Wright Chat

Being involved in yet another tussle with an all knowing building official has occupied my time in recent days.

For 43 years I have employed an identical format for my construction drawings, based primarily as a consequence of what I learned whilst being engaged in the studio of Malcolm Wells in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. They are drawn, as is all my Architecture, to a module, the size and shape of which is always prominently shown on the drawing containing the ground plan.

The ground plan is always drawn at 1:50, the cross sections at 1:10, the details at full size, all on ISO A0 size sheets, when most of those with architecture degrees here in Australia provide even their joinery details at 1:50 on ISO A3 size paper.

Last week when I presented a set of drawings for development and building approval, I was informed, for the first time in my career, they did not meet the requirements, because there was a complete lack of dimensions on the ground plan. I am used to such encounters degenerating into a shouting match across the counter, but this is usually related to design and the use of a module that is not rectilinear, a situation administrators find unfamiliar and threatening.

A written appeal to the Ombudsman resulted in senior officials responding in a more positive manner, and the offender received a severe reprimand, a process that has probably stymied his career, if he ever had one.

Architecture must be one of the few professions where those who demonstrably cannot perform, have jurisdiction over those who can. It is analogous to having a hospital janitor perform brain surgery.

Save for FLLW’s account of how he applied for a permit to erect the Millard house, and the struggle with the New York City authorities with regard to the Guggenheim Museum, I have read little of his battles with officialdom. Does anyone have more information on these please?

When Wright designed faculty housing for Florida Southern College in 1939/1940, his designs employed the standard leaky flat roof. The Federal Housing Administration, which would finance the housing, rejected the plans and required a sloped roof.

Wright re-designed the roofs, apparently without protest.

That sloped roof is part of the design for the new visitors center (to be adapted from one of the Wright faculty housing plans).

link to letter from Dr. Spivey to Wright: http://archives.flsouthern.edu/cdm4/ite ... &x=39&y=81

Arguably the most famous example of Wright struggling with the building department would have to be the testing of the "lilypads" at Racine Wisconsin for the Johnson Wax Building:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_S20rCI0ySiw/S ... son050.jpg

In true Wright style, he turned this inconvenience into an opportunity for publicity and honest self promotion.

Frank Lloyd Wright:

"Bureaucrats: they are dead at 30 and buried at 60. They are like custard pies; you can't nail them to a wall."

I understand that permitting problems, having more to do with esthetic than structural issues, are the reason Crystal City in Washington DC never happened. He blamed "those Beaux Arts fairies" (his phrase, not mine).

Unbuilt projects might be a better place to look than built ones.

Didn't he also have run-ins with officials in Kansas City, Missouri when building Community Christian?

Peterm:

Thank you for reminding me of the Johnson Wax
dendriform columns episode: surely the ultimate put down for officialdom?

I was still so incensed when I wrote my original posting on this topic that memory and reason had deserted me.

Wrighter-

You are correct about the KC church project. The issues with local officials, combined with the budgetary constraints imposed by the client, resulted in one of FLW's most disappointing public works, IMHO.

Another story is that Robie's wine cellar (under the living room terrace) took the interior closer to the sidewalk than local covenants allowed. He got around it by convincing the officials that it wasn't living space and so didn't violate the rule.

Mrs. Mossberg, according to yet another, was heartbroken to discover, after Wright had delivered his design, that only two-story houses were allowed in the neighborhood. He got around that by changing his design to make it compliant.

No one could be more sympathetic than I am to the idea of drawing to a module, and letting one dimension in each of the two axes in plan, stand for the whole. Yet who, in all honesty, could deny that this literally thumbs the architect's nose at the building profession, whose constituents (understandably, I would say) are accustomed to having objects on drawings be clearly dimensioned -- if only to avoid possible miscommunication. The practice favored by Mr Wright is surely a perfect example of a conceit (Webster's third definition: "an affectation in style or in expression of ideas; fanciful or witty expression or notion "). As delightful to you and me, perhaps, as this poetic device may be (the omission of numbers, leaving a prettier page), it is difficult to see how anyone's job is made easier by this practice. . .

I play devil's advocate because, among all the examples of disappointing, vexing, seemingly all but illegal official roadblocks listed above, Laurie's disappointment would seem the most easily prevented, and (perhaps) the most unnecessary to have occurred in the first place. Perhaps I should let the architect explain why he prefers to present his design in that manner -- a manner all but calculated (it seems to me) to present a challenge to the straight-laced boneheads that he knows full well are in his path.

Laurie ?

Stephen

Stephen:

I respond to your queries with alacrity.

Rather than thumbing one’s nose at the building profession, working to a module offers an alternative, and my experience would indicate, a better method of both designing and constructing a building. Far from being a conceit, it is both a practical, and an aesthetic means of giving unity to, any construction.

To my mind a ground plan replete with a plethora of dimensions is more of a hindrance than a help. Using a grid system, the relevant walls are set out on one side or other of the line of the module, or perhaps in the case of partitions, centered.

Moreover, when the distances between the architect’s studio and the site are such that it can take more than two days to drive between them, to be able to refer to an element by use of the grid system, as with a map, is an enormous advantage, saves much time and obverts possible misunderstandings.

Modules are of ancient usage. I understand the Egyptian Pyramids were set out and constructed on the basis of the cubit, and certainly the medieval cathedrals of Northern Europe, with their equally spaced bays and vaulted ceilings, the latter requiring great accuracy were established by the use of such means.

Almost all commercial buildings in Australia employ the modular system. Are architects engaged in the design of residential Architecture to be denied the use of it?

As I wrote in my initial post, in all the 43 years during which I have submitted drawings for approval to the relevant authorities of the Australian Capital Territory, I have never had them rejected on the grounds of the manner in which they have been dimensioned: that is by way of a module. So why now?

They were rejected by a person having moved from his college studies directly to his assessment of submissions, with no period of practical experience in between.

When a person employs another, the former reasonably expects the latter to be a facilitator, not an obstructionist. My taxes assist in paying this individual’s salary, his outrageously lavish working conditions, and his generous annual and paternity leave benefits. Am I supposed to suffer his foolishness and lack of experience also? If he has what it takes, why is he not out in private enterprise gaining real knowledge, instead of sheltering in a government office, adjudicating on the work of others?

The caliber of the public servants delegated to have initial dealings with the public ensures they will never be Nobel Prize candidates. Often one finds oneself dealing with a person whose intelligence quotient is roughly equivalent to their blood/alcohol level, or at best, room temperature in Celsius. Being the National Capital, Canberra is the haven of a burgeoning bureaucracy, much of whose time is spent in devising additional hoops for the rest of the population to jump thru, thereby safeguarding their own jobs. Where else in the world does legislation specify the colors of clothing to be worn on a construction site? Where else can one be fined for wearing what the bureaucrats consider to be inappropriate footwear whilst plying one’s trade? This can even apply in the case of a home owner performing maintenance on his house.

When one approaches, as a result of sheer necessity, the more senior levels of the public service, the response to a situation as I described in my first post is completely different. I received a fulsome and gracious apology from a man who had no difficulty in accepting drawings with a module as the form of dimensioning. In fact, he preferred them.

There is not just one way, however traditional for carrying out any task. If that was the case, we would all still be living in holes in the ground.

Thank you, Laurie, for that explanation. I must say I'm surprised and pleased to hear that there are people who actually prefer to work from modular documents.
Perhaps we'll hear from North American architects as to whether this is common practice here as well ?

Are grid lines labeled alphabetically in one direction, numerically in the other ? Do you employ a vertical module in your work ?


SDR

Stephen:

Grids are labelled alphabetically in one direction, numerically in the other.

I use a vertical grid, based on the Australian Standard for brick masonry.

In 1974, when Australia embraced the metric system, the Metrication Board allowed itself to be pressured by the big corporations, resulting in a 'near enough is good enough' situation to arise.

A standard brick here previous to that time was 9" x 4 1/2" x 3", which translates as
228.6 x 114.3 x 76.2 mm. There could have not been an uglier proportioned brick in the industrialized world.

The country had an opportunity to have a better proportioned standard brick, but the manufacturers opted to forgo this in order to save the cost of the machining of new molds.

Under pressure the Metrication Board buckled, and agreed to a standard that is neither one thing or the other. It decided to round off the dimensions of the existing standard brick to 230 x 110 x 76 mm. With nominally 10 mm head and bed joints this gave 5 bricks and 6 head joints to 1200 mm in length, which is the most popular module. The head joints are obviously at least 11.6 mm in fact.

With regard to the height of brick masonry, the Australian Standard is 7 courses to 600 mm. This is achieved in the following manner:
1 course: 86 mm
2 courses: 172 mm
3 courses: 257 mm, resulting in a thinner bed joint.
4 courses: 343 mm
5 courses: 429 mm
6 courses: 514 mm, requiring another thinner bed joint.
7 courses: 600 mm

If one asks a brick mason what the brick coursing height is, he will tell you 10 courses to 860 mm, but with an Australian Standard brick height of 76 mm and a bed joint of 10 mm, 7 courses is equal to 602 mm, and 10 courses 857 mm. This small difference in height takes on additional significance as the brick masonry rises, so that at 24 courses it amounts to 7 mm. If one desires that the door heads line with a brick course, it is necessary to set the height with the transit for every course.

For reasons that are totally beyond comprehension, standard door heights are set at 2100 mm, which does not accord with that of a standard brick course. Hence, in vernacular building there is often a nasty sliver of wood between the top of the door frame and the steel lintel over the opening.

I opt for a height of 24 courses - 2057 mm - for the top of a door frame and, as a consequence it is necessary to have all the doors custom made. Moreover, standard door widths are 820 and 840 mm, neither of which corresponds to a brick dimension. I make my door openings 730mm wide [3 bricks and 4 head joints], a dimension I find wide enough for most purposes.

It must be obvious to even the most casual reader that the Australian building industry and the relevant national standards it subscribes to, is little short of a dog’s breakfast. Whereas in the areas of the U.S.A. where I have worked there is coordination in the dimensions of different building materials, such is totally lacking here. In New Jersey, when I was employed there, a concrete masonry unit was 7 5/8� high, as was a dressed 8� x 2� stick of timber, and 3 courses of brick masonry.

Few architects involved in residential design here work to a vertical module, and I have had to devise my own. I work to Australian Standard brick courses for door frames, furniture, kitchen and bathroom counter heights. For partitions, 1 board and 1 batten equals 3 brick courses [257 mm].

Had the Metrication Board stood up to the brick manufacturers it could have all been so different. In my opinion it should have insisted on either a 230 x 110 x 65 mm, or a 200 x 95 x 65 brick. But, as in the U.S.A., corporations actually run the country. Citizens have an opportunity to vote in a Federal Election, but regardless of the popular desire, the lobbyists ensure that the views of vested interests prevail.

I dont think I could justify the time to deal with all the RFI's....Seriously, the building environment often lacks enough of the project TEAM concept....Its just seems it could add another level of finger pointing and accusations to insufficient information on the drawings, all of course coming back to the Architect....I could not imagine not dimensioning something to death, say, for a low bid contractor on a public school project.

Laurie

Thank you for taking the trouble. It is sad story, to be sure. Do you ever wish you had remained in the "civilized world" as it were -- or is one fire as bad as another. . .

I recall that you sometimes create hemicyclical (?) plans, requiring (presumably) a radial grid. It certainly must make sense in that case (at least) to use the grid as the basis for measurement.

I am glad to hear that you were made to adopt the metric system in the earlier years of you career; imagine the trouble this might cause to an aging architect who had spent most of his time in another system. I also understand that a transient physical condition caused you to begin drafting on the keyboard rather than the drafting board. . .another troubling forced transition, I should think ?

Ah well, all this only reveals my own ignorance, I suppose. An architect would understand you travails far better than I can.

Stephen