Meyer May House

[Roderick Grant]

It's also worth considering that Tomek and Robie porch floors are a few steps down, while May is at the level of the main floor. Sam Freeman, whose tiny porch/balcony is 2' (3 steps) below the living room floor, felt that having such an exterior space at a lower level caused one not to use it as much.

The skimpy posts that were added to Tomek were removed by Maya. She told me that they had never performed as supports, not being attached to the I-beams; just for looks! For the date of Tomek, Storrer's first edition gives 1907, but Maya found an ad in a magazine dated 1904 or 1905 with a photo of the house, which brought about the revised date.

Why May got short shrift in FLW's books is a mystery. It's one of the best Prairie interiors of all. The art glass with copper gallery in the living room is unique in his work, and a wonder to behold. Perhaps he felt that the plan was somewhat less well-organized than some others?

[SDR]

A promenade from entrance to veranda is a pleasant idea in itself — but I can’t think of another Wright house with a central “hall� like the one at May. If the architect had known that he wouldn’t in the end need those structural points, he would surely have wanted to eliminate them, as I see it. As it is, the problem is handled suavely, and no visitor would think to notice the structural purpose of those two free-standing elements.

I'm pleased to learn that the ersatz posts at Tomek were removed by Ms Moran. She implies in her book (Down to Earth, 1995) that the posts are non-structural, but says nothing of a plan to remove them. Perhaps readers encouraged her in that move ?

SDR

[pharding]

The cantilever length shown in the design drawings was too ambitious from a technical point of view. Architects make changes routinely through design, construction documents, and construction.

[SDR]

Aaand . . . there you have it. Case closed. Now let's tiptoe away quietly; it's not nice to disturb the dead, or learn anything we didn't already know.

SDR

[Roderick Grant]

The Tomek posts were deleted before the book was published. On page 35 are two photos, one with the posts (1908) and one without. Also in Taschen, page 235, the posts are not there.

Maya spent many years restoring the house and planning an appropriate garden (featured in "Inland Architect" March/April 1984 ... before removal of the posts or correction of date). After marrying Carter Manny and moving out of Tomek, she held onto it until a suitable buyer could be found to take proper care of it.

Notice on page 25 of Maya's book there is a FLW plot plan showing a structure in the NW corner of the lot containing a double garage and a greenhouse following the lot line. A long garden wall from the west lot line to a pier matching the one marking the south end of the curved wall separates the south lawn from the car court and a formal garden. That is the lot that also appears on page 18 from 1909 without any of that construction, but with the house in place. Tomek owned that entire lot at that time. But the lot as shown in the IA article is significantly smaller. So at some time after 1909, a portion of the west end of the lot was sold off.

[Roderick Grant]

Just took a trip to Googland. There is a small house of pre-WWI vintage tucked between Tomek and the (formerly) neighboring house shown on the plot plan, so the subdivision was done quite early.

[SDR]

Thanks, Roderick. The basement floor plan of Tomek, p 26 of Down to Earth (and in Storrer, S.128), shows three pairs of piers at the southeast end of the house; two of these pairs support piers on the main level of the house, while a third pair fall in the middle of the porch floor, at a place where (I presume) Mr Wright would have placed cantilever support piers if they had been needed. This location is similar to that of the kitchen porch piers at May -- though to be fair, the May piers are held back to the line of the porch enclosure, while at Tomek the piers would have stood in the middle of the porch floor . . .

As Wright experimented with these dramatic cantilevers, did he hedge his bets by preparing for adjustments as needed, during construction ? In the case of Tomek a fall-back position wasn't needed; at May the story was perhaps different. One thinks of R Schindler and his readiness to adjust construction to conditions in a real-time way. Did Mr Wright share his experiences with his intimates ?

One wonders if other Wright structures would show similar evidence of preparation for contingency. Wright's builders would of necessity have been privy to these preparations.

SDR

[jim]

Perhaps another house worth throwing in the mix is the recently restored Boynton, the date for which Storer gives as 1908. If his drawing/scale is accurate, that cantilever appears to be something like 23'. The veranda floor is level with the interior space floors.

Interestingly when the veranda was enclosed in the 19-teens, the floor and the veranda sidewalls were lowered a couple of feet, losing Wright's carefully conceived sense of enclosure. The current owners states that they can sit on the restored veranda and not be seen from the street, because of the height. Also the enclosure was "all windows", with no columns. The sag that developed in the cantilever after 80 years was not the length of the cantilever, but transversely, when the roof drooped side to side at the edges.

There are two hefty piers at the juncture of the living room and the veranda, which also line up with two piers at the far end of the living room, some 30+ feet from the point of cantilever. This suggests steel beams over 50' in length.

[Roderick Grant]

SDR, the east piers or posts at Tomek were not meant as a fall-back of any sort, but are necessary support for the porch. The posts that were added were located where the curved wall meets the wall enclosing the steps from the porch to the lawn.