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.
I do understand having a fondness for the original. It's lovely. It deserves respect. I just don't think it's right to disrespect the new architect (who may not have made the fireplace/ceiling choice you disagree with and probably had nothing to do with the furniture choices) by saying:I am at a loss to understand why he just won't let any one us have a fondness for the original.
your posts prove that they did go through extensive diligence and even after it was determined that it was not a architecturally historic resource, they went to great lengths to pay homage to the Dome House designer.it is clear that nobody involved had a clue.
I said this morning I simply wanted to have an intelligent conversation and a healthy debate.
Over the last 24 hours I have done a lot of reading. I never expected that I would lose such respect for FLW. I am shocked that he had such little regard for his clients! He was only in it for himself - fame and fortune. There are MANY documented complaints from his clients. He preyed upon the wealthy that tolerated shoddy work because he was a "genius". "For example, in 1936 Herbert Johnson and J. Vernon Steinle visited Wrightâ€™s Richard Lloyd Jones house in Oklahoma." "An oft-recounted story tells of Johnson telephoning Wright, during a dinner party, with regard to water dripping from the ceiling into his guest-of-honourâ€™s soup; the complaint was reportedly rebuffed unsympathetically by Wright who suggested the lady should move her chair" His homes need a champion like SaveWright (and a half dozen other similar organizations). Many are riddled with problems that make them unlivable. Only very wealthy status seekers need apply. These structures are works of art, not useable buildings. It sounds like the posters on this board also care little about the homeowner. I suppose you would just abandon the toxic studio? No concept of reality. It just looks pretty.
now if you'll excuse me I have to buff out the dent in my metal dashboard where my first wife's head hit after I couldn't stop in time.
Not every house is "mere shelter" -- or an opportunity for profit. It's as simple as that. History and art take precedence over monetary gain and even "comfort," to some of us -- given the opportunity for input, that is.
The legends surrounding Wright are replete with tales of infidelity and leaking roofs. No one (here) is claiming total perfection for the man or his work. He was, after all, human. What evokes our interest (if not abject devotion) is what he contributed to the art of architecture: a unique gift, widely recognized and emulated, for the making of site-specific, forward-thinking yet curiously timeless, deeply affecting buildings -- spaces that shelter, that warm the spirit, that cause one visitor after another to leave with an altered view of what building "can be."
Some of the architects he inspired have in turn produced similarly-valued work -- such as the maker of Wild Bird, which is why the property is celebrated here.
Architecture as an art, it has been said, is uniquely at the mercy of real estate interests. A house can be both shelter, investment, and a cultural treasure, all at the same time. I don't see a clear way, short of bureaucratic designation, to affect how an owner chooses to utilize and, yes, modify his property. It's happened too many times to count. One can only hope for mercy -- and education. There have been notable successes . . .
Some stuff is worth preserving. In my opinion, Wild Bird. I do not believe the house could be built today, from scratch, as a result of the CA Coastal Comm.
I also understand your feelings on the Wild Bird house. I disagree, but I come at it from a totally different place.
Thank you so much for finally discussing this in a respectful, well thought out way. It's so much better than name calling and accusations of chicanery.
now that I understand.What evokes our interest (if not abject devotion) is what he contributed to the art of architecture: a unique gift, widely recognized and emulated, for the making of site-specific, forward-thinking yet curiously timeless, deeply affecting buildings -- spaces that shelter, that warm the spirit, that cause one visitor after another to leave with an altered view of what building "can be."
Wright was a funny guy; he was devoted to his clients and the feeling was usually mutual. But he had many quirks -- and loved to say things that would attract attention. He had, like many others, both a temper and a sense of humor. Getting to know him, from the many things he wrote and said, and from the remembrances of those who knew him, takes a long time. And he built so much that there's a lifetime of pleasure in exploring it all -- on the page, on the screen, and in person.
If you will give us nothing else as we post on arcane stuff maybe no one else gives a hoot about, let us pay homage to a time when stuff got built right, the first time. The profession of architecture, engineering and contracting is a litigious world today, and only to our detriment.
Please also know that my day to day work deals with very modern things. It's not that I don't appreciate the way things were 60-70 years ago, I just come at it from this other place.
Wright is a bit of a different story because he did more than the architecture. He was the interior designer as well. He did the furnishings, rugs, art, all of it. Was that also the case with Mills?
My question remains. Is there a way to resto-mod a house? Can you take a home that was built in the '30s and tastefully put in modern conveniences? What would you do in the situation of the toxic building materials of the studio?