Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
For those of you who are not familiar with my reputation, let me elaborate and clarify the previous post. We will endeavor to build only those structures which can be built on their original sites and without compromise, excepting alterations required by changes in modern code, including exit signs, handicap ramps,etc. In other words, changes which an existing Frank Lloyd Wright building would also have to undergo. More radical changes like the rewiring of electrical systems are hidden behind walls, and do not alter the experience of the building. Any structure which would need to be modified to the extent of removing the Frank Lloyd Wright character from it will not be considered. Eric Lloyd Wright, who has been an overseer of his Grandfather's legacy to ensure that Mr. Wright's designs are not bastardized during restorations and new constructions, supports my work, and has agreed to be a consultant on these projects. Enough said. Guys, I need your assistance. PLEASE share these posts!!!
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
Following is a note I received from Bruce Pfeiffer.
Dear Michael Miner
It would be a noble act to reconstruct the Banff National Park Pavilion that was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and Francis C. Sullivan.
I would hope, however, that the reconstruction would be as true to the original concept as possible: a simple building, modest in character.
It was a fine example of what Wright called Organic Architecture: appropriate to time, place, and man.
Time – belonging to the 20th century. Not imitating some past era or “style�.
Place – respecting the environment, its place in Nature.
Man – designed in human scale, -so that people within the building feel comfortable.
Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer, D.H.L. Director Emeritus, Frank Lloyd Wright Archives.
I hope that you all will join Bruce in supporting this project.
Dear Michael Miner
It would be a noble act to reconstruct the Banff National Park Pavilion that was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and Francis C. Sullivan.
I would hope, however, that the reconstruction would be as true to the original concept as possible: a simple building, modest in character.
It was a fine example of what Wright called Organic Architecture: appropriate to time, place, and man.
Time – belonging to the 20th century. Not imitating some past era or “style�.
Place – respecting the environment, its place in Nature.
Man – designed in human scale, -so that people within the building feel comfortable.
Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer, D.H.L. Director Emeritus, Frank Lloyd Wright Archives.
I hope that you all will join Bruce in supporting this project.
Oh man there are so many. Some like Booth have complete drawings. Others are just twinkles in the master's eye. It would be great if there were panel of experts who could consult and help ensure they were as faithful visually as possible to the original concepts. I say visually as what's inside the walls matters much less. Build Lark with steel or reinforced concrete with a brick veneer…as long as it visually looked the same on the outside.
. . . and the inside too, presumably -- anything that can be seen by a normally-placed observer, anywhere in or around the building ?
It's a given that material textures, and any number of minor construction details, will likely not replicate perfectly what was there the first time around (in the case of a reproduction) or would have been (in the case of an unrealized design). The "panel of experts" would want to be on board at the drawing and detailing stage; it goes without saying that new CDs would be needed for any intended construction. These would need to be supervised and checked by person or persons who are familiar with the history of Wrightian construction and (in the case of a recreation) with the history of the subject building.
And that brings up the issue of the desired and agreed-upon point in the life of the design -- the target date, is that called ? -- to be replicated. Will it be the appearance when the building was new (which would be my preference, in any case I can think of), or will it be when the building last stood -- or sometime in between ? New materials for a new appearance, letting them weather (or not) naturally, in the way that they did the first time around ? New shingles, new cypress, new redwood, all of these change in color and texture as they age (and in a fairly short space of time following construction), eventually requiring restoration or replacement just as the originals did.
Building copies of Wright's Usonians for display under cover makes more and more sense to me, as time goes on. They are the most compact of Wright's houses (though they can stretch to eighty or a hundred feet, and more), and the most fragile in terms of weathering, in some cases at least. A copy of Pauson, built in a Smithsonian or Metropolitan (or Guggenheim) warehouse would never leak, never be vandalized, and its furniture, reproduced, could be enjoyed by the visitor just as it had been by Wright's clients, in their short time in the house.
This kind of replication sacrifices the joy of seeing the building in a natural setting, of course. The two locations of replicas -- indoors and outdoors -- have their advantages and disadvantages, just as do houses meant as museums vs those used as residences.
SDR
It's a given that material textures, and any number of minor construction details, will likely not replicate perfectly what was there the first time around (in the case of a reproduction) or would have been (in the case of an unrealized design). The "panel of experts" would want to be on board at the drawing and detailing stage; it goes without saying that new CDs would be needed for any intended construction. These would need to be supervised and checked by person or persons who are familiar with the history of Wrightian construction and (in the case of a recreation) with the history of the subject building.
And that brings up the issue of the desired and agreed-upon point in the life of the design -- the target date, is that called ? -- to be replicated. Will it be the appearance when the building was new (which would be my preference, in any case I can think of), or will it be when the building last stood -- or sometime in between ? New materials for a new appearance, letting them weather (or not) naturally, in the way that they did the first time around ? New shingles, new cypress, new redwood, all of these change in color and texture as they age (and in a fairly short space of time following construction), eventually requiring restoration or replacement just as the originals did.
Building copies of Wright's Usonians for display under cover makes more and more sense to me, as time goes on. They are the most compact of Wright's houses (though they can stretch to eighty or a hundred feet, and more), and the most fragile in terms of weathering, in some cases at least. A copy of Pauson, built in a Smithsonian or Metropolitan (or Guggenheim) warehouse would never leak, never be vandalized, and its furniture, reproduced, could be enjoyed by the visitor just as it had been by Wright's clients, in their short time in the house.
This kind of replication sacrifices the joy of seeing the building in a natural setting, of course. The two locations of replicas -- indoors and outdoors -- have their advantages and disadvantages, just as do houses meant as museums vs those used as residences.
SDR
Architecture as art object or sculpture...this would be especially appropriate for lost works for which all original build information is known, particularly those that still stand, but have been "defaced" by additions or alterations made to rectify poor weathering and other issues.Building copies of Wright's Usonians for display under cover makes more and more sense to me, as time goes on.
A Rosenbaum with no addition or chimney extensions to match THE picture? A pure and unexpanded Sondern? An unpainted and sans addition Euchtman? Count me in....but then some wiseass millennial will want to do them instead as virtual reality seen only through masks...so much for sitting in the furniture.
Thanks, Dan -- those are the ideas which could lead to some adoption, somewhere, of this concept. I think it's inevitable, sooner or later, so why not explore it with an eye to developing standards and desirable applications ?
I have to say that, after posting, I remembered that virtual reality exists as the other likely means of recreating and presenting architectural subjects. I haven't been following the technology and applications at all closely, but I proceeded to imagine and ponder:
Because, in some cases, buildings to be recreated already exist, digital imagery captured on-site could be combined with CGI to complete and correct damaged or missing building elements; furnishings and lighting could also be substituted or modified/enhanced, and the correct landscape would be visible. One could choose a time of day or evening. VR takes care of the visual realm; other sensations -- temperature, odor, a sound track (ambient sounds, building reverberations) could all be added to the experience. Furnishings not meant to be seen but to be felt -- a dummy chair feeling just like an Origami or a Robie dining chair -- that one could sit in ? -- could be available in the chamber(s) where the experience is presented.
I don't know how the sensation of climbing the steps to the Pauson house entrance could be replicated -- but one could be taken to the entrance tunnel, where the VR mask would be removed to reveal that one was standing in a replica of that part of the building, maybe, with a diorama of the landscape (Biltmore in the distance) beyond the balcony -- one could feel the rough redwood boards while standing on the stone floor -- after which one would resume the goggles and be led into the "entrance" and on to the "living room," etc.
As much as this sounds like an amusement-park fun-house experience -- and no, it could never duplicate the real thing -- those like me who long to experience in some way this or another lost treasure would be delighted to suspend disbelief for a while, I think. Certainly it would be more involving than a picture book ! The whole thing might be accommodated within in a single room of a museum . . .
I have to say that, after posting, I remembered that virtual reality exists as the other likely means of recreating and presenting architectural subjects. I haven't been following the technology and applications at all closely, but I proceeded to imagine and ponder:
Because, in some cases, buildings to be recreated already exist, digital imagery captured on-site could be combined with CGI to complete and correct damaged or missing building elements; furnishings and lighting could also be substituted or modified/enhanced, and the correct landscape would be visible. One could choose a time of day or evening. VR takes care of the visual realm; other sensations -- temperature, odor, a sound track (ambient sounds, building reverberations) could all be added to the experience. Furnishings not meant to be seen but to be felt -- a dummy chair feeling just like an Origami or a Robie dining chair -- that one could sit in ? -- could be available in the chamber(s) where the experience is presented.
I don't know how the sensation of climbing the steps to the Pauson house entrance could be replicated -- but one could be taken to the entrance tunnel, where the VR mask would be removed to reveal that one was standing in a replica of that part of the building, maybe, with a diorama of the landscape (Biltmore in the distance) beyond the balcony -- one could feel the rough redwood boards while standing on the stone floor -- after which one would resume the goggles and be led into the "entrance" and on to the "living room," etc.
As much as this sounds like an amusement-park fun-house experience -- and no, it could never duplicate the real thing -- those like me who long to experience in some way this or another lost treasure would be delighted to suspend disbelief for a while, I think. Certainly it would be more involving than a picture book ! The whole thing might be accommodated within in a single room of a museum . . .
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
While not necessarily using VR goggles to navigate the "real" thing in actual space, a CGI version of some of the buildings that could not be replicated because of size and cost would be great. I have long proposed a corrected version of Ennis as FLW designed it, which, given its 3D 16" grid, would be easy to calculate. It would show that his version was immeasurably superior to the heavy-handed version Mable built.
Agreed. Wood just wants to "turn" -- alter its characteristics, and thus its appearance -- when liberated from its natural home, the tree, and exposed to the elements. The tree is literally wet inside; only by allowing it to dry, under more or less controlled conditions, does it become a friendly material to mill and shape, sand and (perhaps) finish. But it continues to take up or let go of moisture, from its environment. Softwood as an exterior material is usually going to suffer to one degree or another, and usually change irrevocably no matter how it is treated. Them's the facts, ma'am.
Certain hardwoods, especially the so-called tropicals, fare better in sun and rain, heat and cold. It's generally thought that these woods can't be afforded, in the quantities needed, to clad a house. A Wright client who could afford mahogany or cypress -- and was perhaps, in some cases, too naive to know that it's a luxury -- was able to make a lasting exterior shell for his or her lovely Wrightian interior . . .
SDR
Certain hardwoods, especially the so-called tropicals, fare better in sun and rain, heat and cold. It's generally thought that these woods can't be afforded, in the quantities needed, to clad a house. A Wright client who could afford mahogany or cypress -- and was perhaps, in some cases, too naive to know that it's a luxury -- was able to make a lasting exterior shell for his or her lovely Wrightian interior . . .
SDR
I recall a house by Jack Hilmer having a wood sink that was probably an oily tropical hardwood as you suggest. I suspect Cor-Ten steel would be a more durable alternative for lapped wood siding in the desert, as it has a warm, mottled color range and is not susceptible to cracking and cupping. The drawbacks would be griddle-like heat absorption and staining of adjacent materials and user's clothing. Weight might be an issue on cantilevers unless the steel siding is considerably thinner than the wood....we used 1/16" thick sheet on our equipment screens.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
For those of you who wish to donate and want to save us the paypal fees, you can simply write a check and mail it directly to me. Very important, the check should be made to the order of the FLW Rebuild Corp., which is the actual name of our non-profit, a name shorter to make check writing easier. Mailing address 1745 SW Crane Creek Ave., Palm City, Fl. 34990. And don't think that donating only 10.00 will be looked down upon by us as inadequate. I am happy to receive any donations which support our efforts, no matter how small, as I understand everyone's financial circumstances are different. And thanks to all of you who have already donated, whom I can't identify because your real names are different than your FLW chat room tags.
Also, look soon for stories about our organization in/on Architectural Record and Curbed.
Also, look soon for stories about our organization in/on Architectural Record and Curbed.