Gridley House

[jlesshafft]

dkittum - so are FLW house better than others? What about Green & Green homes? What about Johnson homes? What about any other notable architect designed homes? What about van der Rowe houses? What about adding air-conditioning...surely that is sacreligious also. You can't have it both ways. You either have to put everything back to the original (and I mean EVERYTHING), or compromise your beliefs which you apparently are not willing to do. And once you compromise your beliefs where do you draw the line?

Did FLW leave Taliesin alone after it was built? Or Taliesin West? NO! Did he design and build modifications and additions to previous homes? YES

If some people here are not willing to compromise their beliefs for some modernization, then I hope all FLW are torn down eventually to put up McMansions. it would serve all of you right.

It's time everyone here realized that FLW was an architect; he was not a god.

[outside in]

I think it's very important to point out that on a FLW post, one tends to get people who believe that Wright's work is almost sacred, and shouldn't be touched. However, there are others who share the same convictions (and opinions) about Neutra, Schindler, McKim, Mead & White, David Adler, Howard Van Doren Shaw, George Maher, Macintosh, Gaudi, Guimard, Wagner, Loos, Behrens, Bruno Taut, Eric Mendelsohn, Schinkel, Richard Morris Hunt, Walter Burley Griffin, HH Richardson, Aalto, Saarinen (Eero and Eliel), Voysey, William Morris, Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, Van Doesburg, Eames, and many, many more. Wright was really good, no doubt, but these other architects need to be regarded as highly influential as well, and their work also needs protection from misguided "improvements". Its too bad that organizations like the FLWBC can't be involved with preserving these buildings too, but resources are limited.......

[MattCline]

I need to step in with a reminder about some ground rules about the use of this forum. Several post have been deleted. Most were due to content being outside of the domain of the purpose and/or atmosphere deemed appropriate by those who sponsor this forum. Some of the remaining entries are approaching a less than ideal tone, but I want to try and give folks the benefit of the situation as best I can.

1) Civil arguments and "passions" about Wright, architecture, preservation and design are certainly permitted and even encouraged. However, they are only effective and indeed only acceptable when done so in a way that is not not a personal attack or challenge to someone else's creditability. There is a difference between being objective and direct in disagreement and being antagonistic and venting. Such adverse postings usually only result in escalation, and we won't have it.

2) Rules for conduct on this forum are clearly stated at the entrance of the forum. This forum is run by, paid for and provided by the Conservancy. It is totally within their purview to dictate terms for its use, which are very tolerant and generous to dissenting opinions. If you decide to participate in the forums, you agree to conduct yourself according to their guidelines, period.

3) In all practicality, these rules and guidelines are here to help you make your point. No one is swayed, convinced or compelled by hyper-sensitive, defensive and overly emotional reactions anyway. If you see what you think is inappropriate content, let the moderators know. We will handle it.

Our goal is not to squelch passions, disagreement or deep discussion of serious matters. It is only to keep things in the professional and mature atmosphere for ALL who participate and visit this forum.

[MattCline]

Outside In: You bring up a good point in my opinion. Other works certainly deserve great appreciation for multiple reasons and don't seem to have the protective resources they deserve. But I understand the need for the Conservancy to focus on Wright and even that mission is sometimes hard to define (reference the last Conference in Michigan for really good discussion on that.)

An old Japanese saying that is as simplistic as it is relevant : "Focus on your one purpose."

[pharding]

... An old Japanese saying that is as simplistic as it is relevant : "Focus on your one purpose."

I could not agree more. What the FLWBC is able to accomplish with a very modest budget is rather amazing.

[outside in]

I'm so embarrassed, I forgot Louis Sullivan, George Elmslie and Josef Maria Olbrich.

I should also add that communications with these other groups, sharing resources, information regarding tax incentives, facade easements, etc. with, for example, The Walter Burley Griffin Society, would be a wonderful thing. Perhaps an "arm" of the Conservancy can be established to form a network of some kind. Any thoughts?

[pharding]

I'm so embarrassed, I forgot Louis Sullivan, George Elmslie and Josef Maria Olbrich.

I should also add that communications with these other groups, sharing resources, information regarding tax incentives, facade easements, etc. with, for example, The Walter Burley Griffin Society, would be a wonderful thing. Perhaps an "arm" of the Conservancy can be established to form a network of some kind. Any thoughts?

Networking is a fine thing. The organizations and homeowners all face the same challenges. This relates indirectly to an area that I believe that the FLWBC could improve.

One weakness of the FLWBC is marketing. They should spend more resources on getting the word out about the organization and issues that we care about. The annual conference needs to get play in the general press to attract more people to these wonderful conferences. They should hire someone to do it on a project or part-time basis. I suspect that it currently is being done on an ad hoc or volunteer basis. I would much rather pay someone to do something than to rely on a volunteer doing it in the evening. Volunteers are too difficult to manage.

This could a minor shift for the FLWBC. They need to continue running lean and efficient. Trying to do too much will create a pressing need to raise more cash which increases pressures to accept moral compromises.

[SDR]

There is no reason that I can see for the FLWBC to involve itself in an other work but Wright's -- unless or until there is a surplus of funds and/or manpower. If old buildings, not always fit for today's uses, could be made to pay for themselves and make a profit besides, the situation might be different. Until that day comes, it's probably every (architect) for himself. . .

That said, I believe that some if not all of the architects on the list above deserve just as much respect and preservation as does Wright. With the affluence of today's rising professional class, and the growing interest in designers like Wright, it is conceivable that a new generation of architectural preservationists/philanthropists is on the horizon. Buying and restoring a significant property can be followed (with the notorious zeal of the new convert, visible even here on the forum) by a proselytizing/fundraising effort, to "spread the good news" of a particular architect, locally and nationally, enhancing the value of the owner's own architectural treasure.

The FLWBC can certainly stand, at its best, as a model for similar organizations devoted to other worthy architects ?

SDR

[Roderick Grant]

The subject of including architects other than FLW came up as early as the first conference in Buffalo in 1985, before the Conservancy existed as such. At the time, there were some who wanted any organization that emerged from the conference limited, not only to FLW, but to academic involvement. I campaigned for including all comers, but did not press for inclusion of other architects, since that argument did not carry much weight at the time. The Conservancy is whelmed if not overwhelmed by the task at hand, and could hardly take on any more than it has at this time. The list of architects who deserve to "get a dinner," as Red Buttons would put it, is long, but their followers will have to do the legwork.

[outside in]

I think that others are already doing much of the legwork. There are Schindler groups, Neutra groups, WBGriffin Groups, Olbrich, Mies on and on. Its strange to think that they aren't talking to one another. There is a great deal of information to be shared, one would think - perhaps even regarding the appropriateness of certain alterations made under the guise of "restorations" - since the Federal Government seems to be stuck in the dark ages regarding these issues. Did anyone ever ask the question - why does the National Park Service decide what is "correct"? Because they control tax advantages???

[pharding]

Regardless of who writes the guidlines or rules, historic preservation is a balancing act because people need to be able to use the building while the building is preserved for future generations. Not every building can become a museum. Client needs and expectations change with time. As I have said in another thread the real saints of Wrightdom are the homeowners. Ultimately it is the owners who vote with their wallets.