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 »

It is entirely possible that the cottage masonry inspired either Massaro or Heinz. But they got it wrong: think how much less annoying the house would be if a few larger and random stones were applied to the walls, rather than the monotonous sprinkling that exists. Not proper desert masonry in either case -- but . . .

I wonder if the cottage was supervised by Taliesin.

SDR

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

Post by DavidC »


Craig
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:25 am
Location: California

Post by Craig »

I just can't like this house. So much is wrong about it. I was happy to learn that Wright designed the television nook so that the sun wouldn't hit it directly at sunset. That Frank, what an amazing architect.
ch

Matt
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:24 am

Post by Matt »

I blame the masonry of the big house less...given that is clearly was based on some rather poor masonry on the original cottage. I wonder why that cottage masonry was so poorly done, with few stones and some projecting from the cement---with is a rather morose shade of gray.

The elevations indicate desert masonry around the chimney stack and kitchen volume, but some sort of masonry below the windows. That doesn't seem to have been done either.

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

Post by SDR »

"Board wall" appears on the elevations, under the window band . . .

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9895
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

You have a choice: An 1870 townhouse, gutted and stripped of whatever charm it may have had, in the most overpriced neighborhood in the country, for $14.7M, or the Chahroudi parody for an extra $130K on an 11 acre private island ... a 15 minute copter ride from the Upper East Side. It would cost a bundle to fix Chahroudi, but it would worth it, compared to the alternative.

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

Post by DavidC »


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

Post by DavidC »


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

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

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

Post by DRN »

Between pop-up ads, I saw some views of the new house and the original cottage I hadn’t seen before. While it may be true that the cottage has some stones in its masonry that awkwardly stand proud of the concrete matrix, they are the exception, not the rule. Stone on the new house could have been split or cut thin to be able to sit flush in the concrete matrix to match the original while still maintaining the required thermal break. Another trait that makes the original masonry richer in texture is the presence of lines left by the board forms...the smooth stucco-esque texture of the new house masonry is too sanitized when compared to the original.

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

Post by SDR »

Perhaps the most egregious examples of the stonework occur in the most prominent locations, around the fireplaces indoors and out. Here the stones are especially few and far apart---presented like material samples ?

Then there's the jarring presence of an entirely different sort of stone masonry, in a bedroom. And, how does the owner clean the raw stone (?) in the shower ?

Most puzzling of all is the fact that an architect who has devoted his career to the promotion of Wright's work should have permitted such defects in this post-Wright realization . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massaro_House

S

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

Re: Chahroudi / Massaro residence on Petre Island

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

juankbedoya
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Re:

Post by juankbedoya »

Roderick Grant wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:36 pm
There is a difference between quibbling over minor details (especially those made while FLW was still living) and accepting wholesale alterations that change the entire nature of the thing. It is not just the "site" of Jester that was changed, but the "environment." Jester started as the Pense Project in Hawaii, an environment similar to Southern California where Jester was to be built. It was not intended for the desert. It doesn't relate to the nature of the desert. Buildings in the desert that don't blend with the surrounding (the talus and dotted line, as FLW saw it) stand out like sore thumbs; there isn't the same type of verdure to soften the imposition of structure onto nature. Every time FLW reinterpreted that particular design, it was specific to the nature of the environment. One of the reasons Jester was not built is that the client could not get permission to construct the swimming pool FLW designed; that particular pool was much more integral to the overall design than virtually any other pool Wright designed. Jester is practically a pool house. However, Pfeiffer not building the pool is understandable, though regrettable. Adding the pools to Glore and Cooke would greatly enhance both structures, and it is not too late to do so.



What is troubling about Pfeiffer is the altered scale (more than a 4" adjustment to the ceiling height) and the heavy-handed use of materials. If Bruce had asked Mr. Wright for an original design, he would have got something entirely different ... and undoubtedly better.



As to the "hick" vs "sophisticate" quality of construction of FLW houses, I think you're on shaky ground. Hagan is about as hick as they get, but it was the hick contractor who discerned Davy Davidson's error in the plans, corrected it and produced one of FLW's best built houses.



Every drop of paint Vermeer applied to his canvas was under his control, and if there are any bloopers, they're his fault. The same cannot be said for achitecture, ungainly works of art left out in the rain. Too many people are involved in the creation. Everything FLW got built had changes major and minor; the minor changes are often negligible, but major changes can ruin the whole opus. I believe that's what happened with Pfeiffer.
What was the problem with that pool..? Jester house is one of his best unrealized projects. Every room was like an independent capsule working at the same time in an unique and integrated scheme, a true organic architecture. Without the pool, Jester is not Jester.

juankbedoya
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Re:

Post by juankbedoya »

RJH wrote:
Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:15 am
Some pics taken by me before the house was completed. Enjoy!

Image
I really hate the living room terrace. That geometry so weird, so irregular, so ugly. It only needs a regular form like the prow of a ship as he did in other houses.

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

Re: Chahroudi / Massaro residence on Petre Island

Post by SDR »

Roderick wrote that Jester as designed "is practically a pool house." There's nothing wrong with it---as long as the house is built where a pool would be suitable and desired.

We have to take Wright as we find him. The plan shape of the Chahroudi terrace is a quirk that makes the house particularly Wrightian, to me. And that shape is found in more than one perf design---oddly. I still don't know what it refers to, or where it comes from . . .

The terrace could be said to present "a cantilever off a cantilever." An earlier example would be Fallingwater.

Image Chahroudi

Image Boomer

Post Reply