Wright Chat

Plans and photo of Berger doghouse, © W A Storrer, from his "FLLW Companion."

Note that the position of the door has been reversed from that shown in the drawings. Note also differences in scale of siding, fascia, and roofing,
from the original . . .

Good call on noticing the door repositioning. As always, Wright chose to hide the front door from plain view, even with this doghouse. Robert felt that having the entrance to the doghouse facing away was not functional, and chose to put it on the opposite side, which faced the carport and front door. We consciously repeated this decision in the new version.
However, though it may look different because of the angle of the newly taken photographs, it is precisely the same as the first version built by Father and Brother (provided they followed the plans correctly), both coming from the same original blueprints provided by Wright.
Also, to correct a mistake from the Storer book that the dog lying in the house is Eddie, it is not. It is Sean, short for Shaugnessy, an Irish Setter which was the Berger's next dog. Eddie was a black Labrador Retriever. The photo was taken by Eric Berger.

Not to contradict you, but the drawing shows three boards to the siding, and your (lovingly made) version has five ? In combination with fewer courses of shingles (than the original built version, correct or otherwise), there's a difference of proportion, wouldn't you say ?

Wright's drawing seems to show a base that's broader than the house footprint. Do we think that was a concrete pad ? The section drawing doesn't suggest so. In either case, the built versions are clearly "portable" structures -- I guess.

Glad to see you carried this out. I'm disappointed to hear that Eddie never got to enjoy his house -- but it looks like others did ? And it's nice to see what the actual scale of this structure is -- thanks to the new photos. It's larger than I had anticipated. Wright's generous overhangs (i.e., big roofs) are part of the reason, no doubt.

SDR

My understanding is that there was a concrete pad indicated in the plans on top of which the house was to be placed, but it appears Robert never built that, and the boys provided a wooden floor for the new version which is painted Cherokee Red.
And before I get too deeply embroiled in the technical discussions, which I'm not qualified to address, I will get in touch with Jim and/or Eric Berger, and ask them to chime in on your comments, which do seem to point out some subtle differences in the execution.

My understanding is that there was a concrete pad indicated in the plans on top of which the house was to be placed, but it appears Robert never built that, and the boys provided a wooden floor for the new version which is painted Cherokee Red.
And before I get too deeply embroiled in the technical discussions, which I'm not qualified to address, I will get in touch with Jim and/or Eric Berger, and ask them to chime in on your comments, which do seem to point out some subtle differences in the execution.

Thanks. Any good carpenter can be expected to utilize whatever appropriate material is available to him at the time of construction, to complete a building project. In this case, the width of the siding boards would relate only to those found in the "parent structure," the Berger house, and Mr Wright (and his right-hand men) could be expected to follow that precedent -- even in a semi-jocular project like this dog-house ?

Here is a photo of the interior of the Berger house. The mahogany used throughout the house would be the proper material with which to make any Wright-designed structure on the property. In this case, beveled-edge matched boards were used -- although the only mahogany on the exterior of the house is found in the roof fascia boards and the sash and doors.

It is unusual to find vertically-laid boards in a Wright interior. I can find no indication of horizontally-oriented boards among the available photos. So the dog-house is something of an orphan in this regard as well ?



Scot Zimmerman photo

I just spoke to Eric and he echoed your statement, that the first version of the doghouse was to be built with wood left over from the main house, but that particular dimension of board is no longer commercially available. He has done extensive repairs on the home over the years and knows it inside and out. I will leave it to him to respond to the other question, which should be very soon.

One can quibble on the size of the boards, but I think the cut away corner of the door as shown on the original is a more unfortunate change.

maybe the plan is flipped?

That's explained above, Jeff, in the statement from 10:27 PM . . .


S

Plan of Eddies House may be flipped.

As co-builder of the doghouse I will clear up the the discussion relative to the one my dad built. Jim and I followed the plans exactly except for the door location. The plans call for "51/2 in T&G v joint redwood" and "5 1/2 in faciae". My dad used wood left over from the house. It would appear Storrer copied that. The plans show 5 rows of shingles, as does the Storrer drawing. I don't know how my dad came up with more .The plans call for a concrete pad. We built ours on a 2x4 base ,as I'm sure dad did. The door was relocated because the original faced away from the "front" of our house. No dog liked it as it was nicer in front of the house entry door(radiant heated). I'm sure dad's house was the same size because I took it to the landfill in the back of my 1982 Datsun pickup. Also our house is more "finished". Our dad's had plywood in the rear and tar paper inside. We have siding all around and paneling inside. I'm not sure of the "status"of our doghouse. What is the status of a FLW house that would be rebuilt after a fire or other destruction?

Thanks, Eric. It's fine to see this element of your parents' house reconstructed.

I had assumed that the drawings I posted above, from Storrer's volume, were Taliesin drawings. If they are, they seem to differ from the specifications you quote -- at least in terms of the siding, which in the drawing couldn't be less than 8 inches wide, as I read it. But it could be that Prof Storrer arranged the drawing we see to reflect his photo (?) of the original construction.

(It might puzzle some, moreover, that Mr Wright would specify redwood for a house in which all the visible wood is mahogany. But, as has been mentioned, I think, the doghouse may not have been a "serious" commission for the architect . . . ?)

In any event you have clearly taken on the job with all due diligence -- for which we can be grateful ! Thanks for letting us see the handsome result.

SDR

As for whether the result qualifies as a Frank Lloyd Wright design -- your father may have taken the first step away from that standard by choosing not to build the doghouse on a concrete pad. To be clear, the fact that your reconstruction (mostly) follows the original building isn't the issue; rather, it is whether either of the built versions accurately reflects the architect's intent, as revealed in his drawings and specifications.

None of that takes away from the admirable effort that the two of you have made; it's great to see this structure in the flesh again, after all . . .

(By the way, I can't imagine the architect objecting to your dad's decision to place the door of the doghouse facing the entrance of the main house ! That was a good move. And, to be fair, so was the decision to make the house portable. But every structure, at least in Wright's work, required the visible evidence of a firm and stable masonry base . . . )

SDR