John Howe For Sale

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.
Post Reply
John
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:25 am
Location: Shoreview, MN

John Howe For Sale

Post by John »


Roderick Grant
Posts: 10420
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

This is a fine house, but like so many parts of Mpls/SP metro, it's spitting distance from two freeways: It is nestled in the warm, smoggy, noisy embrace of the 100 and 194 interchange. Freeways as cures for traffic congestion have always been a myth, and it's time for it to end. There is a movement in Los Angeles to start to trim back the freeways instead of expanding and widening them. It's a movement that is unlikely to amount to anything in the short term, but may lead to some sort of rational rethinking of what goes into making a city livable.

Iowegian63
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:03 pm

Post by Iowegian63 »

I used to live right on the other side of the 394 from where this house is. Lots of trees to muffle the traffic sound--I lived two blocks from the freeways and you never heard anything. This house is in a nice neighborhood neighborhood and walking distance to an awesome nature preserve.

SDR
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Freeways are a mixed blessing, to be sure. How the residents of a city think they will improve their neighborhoods by removing them, however, is beyond me. Can a body survive without its arteries and vessels ? Freeway entrances and exits were pushed away from my immediate neighborhood, a dozen years ago, and now the streets outside my house are clogged, during the morning and evening rush hours, with idling and honking motorists. Yet the local businesses rejoice at their triumph in removing "that horrible freeway" -- which carried the necessary traffic out of the way, overhead.

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10420
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The construction of freeways makes freeways necessary. Had they never been built, the money could have been spent on public transportation, and suburbia might never have become a cancer on the landscape. Their principal reason for existing is to make it easy and profitable for developers to build tract housing.
Last edited by Roderick Grant on Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 19801
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Los Angeles and San Francisco are very different places, I guess. The freeways I speak of handle commercial as well as commuter traffic. San Francisco may be the only large city in the country with no proper artery from its northern entry to its city center. Through traffic can move due south from the Gate on a surface road through a busy commercial and residential area of the western city, very much as though we were still living in the 'twenties.

Decades ago, a cross-town tunnel was proposed, to connect the city center with the Golden Gate Bridge -- literally, an invisible freeway. San Franciscans didn't want that, either. Go figure . . .

I imagine there's an argument for the idea that if a means of surface travel hadn't been invented we would have adopted travel by hot-air ballon or some such; it just doesn't seem likely, to me. On the other hand, the push for better vehicles -- moved in a green way, shared, downsized, etc -- is all for the good. So is the vision of a better city, and country. Vast quantities of irreplaceable carbohydrates , so useful in manufacturing durable goods and in other uses, has been literally burned up, in the last century and more. A lesson (we hope) learned ?

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10420
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

It doesn't matter. In the coming digital age, we will all be working out of our homes, or not working at all, so commuting will soon be a thing of the past. Or at least it will be true or future generations; we will all be dead by then.

Reidy
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

While we're knocking freeways and the consequent suburban expansion and all the attendant costs, we'd be wise to remember that Wright and his friend Lewis Q Mumford were among the originators.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4368
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

Went to the Open House last Sunday. Much larger crowds than you would normally expect.

Current owner who has had it for two years is being transferred.

The house is very nice and quite large 5BR and 4BA. Basically a three story square with detached garage connected to the main house by a bridge/pergola.

No so nice: It sits on a small pond surrounded by McMansions across the pond.

This was the last house in the subdivision to be built (1969). Because, of course, it was an "unbuildable" lot.

Nice neighborhood except that the lots were too small for my taste. No discernible road noise.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Post Reply