Page 9 of 13
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:35 pm
I'd say that yes, even Frank Lloyd Wright was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright . . . !
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:37 am
From the April 18 article:
The Phoenix City Council is scheduled to meet Dec. 7 on whether to grant the designation, which would ensure against demolition threats.
The meeting to decide on the designation is 8 months away? Is this to allow preparation time for the city council to review submitted materials?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:29 pm
Is the David Wright house still threatened with demolition ?
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:21 pm
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:44 am
The architecture is great...I just can't seem to warm up to all that grass (and the water it must consume) blazing in the Sonoran desert....I realize the 1950's orange groves weren't much better from a water use standpoint, but at least there were blossoms, fragrance, and fruit.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:38 am
Agreed. I'd like to see cacti and desert plants.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:50 am
The entire population of Arizona should be reduced by 98%, so everyone could live in grand isolation, a thousand acres per habitation. The desert doesn't like crowds ... or grass.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 12:37 pm
Exclusive: ASU wonâ€™t take over Phoenix Frank Lloyd Wright House
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news ... lloyd.html
Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 1:27 pm
Considering how poorly universities take care of their architecture, this is a good thing. If the owner wants to unload the house, he should put it on the market at a reasonable price and write the loss off on his taxes.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2016 1:27 pm
This is not going well.
Maybe the Historic Landmarking process should have been proceeding in tandem with Rawlings' "big plans". What if Rawlings, after being shut out of revenue generation for the property for a while, decides to stop the bleeding by putting the property up for sale? Will he recognize that for the good of the house it must be purchased, restored (it is cleaned, landscaped, and re-rugged, but not completed), and then lived in by some mortal...as his neighbors will allow nothing else? Will he price it accordingly?
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:14 am
This article was linked in Prairie Mod's weekly newsgram:
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news ... me-to.html
I'm waiting with bated breath to see if this next non-profit decides to "ride the bull".
Not that anybody cares, but IMHO the David and Gladys Wright house does not and never has had the potential to be a tourist draw to the same extent as the Taliesins or Fallingwater. Rawlings' vision for that end were unrealistic and distracted from the main effort: securing the site as a protected landmark and restoring the house itself. The property will have to financially tow some or most of its load, but it doesn't appear the neighbors are ever going to agree to a public site in the museum or cultural venue mode. The neighbors will not allow a non-profit to use the house for its purposes which involve the public visitation of the premises to fund restoration via tours, fundraisers, or event rentals.
Most people with the financial means to restore the house on their own don't want to live in a bare CMU house of about 2200SF....maybe as a vacation toy, but not everyday. And when that Daddy Warbucks who does buy it wants to sell, then what? More of the last two years of suits filing suits?
What option is left? A house for living. Cut the grandiose crap and make the house a Wright rental. Surely the neighbors can live with that. No throngs; just a family or two living in the house as a house. What does it matter if the occupants are never the same? It is not a crowd. "But, they are transients." Transients making reservations weeks or months in advance paying several hundred dollars per night are not typically riff raff. The rental income could offset some of the expenses of restoration and maintenance otherwise covered by grants or corporate donations. This seems to me to be only workable solution to this.
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:44 am
DRN wrote: IMHO the David and Gladys Wright house does not and never has had the potential to be a tourist draw to the same extent as the Taliesins or Fallingwater. Rawlings' vision for that end were unrealistic and distracted from the main effort: securing the site as a protected landmark and restoring the house itself.
I think they need to look to other properties in similar situations - a private residence in relatively close proximity to neighbors - for guidance. Laurent, Christian and Zimmerman all come to mind - maintained as museum pieces, with a touring program sympathetic to the neighborhood. Number one priority needs to be house structural restoration - I would downsize the property and sell the excess to finance; maybe even offer it as some sort of greenspace to maintain distance but get a write-off. Re-establish the grove on the smaller property and focus on the structures. I'm not sure the group to which it's currently being offered is the right one to handle something like that ...
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:51 am
The recent trend in renting houses to vacationers has soured a lot of people on the whole idea of transients of any type. It too often occurs that renters create havoc for the entire neighborhood and leave houses in a shambles. Obviously, renting to FLW enthusiasts would be different, but I suspect the neighbors won't differentiate between them and the riffraff revelers.
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:57 am
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:48 am
I was unable to read anything other than the headline...
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but just prior to or just after Mr. Rawling's purchase of the house, wasn't the city ready to designate the property a landmark to protect it from threats of demolition? I would hate to think that opportunity was squandered by proposing grandiose plans for the property that frightened the neighbors into lawyering up prior to having that landmark protection in place first.