Wright Chat

I have scoured the Internet, and actually resorted to getting many books from the city library, but I have been unable to find anything except a floor plan for the Jacobs house.



I have at least 100 photos of the house which clearly show detail in the living and kitchen areas - but not of the ceiling in that area, nor any detail in the bedrooms.



Does anyone know of any other drawings of the Jacobs #1 (1936)?



I intend building a version of the Jacobs House, using modern New Zealand materials. The plans will require some modifications due to the building code in NZ, but it would be nice to start from a set of originals.



Never before has a house plan griped my imagination like the #1 Usonian of Herbert Jacobs. To me this is the ultimate FLW residence, and *still* affordable today!



Mainly, I'm attracted to this house because it bears several similarities to the late 50's home I grew up in - which is far beyond my financial reach (It recently sold for 1.2 Million!), but the ideas expressed in the Jacobs house are still as relevant today as they were in 1936 - perhaps even more so!



Any and all help most gratefully appreciated.

There are several sources...one is the current GA traveler series #5 entitled Usonian Houses which has drawings and several fine photos not commonly distributed...there is also the excellent book by Herb Jacobs called "Building With Frank Lloyd Wright: An Illustrated Memoir" that has some, but not a lot, plans. You can estimate the dimensions by using the flor grid which is, I think, 2x4 squares...anyone please correct me I I'm wrong.



The FLLW Monograph Series, though rare, has perhaps the best set of plans. I think Jacobs I is in #5 as well.





http://www.taliesinbookstore.com/store/ ... ?sku=GA395



If you can find plans of the Melvyn Smith House here in Michigan, it is very similar to Jacobs I and can provide a giude as well.



Please keep us posted as to your progress...I was in the Jacobs House last year and was enchanted...it is truly one of FLLW's finest works, IMHO.

The FLlW Foundation at Taliesin West will sell copies of drawings for copying costs, plus a royalty if you plan to redistribute them.



(Wright's designs are under copyright. You might be wise to avoid too close an imitation.)



Peter

Thanks for the tips people.



We intend to make some changes to the Jacobs house interior design, but try to leave the exterior as original as possible. We'll have to use Butynol on the roof and create guttering, as well as incorporate a 50mm drop from the interior to the exterior The guttering will drain down chains not pipes, and into wide concrete bowls sitting atop the drains - a legacy of the house I grew up in.



We'll stretch the lounge to be 6 metres deep (it's 5 metres on the plans) thereby extending the size of the dining space (We won't be incorporating any built-in furniture except the desk in the corner of the lounge.) and increasing the living area.



Open fires are banned in my city, and even a gas fire seems irrelevant in the days of Heat Pumps and water-solar heating of the floor slab so we are going to dispense with the monolithic fireplace and chimney. We plan to rotate the kitchen 90 degrees so it faces directly into the lounge - becoming the centre of focus for the living area. (My Partner Emma is a wonderful cook and entertainer and spends a lot of time in the kitchen.)



To me, this makes sense. I know FLW was intent on focusing on the Hearth back in the day - but this ignores the huge change in living styles and pollution caused by open fires, and even log burners.



Because in 1936 there was no concept of the TV, or stereo we are going to re-work the end of the lounge, while keeping the "breaking the box" corner . We'll try to work a plasma TV into the wall and incorporate a set of electrostatic 5.1 surround sound speakers into the plan in an unobtrusive way.



We like the idea of an ensuite bathroom, and therefore will extend the end of the bedroom wing and convert the Study into the Master bed. This extension will allow me to incorporate a single longish garage (which will be *my* "workspace"!) towards the rear of the house. I'm hoping the garage will be almost invisible from the street, with it being recessed back behind the car port. The Garrison House Project (Michigan) plans more closely reflect how we'll deal with the master bedroom.



I investigated the option of having the windows and doors done in wood - but the cost is absolutely prohibitive. (In 1936 it seems like materials were expensive, but labour was cheap - and now its the materials which are cheap and the labour expensive!) I'll be forced to use aluminium doors and windows, but we'll use a color which is sympathetic with the design.



FLW originally called for (IIRC) Cypress and Redwood coverings on the exterior walls but we will use Cedar and Redwood. Inside walls will be the standard plasterboard, excepting the bricked sections which will remain revealed. Against the rear wall of the lounge (where the clerestory windows and the book shelves are) we may well repeat the exterior finish as a feature wall.



We'll require more storage than FLW allowed for and this will be partially achieved by overhead storage in the garage, an increased depth to the cupboards ajacent the dining area. The kitchen will be extended 1 foot (Hate that imperial measure!) because we will have no basement at all so the stairs can go - and the bathroom will also be extended by 1 foot.



You are correct about the size of the house: the squares are 4 x 2 feet (ACK) which conveniently translate to 60cm x 1.2 Metres which is perfect because materials still coming in 2.4 metre lengths...



The Jacobs floor plan (original) is almost exactly 1500 square feet, which equates to 139.8 square metres. Our architect is adding another 30 sq. m to the plan and the building cost is above average too. Here in New Zealand a "typical" new home (i.e. a crappy and ugly box with a pointy roof) costs $1000 per square metre. Our home will cost around $1130 per square metre. This will bring the cost of the building to approximately $192,000. Sitting atop the $150,000 section we *hope* the property will be valued at over $400,000 by the time the landscaping is complete.



We only intend to live in the house for about 8 years - or until we have a child over the age of 7 or 8 - at which time we'll investigate building another usonian.



Currently the link above is dead - but I'll keep trying it - and order the book when possible.



Have no fear - as the project progresses, I'll be posting our final plans, drawings, perspectives, 3D models, section photos, construction photos, detailed accounts of the building process, and make it all available for anyone who wants it. I have Gigs of space on my server, so you'll probably end up being sick of me and my bloody house by the time its finished!



Oh, I should add that Christchurch New Zealand is on the coast of the Canterbury plains. It is pancake-flat running up to the southern alps 60 miles away gaining altitude gradually the whole way.



The Jacobs house design is therefore ideal for the city, which is also sprawling and flat, (400,000 pop.) and will fit in with the environment wonderfully.

This guy kills me! He wants a FLW Usonain house and yet he plans on modifying 99% of the design. Why doesn

HMMMMM.....Howza about I build a "version" of Fallingwater......but on a flat site!....genius! Fauxsonian.....it'll be all the rage!

Mobius, what you are planning is destroying all of the elements that make the Jacob's house so wonderful. As the previous posts indicate, this is absolutely the worst possible approach to Usonian design. You will lose the beautiful proportions, the flow of space, and the poetic use of materials, not to mention that the Jacob's house does not meet your present nor future needs. There are organic architects who capable of Usonian design, that can give you a house expressly for you, with the idea of the Jacobs house at work. They must be thoroughly trained in organic architecture and usonian principles. Your present architect is not one of them. Be wary of those who add FLLW style to conventional design, or try to copy and alter his plans.

I think what he's doing is really cool. I did the same thing when I built my house. I took the basic floor plan for the Goetsch-Winkler and modernized it and opened it up in a way that is more conducive to the way my wife and I live (though we didn't have to do much, as FLLW was way ahead of his time in that regard). Thus, I understand exactly what this gentleman is talking about. We used pretty standard construction techniques, and have several show stopping details.



This house (it sounds like) won't be a copy of the Jacobs, but it will be derived from the Jacobs. It sounds great...I hope to see many pictures along the way...

Yeah.....those aluminum storefront windows will look very "cool" on a "usonian". Would it not be appropriate right here and now to stop referring to these things as Usonian's. If it did not come directly from Wright, then it is not a Usonian. It may be referred to as Wrightian, perhaps it may have some Organic qualities, but it will never ever be a Usonian. Neither will the Red House, or any other structure that did not come from FLLW.

Lets not convince ourselves that we have something that is it is not. The Red House is not a Usonian, even if it has borrowed design features and other MANNERISM'S. It is just what it is. A nice little attempt at a Wrightian home that will no doubt make its owner, the builder, happy. Thats not a bad thing, but I am of the opinion that we are destroying the entire idea of Usonia.

EJ, Can you post a photo for all of us to see?

myLiebermeisterAGG wrote:Yeah.....those aluminum storefront windows will look very "cool" on a "usonian". Would it not be appropriate right here and now to stop referring to these things as Usonian's. If it did not come directly from Wright, then it is not a Usonian. It may be referred to as Wrightian, perhaps it may have some Organic qualities, but it will never ever be a Usonian. Neither will the Red House, or any other structure that did not come from FLLW.

Lets not convince ourselves that we have something that is it is not. The Red House is not a Usonian, even if it has borrowed design features and other MANNERISM'S. It is just what it is. A nice little attempt at a Wrightian home that will no doubt make its owner, the builder, happy. Thats not a bad thing, but I am of the opinion that we are destroying the entire idea of Usonia.

I agree that many of the homes people refer to as "Usonian" that are not wright designs are merely self-flattery. However, I do not believe it would be accurate to say that only a FLlW design could be worthy of the name. I honestly don't think that was his thinking in the matter.



Mr. Wright had a beautiful vision for our lovely Usonia, but part of that vision was a carrying on of Organic principles. It seems clear that his aim was for those ideas not to end with him, but to continue and hopefully evolve from what even he was capable of.



I see no reason whatever that a truly Organic house built with "Usonian" ideals couldn't be called a "Usonian Home".



The problem, as you mentioned, is the constant adoption of stylistic elements, but never the prinicipals of Mr. Wright's designs. Or, as Mr. Wright said of this phenomena: "It's imitation not emulation."



No one should attempt to recreate/imitate what Mr. Wright gave us. One should attempt to learn from the principles and perhaps use solutions that worked for Wright, when appropriate. However, every individual, if they are being true to themselves and their art, should come up with something uniquely and unavoidably of themselves even if they follow these priniciples "to the letter".



As E. Viollett LeDuc said of Greek architecture in his _Discourses On Architecture_ (a very influential text to Mr. Wright):



"I have said that the Greeks were the first to establish certain laws of proportion which we designate as "Orders" or distribution of parts; but we must not conclude the Greek Order or Orders to be absolute in proportions observed. These laws did not among them hamper the liberty of the artist. Far from it; they were not absolute, but relative; and although we may be able to establish certain proportions between the different members of the Doric order at the same period, there is nevertheless great freedom and endless variety in the application of these rules; the Doric order is always the Doric order, as a man is always a man; but one is stout, another slight; this one is short and sturdy, that one is tall and thin."



I propose the same is true of the principles executed in designing a Usonian home...if they are, indeed, executed or understood at all.



Take care,

Jon Autry

EJ wrote:We used pretty standard construction techniques, and have several show stopping details.

Although, I'm sure you'd concede that Mr. Wright's work was not about about "show stopping details". As your signature quote mentions, Mr. Wright's work was about Ideas which was of the most spiritual of experiences for Mr. Wright (as it says on his memorial at Taliesin: "Love of an Idea is love of God").



Mr. Wright was really not interested in making a "cool" house, certainly not a novel house or a house with some nice amenities or features. His intention was clearly to make a plastic, complete entity which, by it's organic nature, could not work if you removed, modified or added even one "detail"...show stopping or not.



Take care,

Jon

Jon Autry wrote:

EJ wrote:We used pretty standard construction techniques, and have several show stopping details.

Although, I'm sure you'd concede that Mr. Wright's work was not about about "show stopping details". As your signature quote mentions, Mr. Wright's work was about Ideas which was of the most spiritual of experiences for Mr. Wright (as it says on his memorial at Taliesin: "Love of an Idea is love of God").



Mr. Wright was really not interested in making a "cool" house, certainly not a novel house or a house with some nice amenities or features. His intention was clearly to make a plastic, complete entity which, by it's organic nature, could not work if you removed, modified or added even one "detail"...show stopping or not.



Take care,

Jon

I think you're missing the point here...I didn't want a Frank Lloyd Wright house per se, but I wanted several features that Wright uses, often like the rows of ceiling to floor windows or varying ceiling height. I used a FLLW floor plan as a beginning point and then did it up how I wanted it. What I've accomplished is a space comparable to that of a FLLW house. In fact, my wife, not exactly a FLLW aficionado, has suffered through numerous house tours with me and each time she finds something and says "that's like our house"...



That's what I was shooting for, to create an inspired space based on the principles of FLLW's architecture. I succeeded. To banter about the proper use of the term Usonian is merely academic and pointless to me. The fact is, to me, many of the Usonian designs, while beautiful, are unlivable. My house is proof that you can have beauty of FLLW proportions and livability, an important principle that FLLW didn't grasp in many of his houses. And, despite what you say, having a "cool" house is what its all about for me.

Ej, Once again, can you post a photo of your house?

EJ wrote:

Jon Autry wrote:

EJ wrote:We used pretty standard construction techniques, and have several show stopping details.

Although, I'm sure you'd concede that Mr. Wright's work was not about about "show stopping details". As your signature quote mentions, Mr. Wright's work was about Ideas which was of the most spiritual of experiences for Mr. Wright (as it says on his memorial at Taliesin: "Love of an Idea is love of God").



Mr. Wright was really not interested in making a "cool" house, certainly not a novel house or a house with some nice amenities or features. His intention was clearly to make a plastic, complete entity which, by it's organic nature, could not work if you removed, modified or added even one "detail"...show stopping or not.



Take care,

Jon

I think you're missing the point here...I didn't want a Frank Lloyd Wright house per se, but I wanted several features that Wright uses, often like the rows of ceiling to floor windows or varying ceiling height. I used a FLLW floor plan as a beginning point and then did it up how I wanted it. What I've accomplished is a space comparable to that of a FLLW house. In fact, my wife, not exactly a FLLW aficionado, has suffered through numerous house tours with me and each time she finds something and says "that's like our house"...



That's what I was shooting for, to create an inspired space based on the principles of FLLW's architecture. I succeeded. To banter about the proper use of the term Usonian is merely academic and pointless to me. The fact is, to me, many of the Usonian designs, while beautiful, are unlivable. My house is proof that you can have beauty of FLLW proportions and livability, an important principle that FLLW didn't grasp in many of his houses. And, despite what you say, having a "cool" house is what its all about for me.

I think it's quite obvious that having a "cool" house is what it's all about for you. I don't think I was disputing that. I must admit, however, that I was secretly hoping that it was about more than that for you and that I had merely misunderstood you.



The fact is, based on your description of how you've gone about things and how you think about Mr. Wright's architecture, you have not created anything "based on the principles of FLLW's architecture."



It seems that you are not really interested in Mr. Wright's principles at all. It seems by your response that you are most interested in imitating the results of his prinicples and not emulating or understanding the principles themselves.



The way it sounds when you describe it as you do, is that a trip to a Wright home for you is like a trip to Ikea. You can get an idea of versatile living solutions that you think are "cool" for your lifestyle to incorporate them into your home.



Don't get me wrong, that's absolutely fine. Do what makes you happy. Seriously. However, it is the absolute antithesis of everything for which Mr. wright stood; certainly the antithesis of his principles, to say the least.



You're absolutely correct about the term "Usonian" being academic, but that was in response to another poster, not you. At the end of the day you can call your home whatever you want to. You can even call it a Frank Lloyd Wright original if you want to. It doesn't mean it's true, but you can do whatever you like. That's the beauty of America.



Take care,

Jon[/i]