New Buffalo Construction Photos

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:35 pm

The Grand Opening of Frank Lloyd Wright's Rowing Boat House in Buffalo will be Saturday, September 29th from 10 am to noon. www.wrightsboathouse.org

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:23 pm

Here are some recent photos of the Boathouse and new Martin House construction: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45747476@N ... 986981832/

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:56 pm

Thanks, Paul. It's so good to see these examples of (re)construction; the carriage house and conservatory (with those priceless bird-mansions atop) seem to be flawless work.

Do you suppose Wright intended to frame those boat-house cantilevers with steel ? I can't imagine why not -- though I assume the project never got to the working-drawing stage. The diamond-lite sash certainly ground the design in its original period-setting. . .

SDR

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:47 pm

SDR wrote:Do you suppose Wright intended to frame those boat-house cantilevers with steel ? I can't imagine why not -- though I assume the project never got to the working-drawing stage. The diamond-lite sash certainly ground the design in its original period-setting. . .

Since he used steel in the Robie House cantilever (from the same time period), I would assume that he would have. They are really quite dramatic. I don't know how long they are but seem like about twenty feet. From my discussions there were no construction drawings and even some of the elevation drawings were incompatible with each other. I also like the windows, it reminded me of his home and studio in Oak Park.

Oak Park Jogger · Post by **Oak Park Jogger** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:16 pm

I drove through Buffalo last week and was able to see the boathouse from the road but unable to figure out how to get closer for a walk-by. I'm sure good signage is part of the plan. . . .

Buffalo could use a brochure that provides maps/addresses for all the Wright structures to assist us tourists. All I found, on a Tuesday when the Darwin Martin house wasn't open, were brochures for the Martin complex and Graycliff.

I did drive to Graycliff and really enjoyed the tour! It's a much more exciting house than I expected and definitely worth the short drive from the Martin house area of the city.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:21 am

Even if the Buffalo Boathouse is the built version of FLW schematic design, it is a rather mediocre building. It has none of the visual richness and detail of FLW Prairie Period Buildings that FLW saw through design development, construction documents, bidding, and construction phase. Compare this boathouse to a standing utilitarian, low budget building of the period, i.e. the River Forest Tennis Club. The River Forest Tennis Club even with some unfortunate alterations and limited maintenance/preservation budget over the years is light years better as an architectural work. There is certainly a wonderful fit and consistency between the architectural/construction technology, design, and program. An important part of the aesthetic is the exposed construction technology, scale of the spaces, and the interior proportional systems which contributes to a wonderful, authentic architectural work in the River Forest Tennis Club. The interior and exterior architecture have the consistency and fit that is so lacking in the Buffalo Boathouse.

Throughout his long and prolific career Mr. Wright did buildings that used materials and construction technology in an authentic, honest way that contributed to the greatness of his buildings. With the Buffalo Boathouse one sees a precast concrete shell with lots of structural steel dressed up to look like a plaster stucco clad wood frame building. The building totally ignores important fundamental principles of that were quite consistent throughout Frank Lloyd Wright's career in his work.

I appreciate the sincerity of the donors and their desire to realize a unbuilt schematic design of Frank Lloyd Wright. However they should question the professional advice that they were given. Some professionals/academics dropped the ball on this building and the goofy gas station. I walked through Disneyland on Sunday and Monday and the parallels with these two fake Frank Lloyd Wright projects are striking. It is unfortunate that two missteps will blur the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright in the eyes of the general public.

The most important thing about this revival of Frank Lloyd Wright in Buffalo is that the Darwin Martin Campus is being restored in its full glory which is a major accomplishment and that Wright's fascinating Graycliff is being restored. Two missteps is a small price to pay to achieve the fine restoration work on two wonderful Frank Lloyd Wright projects for one of his most important clients.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:48 am

I was just informed that the Buffalo Boathouse was a Legacy Project authorized and certified as being a Frank Lloyd Wright Building by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. I cannot believe that this is true. Unbelievable. I cannot understand how a foundation whose primary mission is to further the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright could do such a morally bankrupt activity just to make a few dollars. If it is true, this is a totally misguided, bizarre, and ridiculous act that sets another all-time low for a foundation of any type.

Surely the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation has more integrity and commitment to the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright than to do something as stupid as this.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:53 am

Credits for the Project

ARCHITECTURAL TEAM
Frank Lloyd Wright
Original Principal Architect

Tony Puttnam
Project Lead Architect
(FLW Apprentice)

Hamilton, Houston and Lowrie
Local Architect

It looks like this confirms that it is an ersatz Frank Lloyd Wright project by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. Unbelievable.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:36 am

Tony Putnam and Hamilton Houston Lownie are both excellent, well-respected architectural firms. The latter is in charge of the Martin House Restoration, which will probably set a new standard for restoration. I'm not quite sure why this activity is so viciously condemned by some - I, for one, rather enjoy seeing some of these buildings built, depending on the completeness of the construction documents as accomplished by Wright. Although Wright was known for making modifications in the field, I think it can also be said that the majority of his projects were built exactly as the drawings show - SO is that any different than listening to Beethoven without actually having to hear Ludwig Play?

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:23 pm

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Harding. I find it odd that sensible judgments based upon specific points are ignored in this debate, answered simply with a desire to "see" an unbuilt Wright design.

It most likely would have been concrete, but perhaps in the Unity Temple vain with texture and the tell tale detailing only something Frank had a hand in could convey. The slick, precast, and sterile end result is not criticism of the architects, who only performed to a requested program. Rather, it makes the point that as ARCHITECTURE, it has no purpose other than to attract tourist dollars. If the purpose was for the rowing club's needs, they should have used the opportunity to CREATE architecture by utilizing one of many fine architects available; something in context and appropriate for the site. A nice model does more conveying the breathtaking idea Wright had for this project than all the assumptions needed to be made at such a cost-for what?

www.hhlarchitects.com/projects/PDFs/flw ... 0house.pdf

Considering cost, and the need (indeed the importance) to save other Wright structures, the money spent on this project astounds me. The publicity blurb stated a $950,000 budget-and it probably cost more as all Wright buildings did/do!

If this is viewed as needless criticism, there is a very perverted view of what architecture is by even those who like to think they are interested in Wright's work.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:59 pm

I think these interesting arguments show how various is (are ?) the feelings and thoughts that architecture is capable of eliciting.

With all due respect, for a practicing architect to undertake the modification of a standing Wright house, while at the same time decrying the new construction of an existing Wright design, is puzzling to me. (I'm sorry if I have missed the arguments that support this view. I am ready to be enlightened.)

The strong and no doubt sincere emotion that this issue raises, reminds me of certain religious discussions I have witnessed. Is there indeed something Sacred about the work in question -- to some ? Does the (re)creation of unbuilt designs cross a Moral Barrier; does it parallel the Gay Marriage Issue ("Your gay marriage make my straight marriage [somehow] less valid.") ? Do these new buildings somehow detract from the Legacy Of Wright; do they make existing buildings less valuable in any way ? I don't see it. . .

Wright, like any architect, was at the mercy of the building trades in the execution of his work. Unity Temple, with its wonderful pebbly texture, was nevertheless scarred at birth by a bad pour on one of the major facades, correctable only by the growth of ivy. If the "newness" of the Boat House is a fault, just wait; every building was pristine for a while.

I certainly accept that these views are sincere and thus valid; I just fail to comprehend their intensity. The mere recreation of a work of art is taken as an act of fraud ?

To me, seeing what Wright intended, at full scale and in the daylight, is the point of such an exercise. Do we dishonor him ? Did he not himself really live only to see what his work would "look like," built ?

The same body of work, the same Life, clearly means different things to each of us. I guess we can only share our views, and (respectfully) wonder at those of others.

SDR

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:05 pm

That was not a $950,000 project regardless of what the publicity blurb claimed. The foundation charged $840,000 for rights and working drawings. Plus they had to pay the local architect and engineers for their services (construction drawings, supervision, etc.) Plus the cost of construction.

Of course the FLW Foundation will certify it as a Frank Lloyd Building. Their certifications no longer mean a whole lot because they have their wasted their creditability and good name. Hopefully the new leadership is turning the ship around. Unfortunately the ship has had a broken moral compass that needs to be fixed.

This boathouse is a prime example of the best way to understand something: follow the money. Those that have financial interest in this are not in a position to comment in an unbiased manner on the merits of this ERZATZ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT BUILDING or certify it as a Frank Lloyd Wright Building. In addition we have anonymous posters that defend a silly project like this while they are consultants to the key players in this and other projects. Someone that points out that the "kingâ€™s new clothes" are not what they appear to be, is not making "vicious attacks". The merits of this over hyped project should be discussed in forums such as this in an open manner so that Wright Enthusiasts can better understand what a newly constructed "certified Frank Lloyd Wright Building" is all about.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:23 pm

An October 4, 2005 press release stated that "The Boathouse Corporation is conducting a $5.4 million capital campaign to fund construction of Wright's rowing boathouse."

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:09 pm

The simplicity of the Boathouse makes it a natural for construction. The fact that it is being used for its original intention is meritorious. Fobbing it off as Frank Lloyd Wright without qualification is meretritious. While it is never the most desirable thing to create an "original" from a fragment (think Albinoni), with something as elegantly simple as Yahara, I think it is not so heinous a crime. Even the gas station might be worthwhile if it were to be used as a gas station. As the complexity of the project increases, the advisability of its posthumous creation decreases; Monona Terrace and even Grady Gammage must be qualified as work based on FLW, not as his original designs, which neither is. Constructing the first project for Sherman Booth, even on the original site, would be madness. The one problem I have with Yahara is the texture, which I suspect may have been affected by the fame of the chiaroscuro rendering. When criticized for the extravagant (for the times) pay he received for making movies, Humphrey Bogart replied, "If they offer it, you're worth it." What Yahara cost seems not worth bothering about, since it would not have been built if it had not been worth it to someone. To suggest that the money spent might have been better spent on some more worthy project is beside the point. Taliesin has been cashing in on its heritage for decades; I don't see anything unusual here. It's a sad reality that is unlikely to end soon. All things should be discussed, all sides aired, but with civility.

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:01 am

Thank you Mr. Grant for your stability.
I continue to be fascinated by the "honest arrogance" (can I use this term?) that many on this forum use to express their opinion. I find that with maturity comes a more open, accepting view of projects like the boat house. Why, for example, should interest, excitement and enthusiasm be condemned for the sake "art" (and I mean that in the most "pure" sense) We seem to be living in an age where our past is being reinterpreted on a daily basis, and who is say what is right or wrong? I was very much impressed by the new symposium in NC titled "looking at the past without anger" (or something like that)......we are in a new age, one where the sanctity of "art" (as defined by the modern "heroes") needs to be re-examined and redefined, and we each have to choose whether or not we're going to be part of the future, or the past.

Wright Chat

New Buffalo Construction Photos

New Buffalo Construction Photos

New Construction Photos