Article: Glass panels being returned to Hollyhock

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

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10010
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Good news. Why Lloyd removed them in the first place is a puzzlement.

outside in
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

once again, Christies is aiding and abetting the dismantling of historic properties.

SREcklund
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Post by SREcklund »

Roderick Grant wrote:Good news. Why Lloyd removed them in the first place is a puzzlement.
I think it was part of the overall "modernization" mission of the '46 reno for the Olive Hill Foundation. Lots of glass and woodwork was pulled out during that effort, and this isn't the only glass to end up in the hands of collectors (*cough* Tom Monaghan *cough*). He filled in all the open spaces of the laylight with translucent panels, so I guess he thought by reducing the art glass panes he could add more of the translucent ones.
Docent, Hollyhock House - Hollywood, CA
Humble student of the Master

"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright

Reidy
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

Just speculating. You sometimes hear (e.g. in Murray Grigor's documentary) that the skylight over the fireplace was supposed to be a rainspout feeding into the pool. Not true; Wright Sr. designed a rooftop canopy to prevent this. Barnsdall left it out, creating an accidental rainspout in the winter and a solar oven in the summer. Lloyd finally built it in 1946.

Thus, maybe, the originals were water-damaged. We can test this when we see them.

SDR
Posts: 19064
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image


Image


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10010
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Reidy, the story I have heard, in part from Edmund Teske who lived in the place, is that the skylight over the fireplace in Oleanders, Residence B, was destroyed some years before the house was demolished, allowing buckets of rain to enter, and somehow this was transformed into the myth about Hollyhock. (Although that does not obviate the possibility, or probability, that the Hollyhock skylight leaked.) The silliest part about the "retractable" skylight story is that one could sit on the couch and see stars reflected in the pool. Do the geometry and try to figure that out. A rainspout feeding into the pool is news to me; it doesn't appear in the Grigor film, as far as I can recall ... without sitting through it again. (My VCR no longer works.)

Ginny worked with Murray Grigor when he was there to film that part of the documentary, but she didn't read the script. She would have corrected Grigor on that point if she had. From then on, she insisted on seeing the script of any documentary on the house. That brief comment was, however, the only slip in what is still the best documentary on FLW's career.

Post Reply