Lloyd Wrights 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
Spring Green

Lloyd Wrights for sale

Post by Spring Green »

As in Lloyd, not Frank:



In a rare real estate harmonic convergence, two Lloyd Wright (son of you-know-who, architecture mavens) properties in Los Feliz hit the market this week. One is the 1928 Samuels-Navarro House in the Los Feliz Oaks...."



And the 1926 Sowden House.



So if you're in LA, make an appointment, I guess. Only $3.1 million for the Navarro house.

JimM
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

These are real jewels. I'm always amazed how little credit Lloyd is given. Maybe it's expected because of the gene's, but to have FLLW's respect, even if your his son, is not trivial. Lloyd did an incredible job of assimilating good design from his father, but had his own identity. There is little that is derivative or cheap, as is so common. His large inventory is not, as a whole, unique in the way that defines the genius of FLLW. What all of his work has is the unmistakeable stamp of a creative mind. That alone puts him above so many.



Diane Keaton did a renovation of Samuels-Navarro, somewhat sympathetic but definitey not done as a historic house. She was aware of the houses importance and certainly her resources and efforts probably stabilized the house for its future.



Snowden is (was?) one of the coolest houses on the planet, although a fragment of its original extravagance. Not in gold faucetts, but in its flight of imagination. I saw a recent show about it. A "Hollywood" type renovated it, but it was hard to really see what damage was done, or what shape it was in before he started. The guy seemed like an a**hole. The most disturbing thing was that not once in the segment was Lloyd Wright's name mentioned!



I don't look at those houses without thinking about what it was like, soaking up the twenties and thirties with all those Bohemians, huddled in their Wright caves warmed by Wright fireplaces doing whatever it is they were doing.....talk about synergy...if those walls could talk....

JimM
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Ugh. I just had a good look at those Sowden (I know I mispelled it above) pictures. How depressing. Imagine what that misguidely spent money could have done for that beautiful masterpiece.



Please, one of you rich guys: buy it now that it's avaialble and tear all that crap out. Please.

EJ
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

For you architecture fans who are also movie fans: The Sowden house was featured in Scorcese's "The Aviator". It was Ava Gardner's house and was were she smacked Howard Hughes (Leo DiCapio) and threw him out.
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

Guest

Post by Guest »

JimM



What did you find objectionable about the interior?

JimM
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

I assume that a lot of money was probably spent on unseen improvements such as stabilization, heating'electrical systems, etc., which is obviously a good thing.



I was only saying that with the budget employed, the house really deserved an appropriate restoration. The furnishings alone indicate money was not an issue; their cost could easily have paid to restore the incredibly interesting sculptural features in the interior courtyard, rather than the Palm Springs hotel pool area it has become. The houses character has been replaced by a stylized veneer that could grace any contemporary "chic" magazine. The house was so progessive that it easily accomodates contemporary design elements, and luckily it does not look like any major damage has been done.



But as usual, ego and high style has been put front and center rather than letting the importance of the architecture predominate. Even in the kitchen, where compromise is understandable, there didn't seem to be any emphasis on respecting this important work. It could be any of a million trophy homes. Just my opinion.



Like I said, what concern was there for the architecture when Lloyd Wright's name was not even important enough to mention?



Look at historic photos to really see how much has been lost.

Post Reply