Frank llyod wright house home ugrading heating system

Mike Loftus

It is located in Rochester MN. I do believe that it is on the resistery.

Mike Loftus

Frank lloyd wirght home heating problems.

I have a frank llyod wright home that has 1 1/4 black iron pipe burried in sand and gravel with concrete on top. A orriginal in floor heating job. The boiler has been upgraded and now we are having problems maintaing temp in the house. But the surface temperatures are 80-85 degree's. There is no carpet on the floor it is bare concrete. Does any body know a accurate way of determining heat loss for a system of this style.

Jim Bennett

Wright house...

There was a discussion here a few years ago with regards to a contractor working on a radiant system in a Wright home.

Here's the link, maybe some of this info will help.

http://forums.invision.net/Thread.cfm?CFApp=2&&Message_ID=100737&_#Message100737

Where is the home located? Is it in the FLW registry?

Jim

cattledog

FLW House--More information Please

Hi Mike--

Can you please supply us with some more information. Your floor temperatures would appear to be sufficient to heat the house, and a radiant rule of thumb is that the bare floor delivers in btu/hr/sq ft 2X delta T floor/room.

What indoor temperature are you trying to achieve, and what is the heat loss analysis on the house exclusive of the slab?

What are the supply/return temperatures and circulation rate in the slab?

Yes, the uninsulated slab will cause significant losses, and one figure given by the Seattle Energy Code is .730 times the delta T of the heated floor to the design day temperature for a figure in Btu/hr per LINEAR foot of slab perimeter. Based on calculations for my situation, it would not surprise me if the slab loss is on the order of 15% of the total heat loss.

But questions about heat loss in the slab would appear to be efficiency questions. What surface floor temperatures you can achieve with your system and heat losses in the rest of the structure should be the main drivers.

Richard

Unknown

FLW

was a true "American icon and super visionary", way ahead of his time! From what I have read, he even designed the furnishings in his homes. I`m sure everyone here will help you out, and my hat`s off to you for having this opportunity to work on one of his "creations"!! Best of luck to you!!!

Dave

Alex Giacomuzzi

Hi Mike:

Could you tell us a bit more about the boiler upgrade?
What age, approx. size and material of construction of boiler and its btuh rating did you initially have. What was it replaced with?

Given the sustained cold snap that we had just gone thru in January and February, some threads on the wall spoke about needing to have supplemental heat in basement areas after having changed to a higher efficiency mod cond boiler. The point being --- less energy loss to the surrounding area just from the boiler itself.

The last item is with regard to the water temperatures that you run through those pipes.. Are they the same before and after the boiler upgrade? I am assuming the remainder of the heating piping and system is unchanged with the upgrade.

Regards Alex

Ken_40

a/k/a Frank Lloyd Wrong

I had occassion to work on one of his "registered" homes.

I also watched in dismay the house that was falling apart near the waterfall on PBS.

The man may have been an architectural treasure, but he was an engineering nightmare.

Virtually everything he dreamt up, has structural "issues" now. I know of nothing he designed that has survived time.

By my way of thinking, his stuff is interesting, but hardly anything I would want to call home.

Recent history casts a reverence on him as some sort of national treasure. I suspect long-term history will view him more accurately as an eclectic kook who confused bizare designs with "good taste" and cutting edge structural methods with dangerous and inept engineering.

If homes you design fall down in a relatively short time, should you be praised?

Or sued?

Dave_4

Structural Smucktural

According to wikipedia, the cantilevered balconies at the fallingwaters house would have collapsed as originally designed. A contractor quietly doubled the amount of reinforcement against Wright's objections. The reinforcement prevented the balconies from collapsing, but the house still sagged badly.

JJ_4

FLW

I live near a "historical" district full of Victorians that are notorious for crumbing brick; particularly in the basement foundations. My preference would be to tear these down and build Modernist homes...we all have our likes and dislikes. (P.S., if you think his homes were bizarre, check out the new wing on the art museum in Denver)

I think FLW's problem, if you want to call it that, is that he was at the cutting edge of technology with most of his work. Use of cement, in the way he used it, was pretty new when Falling Water was built.

Following in his footsteps there are many structurally sound homes from the later 50's and 60's, called "mid-century modern", that follow the FLW style with few of the problems due to a improving materials and an understanding of what went wrong/right.

A great example of these was the work of a builder named Eichler...primarily in the SF bay area. For a look go to:
http://www.eichlernetwork.com/

In the end, whether Victorian, Modern, or crackerbox suburban the key for longevity is maintenance....just like for boilers.

kevin coppinger_4

Wow I tought...

I was the only one who thought his work was overated...kpc
edit..when I say overrated ...I mean ugly.
To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

engineering nightmares ?

Yeap with all those roofs leaking due to FLW didn't want the downspouts drain ruined his building outlines ,hence, inside gutters with freezing and thawing problems..
About the Imperial Hotel in Toyko, that survived the major earthqauke while all others collopsed...
Anyone been out to Kent Tuck Knob place, near Fallingwater as its been recently opened to public, still a private resdenice, so call ahead...

Ken_40

FLW has a cult-like

following.

The preservation of his so-called "cutting edge" designs are coddled as being "brilliantly designed" and the blame for virtually everything he designed falling apart blamed on the contractors.

The "excuse" you here most is: "He allowed the contractor huge latitude to adapt to unknown field conditions, local "almost equals" materials substitutions, and "freedom to make minor substitutions - as long as the 'look' of the home remained as FLW demanded.

Many of his plans were done in hours, not days. Most were not what we would call blueprints at all, merely scaled sketeches. In today's times almost ANY of his drawings would be laughed at by the construction official of any municipality. Not because many of his spans, materials and cutting edge use of novel materials, but because of complete lack of detail.

I've seen a few of his plans. His stature is supported and enlarged only by those who belong to his "conservatory" - certainly not because of the plans or designs he embraced, but rather because of his unique approach to make poorly engineerd dwellings "appear" to be something history has proven them to never have been e.g., durable housing for the 'common man' that was truly unique.

They were unique okay, but hardly duable nor viable for the "common man." Most if not all his designs ran huge cost overruns.

Unknown

FLW

Well,,say what you will, but I still think the guy was a visionary. Ya know,,, it was not all that long ago we had to shovel coal into home boilers or train engines! I`m glad at least, that technology has past.

Dave

Perry_3

A more level view of Frank Loyde Write

There are several post above who present that FLW's designs were all structural nightmares, that he did not do proper drawings, and that his work would not pass muster if it was reviewed.

That is far from the truth.

The truth is that FLW designed both structural nightmares and structural wonders. He saw things that others did not, and experimented in things that others would not.

He could and did produce a number of buildings that are very much structurally sound with good roofs. He also did design a number of buildings that were both structural and maintenance nightmares.

I grew up not 30 miles from his Wisconsin home and studio. When in college in Madison I lived next to one of his buildings - and got the chance to see several others. All of those were structurally sound and did not have roof problems. I have also seen one building that was a nightmare of problems.

He produced full blueprint drawings - complete with structural calculations for a number of projects, although most with structural calculations were commercial projects. In Wisconsin they did not believe his structural design for reinforced concrete lilly pads for the Jonnson Wax building. So thay built one of them, loaded it with weight way past its design limit - and it passed with flying colors.

If you are going to critisize him as a designer you need to look at all of his work. Some of it was straighforward (Prairie style), some of it was revolutionary in both space design and materials. Some of it was simple sketches, some of it was detailed blueprints, some had detailed calculations.

My only real conclusion is that most of his projects were expensive to build and maintain. Some are magnificant examples of new thinking in a very sound way. Some are examples of wierd thinking without considering the long term consequences of the structure or roof system. I tend to veiw the later as the price that had to be paid to get the former.

Perry