Article: New visitor's center planned for Home & Studio

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

outside in
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

surprised that all the architecture buffs on this site have nothing to say about this. The renderings are done horribly and depict a building that appears to be angled, when its orthogonal in plan. Ultimately its a quiet, sleepy neighbor that accommodates the program.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9875
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

This is an inappropriate building for an unnecessary purpose. Museums do not have to be all things to all people. H&S has made it this far without expanding; there is no reason to assume it cannot continue.

As much as FLW disdained the Victorian architecture of the day when he built his house, and later his studio, that is what the neighborhood looked like, and so it should remain. Whatever programs the Home & Studio thinks it needs to remain relevant should be housed in existing structures that do not violate the residential nature of the area.

There is a parallel between this misadventure and the recent kerfuffle over the planned high rise casting a shadow on Unity Temple ... same subject, differing only in the details.

JimM
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

First time seeing this. Not withstanding whether it's needed, what can possibly be going through their minds? I know this is Chicago, but Mies meets Frank? Simply at a loss for words. How anything remotely similar to that rendering could be considered appropriate boggles the mind.


JimM
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Additional images are even worse! Unbelievable.

“The building has to be architecturally significant in its own right, but it cannot upstage the reason people are coming there,� Ronan said.

Only honest arrogance perhaps, but this scheme not only "upstages" the historic site, but also the locale and neighborhood within which it would be situated.

Toshiko Mori's solution in Buffalo was a master stroke in comparison.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4270
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

With 90,000 annual visitors, they do need a better solution than the current cramped garage.

Whether this design will pass muster with the city historical society is to be seen.

IMHO: Take the building and sink it a half story into the ground and put a lot of foliage between it and the street and extend the existing wall and add a "green" roof and an overhang and clerestory windows.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

DRN
Posts: 3919
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I think the context of the H&S on Chicago Ave. is an important thing to consider....the proposal would obliterate that context by removing the period house(s) to the east. A modern (Miesian even?) building fronting Chicago Ave is not what is needed.

The Martin visitor center is a different situation in my view...a larger lot to work with and the streetscape is not so much a part of the story...a modern pavilion works there. I'd lean toward incorporating the existing house(s) next door to act as "fronts" if feasible, even if they were just used as shells with floors moved to grade and the bulk of the center located and well screened in the rear of the lot.

outside in
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

so is this the house "of no architectural significance"? I think it creates a setting for the home and studio and is certainly not disposable. Maybe the paint colors are off, but that's no reason to dismiss it.

Image

DavidC
Posts: 7394
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

And, you might as well throw in the mature tree out front, too. Will that get bulldozed in the process? You would think would be part of the overall context of the neighborhood.

The could always 'replace' it with some 3-year-old pin oak whips that would only need another hundred years or so to catch back up.


David

DRN
Posts: 3919
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

Was the Chicago common brick and shingle fence added as part of the Home & Studio's acquisition of the house to the right in John's photo to "mark turf"? Or, was it added by Wright at some point during his tenure?
It has caught my eye as out of character for the non-Wright house.

The potential loss of these two houses which set the scene for the context Wright was working within seems so at odds with current methods of presenting built history.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9875
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

DRN, I believe you are correct, the wall was added to incorporate the house that Anna Wright owned into the "campus."
But I disagree about the Martin pavilion; in itself, it is a fine building,
but it is out of place in the neighborhood as it was at the time Martin was built. A garrison of greenery would help.

The article says one house would be demolished, but the proposed plan would take up much more than one lot, three at least.
It would also pave a new approach. The Home should always be entered by the front door, as should the Studio.
Funneling visitors in past the garage is not an acceptable solution.

From what I can tell, John Ronan is in the business of building at a scale way beyond what is called for in OP.
They need an architect with a more residential touch that could blend in ... assuming it has to be done at all.

SDR
Posts: 18801
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Those seem to be sensible comments.

The very fact that the architect chose to omit the significant existing tree(s) along the sidewalk speaks poorly of his commitment to the project---doesn't it ?

S

outside in
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I remember in the 60's and 70's many people were lamenting the loss of our cities, being replaced by malls, etc. (you know the story) but its interesting how many of these same people have now signed on to this form of retail since it is now occupied by Starbucks, Whole Foods, etc.

I think its the same in Oak Park. Years of preservation battles fought to save older homes, sometimes even garages! But god forbid anyone would stand up to the Home and Studio. I have a sickening feeling that both of these houses will come down with barely a wimper, since we all know how important the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust is to Oak Park.

SDR
Posts: 18801
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The monetization of art---the tendency toward commodification---is a) a necessary evil, justified on the grounds of "bringing art to the people," or b) a deplorable aspect of commercial interests' domination of our culture. Take your pick ?

S

Post Reply