I realize that you said you are signing off, but I still don't understand how you came up with an estimate without yet having an architect on board. Did Eric Lloyd Wright come up with the 2.2 million amount? I think if you're asking people to contribute, it would be necessary to have detailed breakdowns of estimated costs.
Maybe you answered this already, but have you already purchased the land, or is it Canadian government owned land? Have the owners/managers granted permission to donate their sports field? Or is it to be built in a new location nearby?
Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative
The hard-working entrepreneurs at the Wright Society® alert their readers to a new Curbed story which presents another in the series of digital models from the Archilogic laboratories. Consistent with their habit of rethinking certain details and materials in each project undertaken -- thus effectively rewriting history -- this latest offering from Archilogic suggests that Wright included a herringbone parquet floor in his design, and that the roof monitor was capped, not with Wright's customary and correct hipped roof, but with an open-ended gable. They have also redesigned his art glass to suit their own fancy.
Constant readers will know that I support, in principle, the recreation of Wright's work -- if, where, and when that is deemed appropriate. They will also know that, with the occasional exception, I am a stickler for accuracy.
One has to wonder if the same criteria are important to others in the field, some of whom also argue for the recreation of the work, and if the results of their efforts will be, in any and every case, a true replica of a Wright design.
Bedside manner or not, do these questions seem appropriate to members of the Conservancy and the Wright community as a whole ?
http://www.curbed.com/2016/9/27/1306123 ... on-3d-tour
http://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/2013/10/ ... el-project
Neither the Wright Society nor Curbed can be blamed for errors made by Archilogic. My question is, do either of these entities believe their function is to present the work of a third-party illustrator without (apparent) diligence in determining its usefulness in the furthering of Wright's repute ? In other words, is faithfulness to the letter of a Wright design a matter of concern to them, or is the point simply to promote activity in the name of Wright ?
I am attempting communication with Archilogic, hoping to elicit some sort of recognition of the potential harm which flows from inaccurate portrayal of the work of others.
SDR
Constant readers will know that I support, in principle, the recreation of Wright's work -- if, where, and when that is deemed appropriate. They will also know that, with the occasional exception, I am a stickler for accuracy.
One has to wonder if the same criteria are important to others in the field, some of whom also argue for the recreation of the work, and if the results of their efforts will be, in any and every case, a true replica of a Wright design.
Bedside manner or not, do these questions seem appropriate to members of the Conservancy and the Wright community as a whole ?
http://www.curbed.com/2016/9/27/1306123 ... on-3d-tour
http://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/2013/10/ ... el-project
Neither the Wright Society nor Curbed can be blamed for errors made by Archilogic. My question is, do either of these entities believe their function is to present the work of a third-party illustrator without (apparent) diligence in determining its usefulness in the furthering of Wright's repute ? In other words, is faithfulness to the letter of a Wright design a matter of concern to them, or is the point simply to promote activity in the name of Wright ?
I am attempting communication with Archilogic, hoping to elicit some sort of recognition of the potential harm which flows from inaccurate portrayal of the work of others.
SDR
If it is going to be purported to be an accurate depiction of the original design, then it should be accurate...no guessing or artistic license. If there is an unknown, leave it wire frame or grayed out. If a piece of sculpture was lost in a war and existed only in a partial photo, would the renderer presume to "finish" the piece and claim it was genuine?
The items that caught my eye in the Wright Society email this week were, 1. That the original pavilion was demolished in the 1930's due to flooding... I was not aware flooding was part of the circumstances surrounding its demise. 2. That the Revival group was searching for another site in the park...I suppose item 1. led to item 2.
I had been under the impression the proposed recreation was to be on the original site. Given the specter of flooding, and one think, the desire not to raise the pavilion on a plinth or to go to the extreme of Farnsworthian hydraulics, a new site seems appropriate. But then, why build it in that park, or that Province?
The items that caught my eye in the Wright Society email this week were, 1. That the original pavilion was demolished in the 1930's due to flooding... I was not aware flooding was part of the circumstances surrounding its demise. 2. That the Revival group was searching for another site in the park...I suppose item 1. led to item 2.
I had been under the impression the proposed recreation was to be on the original site. Given the specter of flooding, and one think, the desire not to raise the pavilion on a plinth or to go to the extreme of Farnsworthian hydraulics, a new site seems appropriate. But then, why build it in that park, or that Province?
Last edited by DRN on Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
According to Carla Lind, "Lost Wright" (1996), p 116, "The biggest problem was the site's swampiness; the floods of 1920 and 1933 caused serious damage. Although some groups in Calgary and Banff protested, the building was demolished in 1938, and the marshy Bow River has obliterated all traces of it."
Perhaps this fact has gotten through to those attempting the reconstruction, leading to the proposal to find another site ?
E-mail to Archilogic, Zurich:
Sirs
I have just viewed your model of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff National Park recreation building, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1911-1914.
Who on your staff is responsible for researching the available data, prior to the construction of a new model ? Who decides how important it will be to accurately represent all known data in the work ?
The building is documented both in drawings and in photographs; see, for instance, Carla Lind, "Lost Wright," pp 116-7; William Allin Storrer, "The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion," p 171.
What is wrong with the model ? Three things immediately catch the eye:
a) The roof monitor should be capped with a hipped roof, matching the main roof below; your model shows a gable roof to the monitor. Why ?
b) The floor should be a plain boarded floor, according to contemporary photos. Your model maker has substituted a fanciful herringbone parquet floor. Why ?
c) The art glass to the doors and windows has been redesigned in your model; see interior photo in Lind, Storrer, et al. Why ?
Do you not consider it your responsibility to faithfully reflect the work of our hero architects, in your commercial product ? Are you not architects ?
"Archilogic combines its deep understanding of architecture, design . . ." What does that mean ?
I was similarly disappointed in the model of the Ralph Jester project, where Wright's stone floor, plainly visible in the plan presented, for instance, on p 320 of Taschen, "Frank Lloyd Wright 1917-1942," has been replaced by a wood floor. Why ?
Respectfully, and hoping for a considered response, I am
Stephen Ritchings
San Francisco, CA
Perhaps this fact has gotten through to those attempting the reconstruction, leading to the proposal to find another site ?
E-mail to Archilogic, Zurich:
Sirs
I have just viewed your model of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff National Park recreation building, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1911-1914.
Who on your staff is responsible for researching the available data, prior to the construction of a new model ? Who decides how important it will be to accurately represent all known data in the work ?
The building is documented both in drawings and in photographs; see, for instance, Carla Lind, "Lost Wright," pp 116-7; William Allin Storrer, "The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion," p 171.
What is wrong with the model ? Three things immediately catch the eye:
a) The roof monitor should be capped with a hipped roof, matching the main roof below; your model shows a gable roof to the monitor. Why ?
b) The floor should be a plain boarded floor, according to contemporary photos. Your model maker has substituted a fanciful herringbone parquet floor. Why ?
c) The art glass to the doors and windows has been redesigned in your model; see interior photo in Lind, Storrer, et al. Why ?
Do you not consider it your responsibility to faithfully reflect the work of our hero architects, in your commercial product ? Are you not architects ?
"Archilogic combines its deep understanding of architecture, design . . ." What does that mean ?
I was similarly disappointed in the model of the Ralph Jester project, where Wright's stone floor, plainly visible in the plan presented, for instance, on p 320 of Taschen, "Frank Lloyd Wright 1917-1942," has been replaced by a wood floor. Why ?
Respectfully, and hoping for a considered response, I am
Stephen Ritchings
San Francisco, CA
I particularly agree with your first paragraph, Dan. I wonder who will have the courage to follow that recipe to the letter ? Perhaps with repeated assertions of the principle some progress can be made . . .
One further digression in the model: Wright's parallelepiped/diagonal rhomboid light fixtures are rotated 45º in plan from what is seen in photos. Perhaps this liberty was taken to reflect the rotated-right angle prows at each end of the building; it is a liberty nevertheless, unless it can be shown that this was actually the architect's intention.
Who can produce Banff drawings from the relevant Monograph ? Does anyone besides Roderick have a set of the books, someone who can photograph pages when necessary ?
SDR
One further digression in the model: Wright's parallelepiped/diagonal rhomboid light fixtures are rotated 45º in plan from what is seen in photos. Perhaps this liberty was taken to reflect the rotated-right angle prows at each end of the building; it is a liberty nevertheless, unless it can be shown that this was actually the architect's intention.
Who can produce Banff drawings from the relevant Monograph ? Does anyone besides Roderick have a set of the books, someone who can photograph pages when necessary ?
SDR
Original drawings not in the best of shape.....
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
There was also a project for a railroad station. The first two drawings are for a compact design. The third elevation is an alternative design with covered platforms at each end. The fourth drawing (lower left) is a plan for the alternate design. The fifth drawing (lower right) is for a structure independent of the rail station. "Fruit, Candy & Cigars" is notated throughout
but it's uncertain if related to the rail station.
[/img]
[/img]
[/img][/img][/img][/img]There was also a project for a railroad station. The first two drawings are for a compact design. The third elevation is an alternative design with covered platforms at each end. The fourth drawing (lower left) is a plan for the alternate design. The fifth drawing (lower right) is for a structure independent of the rail station. "Fruit, Candy & Cigars" is notated throughout
but it's uncertain if related to the rail station.
[/img][/img]
[/img]Jim, you da man. What a feast; is this from a Monograph ?
That section sheet with all the handwritten notes is interesting and unusual. Wright's writing ?
One thing I was interested in was the spindle-work visible in four long runs on the plan. I haven't seen this in a photo, probably because it was in shadow. I'm happy to learn that it was intended for the ends of the clerestory monitor as well -- another pleasant surprise.
The final rendering is a bit puzzling because it appears to depict a sloping terrain. One is reminded of the Como Orchard Inn:
That section sheet with all the handwritten notes is interesting and unusual. Wright's writing ?
One thing I was interested in was the spindle-work visible in four long runs on the plan. I haven't seen this in a photo, probably because it was in shadow. I'm happy to learn that it was intended for the ends of the clerestory monitor as well -- another pleasant surprise.
The final rendering is a bit puzzling because it appears to depict a sloping terrain. One is reminded of the Como Orchard Inn:
We learn, from W A Storrer and from Wright himself (in Hitchcock), that this building was designed in association with a Canadian architect, Francis C Sullivan (Wright has it as FWS), who had been at the Oak Park studio. Sullivan's input is not defined, though we might expect that he supervised construction -- except that Ottowa, Sullivan's base, is 2161 miles from Banff, in Alberta.
http://canada.distancesonline.com/Ottawa/Banff
This shared credit, despite an obviously Wrightian design, may be the reason that the building (but not the railway station) is excluded from Taschen -- the most recent coverage of the project, one would think ?
SDR
http://canada.distancesonline.com/Ottawa/Banff
This shared credit, despite an obviously Wrightian design, may be the reason that the building (but not the railway station) is excluded from Taschen -- the most recent coverage of the project, one would think ?
SDR
I received a reply to my message to Archilogic, posted above.
_________________________________________________
Dear Mister Ritchings,
Thank you very much for sending us this email and for taking the time to look at our 3d showcases.
We're always happy to get all the feedback that we can and your very detailed feedback to our Model of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff National Park recreation building is therefore very appreciated.
We admit, that we may have not done a good enough job researching all the available data prior to the construction of the model and that we could have done better in this regard.
However, our main goal with this model was not get every small detail 100% correct, but to bring the architecture of the great Frank Lloyd Wright to the masses and allow everyone to virtually experience a building that can't be visited anymore unfortunately. Archilogic's mission is to simplify the communication between tenants, landlords, real estate agents, builders and architects. We provide the necessary tools to visualize and experience spaces without the requirement of being able to understand floor plans. In order to achieve this, the team of Archilogic is not only made up of architects but also of software developers, visual computation experts, sales experts and game designers.
That said, we will give our best to create more accurate models for our next showcases.
Thank you again for your feedback and please don't hesitate to write me an email if you have any further questions regarding Archilogic.
Best regards,
David Tran
_________________________________________________
I will await comments from readers before composing a reply. I would suggest that a message outlining the reasons for the importance of accuracy in new images of historically important architectural designs is in order.
SDR
_________________________________________________
Dear Mister Ritchings,
Thank you very much for sending us this email and for taking the time to look at our 3d showcases.
We're always happy to get all the feedback that we can and your very detailed feedback to our Model of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff National Park recreation building is therefore very appreciated.
We admit, that we may have not done a good enough job researching all the available data prior to the construction of the model and that we could have done better in this regard.
However, our main goal with this model was not get every small detail 100% correct, but to bring the architecture of the great Frank Lloyd Wright to the masses and allow everyone to virtually experience a building that can't be visited anymore unfortunately. Archilogic's mission is to simplify the communication between tenants, landlords, real estate agents, builders and architects. We provide the necessary tools to visualize and experience spaces without the requirement of being able to understand floor plans. In order to achieve this, the team of Archilogic is not only made up of architects but also of software developers, visual computation experts, sales experts and game designers.
That said, we will give our best to create more accurate models for our next showcases.
Thank you again for your feedback and please don't hesitate to write me an email if you have any further questions regarding Archilogic.
Best regards,
David Tran
_________________________________________________
I will await comments from readers before composing a reply. I would suggest that a message outlining the reasons for the importance of accuracy in new images of historically important architectural designs is in order.
SDR