Buffalo Boathouse/new construction methods old design???

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.
SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thank you, G.N. I just looked again at the one volume (#3) of the CW that I ended up with -- the index has been torn out! [I traded this for my volume 4 (?) that was a gift purchased at a Rizzoli booth (?) at the 1999 (?) NeoCon/NY exhibit, shrink wrapped and with about twenty blank pages in the middle !]

Anyway, glad to know that these indices exist; I obviously haven't been keeping up. Thanks again.

SDR

jrdet10
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Detroit MI USA

FLW in Buffalo

Post by jrdet10 »

That is a prime example of Wright Disneyland in Buffalo. It is no more than a cartoon of a Frank Lloyd Wright building. Why don't they just rebuild Fallingwater above Niagara Falls and complete their fantasy?


I couldn't agree more. Maybe the Buffalo folks should start billing themselves as Six Flags Over Frank Lloyd Wright. It's a shame that so much money and effort is being poured into mediocrities like Graycliff when the truly valuable buildings, like Taliesin I, are fighting to survive.
If the Buffalo people really wanted to honor Wright's memory they would scrounge up a couple hundred bucks for a marker over Darwin Martin's currently unmarked grave. (They'll give you a map at the cemetery showing more or less where he's buried.)
"Well, there you are!"

SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

[Technically, of course, Taliesin I no longer exists, having been burned in 1914. Taliesin III (or Taliesin North, as some called it after 1938) is indeed sliding off of its footings, as I understand it; not all of the foundation could be that eternal-looking random-range coursed masonry work with random stones protruding c. 3 inches (please correct me), as Wright knew where he could economize. . .]

Who has pics of the "new work" at Martin -- and what does the "Boat House" look like, if it's done ?

SDR

pmahoney
Moderator
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 am

Post by pmahoney »

Neil Levine has some interesting insights into Taliesin , Graycliff, The Martin House and the Allen house on the podcast whose link is below.

http://www.wrightnowinbuffalo.com/video.cfm

pmahoney
Moderator
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 am

Post by pmahoney »


outside in
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

The opinions posted on this site are sometimes disturbing. I cannot begin to understand why Graycliff wouldn't be worthy of preservation. A house for a very important client of Wright is certainly worth the effort. The Martin House is being restored to the highest standards, and will be a magnificent contribution to understanding Wright. Execution of unbuilt projects will always create controversy, but it seems they are working closely with the Foundation to ensure that they are built properly.

Buffalo should be extremely proud of its efforts, as they have managed to raise an incredible amount of money and enthusiasm for their projects. Taliesin, which many believe to be even more significant, seems incapable of doing the same, which is why the buildings are threatened.

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

Post by pharding »

outside in wrote:The opinions posted on this site are sometimes disturbing.
The strength of message boards is free speech and open discussion. The weakness of message boards is free speech and open discussion. What is posted are opinions. Some right. Some wrong. All things considered Wright Chat furthers the mission of the FLWBC.
outside in wrote:I cannot begin to understand why Graycliff wouldn't be worthy of preservation. A house for a very important client of Wright is certainly worth the effort.
I agree.
outside in wrote:The Martin House is being restored to the highest standards, and will be a magnificent contribution to understanding Wright.
It appears that this is correct. However if poster criticizes the paint technique that does equate to condemnation of the whole effort.
outside in wrote:Execution of unbuilt projects will always create controversy, but it seems they are working closely with the Foundation to ensure that they are built properly.
The unbuilt projects in Buffalo are widely considered by respected academics with FLW expertise as being awful. Practicing architects and preservation architects generally question the wisdom and validity of the idea. Even within the the FLWBC these projects are not respected. There are architects, with professional relationships with those client organizations and architects doing the work, that anonymously post messages in support of those projects. There seems to be broad consensus that Wright Disneyland even with the best of intentions is a bad idea. The foundation certainly has a vested financial interest in building unbuilt designs. Unfortunately this shortsighted approach on their part hurts their creditability and fundraising.
outside in wrote: Buffalo should be extremely proud of its efforts, as they have managed to raise an incredible amount of money and enthusiasm for their projects.
They should be proud of their efforts. Restoring the Martin House and Gray cliff as part of the program is a great thing. The Wright Disneyland projects were a modest waste of money.
outside in wrote:Taliesin, which many believe to be even more significant, seems incapable of doing the same, which is why the buildings are threatened.
The FLW Foundation historically has had leadership issues and has made poor choices. It appears that the new regime is being much more objective and building bridges. Even they would like to jettison the legacy projects.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

outside in
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

Paul, you might be a little more careful with your comments.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10292
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

outside, I agree with your assessment of Graycliff, and go further: Not only is it a work for an important client, it is a good design in its own right, responding to specific requirements of the client. What the priests did to it hid its genius for decades, but now it is being revealed in all its glory. It doesn't match many of the classic masterpieces, but it is a wonderful house, nevertheless. As to Martin, I just hope it's done before I am so I can see it! As to the construction of the unbuilt projects, the only one I oppose is the gas station, since it cannot be built as a gas station. It's just as silly as all those architectural landmarks clumped together in Las Vegas. But Yahara is being used as originally intended, as is the mausoleum. If done accurately, I have no problem with either one. Making a cemetary a tourist destination is a bit creepy, however. (But I should talk; I live in Hollywood where there are bus tours to cemetaries all over the place!)

SDR
Posts: 19600
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I wonder if there are those who simply believe that any unbuilt project should remain so, perhaps because there was good reason that it didn't "get done" ? Or is the objection based on the fact that a design constructed today can't be a Wright-supervised result ?

Wright seldom admitted a mistake, but he was savvy enough to recogize (and state) that foliage was the unhappy architect's only recourse. He was no doubt bored by some of his lesser efforts, after time had passed, as is true of any but the most narcissistic artist.

We can only guess now at which of the unbuilt projects would be happily built by Wright today, if the opportunity arose. My support for the recreation of lost buildings -- up to and including Larkin, if such a miracle were to occur -- is based on the fact that these were at least completed once by the master in his lifetime, and are capable theoretically of being
built again in all their glory.

SDR

Post Reply