I wouldn't automatically assume that Storrer's drawing would exactly match Wright's. Without seeing Wright's drawing, it's difficult to know which parts of the replica are duplicating what was originally built, what Wright drew, or what decisions were made at the time of building the replica.
As for the dogs not liking it, I am basing that on what flwromanza said at the beginning of this thread:
"Ironically, Eddie, the dog for whom the house was first built, did not care for and never used it, preferring instead to sleep near the warm air issuing from underneath the front door of the main house. Subsequent family dogs held a similar disdain for the dog house. Finally, sometime in the mid 1970's, after Robert Berger had died of cancer, mother Gloria, not understanding its historical significance, ordered the dog house taken to the San Rafael city dump."
Frank Lloyd Wright's Doghouse
Yes. It simplifies things if we assume that Wright's drawing and Storrer's are synonymous. Storrer is at pains (pp xiii-xv, 1993) to describe what plans he used in the book, how and when he amended them, and why. We see many Storrer plan drawings which reveal fully their origins, with original lettering in some cases and other details like foliage more or less intact. But he explains that his intention was to present the buildings as built -- so that muddies the waters as to which plans have been modified, and where.
The Berger doghouse drawings which appear on p 350 of Storrer's 1993 Companion -- a plan, an elevation, and a section -- have labels and a scale indication clearly added by the author, but the drawings themselves appear unretouched, including lettering on the plan (much too small to read) and the section. So I take them to be as original. As has been noted, the details in the drawing do not match, in several particulars, those seen in photos of the original doghouse -- so Storrer did not alter the drawings to match the built structure. (Of course the new replica post-dates the book I have by more than a decade.) I can think of no other reason for him to have touched them. The section drawing does not appear to show either a concrete slab or a wooden floor structure.
Eric's (or Jim's) explanations for the decisions made before constructing their replica tend to show them favoring Wright's drawings rather than the previously-built doghouse, and the results seem largely to bear that out. But they refer to notes from Taliesin specifying a board and fascia which are different from those shown in the drawings (the boards narrower, with matching fascia), so once again variance is introduced.
SDR
The Berger doghouse drawings which appear on p 350 of Storrer's 1993 Companion -- a plan, an elevation, and a section -- have labels and a scale indication clearly added by the author, but the drawings themselves appear unretouched, including lettering on the plan (much too small to read) and the section. So I take them to be as original. As has been noted, the details in the drawing do not match, in several particulars, those seen in photos of the original doghouse -- so Storrer did not alter the drawings to match the built structure. (Of course the new replica post-dates the book I have by more than a decade.) I can think of no other reason for him to have touched them. The section drawing does not appear to show either a concrete slab or a wooden floor structure.
Eric's (or Jim's) explanations for the decisions made before constructing their replica tend to show them favoring Wright's drawings rather than the previously-built doghouse, and the results seem largely to bear that out. But they refer to notes from Taliesin specifying a board and fascia which are different from those shown in the drawings (the boards narrower, with matching fascia), so once again variance is introduced.
SDR
The musician and theme song for this and perhaps countless other Wright Chat threads?
http://youtu.be/oSF-T5gwdxU
http://youtu.be/oSF-T5gwdxU
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
Sorry, I haven't been watching the site for a while.
The reason Eddie and subsequent dogs did not like the doghouse is because it was too small for their bodies, and awkwardly triangular in shape. Mr. Wright simply made the house one (or was it 1/2?) of the grid modules in size, so that it would be integrated more smoothly into the grand design of the home. He completely disregarded Eddie's dimensions provided to him by Jim in the original letter.
The reason Eddie and subsequent dogs did not like the doghouse is because it was too small for their bodies, and awkwardly triangular in shape. Mr. Wright simply made the house one (or was it 1/2?) of the grid modules in size, so that it would be integrated more smoothly into the grand design of the home. He completely disregarded Eddie's dimensions provided to him by Jim in the original letter.
Frankly, the doghouse looks huge. Perhaps that's because, like so many of Wright's houses, the roof is extremely generous in size relative to the floor area of the interior ?
Looking at Storrer's version of the plan of the doghouse (the only reference we have, I think), the available space appears to be a triangle 30" on a side. This isn't much room -- probably not enough for a good-sized dog to turn around in ?
SDR
Looking at Storrer's version of the plan of the doghouse (the only reference we have, I think), the available space appears to be a triangle 30" on a side. This isn't much room -- probably not enough for a good-sized dog to turn around in ?
SDR
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
I found that the small dogs I had centuries ago didn't like the dog house, no matter the size. I had Boston Terriers and Cocker Spaniels, and a sizable dog house in the back yard, and it was never used by any of our dogs. Perhaps a window dressed up with a window box and some posies would have made a difference, but the cube with a door in it was not considered inviting.
