Palmer to $985,000

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.
jhealy
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL

Palmer to $985,000

Post by jhealy »

Wright on the Market shows that the asking price for Palmer has already fallen to $985,000. The initial asking price a few months ago was $1,500,000. So, it's already been reduced by 1/3. One unusual thing about this is that it usually takes Wright owners a very long time before they reduce their asking price. Here, the price seems to be dropping fairly quickly.
RA
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:10 pm

Post by RA »

Interesting.

I wonder what other 2350 square foot houses on 1.5 acres of land sell for in the area. The current price sounds about right.

Glore sold for around 2.1 mil for 5200 feet on 1.7 acres 2 years back. In Lake Forest, IL, this price was below the land value for a house a block from the lake. Very pricy real esate. The land, had it been undeveloped, would have been worth 3-4 million easliy. It is a truly spectacular property surrounded by wooded ravines on a majority of the perimeter. In the summer, you can't see other houses from the property.

After reviewing the prices and locations for Wright houses for many years, it is my feeling that the prices are all over the board. No Rhyme or reason. You see houses sell for much more and much less than the prevailing market would dictate. Whereas commodity houses typically sell within a few percentage points of the average sale price for an area.

Pricing is also such a personally driven thing. The Palmer owners may really need to sell versus someone who can wait for the "right" person to come along. Although most people are thrilled with Wright's architecture, only a very small percentage of people would be willing to commit to a life living with the built-in eccentricities or ideas of the master.

So, to sell a Wright house is really a waiting game. Many people come and are astounded by what they see but few can see thmeselves living there. The ones that can see themselves owning the artwork must have it and are willing to pay the premium.

In the current economic climate, price drops like at the Palmer house are not that unusual. For the owner who would like to get their price, given reasonable parameters, they must wait out the storm.
Frankie-Oh
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:42 pm
Location: Iowa

Palmer House

Post by Frankie-Oh »

I'm not surprised. This property is not being sold as a home. The covenants are so restrictive that the only possible use for the house is as a museum. You would not even be allowed to put your own books on the bookcases.
pharding
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Palmer House

Post by pharding »

Frankie-Oh wrote:I'm not surprised. This property is not being sold as a home. The covenants are so restrictive that the only possible use for the house is as a museum. You would not even be allowed to put your own books on the bookcases.
That is a dubious statement at best. My wife and I signed the same facade easement as was used at the Palmer House. It just stipulates that the exterior be maintained, which one would do anyway, and that the exterior of the house not be changed from what it is today, which is the only correct thing to do with this spectacular, historically significant house.

The Palmer House is built with robust long, lasting expensive materials, and the house is in great shape. If you were to replicate the property the costs would be approximately $900,000 for the house, $125,000 for the tea house, $80,000 for site development and landscaping, $30,000 for the furnishings, plus $110,000 for architecture and engineering fees for a total of $1,245,000 PLUS the value of the land. At $985,000 in that community that is a great price. It is the best deal on any Frank Lloyd Wright House that I have seen.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
jhealy
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL

Post by jhealy »

You may have signed a facade easement, but the Palmer House easement is much more than that. I am all for preservation easements and have negotiated a few of them on behalf of clients. The Palmer House easement is very restrictive in some places and in other places overly burdensome. For instance, while the owner must allow family to visit 2 times per year, it must also allow others to visit at other times upon appointment, without restriction on the number of appointments that can be made. Also, as an example of the one-sidedness of this document, I find it interesting that the Grantor (owner) indemnifies the Grantee (FLWBC), but that the Grantee does not indemnify Grantor for damages or losses caused by Grantee's use of the easement - e.g. tourist breaks some furniture during a visit. Typically, it is the Grantor of an easement that is indemnified, not the other way around. I wonder how a residential lender would view this easement - will it restrict financing? All that being said, if I was ever lucky enough to own a Wright home, I would grant an easement, just not this burdensome. I'm sure the FLWBC would rather have some sort of easement rather than none at all.

Still, I agree with pharding that the asking price of the home seems pretty good based on, among other things, other Wright sales and the Palmer House's location and condition. Sure makes other asking prices for Wright homes appear very high - Laurent in Rockford, IL comes to mind.
peterm
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

this painting #5 by jackson pollock from 1948 was sold by david geffen for 140 million dollars recently. this is a major work of art from the same approximate period as the palmer house.

isn't any wright house an incredible value if placed in the context of other great works of art? at 1,500,000 or 985,000, palmer is a steal at either price.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... C_1948.jpg
JimM
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

The Brit who bought Kentuck Knob and Farnsworth notwithstanding, we should be glad Wright buildings are not considered investments to those who collect that crap.

Most of us would not care as much or follow so closely the lives of these buildings if they were the commodities Monet's, van gogh's, and other great art have become. I doubt I would.

Frank knew he was creating art, but believed they were also homes. As such, what other masterpieces could (some!) people with considerably less means than the elite ever hope to obtain?

I suppose to their credit paintings require little up keeping-other than with the Jones's!
jhealy
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:11 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL

Post by jhealy »

I agree that architecture is art, especially Wright's work. However, there are some fundamental differences between a home and a painting. The most significant difference that affects the price is that a home cannot be moved (yes, I understand that it is possible to actually move a home) like a painting. A painting can be sent to its owner. Not so with a home. People in Moscow could be "in the market" for a Jackson Pollock painting, but I doubt there is someone there in the market for a Wright home in Ann Arbor, Michigan or Rockford, IL etc. Thus, the market for Wright's homes is less and is influenced by the local housing market. Ron S., the executive director of the FLWBC, is often quoted in articles about Wright homes for sale saying that Wright homes often sell for about 20% more than the local market -- even he understands that because the art is a home, its value is tied to the local housing market to a large degree.

I think that's why separate pieces of Wright's work often sell for so much. Removed, movable parts of a Wright home, like a stained glass window, sell for much more than the grounded whole.

peterm, I think you made a good purchase (based on the asking price), but would you have bought Lamberson for say, $2,000,000? Probably not, because the Oskaloosa, IA market would not support that.
peterm
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

in oskaloosa one can still find a single family detached house for $50,000.00! your points are all well taken. i still believe, however, that great architecture, not just flw, is undervalued in the art market the same way that it is by the population as a whole.

to add only 20% above the price of standard developer houses illustrates what i am saying. imagine if a jackson pollock or a van gogh for that matter would sell for only 20% more than a thrift shop portrait!
Frankie-Oh
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:42 pm
Location: Iowa

Post by Frankie-Oh »

A source for my "dubious at best" statement:
http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/ann ... right.html

"Ed Surovell, owner of Surovell Realtors, said he was optimistic about the home being sold, even considering the potential challenges. "The house poses unique problems characteristic of homes designed for art's sake rather than for practicality," he said. "It poses challenges to ordinary use."

Surovell said Eckstein was doing the right thing in targeting a Wright-specific audience. But he added that the ultimate buyer may not be a family who will live there. "We have to make a presumption that the likelihood is it won't be purchased to be a full-time residence of a family," Surovell said.

Scherubel said the preservation easement addressing aspects as detailed as the books allowed in the library - only the original Wright documents that are there now - is relatively rare, but not a major obstacle to a sale."
pharding
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

That is interesting. However to say "that the only possible use for the house is a museum" is an overstatement.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
pharding
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Post by pharding »

Here is a fine strategy for this great Frank Lloyd Wright Property. Buy it when the price is artificially depressed by the current market conditions and refinance at 4 1/2 or 4 per cent in the spring. Buying the Palmer House, a great, eminently livable property, in a down real estate market with incredibly low interest rates is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

If I was the owner of the property I would terminate the contract with the real estate broker for making stupid statements to the media. He is certainly a knucklehead.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn
peterm
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

Maybe this has been discussed already, but I just noticed that the Palmer house has been sold. Does anyone know anything about this?
dtc
Posts: 739
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:04 am

Post by dtc »

If it is a fact that the Palmer home has sold, my congratulations to the new owner/owners. The comments that were made by pharding (the fourth reply of this thread) hits home the great value of the two structures, +landscape, +location, & of course being a part of its very important history. It was worth the asking price, verses investing in a legacy F.LL.W. design.

From the moment it was first listed I felt like my wife and I should have attempted acquiring it. We are finishing work on the Dobkins (11years now) and have enjoyed every minute of the restoration. Seeing the building come alive is a major source of a day's pleasure, not to mention living in it.

I've been to the Palmer house and it is a very livable, and a very beautiful space,--- the new owners are fortunate indeed to experience the spaces on a daily basis.
I wish them all the best.

dtc
peterm
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Chicago, Il.---Oskaloosa, Ia.

Post by peterm »

The Dobkins house and the Palmer house are both fine examples of Wright's later residential work.

Is Canton a pleasant place to live? I suppose Ann Arbor would be ideal with it's University of Michigan.

My congratulations to the new owners of the Palmer house, also. They might be among the small group of owners who can move into a Wright house without a long list of restoration projects which must be undertaken. Thanks to the previous owners for leaving it in such great condition!
Post Reply