92. Sullivan & Wright
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
How Did Frank Lloyd Wright Establish a New Canon of American
“ The mother art is architecture. Without an architecture of our own we have no soul of our own civilization.” -Frank Lloyd Wright How did Frank Lloyd Wright establish a new canon of American architecture? Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) •Considered an architectural/artistic genius and THE best architect of last 125 years •Designed over 800 buildings •Known for ‘Prairie Style’ (really a movement!) architecture that influenced an entire group of architects •Believed in “architecture of democracy” •Created an “organic form of architecture” Prairie School The term "Prairie School" was coined by H. Allen Brooks, one of the first architectural historians to write extensively about these architects and their work. The Prairie school shared an embrace of handcrafting and craftsmanship as a reaction against the new assembly line, mass production manufacturing techniques, which they felt created inferior products and dehumanized workers. However, Wright believed that the use of the machine would help to create innovative architecture for all. From your architectural samples, what may we deduce about the elements of Wright’s work? Prairie School • Use of horizontal lines (thought to evoke native prairie landscape) • Based on geometric forms . Flat or hipped roofs with broad overhanging eaves . “Environmentally” set: elevations, overhangs oriented for ventilation . Windows grouped in horizontal bands called ribbon fenestration that used shifting light . Window to wall ratio affected exterior & interior . Overhangs & bays reach out to embrace . Integration with the landscape…Wright designed inside going out . Solid construction & indigenous materials (brick, wood, terracotta, stucco…natural materials) . Open continuous plan & spaces; use of dissolving walls, but connected spaces Prairie School •Designed & used “glass screens” that echoed natural forms •Created Usonian homes for the “masses” Frank Lloyd Wright, Darwin D. -
Pittsfield Building 55 E
LANDMARK DESIGNATION REPORT Pittsfield Building 55 E. Washington Preliminary Landmarkrecommendation approved by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, December 12, 2001 CITY OFCHICAGO Richard M. Daley, Mayor Departmentof Planning and Developement Alicia Mazur Berg, Commissioner Cover: On the right, the Pittsfield Building, as seen from Michigan Avenue, looking west. The Pittsfield Building's trademark is its interior lobbies and atrium, seen in the upper and lower left. In the center, an advertisement announcing the building's construction and leasing, c. 1927. Above: The Pittsfield Building, located at 55 E. Washington Street, is a 38-story steel-frame skyscraper with a rectangular 21-story base that covers the entire building lot-approximately 162 feet on Washington Street and 120 feet on Wabash Avenue. The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, whose nine members are appointed by the Mayor, was established in 1968 by city ordinance. It is responsible for recommending to the City Council that individual buildings, sites, objects, or entire districts be designated as Chicago Landmarks, which protects them by law. The Comm ission is staffed by the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, 33 N. LaSalle St., Room 1600, Chicago, IL 60602; (312-744-3200) phone; (312 744-2958) TTY; (312-744-9 140) fax; web site, http ://www.cityofchicago.org/ landmarks. This Preliminary Summary ofInformation is subject to possible revision and amendment during the designation proceedings. Only language contained within the designation ordinance adopted by the City Council should be regarded as final. PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SUBMITIED TO THE COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS IN DECEMBER 2001 PITTSFIELD BUILDING 55 E. -
Planners Guide to Chicago 2013
Planners Guide to Chicago 2013 2013 Lake Baha’i Glenview 41 Wilmette Temple Central Old 14 45 Orchard Northwestern 294 Waukegan Golf Univ 58 Milwaukee Sheridan Golf Morton Mill Grove 32 C O N T E N T S Dempster Skokie Dempster Evanston Des Main 2 Getting Around Plaines Asbury Skokie Oakton Northwest Hwy 4 Near the Hotels 94 90 Ridge Crawford 6 Loop Walking Tour Allstate McCormick Touhy Arena Lincolnwood 41 Town Center Pratt Park Lincoln 14 Chinatown Ridge Loyola Devon Univ 16 Hyde Park Peterson 14 20 Lincoln Square Bryn Mawr Northeastern O’Hare 171 Illinois Univ Clark 22 Old Town International Foster 32 Airport North Park Univ Harwood Lawrence 32 Ashland 24 Pilsen Heights 20 32 41 Norridge Montrose 26 Printers Row Irving Park Bensenville 32 Lake Shore Dr 28 UIC and Taylor St Addison Western Forest Preserve 32 Wrigley Field 30 Wicker Park–Bucktown Cumberland Harlem Narragansett Central Cicero Oak Park Austin Laramie Belmont Elston Clybourn Grand 43 Broadway Diversey Pulaski 32 Other Places to Explore Franklin Grand Fullerton 3032 DePaul Park Milwaukee Univ Lincoln 36 Chicago Planning Armitage Park Zoo Timeline Kedzie 32 North 64 California 22 Maywood Grand 44 Conference Sponsors Lake 50 30 Park Division 3032 Water Elmhurst Halsted Tower Oak Chicago Damen Place 32 Park Navy Butterfield Lake 4 Pier 1st Madison United Center 6 290 56 Illinois 26 Roosevelt Medical Hines VA District 28 Soldier Medical Ogden Field Center Cicero 32 Cermak 24 Michigan McCormick 88 14 Berwyn Place 45 31st Central Park 32 Riverside Illinois Brookfield Archer 35th -
Reciprocal Sites Membership Program
2015–2016 Frank Lloyd Wright National Reciprocal Sites Membership Program The Frank Lloyd Wright National Reciprocal Sites Program includes 30 historic sites across the United States. FLWR on your membership card indicates that you enjoy the National Reciprocal sites benefit. Benefits vary from site to site. Please check websites listed in this brochure for detailed information on each site. ALABAMA ARIZONA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA 1 Rosenbaum House 2 Taliesin West 3 Hollyhock House 4 Florida Southern College 601 RIVERVIEW DRIVE 12621 N. FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT BLVD BARNSDALL PARK 750 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT WAY FLORENCE, AL 35630 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261-4430 4800 HOLLYWOOD BLVD LAKELAND, FL 33801 256.718.5050 480.860.2700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 863.680.4597 ROSENBAUMHOUSE.COM FRANKLLOYDWRIGHT.ORG 323.644.6269 FLSOUTHERN.EDU/FLW WRIGHTINALABAMA.COM FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION BARNSDALL.ORG FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION TOUR HOURS: 9AM–4PM FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION TOUR HOURS: TOUR HOURS: BOOKSHOP HOURS: 8:30AM–6PM TOUR HOURS: THURS–SUN, 11AM–4PM OPEN ALL YEAR, EXCEPT OPEN ALL YEAR, EXCEPT TOUR TICKETS AVAILABLE AT THE THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS AND NEW Experience firsthand Frank Lloyd MAJOR HOLIDAYS. HOLLYHOCK HOUSE VISITOR’S CENTER YEAR’S DAY. 10AM–4PM Wright’s brilliant ability to integrate TUES–SAT, 10AM–4PM IN BARNSDALL PARK. VISITOR CENTER & GIFT SHOP HOURS: SUN, 1PM–4PM indoor and outdoor spaces at Taliesin Hollyhock House is Wright’s first 9:30AM–4:30PM West—Wright’s winter home, school The Rosenbaum House is the only Los Angeles project. Built between and studio from 1937-1959, located Discover the largest collection of Frank Lloyd Wright-designed 1919 and 1923, it represents his on 600 acres of dramatic desert. -
The 20Th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright National Locator Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois
The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright National Locator Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois 87.800° W 87.795° W 87.790° W Erie St N Grove Ave Grove N 41.8902° N, 87.7947° W Ontario St 41.8901° N, 87.7992° W E E 41.890° N 41.890° N Austin Garden Park Scoville Park N Euclid Ave Euclid N N Linden Ave Linden N Forest Ave Forest N Oak Park Ave Park Oak N N Kenilworth Ave Kenilworth N Lake St Unity Temple ! 41.888° N 41.888° N E 41.8878° N, 87.7995° W E North Blvd 41.8874° N, 87.7946° W South Blvd 41.886° N 41.886° N Home Ave Home S Grove Ave Grove S S Euclid Ave Euclid S S Clinton Ave Clinton S S Wesley Ave Wesley S S Oak Park Ave Park Oak S S Kenilworth Ave Kenilworth S 87.800° W 87.795° W Pleasant St 87.790° W Nominated National Historic Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic 1:4,500 Green Space/Park Datum: North American Datum 1983 Property Landmark Production Date: October 2015 0 100 Meters ! Gould Center, Department of Geography ¹ Buffer Zone Center Point Buildings The Pennsylvania State University Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago, Illinois Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago, Illinois 87.600° W 87.598° W 87.596° W Ave Kimbark S 87.594° W 87.592° W S Woodlawn Ave Woodlawn S E 57th St 41.791° N 41.791° N S Kimbark Ave Kimbark S 41.7904° N, 87.5972° W E41.7904 N, 87.5957° W S Ellis Ave Ellis S E S Kenwood Avenue Kenwood S Frederick C. -
A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Motor Row, Chicago, Illinois Street
NFS Form 10-900-b OMR..Np. 1024-0018 (March 1992) / ~^"~^--.~.. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / / v*jf f ft , I I / / National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form /..//^' -A o C_>- f * f / *•• This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. x New Submission Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Motor Row, Chicago, Illinois B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) Dealerships and the Development of a Commercial District 1905-1936 Evolution of a Building Type 1905-1936 Motor Row and Chicago Architects 1905-1936 C. Form Prepared by name/title _____Linda Peters. Architectural Historian______________________ street & number 435 8. Cleveland Avenue telephone 847.506.0754 city or town ___Arlington Heights________________state IL zip code 60005 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. -
E N G L I S H
Matura Examination 2017 E N G L I S H Advance Information The written Matura examination in English consists of four main sections (total 90 credits in sections I-III): Section I: Listening (credits: 14) Multiple choice and questions Section II: Reading Comprehension (credits: 20) 1. Short answer questions Section III: Use of English (credits: 56) 1. Synonyms 2. Antonyms 3. Word Formation 4. Sentence Transformation 5. Open Cloze Section IV: Writing, approx. 400 words (the mark achieved in this part will make up 50% of the overall mark) Time management: the total time is 240 minutes. We recommend you spend 120 minutes on sections I-III, and 120 minutes on section IV. Write legibly and unambiguously. Spelling is important in all parts of the examination. Use of dictionary: You will be allowed to use a monolingual dictionary after handing in sections I-III. The examination is based on Morgan Meis’s article “Frank Lloyd Wright Tried to Solve the City”, published in the “Critics” section of the May 22, 2014 issue of The New Yorker magazine. Frank Lloyd Wright Tried to Solve the City by MORGAN MEIS In: The New Yorker, May 22, 2014 Frank Lloyd Wright1 hated cities. He thought that they were cramped and crowded, stupidly designed, or, more often, built without any sense of design at all. He once wrote, “To look at the 5 plan of a great City is 5 to look at something like the cross-section of a fibrous tumor.” Wright was always looking for a way to cure the cancer of the city. -
Cairo Supper Club Building 4015-4017 N
Exhibit A LANDMARK DESIGNATION REPORT Cairo Supper Club Building 4015-4017 N. Sheridan Rd. Final Landmark Recommendation adopted by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, August 7, 2014 CITY OF CHICAGO Rahm Emanuel, Mayor Department of Planning and Development Andrew J. Mooney, Commissioner The Commission on Chicago Landmarks, whose nine members are appointed by the Mayor and City Council, was established in 1968 by city ordinance. The Commission is re- sponsible for recommending to the City Council which individual buildings, sites, objects, or districts should be designated as Chicago Landmarks, which protects them by law. The landmark designation process begins with a staff study and a preliminary summary of information related to the potential designation criteria. The next step is a preliminary vote by the landmarks commission as to whether the proposed landmark is worthy of consideration. This vote not only initiates the formal designation process, but it places the review of city per- mits for the property under the jurisdiction of the Commission until a final landmark recom- mendation is acted on by the City Council. This Landmark Designation Report is subject to possible revision and amendment dur- ing the designation process. Only language contained within a designation ordinance adopted by the City Council should be regarded as final. 2 CAIRO SUPPER CLUB BUILDING (ORIGINALLY WINSTON BUILDING) 4015-4017 N. SHERIDAN RD. BUILT: 1920 ARCHITECT: PAUL GERHARDT, SR. Located in the Uptown community area, the Cairo Supper Club Building is an unusual building de- signed in the Egyptian Revival architectural style, rarely used for Chicago buildings. This one-story commercial building is clad with multi-colored terra cotta, created by the Northwestern Terra Cotta Company and ornamented with a variety of ancient Egyptian motifs, including lotus-decorated col- umns and a concave “cavetto” cornice with a winged-scarab medallion. -
Artistic Evolution at the Confluence of Cultures
Dochaku: Artistic Evolution at the Confluence of Cultures Toshiko Oiyama A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Art, College of Fine Arts University of New South Wales 2011 Acknowledgements Had I known the extent of work required for a PhD research, I would have had a second, and probably a third, thought before starting. My appreciation goes to everyone who made it possible for me to complete the project, which amounts to almost all with whom I came in contact while undertaking the project. Specifically, I would like to thank my supervisors Dr David McNeill, Nicole Ellis, Dr Paula Dawson, Mike Esson and Dr Diane Losche, for their inspiration, challenge, and encouragement. Andrew Christofides was kind to provide me with astute critiques of my practical work, while Dr Vaughan Rees and my fellow PhD students were ever ready with moral support. Special thanks goes to Dr Janet Chan for giving me the first glimpse of the world of academic research, and for her insightful comments on my draft. Ms Hitomi Uchikura and Ms Kazuko Hj were the kind and knowledgeable guides to the contemporary art world in Japan, where I was a stranger. Margaret Blackmore and Mitsuhiro Obora came to my rescue with their friendship and technical expertise in producing this thesis. My sister Setsuko Sprague and my mother Nobuko Oiyama had faith in my ability to complete the task, which kept me afloat. Lastly, a huge thanks goes to my husband Derry Habir. I hold him partly responsible for the very existence of this project – he knew before I ever did that I wanted to do a PhD, and knew when and how to give me a supporting hand in navigating its long process. -
QUES in ARCH HIST I Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1
[email protected] - QUES IN ARCH HIST I Jump to Today Questions in Architectural History 1 Faculty: Zeynep Çelik Alexander, Reinhold Martin, Mabel O. Wilson Teaching Fellows: Oskar Arnorsson, Benedict Clouette, Eva Schreiner Thurs 11am-1pm Fall 2016 This two-semester introductory course is organized around selected questions and problems that have, over the course of the past two centuries, helped to define architecture’s modernity. The course treats the history of architectural modernity as a contested, geographically and culturally uncertain category, for which periodization is both necessary and contingent. The fall semester begins with the apotheosis of the European Enlightenment and the early phases of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. From there, it proceeds in a rough chronology through the “long” nineteenth century. Developments in Europe and North America are situated in relation to worldwide processes including trade, imperialism, nationalism, and industrialization. Sequentially, the course considers specific questions and problems that form around differences that are also connections, antitheses that are also interdependencies, and conflicts that are also alliances. The resulting tensions animated architectural discourse and practice throughout the period, and continue to shape our present. Each week, objects, ideas, and events will move in and out of the European and North American frame, with a strong emphasis on relational thinking and contextualization. This includes a historical, relational understanding of architecture itself. Although the Western tradition had recognized diverse building practices as “architecture” for some time, an understanding of architecture as an academic discipline and as a profession, which still prevails today, was only institutionalized in the European nineteenth century. -
Muse2016v50p75-89.Pdf (4.825Mb)
Fallen Angel A Case Study in Architectural Ornamentation w. arthur mehrhoff According to the late anthropologist James Deetz, we can decode cultural meanings from the past most fully by studying “small things often overlooked and even forgotten.”1 While architectural historians often train their scholarly lenses on landmark buildings and structures, vernacular objects such as doorways, gravestones, and even discarded architectural orna- ments offer students of culture a kind of intellectual “mortar” that can help them fit larger structures to- gether into a conceptual whole.2 The Museum of Art and Archaeology’s winged terracotta figure, a splendid example of architectural ornament and a survivor of urban redevelopment, was one of a series of similar figures that originally graced the elaborate frieze of the 1898 twelve-story Title Guaranty Building, one of the earliest tall office buildings in downtown St. Louis. The building, known at its construction as the Lincoln Trust Building, was destroyed in 1983. The Fallen Angel The figure stands facing to the front with arms crossed at her waist (Fig. 1 and back cover).3 Constructed in three parts–base and lower part of a plinth, upper half of plinth, and upper body–she Fig. 1. Architectural winged figure in high relief, 1898, terra- cotta. H. 2.140 m. From the Title Guaranty Building (originally the Lincoln Trust Building), St. Louis, Missouri. Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri (84.109a–c), gift of Mr. and Mrs. Mark A. Turken and Mr. and Mrs. Paul L. Miller, Jr. Photo: Jeffrey Wilcox. 75 FALLEN ANGEL Fig. 2. -
JOHNSON WAX Building I. G. FARBEN Offices Site
Johnson Wax Building I. G. Farben Offices Frank Lloyd Wright Hans Poelzig Racine, Wisconsin Site Frankfurt, Germany, 1936-39 c. 1928-31 the site of the two buildings are vastly different; the johnson wax building is in a suburben area and takes un the entire block on which it is located. Con- versely, the ig farben building reads as a building in a landscape, the scale of the site is much larger than wright’s. Both building’s however are part of a larger complex of buildings. Prairie/streamline international era Social context Both buildings were built for rapidly expanding companies: IG Farben, at the time, was the largest conglomerate for dyes, chemicals and drugs and Johnson Wax, later SC Johnson. adam morgan danny sheng Johnson Wax Building I. G. Farben Offices Frank Lloyd Wright Hans Poelzig Racine, Wisconsin Composition Frankfurt, Germany, 1936-39 c. 1928-31 Both buildings are horizontally dominated compositions research tower office towers administration building connecting wing entrance hall building is almost bilaterally symmetrical Bilateral symmetry entry is similar to that of Unity Temple and Robie House. The Entry is on the transverse axis along entry is hidden from view and which the building is bilaterally symmetri- approached on the transverse cal. This classical approach is further axis, this leads to a low dark enforced by the “temple-like” portico on space just prior to entry which the front of the building opens up into a well lit expan- “temple Front” entrance sive space making the entry adam morgan danny sheng Johnson Wax Building I. G.