Duncan House Rental

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.
Forest
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:57 pm

Duncan House Rental

Post by Forest »

I just found that reservations are being taken for overnight rental of the Duncan House. Apparently the reconstruction is complete. The house is about 40 minutes from Fallingwater, so I imagine they will be very busy.



http://polymathpark.com/

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

Post by EJ »

$325 per night seems a little steep for a third tier Wright house....
"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

JimM
Posts: 1556
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

EJ wrote:$325 per night seems a little steep for a third tier Wright house....


Steep? Absurd is more like it. Just as absurd as the Conservancy's occasional "events" that exclude all but the well heeled.



And we wonder where the "diversity" is?

googieagog
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: O'Hareville, Illinois

Post by googieagog »

And that $325 climbs if your party has more than 3 people -- with a 2-night minimum. The more Wright houses go rental, the more costly they seem to become -- and the more pesky the restrictions. The first few years at Peterson ($250 a night, with one-night stays permitted) the place was booked solid most of the time. But other rentals seem to have plenty of dates available these days. I don't know of too many other industries where increasing supply + limited market = higher prices. But Polymath does have a location advantage. Perhaps they're going for foreign tourists, who benefit from the weakening dollar.
Dan

normallyQuiet
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:43 pm

Post by normallyQuiet »

ooooooo...

you can stay at the haynes house for only $275 (plus tax) a night and only a two night minimum!!!

that's be a bargain at half the price.

JimM
Posts: 1556
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

To be fair, one could easily make an argument for a "Wright Premium" on a number of levels; that it is absurd is just my opinion, regardless of the reason, and representative of the ever increasing exclusivity of this niche "club".



What does a weekend in Vegas or Orlando cost? But then, I avoid those "destinations" as well!

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

Post by Ed Jarolin »

Having stayed at only one of the Wright rentals so far, I must say I feel it was money very well spent. The $275/night charged at the Penfield house gives one the run of the place; time to study the spaces, the details, soak it all in. No tour guides to say, "don't touch that" or "don't pass the velvet rope".



With a maximum of 5 people for that price, even a bunch of college students don't have to break the bank to experience great architecture as more than a casual tourist. Wish these had been up and running when I was doing my first Wright road trips many years ago.

Richard
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Richard »

The Peterson cottage has the distinct advantage of being in the Wisconsin Dells. Rooms at the bigger resorts there go North of $400 per night for a two room suite. Rooms are often hard to come by during the peak periods. The Dells are great for kids, tolerable for adults. A FLWright cottage in the nearby woods is a pretty good alternative to an overpriced resort with chlorine gas permeating the rooms from the enormous indoor water parks.
Homeowner

classic form
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:44 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, Mich.

Post by classic form »

Are these homes becoming Bed and Breakfasts so the owners can utilize the Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credits available to income producing properties that are listed? If so, are there a minimum number of days per year that it must be rented to qualify or is it a monetary amount that needs to be exceeded? Maybe just calling yourself a Bed and Breakfast is enough to qualify and the high cost per night is just a detterent to keep the riff raff out. And don't get your panties in a bunch, I'm sure there are some flw fans that can be considered riff raff. In fact, I qualify.

CastleWood
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:54 pm

Duncan House

Post by CastleWood »

It's my understanding that none of the houses mentioned are considered bed and breakfast establishments. Penfield, Schwartz, Haynes, Duncan, etc. offer a whole house rental for interested parties. I know of only one of Wright's Usonian homes that operates as a bed and breakfast. Am I incorrect?

classic form
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:44 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, Mich.

Post by classic form »

Yes, bad choice of words (bed and breakfast)...but the question remains.

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

Post by Mobius »

normallyQuiet wrote:that'd be a bargain at half the price.


I never understood you Americans. Don't you mean "A bargain at twice the price"?



Also, that whole "I could care less" thing is just stupid. "I couldn't care less" being the correct term.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965

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

Post by Mobius »

I always find it odd when I hear bitching about how expensive something is, and what price it "should" be. I drive a Porsche 928, and so I hear that sort of thing all the time...



But as it relates to accommodation the comments are always especially eroneous in my view. You have absolutely no idea what the reasons are for the pricing, nor are you likely to find out what they are.



The truth of the matter is that it is common, in the accommodation industry, to experience far higher bookings as a result of increasing your prices to something considered "outrageous". A web client of mine was getting no bookings at all at $70 a night share twin, but when we forced him to raise his price to $500 share twin, he had to start turning people away. I think he is currently charging $700. (His home, location, pick up service, helicopter, private fishing river, beach frontage and original 140-year old homestead all contribute to making $700 a good deal in fact.



It may well be that the owners are not the slightest bit interested in being fully booked all the time. They may wish to see only the most dedicated Frank admirers staying in the home. They may feel that a high price keeps out the casual riff-raff, and it might be their hobby to entertain just the hard-core Wrighters.



You simply don't know. And to complain about pricing on something you'll never buy isn't exactly productive is it? You can guarantee that the people who DO pay the money will consider it "well spent".



My 1.6 cents after tax cents. Or is that too pricey? ;)
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965

normallyQuiet
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:43 pm

Post by normallyQuiet »

Mobius wrote:
normallyQuiet wrote:that'd be a bargain at half the price.


I never understood you Americans. Don't you mean "A bargain at twice the price"?
I was intentionally twisting the phrase, trying too hard to be droll and sarcastic. Yes, the phrase should be "a bargain at half the price."


Mobius wrote:Also, that whole "I could care less" thing is just stupid. "I couldn't care less" being the correct term.


Again, I agree. Though you will encounter some arguments from people who work very hard to establish a rationale for saying the other. They may also be the ones who say nucular instead of nuclear...



The one I find odd is saying "you get what you pay for." If that was true you would always get exactly what you deserve!? Shouldn't it be more like, "you're lucky to get what you pay for?"

JimM
Posts: 1556
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

.....or "irregardless" rather than "regardless"; that one drives me nuts.

Post Reply