading edge is 16", the seat then slopes downward at 5 degrees for a distance of 24" to the base of the seatback. Having lived with the chair for a while, I can see it as a lounge chair like one would a sofa, but I agree it is too low and deep for dining, especially with the 29" height of the tables.
Per the furniture plan, it was intended that there was a line of 5 chairs along the south wall in the dining area to form a banquette, the three sections of the dining table each 2'-0"x3'-6"x 29" high forming a single table of 6'-0"x3'-6"x 29" high. Hassocks were to be used at the head of the table and along the side of the table that faced the living room.
peterm: We don't have any of the dining tables, hassocks, or desks; just one chair is left. I have prints of the drawings for the furniture. The Sweeton furniture that I have seen on auction sites is consistent with the drawings.
To minimize handling/wear and tear of the prints, I have the drawings scanned as electronic files. If you PM me with your email address, I can send you the sheet with the furniture for your research.
Is it possible that he is willing to defer to human comfort, in this instance ? Would you do so, if you were the designer ?
Perhaps a two inch vertical module would solve all these problems !
I have spent some time looking for a single module that accommodates all the furniture-height issues; I believe a syncopated rhythm (larger and smaller blocks, alternating) may have the answer.
Does Corbu's Modulor answer these issues ? His system accumulates larger and larger (or smaller and smaller) intervals, so (depending on
where one begins the scale, presumably) one might place useful heights at the appropriate places.
SDR
Perhaps a two inch vertical module would solve all these problems !
I have spent some time looking for a single module that accommodates all the furniture-height issues; I believe a syncopated rhythm (larger and smaller blocks, alternating) may have the answer.
Does Corbu's Modulor answer these issues ? His system accumulates larger and larger (or smaller and smaller) intervals, so (depending on
where one begins the scale, presumably) one might place useful heights at the appropriate places.
SDR
We just realized that DRN's tables are not 29", but 27" also. The drawing shows 2' 3", and the three could be mistaken for a five, making it 29". But we zoomed in and both agreed that the number was a three.
That means Willey, Lamberson and Sweeton all share this dining table height, with Rayward being 27 1/2" (floor glides?...) With a low chair, this should be quite comfortable.
Palli- Weltzheimer table heights, vertical module?
That means Willey, Lamberson and Sweeton all share this dining table height, with Rayward being 27 1/2" (floor glides?...) With a low chair, this should be quite comfortable.
Palli- Weltzheimer table heights, vertical module?
Good stuff.
I found this in my notes: a copy of the Modulor from 1952, with my translation from centimeters into inches. And, a note to myself to try a
vertical module of 5 1/2 inches -- which would yield a 16 1/2" seat and a 27 1/2" table height, among other things.
Corbu seems willing to use either of his two numbers, or both, added to the previous number, to gain certain useful heights -- or at least some
relevant anatomical dimensions. Seems a bit like "cheating," no ?
I found this in my notes: a copy of the Modulor from 1952, with my translation from centimeters into inches. And, a note to myself to try a
vertical module of 5 1/2 inches -- which would yield a 16 1/2" seat and a 27 1/2" table height, among other things.
Corbu seems willing to use either of his two numbers, or both, added to the previous number, to gain certain useful heights -- or at least some
relevant anatomical dimensions. Seems a bit like "cheating," no ?
Last edited by SDR on Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.