For sale: Three of Wright's Glencoe, IL houses

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: 19634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

So -- eight photos, three of which ostensibly show Wright's work. Now what's with the hanging frame near the entry, and the similar peek-a-boo woodwork
at the rear openings from the main space ? We take for granted that the stained glass is ersatz Wright . . .

SDR

SREcklund
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Post by SREcklund »

Clearly, January's buyer wasn't the "certain type" John mentioned above, but a different "type" we are quire familiar with here in SoCal, quick to look for a profit with little regard to the historical nature of the site. Unfortunate.
Docent, Hollyhock House - Hollywood, CA
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

SDR
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

At least the flipper didn't have time to ruin it . . . ?

SDR

outside in
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

I'm quite sure that the owners are not doing this as a profit-making venture. They have invested some $$ into improvements - it appears that their personal situation has changed.

SREcklund
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Post by SREcklund »

outside in wrote:I'm quite sure that the owners are not doing this as a profit-making venture. They have invested some $$ into improvements - it appears that their personal situation has changed.
I'm glad to hear that, and sorry at the same time - it would be a heartbreaking turn of events for someone set on living Wright.

Can you comment on the sort of improvements they've made in their short time as caretakers?
Docent, Hollyhock House - Hollywood, CA
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

DavidC
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

SREcklund wrote: Can you comment on the sort of improvements they've made in their short time as caretakers?

outside in
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: chicago

Post by outside in »

Its very disappointing to see how both Wright's name and owners whose needs have changed get maligned in the press. They have been good stewards in their limited time and improvements include the repair of the chimney and flue, boiler pump replacement, creating reasonable headroom in the stairs, the creation of an opening from the kitchen to the dining area and some minor improvements of an upstairs bath. It should be obvious that these improvements were accomplished prior to moving in - but again, things change.

I had to laugh at the reporters view of the landmark designation as well. No fact checking - its an honorary landmark because the owners never applied for certified landmark status, NOT because of alterations.

DavidC
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


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

Post by Matt »

I've always thought that Sherman Booth house was an ungainly thing. That third story throws things off balance to my eye.

Oh, if only they'd built the orginal Booth plan. A great unbuilt masterpiece.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10302
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The plot plan for Booth Scheme #1 (Mono 3/172) with its long road, starting with some subsidiary structures, passing through landscaped grounds, over the bridge, under the dining room ... that is as dramatic an entrance process as FLW ever designed. (There's a larger image of it published somewhere, I cannot recall in what book. It's a black field with white lines.) If it had been built, Booth.1 would be among the most celebrated houses of FLW's career.

SDR
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Here is the site plan, published at very small size, which Roderick cites, and a detail of same, as well as the house plans also presented in Monograph 3.

"The Clearing" on the site plan reminds me of the work of F L Olmstead. Was Jens Jensen involved in this project ? Was he an admirer of Olmstead's approach to landscape design ?


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10302
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Yes, it was Jens Jensen who did the landscape plan. He also designed the unbuilt scheme for the Glencoe Park features that FLW designed.

DavidC
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Post Reply