Frank lloyd Wright designed Turkel House, Detroit

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

Frank lloyd Wright designed Turkel House, Detroit

Post by RJH »


SDR
Posts: 20109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Oy. There goes another one. . .



Architecture: Painting/Sculpture at the mercy of its residents. No one messes with the Mona Lisa; if you customize a '49 Mercury there are others. A house like this is unique, yet completely vulnerable.



I suppose the covered-over block walls will still BE there. . .under the studs and sheetrock.



SDR

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

Post by RJH »

SDR,



I am so glad

LikaComet
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:08 am
Location: Lowlands of Maryland

Post by LikaComet »

Forgive my impertanence but on some of these later taliesen houses they just don't seem to have the Wright "pop". I wonder how much involvement Mr. Wright had in the actual construction of this house. The best part of the house is the drawings and the general appearance. Inside it just seems a little odd. Somehow a little "off".



This is just a turshery observation on my part. As usual I might be wrong.

MHOLUBAR
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Post by MHOLUBAR »

This is really an unfair remark;



Maybe the Fallingwater folks can view this and get some
mholubar

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

Post by RJH »

Unfair is molesting a Wright design.



You are telling me you can

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10540
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Perhaps I'm just too old, but I have never understood this recent fascination with monster bathrooms. It takes me mere minutes to shower, and I don't have nor need an entire room-sized stall to do it. Another Usonian Automatic to get the bigger-is-better bathroom treatment is the late Adelman House in Phoenix, and it did not add one whit to the design, but detracted significantly from it. They added an entire master bedroom wing to the house that ruined the whole concept; at least Turkel is not being expanded. I hope they keep their alterations to the minor areas of the house and lavish nothing but restoration on the main rooms.

SDR
Posts: 20109
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Yes -- and of course it's perfectly possible that a commendable job, with appropriate materials (is that a new or an old piece of ribbon-stripe veneered material in one photo ?) will be done. Perhaps that is a sensitive master carpenter giving the "tour." Perhaps MHOLUBAR knows something we don't. But boarding over the natural fabric of the house in several places isn't a great sign.



(And the tour guide doesn't seem to appreciate that the bedroom with the built-ins doesn't NEED a "headboard"; what's there IS the headboard !)



I too bathe (and sleep) in minimal comfort, with the main space of my quarters having the wealth of light, spacial richness and view. This formula has well-served a hundred years (and counting) of modern life. . .



SDR

archfan
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:18 am
Location: Farmington Hills, MI

Reality

Post by archfan »

While I understand the ideal of exactly preserving Wright's houses as designed, let's inject some reality. If Norman and Dale hadn't bought the Turkel house, it would have joined hundreds of other Detroit houses demolished by neglect. From what I saw when I toured the house last fall, shortly after the sale of the house, it had already started down that road.



In the balance, saving the Turkel house from the bulldozers vs. turning one of the kids' rooms into a bathroom is a good trade.

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

I agree completely that turning one of the kids' bedrooms into a master bathroom is a small price to pay for saving the house. A similar strategy was successfully used on the Heurtley House Restoration.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

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

Post by RJH »

I also agree that it is better for a Wright house to be bought and altered rather then having it bulldozed.



Turkel was never at that stage. The property was in foreclosure and the bank was looking to sell it. More buyers (perhaps better owners) could have been found if they asking price was lower.



It is also more then just converting a bedroom into a bathroom.



- Original closets appear to have been torn out.

- Plywood kitchen cabinets ripped out. Perhaps they are going to Home Depot for new modern day cabinets.

- I saw one part of the video where hallway cabinets were removed and another part of the video where they are still there.



I hope they save all the pieces.



The Heurtley bathroom conversion stood out as odd and was one of the first things I noticed.

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

RJH - "save all the pieces"...isn't that a little hypocritical?



If everyone is so upset, the only question that can and should be asked is why didn't you buy it and hire a qualified restoration architect and turn it into a "dead" museum house.

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

Post by RJH »

I am absolutely not kidding when I say save the pieces. On Haynes, the former owner discarded folding accordion doors, linen closets among other items. When I tried to reproduce the damaged items it turned out the tracks for the doors were no longer made. The piano hinges were impossible to find and I had to get them custom made to match the originals in the house by S&S Hinge in Chicago. Furthermore, with lumber and labor the work was too costly and complicated to reproduce. We

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

RJH - no I'm referring to the original parts of the Haynes house you sold off. Shouldn't those have been kept?



Or does your advice to keep all the parts not apply to you?

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

Post by RJH »

The parts that were sold were all broken and replaced with exact same barnd new parts.

Post Reply