Tribune article on San Fran Wright sites

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
Post Reply
Richard
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Illinois

Tribune article on San Fran Wright sites

Post by Richard »

Article today in Travel section of Chicago Tribune on Wright buildings in the Bay area.
Homeowner
Top
SDR
Posts: 20104
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ch ... travel-hed



The article covers the VC Morris shop on Maiden Lane, the Marin County Civic Center, and the Hanna house in Palo Alto.



"The Marin County Civic Center is believed to be the first atrium building. . ." Right, and George Washington is said to have spent the night there. :roll:



Thanks for the link nevertheless ! :D



SDR
Top
Richard
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Richard »

That was a curious comment about the civic center being the first atrium building. Also was unaware that Wright was that old.
Homeowner
Top
SDR
Posts: 20104
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Many a journalist has been taken unaware by a fanciful statement presented (perhaps by someone who was represented as an "expert" ?) as a fact, I suppose.



Yes -- early on Mr Wright intentionally or accidentally mistook his date of birth as 1869 when in fact it was 1867. (Who did he think he was, a movie star ? :D ) Hard to believe one could make such a mistake, isn't it ?



I was glancing at a new FLW biography by Robert Carter this afternoon and came across the useful reminder that The Old Man was 33 at the turn of the century -- when he was flexing his muscles and showing us his first original works. . .



SDR
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Click Here for General Discussion Posts”