Article: David Wright owner buys adjacent properties

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.
DavidC
Posts: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Here's a different link with the same information.


David

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

Thanks David.
The threat of a lawsuit led Phoenix leaders to back off a city-initiated plan to designate a Frank Lloyd Wright designed house a historic landmark.
OK, a suit by whom?
For years, council members have delayed acting on the designation, but the owner’s pledge to sue citing economic harm to his property rights forced a vote Wednesday in the owner’s favor.
Rawlings' pledge to sue, or the surrounding property owners pledge to sue?
Since then, a new owner has bought adjacent properties and asked for 5.9 acres to be granted landmark status. The owner’s attorney, Michael Kibler told council members their focus on the 2.45 acres has hurt his client.
So, has this been an argument over landmark designation of the house and 2.45 AC vs. the house and 5.9 AC? It would seem it has been...
In the end, council members withdrew the proposal and the owner will continue seeking historic status for the 5.9 acres which includes the house.
Which means the house is not protected. If the grand plans never reach fruition, and the house goes on the market, it is unprotected from a developer wanting to divide and McMansion. Isn't job one protect the house? Or, does landmarking 2.45AC preclude the "grand plan" on the assembled 5.9AC?

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

This article must have been written by a millennial. They have terrible communicating skills. The story may be in there, hiding among commas and apostrophes, but it lacks clarity.

SREcklund
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Post by SREcklund »

DRN wrote:Which means the house is not protected. If the grand plans never reach fruition, and the house goes on the market, it is unprotected from a developer wanting to divide and McMansion. Isn't job one protect the house? Or, does landmarking 2.45AC preclude the "grand plan" on the assembled 5.9AC?
It sounds like a lot of the Wright folks in the community have faith in Rawlings' intentions. The Foundation is supporting his efforts, Victor Sidy is on board as their new architect, and everyone I've talked to closer to the issue than I believes in what they're trying to do. If they back away from the entertainment venue they were envisioning in favor for restored groves and a preserved house, they have my support. But I await proof ...
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: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

So the goal is to landmark the assembled lots as a whole, presumably to enable a single use, and possibly prevent obstruction to use due to landmarking on part vs. whole? As long as the house is restored, financially stable, and isn't threatened by sale for demolition...

Angry architects over an AIA award going to non-architects for saving a historic building? Some architects can be pretty catty, but this would be beyond the pale.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I like the "chicken-wire-and-plywood faux Italian domiciles" comment.

DavidC
Posts: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Bringing the David Wright thread back post-apocalypse.


David

DavidC
Posts: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Roderick Grant
Posts: 10043
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Who's right? The article assumes the guest house was designed by FLW. Storrer says Jack Howe. I tend to side with Bill.

SDR
Posts: 19119
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Storrer (1993): "A guesthouse to the north is by John H Howe. To the south is a home for David's son, David Lloyd Wright, designed by elder brother, Lloyd Wright."

Storrer does not date these constructions. But the latter house appears, in brief, in Alan Weintraub's Lloyd Wright monograph:



Image

Image



This house may have disappeared. It's site would seem, from Google maps and views, to have occupied the sand-colored plot seen south of the David Wright house, in this aerial:


Image



Here is what the most recent street view shows, for that site. The rock formations visible in Weintraub's photo of the David Lloyd Wright house can be seen above the white four-door vehicle at left, below:


Image



The entrance to the David Wright house, whose address according to Storrer is 5212 East Exeter, is actually on N Rubicon Ave:


Image

DavidC
Posts: 7597
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

Sadly, I’m not surprised by this:

http://davidwrighthouse.org/joint-state ... ociety_103

Whether it is as a single parcel or as the consolidated collection of acquired lots, the house needs to be landmarked SOONER RATHER THAN LATER before it’s ownership changes again.

SDR
Posts: 19119
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I'm surprised to hear that the house hasn't already been landmarked. That would be an important step, I imagine.

What is meant by "independence of the school" ? What changed, and what is the school now independent of ? Pardon my ignorance.

"Uncertainty regarding future capital improvements at the House and the long-term cultural development of the site in Phoenix increased this concern." In
terms of "what next," this sentence is perhaps the crux of the statement. It doesn't sound like doom is imminent, rather that a different source of funding
is now required. Do I have that right ?

SDR

Post Reply