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.
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?The Phoenix City Council is scheduled to meet Dec. 7 on whether to grant the designation, which would ensure against demolition threats.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news ... lloyd.html
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?
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.
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 ...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.
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
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.