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,SDR wrote:Ooh-wee -- looking good, Paul ! Delightful landscaping, too. Those roof overhangs have never looked larger, somehow . . .SDR
If you are referring to the Yelland House, I have to give credit for the landscaping design to John Eifler.
One of my roommates at school was (is) a landscape architect. He came from rural Massachusetts and waxed poetic about "the swamps of home,"
and went on to a career as a professor of the discipline in Toronto. Where is he today ? He's the revered alien presence of a community in Thailand,
still gardening -- and blessedly free of American politics. More power to him . . .
https://newsok.com/article/5609136/gues ... get-design
1) the digital graphic presentation of this house allows the "camera" view angles that would not be possible in the "real world."DavidC wrote:100 Moonlight Point (unbranded) - [5:22] David
2) the fast motion of the presentation caused many instances of "ghosting" in the images.
No way to judge this house's actual condition. What are they hiding about the current state of this twenty-five-year-old house? The realtor.com listing shows nothing but still images from the digital fly-thru presentation: https://www.realtor.com/realestateandho ... 2897-44602
3) the house has some nice Wrightian elements but has many rooms that are overly large for their purpose. Just one of those, for example, would be the laundry room.
4) price seems cheap based on the cost per sq ft and the acreage.
5) It has been for sale for nine years... because of price or condition?
I'm not sure what is meant by 'view angles that would not be possible in the "real world"' -- but the result is nevertheless eerie and unsettling, as well as too quickly paced by far.
The location of this property seems very similar to another -- a neighbor, perhaps -- that was shown to us a year or two ago, by an owner who was looking for advice about his roof, as I recall it. Anyone recall that ?
The "process" is a 3D digital creation of the house because it is a video tour of a digital model, not the actual house.SDR wrote:I'm trying to imagine the process that produced the interior images of the house. The mechanistic camerawork seems more like something found in a video tour of a digital model. SDR