Goetsch-Winkler House Has Been SOLD!

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
RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Goetsch-Winkler House Has Been SOLD!

Post by RJH »

I hear this gem was sold to new owners.



I understand that approximately 45 interested parties came from all over the USA including Ireland that actually visited the house. Wow!



I was fortunate to be in and see the house and it is amazing space.



I wish the new owners the best of luck.

Mobius
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Mobius »

GW is one of my most favourite houses. I am jealous beyond belief! Do you know what it sold for? I bet it's within my budget too! GRRRR.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965

PNB
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:12 am

Post by PNB »

I'm surprised how long this one took to sell. Hands down my favorite usonian! Hopefully it went to good hands.

SDR
Posts: 19294
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Of the early photos of the house, by Leavenworth Photographics, this one seems to have been least reproduced. Note that you can see through the clerestories and out the other side.



Image



We are told that some portion of the private-side roof extensions were removed; anybody know of the current state of the structure ?



Image



SDR

Craig
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:25 am
Location: California

Post by Craig »

I remember when the Conservancy "gave" this house to one of its insiders under the guise of a legitimate sale. Supposedly they had found a proper caretaker to whom the house could be entrusted.



After some lackluster "improvements" this buyer turns around and flees the property and so it sat unoccupied - never good for a house, certainly not ones as fragile as these.



Hopefully the new owners are actually people who will take care of the house.
ch

Reidy
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

If I read your syntax correctly, you've made a fairly serious accusation. What's your evidence? If you disapprove of the way the Conservancy does things, I should think you wouldn't want to make use of its facilities online.

EJ
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

Craig:



You have no idea what you're talking about. The owner who recently sold the property bought the house after it was rescued from the jaws of a developer through heavy involvement with the conservancy. SHe had to pay $250k on the spot for the property and she did. It was not given to her. She was given the oppurtunity to purchase it only after several parties withdrew at the last second. She sunk about $100k into the place making a lot of neccessary repairs to the property to keep it from falling down. Hardly "lackluster improvements".



Although I don't know this for sure, I know the owner got married after she bought the house, and her new husband really didn't want to live there, as he had some trouble with access in getting himself into the house. In the end, it was probalby difficult to manage two properties.



She graciously let me tour the house with her after I contacted her and asked for a look at the property. We had a great conversation about the house and she could not have been any nicer. She is someone who "got" Wright and was very sympathetic to the history and signifigance of the house. Indeed she kept two paintings by Goetsch and Winkler displayed prominently in the living room.



Your facts are dead wrong. Opinion is always welcome, but when accusations are thrown around about someone that are extremely off base, I get mad.
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

Ed Jarolin
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Wyoming

Post by Ed Jarolin »

EJ,



Can you elaborate on the recent repairs done to G-W? When I saw it in 2001 it looked to be in pretty rough shape.

I could get the low wood wall under the carport to wiggle with light hand pressure.

A discussion of what potential buyers of Wright houses might expect run into, repair wise, might prove useful.

EJ
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

To my knowledge the following:



1. The exterior was repainted back to a color more typical of the usonians, though admittedly not finished like the Jacobs I restoration. It still looks 100x better than it has in the recent past when it was painted an almost purple/beige color.



2. The kitchen was reworked entirely, and a washer and dryer was discreetly installed. This was very impressive, as it was both modern and sympatheitc to Wright.



3. The utlities were reworked and updated. The owner told me that the when she bought it, the baseboards were charred from faulty heating. Its a miracle the thing didn't burn down. The radiant heating is still in working order.



4. There was also some damage by animals that had infiltrated the building when it was virtually abandonded by that Brazillian architect who owned it then defaulted on the mortgage.



5. There were repairs to the roof, which leaked so badly to the point that one of the neighbors too it upon himself to put a tarp on the roof when it was abandonded.



All in all, some serious work.



There were some other things...I can't remember them all....
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

Ed Jarolin
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Wyoming

Post by Ed Jarolin »

EJ,



Thanks for the info.

Craig
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:25 am
Location: California

Post by Craig »

I would really like to know exactly how this buyer was "awarded" the privilege of buying this house. When we inquired, we were rudely told that we were not ideal candidates, despite the fact that we have restored 9 previous modern houses, several in historic districts and were also prepared to pay cash. No one suggested taking our names as back-ups. The person we spoke to was not the slightest bit interested in speaking with us and dismissed us entirely.



You say all of the other buyers backed out at the last minute. If that is true then I would be extremely interested in knowing on what basis the Conservancy selected its candidates. It makes absolutely no sense to me.



I am not at all questioning the character of the women who purchased the house. I am questioning the award process. I believe it was noted elsewhere that the purchaser had close ties to the Conservancy, did she not? I was told she was an "artist".



As for repairs, if the owner indeed spent $100,000 for the list you offer, she was surely cheated. The house looks as forlorn to me as it did when it originally came on the market.



I am not really interested in debating this so I will say no more except to say that nothing in the sales history of this house as ever made one bit of sense to me.
ch

Post Reply