Chahroudi / Massaro residence on Petre Island

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: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Let's give it to Heinz, "based on a design by Frank Lloyd Wright." After all, isn't that how the Legacy program would have designated it ?
SDR

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

Post by RJH »

I call the house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright simply because I suspect the FLW Foundation doesn’t want it called that. Their Legal Dept. told me Massaro and the Foundation settled out of court. I assume terms can’t be disclosed. But I really think they don’t want the FLW name used. Paul Ringstrom and Heinz are essentially brothers. Perhaps PR can enlighten all of us? I’d certainly like to know.

Also not sure if anyone read Storrer’s MASSARO VS. WRIGHT. Make sure to scroll down.


http://www.franklloydwrightinfo.com/

I strongly disagree with his argument of having a Taliesin Fellow design the house. Basically, there is nobody left there with any talent besides Rattenburry. I doubt the house would have turned out better.

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Without reviewing this thread in its entirety, to learn if the subject has already been addressed, I'll add an image that seems related to the Chahroudi/Massaro
effort: the 1953 Joseph H Brewer residence, East Fishkill, New York. The illustration is published in "FLLW: three quarters of a century of drawings"
(Centro Di, 1976, 1981).

Image

The general form, the jogged and angled deck cantilever at right, and the broad embossed copper (?) roof fascia are of special interest, I think.

SDR

DavidC
Posts: 7407
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

In my online travels I just ran across this article:

"Thomas A. Heinz: No Place Like (This) Home"


David

DavidC
Posts: 7407
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

'The so-called "whale rock" walls, made of natural rock and concrete, have drawn the ire of Wright purists because the rocks, native to the island, jut out from the walls, rather than exhibiting only the flat surfaces of the stones – a look incorporated in some of Wright’s Prairie-style homes in the Midwest.

' “This is in New York – there are no prairie rocks; prairie rocks are flat,� Massaro says. “Frank Lloyd Wright was more of a naturalist; he used what fit naturally, and what fits naturally on the island are this type of rocks.�

'He added that the rocks could not be pushed deeper into the concrete because of the space necessary for the required insulation.'



"Prairie rocks" ?


SDR

DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

The pics in the article are a mixed bag for me. At a distance, the composition looks good. Up close, the otherwise neat house jarrs me with the stone detailing, the too high chroma red floors, and the flatness of the copper.

I just don't buy the insulation "excuse" for the desert stone detailing though. If insulation was the issue, the rocks could have been cut or broken on their inboard side to leave insulation space. The natural side of the stone would be pointed outward and set flush or just barely recesssed from the face of concrete. None of those walls is so thin that the rock could not have been dressed to work. As built, in the photos there is evidence of the concrete cracking at the corners of the stones. What is going to happen when wind driven water freezes in the cracks? Was Wright's recessed detail less prone to cracking?

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4271
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

The photos to not accurately reflect the color of the cherokee red flooring. It is the same color that you are used to seeing on other usonians.

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

That's a relief. I didn't recall the bright red color in previously-seen photos.

I'm still amused by the much more attractive (and costly ?) stonework in the master badroom. . .!


SDR

JimM
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

SDR wrote: I'm still amused by the much more attractive (and costly ?) stonework in the master badroom. . .!SDR
As long as compromises are the order of the day with unbuilts, why they did not just veneer with contiguous rubble stone puzzles me. This could be done any time, I would think.

For such an important component of the design the flat spots with occasional stick-outs are not at all attractive, totally un-Wright (as done), and harms any aesthetic value the house otherwise might have.

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Certainly. I have previously floated the idea of adding stone, similar to that in the bedrooom, between and around the existing "boulders." While not ideal, this might be a an acceptable and feasible (?) improvement. . .


SDR

Randolph C. Henning
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:04 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by Randolph C. Henning »

Over two years ago I started this string and now, seeing the recently posted images of the completed house, I stand by my comments. Its not Wright; its just plain wrong - in fact, a whole bowl full of wrong!!!

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

Post by RJH »

Some pics taken by me before the house was completed. Enjoy!

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Very useful, RJH. Thanks. Photos taken in overcast weather are all too rare, and often reveal more detail, texture and color than ones in full sunlight. In this case, the absence of shadow under those stones helps them a lot. . .

Of course, construction photos are extremely helpful in determining how the house is actually built.


SDR

outside in
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I'm sorry - the stone work is absolutely putrid........

Post Reply