Article: Proposal for unbuilt FLW wedding chapel in Buffalo

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: 18691
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »


Rood
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:19 pm
Location: Goodyear, AZ 85338

Post by Rood »

"At Sandoro's suggestion, Stinson and his architect – Patrick Mahoney of Lauer-Manguso & Associates – contacted the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and its affiliated School of Architecture. The foundation no longer licenses the use of Wright plans but did not object to Stinson using the chapel design 'as an inspiration.' "

What does that mean ... that from now on anything Wright designed can be freely used as an "inspiration"? How would that be better than the previous licensing agreements, during witch the Foundation retained at least some control over Wright's work.

DavidC
Posts: 7325
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4259
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

It has always been the case that artists and architects have been inspired in their creativity by the world around them. I doubt that this can be legislated or licensed.

We have numerous contemporary buildings in Mason City that were inspired by Mr. Wright's architecture both in this town and elsewhere.
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9809
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

"The chapel will also include rooms and a hallway from a Wright-designed and now greatly altered home in Minneapolis, purchased from the company that did major demolition. The rooms will be for bridal prep."

Olfelt Recycled!?

Tom
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Developer Henry Stinson:
"It also sort of reinforces the idea of the hotel as a destination for events," said Stinson.
"The other thing is that it's such an architectural landmark.
It's a selfie place and that's something very important to buildings now.
Pictures.
People don't read anything anymore. They look at pictures.
They take a selfie and this would be a perfect one for it."

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9809
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Selfies taken in great works of architecture or on natural sites that are spectacular, like the Grand Canyon, are better if the selves are left out of them.

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

Am I the only one who thinks this looks horrible? I mean, really horrible? It isn't the chapel and it isn't the hotel, but the two together don't match at all.

SDR
Posts: 18691
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Perhaps this is a case where, if the owners want to make a new space, they should design one. This proposal is analogous to attaching a Fabergé Egg to a GE microwave oven...or something.

S

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

This proposal is analogous to attaching a Fabergé Egg to a GE microwave oven...or something.
Le mot juste!

outside in
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm

Post by outside in »

I would imagine the architect is having fun looking through old drawings and doing his best to replicate what's shown. Ultimately the "proof's in the pudding" and the ability to associate the work with Wright will depend on how well its executed. One only has to refer to the horrible execution of the Massaro House to see what happens when done wrong.

Reidy
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

The design wasn't a match for the Claremont either.

outside in
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm

Post by outside in »

that's a good point - and can probably be used as one of the reasons why it wasn't built in the first place. FLW was great at new buildings, but "sensitive additions" (what we call them today) was not his forte', and was probably not interested in them.

Meisolus
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Meisolus »

It wasn't a match for the Claremont for sure. But at least it seemed to float on its own alone. One got the impression it was a separate pavilion with a small attachment to the main building. It also felt a bit more like a garden structure. Not so here.

Post Reply