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.
As much as FLW disdained the Victorian architecture of the day when he built his house, and later his studio, that is what the neighborhood looked like, and so it should remain. Whatever programs the Home & Studio thinks it needs to remain relevant should be housed in existing structures that do not violate the residential nature of the area.
There is a parallel between this misadventure and the recent kerfuffle over the planned high rise casting a shadow on Unity Temple ... same subject, differing only in the details.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“The building has to be architecturally significant in its own right, but it cannot upstage the reason people are coming there,Ã¢â‚¬Â� Ronan said.
Only honest arrogance perhaps, but this scheme not only "upstages" the historic site, but also the locale and neighborhood within which it would be situated.
Toshiko Mori's solution in Buffalo was a master stroke in comparison.
Whether this design will pass muster with the city historical society is to be seen.
IMHO: Take the building and sink it a half story into the ground and put a lot of foliage between it and the street and extend the existing wall and add a "green" roof and an overhang and clerestory windows.
The Martin visitor center is a different situation in my view...a larger lot to work with and the streetscape is not so much a part of the story...a modern pavilion works there. I'd lean toward incorporating the existing house(s) next door to act as "fronts" if feasible, even if they were just used as shells with floors moved to grade and the bulk of the center located and well screened in the rear of the lot.
The could always 'replace' it with some 3-year-old pin oak whips that would only need another hundred years or so to catch back up.
It has caught my eye as out of character for the non-Wright house.
The potential loss of these two houses which set the scene for the context Wright was working within seems so at odds with current methods of presenting built history.
But I disagree about the Martin pavilion; in itself, it is a fine building,
but it is out of place in the neighborhood as it was at the time Martin was built. A garrison of greenery would help.
The article says one house would be demolished, but the proposed plan would take up much more than one lot, three at least.
It would also pave a new approach. The Home should always be entered by the front door, as should the Studio.
Funneling visitors in past the garage is not an acceptable solution.
From what I can tell, John Ronan is in the business of building at a scale way beyond what is called for in OP.
They need an architect with a more residential touch that could blend in ... assuming it has to be done at all.
I think its the same in Oak Park. Years of preservation battles fought to save older homes, sometimes even garages! But god forbid anyone would stand up to the Home and Studio. I have a sickening feeling that both of these houses will come down with barely a wimper, since we all know how important the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust is to Oak Park.