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.
https://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/ar ... to-6511896
While the home seems pricey from the listing ($1.4m), it's worth noting that every home in that neighborhood starts at $1m. So the Kundig home isn't much inflated for the area.
I still see this as a bad omen for our society, if not for our architecture.
1950s--median priced home price was two years of median income.
2020--median home price is now ten years of median income.
And keep in mind that median. Half the population makes less than median income each year. So these home are really only affordable by double-income tech-couples.
Or, for example, if someone wanted to compare today's housing prices to the 1980s, they'd need to factor in an average interest rate of 12%. Compared to today's 4% interest rate, the 1980s market would give an entirely different skewed image of "affordability" in housing:
$300,000 on 30 year mortgage @ 4% = $1500.00 monthly payment
$300,000 on 30 year mortgage @ 12% = $3000.00 monthly payment
Granted, you state earlier that the 'mid-century' stuff was an opportunity for architects, which I agree with, and perhaps we should look at it as a "ripe" era thanks to its conditions (some of which weren't ideal for a fully equal society).
But.....we are discussing this on a Frank Lloyd Wright site, which always brings us back to the myth of Wright's "affordable" homes.... You cite Wright's "Seth Peterson Cottage", which if I remember correctly, cost somewhere around a half million dollars to rehabilitate?
Moreover, I think it's a mistake to chastise any architect for doing what he or she thinks they need to do to get their designs built. (Or as Jay-Z says "You can't knock the hustle".) Every "artist" is a beneficiary or victim of their era. One can simply look to Wright and see how much he benefitted from the post-war boom, or conversely his early-Depression years when he had zero projects... Architects today, like everyone else, have to navigate the imbalanced and immoral American economy and try to do good work. Suyama and Kundig I believe have impressive portfolios, particularly when you factor in the very conditions you/we are upset about. These architects are navigating rich clients who want big contemporary houses, while offering, at least in my opinion, designs that embody many architectural sensibilities which Wrightians can agree with.
The long and short of it is, you cannot make sound economic comparisons from one decade to another, especially if there are 6 decades in between. Morality and economy are like water and oil, they don't mix. When one goes up, the other goes down. Economy has the edge; no one wants to be poor, so everybody is likely to follow the money. There's not much that can be done about it.