John Rattenbury house - Phoenix, AZ

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:55 pm

6636 N 36th St, Phoenix, AZ 85018

David

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:08 pm

Uncommon form and details for Rattenbury ? Is the design a carry-on from a Wright design, for this site and client or another ?

S

Rood · Post by **Rood** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:24 pm

Don't recall the original client's name, but this house was built about the same time as the Lykes House ... which is just up the hill, on the same road: 36th Street. Both houses are immediately north of Lincoln Drive.

The site of the Pauson House, built about a half-mile south of Lincoln Drive ... was bulldozed when 32nd Street was pushed through to Lincoln Drive.

m.perrino · Post by **m.perrino** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:33 pm

Have not been past this property in a long, long time. It is about one or two properties north from the intersection of Lincoln Blvd & 36 Street / Phoenix. I do remember it was difficult to see as it was at a quite high elevation from the street. Further up 36th St is Lykes. Address are: Rattenbury house 6636 and Lykes 6836.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:35 pm

So, built c. 7-8 years post-Wright. Perhaps this would show up as an unbuilt Wright project in the Monograph and in Taschen ?

S

Rood · Post by **Rood** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:13 pm

SDR wrote:So, built c. 7-8 years post-Wright. Perhaps this would show up as an unbuilt Wright project in the Monograph and in Taschen ? S

The house in question was designed by John Rattenbury.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:46 pm

Okay. I was referring to a line on the linked page:

"Designed by Taliesin Architects John Rattenbury from a Frank Lloyd Wright concept."

S

Rood · Post by **Rood** » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm

SDR wrote:Okay. I was referring to a line on the linked page:

"Designed by Taliesin Architects John Rattenbury from a Frank Lloyd Wright concept." S

Perhaps the reference is to the fact that the site was bulldozed by a developer, much the way the top of Mummy Mountain was bulldozed, because developers believe that houses must be built on flat "pads". They continue to do that, today, not a mile from where I live.

In the case of Mummy Mountain, Mr. Wright explained that he designed a house "...to put the top back on the mountain". (Mummy Mountain is just a few miles to the east). In the case of John Rattenbury's house ... you'll notice from the photo that the house was specifically designed to help conceal the horrible hillside scar.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:34 am

Rood, is that project "to put the top back on the mountain" the Donahoe Triptych?

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:53 am

We visited this house some years back w/ the original owners. We enjoyed the design and layout. And, the owners had kept it in immaculate condition.

David

Rood · Post by **Rood** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:08 am

Roderick Grant wrote:Rood, is that project "to put the top back on the mountain" the Donahoe Triptych?

Yes

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:23 pm

"Put the top back on the mountain" presumably being the flip side of "No house should ever be on a hill; it should be of the hill"---Yang to the previous Yin and thus, together, a complete essay on the subject ?

S

wjsaia · Post by **wjsaia** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:14 pm

SDR wrote:Okay. I was referring to a line on the linked page:

"Designed by Taliesin Architects John Rattenbury from a Frank Lloyd Wright concept."

S

Goodness, what a stretch in several ways . . .

The original clients' name was Fields. Their house was built with no or almost no habitable space other than an entry and some storage space on the ground level, which mostly served to provide covered parking underneath the living quarters. It appears that the bedroom wing has been stretched out considerably to the north. There was no pool, no pergola and no separate garage building that we see now. The interior is now largely unrecognizable when compared with the original, as are the exterior finishes and treatment. I don't remember the semi-circular fireplace opening, and I don't know what architect may have been responsible for the design of the expansion and remodeling. The house looks to be about three times as large as it was originally.

The very talented and energetically devoted Bill Mims drew for John R. almost all of the working drawings for both the Fields and Lykes houses in 1965-66, and the two were built roughly coincidently. I don't think there were any other houses yet on that street.

The Lykes house cost about $100,000, which some of us thought was about all the money there was in the world. The Fields spent $24,000 on theirs, and to save money, air conditioning ducts were run on top of its roof; I can remember thinking with regret that the Lykes family would have to look down and see this unattractive mess gleaming in the foreground of their view from their new expensive house.

The ". . . [very, very far] from a FLlW concept" tagging by the real estate agent refers to some elements John R. chose to incorporate into his design: the squared-off roof surmounting a semi-circular living room, with a rounded columnar masonry supporting structure below it. In considering its placement on the sloping site, John R. was inspired to take and adapt to the Fields house's less dramatic situation those attributes from FLlW's first cliffhanging design for the V. C. Morris house in San Francisco. When viewed from ground level below the Living Room end, one might observe in the assemblage of these forms such very faint and meager derivation . . .

WJS

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:30 pm

Street views; click on thumbnail images at left:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6636+ ... .37t/data=

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6636+ ... ,90t/data=

S