Biggest Challenges in Frank Lloyd Wright Restoration

[pharding]

Having seen a very high number of Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings in various states, well restored, poorly restored, unrestored, well maintained, poorly maintained, added on to, and factoring my personal experience with the restoration of the Davenport House and other historic preservation projects that our firm has done, I will offer my personal observations of the biggest challenges that I have seen.

1. Insufficient funding of routine maintenance. Many Wright properties are large in relation to their peers and are loaded with natural finishes that require routine on-going maintenance. Typically Wright properties are owned by owners with long tenures which includes the retirement years with limited resources. On the Davenport House the average tenure has been 28 years. What tends to happen is that routine maintenance which could be done cheaply if one kept up with it, gets deferred. Unaddressed minor problems morph into large problems, with a corresponding price tag.

2. Over personalization of Frank Lloyd Wright Houses with permanent changes. The desire to personalize a Frank Lloyd Wright House is certainly understandable and part of the the life cycle of any house that is lived in. It is unavoidable that some changes are needed to reflect our time and technology. Kitchens and master bathrooms are prime examples of where changes are in order. Mechanical and electrical systems are another within walls and floors and in the basement are another. A lot can be done to personalize the houses with furniture, art work, etc. that is easily reversible. What becomes problematic is when permanent changes are made in other areas to personalize the house rather than using equally effective non-permanent. reversible changes.

3. Unrealistic expecations of immediate financial returns for the restoration of a FLW house. "My Frank Lloyd Wright house is or will be worth a gazillion dollars". Real estate values are market driven. Having a house by Frank Lloyd Wright adds value but not the eye popping value that some believe it to add. Accounting for the local market conditions, the condition of the house, comparable non-FLW houses, etc. having Frank Lloyd Wright as the architect probably adds 15 to 25% at best to the value of the house. Market value does not reflect the value of restoration dollars put in the house on a one to one basis. Over-optimistic faulty assumptions about real estate values leads to FLW houses sitting on the market excessively long. It is better be pragmatic about restoration costs and the lenght of tenure for the property owners. If one intends to live a FLW house for an extended period of time major restoration costs pay a siginificant intrinsic persoanl reward plus in the long term they make sense. Restoring a Frank Lloyd Wright house with the idea of making an immediate profit is extremely challenging.

5. Failure to appreciate the value of historic finishes. On the Davenport House one of the biggest challenges was restoring the finishes in a historically accurate manner for this particular FLW house. What seems to happen typically is that original finishes shift over time due oxidation of the wood and finish systems, dirt becomes embedded in the finish, etc. which darken the stain and finish system. Rather than using un-invasive strategies for finish restoration and maintenance, homeowners bring in the local painter or the local painter painter claims to a FLW expert painter or a historic painter. Wood finishes that could be restored with non-invasive techniques get permanent solutions that alter the character of the finishes forever to the major detriment of the house. On the Davenport House a succession of prior well meaning owners darkened the original stain color and used robust, non-historic finishes. This creates a trick bag where in order to get out the later darker stains there are no good options. One can use power tools to sand off the offensive finishes, but original detail and dimensions are lost or one just somehow works with it to get the best results possible under the given circumstances. Clearly in dealing with historic finishes, if the homeowner feels compelled to alter them, a restoration architect can help immensely at a moderate cost to maintain the original character of something that is irreplaceable while meeting the homeowner's goals.

6. Homeowner and Contractor as Restoration Architect. Even with a self-proclaimed Frank Lloyd Expert Contractor, and the homeowner acting a restoration architect significant damage to irreplaceable finishes and building components can needlessly occur. Important elements and finishes are lost forever. Imitation FLW is never as good as real FLW. Quality restoration architects are economical for what you get because in many cases the original finishes and elements can be restored instead of replaced. The implications of bad strategies can at least be discussed so that the homeowner can make informed decisions.

7. Obsolete and Inefficient Mechanical Systems and Building Insulation. Technology and energy costs have changed siginifacantly in the recent past. Green strategies should be a consideration for every Wright restoration project. Tax credits and energy savings payback plus increased resale value are particularly valuable to Frank Lloyd Wright Homeowners if done properly as part of a restoration project. On the Davenport House Green Strategies paid for themselves within 8 years.

8. Additions. In general additions are bad and best avoided if all possible. Even with a skillfull restoration architect, the result is often a bad idea done well.

Frank Lloyd Wright houses are absolutely great houses to live in. Well informed decisions can make an enormous difference in creating a great environment to live in without burdening future generations with insurmountable restoration challenges and obliterating irreplaceable historic architectural finishes and components.

[EJ]

Interesting, thank you for posting. I often think about what it would be like to take on a project as you have, and this lends perspective. Thanks!

[egads]

Remember it was Joel Silver who said: "architecture is the only art you can buy based on comps"

[DRN]

Paul:
Any thoughts on changing construction details that are not, or not readily, visible to correct structural or stormwater management (leaks, rotting, masonry freeze/thaw) issues?
Some would have us believe slavish adherence to original details is the only way...I cannot afford to restore, repair, or replace systems and assemblies only to set the house up for a repeat of the original problem. In some cases, I believe problematic detailing issues were the result of inattention by Wright, or an inadaquately supervised constructor, rather than Wright's direct intention of a specific detail. In these cases I may carefully consider inobtrusive (read: if you really look carefully and compare to an old close-up photo...) alternatives to prevent recurrence of some very expensive and disruptive repairs.

[pharding]

Anything concealed within the wall or roof assemblies, non-finished spaces is certainly available for technical improvements according to nationally recognized preservation standards. On Davenport we added continuous vents in the soffit at the perimeter of the fascia as an example.

[Roderick Grant]

Paul, how did you deal with the art glass windows at Davenport? Do you have old fashioned storm windows to schlep out every autumn? Or have you dealt with heat loss in a different way? The texture of art glass is important both inside and out; the addition of plate glass windows on Dana diminishes the pattern of the caming in the windows significantly, although it must also help with both interior temperature control and weathering of the art glass.

[DavidC]

Any thoughts on changing construction details that are not, or not readily, visible to correct structural or stormwater management (leaks, rotting, masonry freeze/thaw) issues?

DRN - if you take Fallingwater as an example, 10 years ago they did HUGE changes beyond the original when they decided to post-tension the cantilevers. If they took the "slave-to-original" approach, no telling when those cants would sag to the point of no return.


David

[pharding]

Paul, how did you deal with the art glass windows at Davenport? Do you have old fashioned storm windows to schlep out every autumn? Or have you dealt with heat loss in a different way? The texture of art glass is important both inside and out; the addition of plate glass windows on Dana diminishes the pattern of the caming in the windows significantly, although it must also help with both interior temperature control and weathering of the art glass.

On Davenport House the art glass and windows are being restored in phases. The first phase was completed 2 years ago.

Part of the beauty of art glass is the way the glass reflects fractured images of the neighborhood and sky. This occurs because each individual pane in the 1901 art glass windows is slightly out of plane with its adjacent glass panes. A storm window on the exterior side of the art glass (which some FLW Homeowners have done) loses this effect and creates one large reflective pane of glass which is modern in character and out of character with the historic house in my opinion.

We are having interior storm windows and screens made for the living room as I write this. He is waiting on a decision on the glass from me. It is single laminated glazing with a UV layer within versus insulating glass. I am leaning toward the former but I haven't decided yet. The laminated glass also reduces sound transmission. We are using lift off hinges which will allow me to swap out storm windows and screen windows. We are probably going to use bronze screen mesh because it is authentic to the period of the house. I am going to apply a chemical to it to accelerate the aging so that it has a beautiful soft patina instead of the shiny new bronze look.

Many early Prairie Houses did not have screens initially including the very expensive Dana Thomas House in Springfield Illinois. They were typically added by their owners shortly after occupancy when the flies and insects moved in and FLW was out of the picture. This was the case with the Davenport House. Later Prairie Houses, like the Laura Gale House and the Coonley House, had screens which were included with the house. The year of significance for our restoration is 1921 so one can say with certainty that the Davenport House had screens by then.

[Wrightgeek]

As I recall from my last visit to the Robie House several years ago, it does have screens in the windows, and they are interior-mounted, roll-up brass screens. I cannot recall if I was told that they were original to the house or were added shortly after the house was occupied. Can anyone here clarify this for me? Thanks.

[pharding]

The Darwin Martin House had the same proprietary system. In the Dining Room you can still see one that has been pulled down and stuck there for 100 years. You can see it in the exact same position in the period photograph. It was part of the original window assembly.

[DavidC]

When we toured Greycliff we saw that they have copper screens that are original to the main building. And if I am remembering correctly, at least one of the buildings on the Martin property also used copper (though they may have been reproductions there).


David

[outside in]

It has been determined that the use of narrow profile insulating glass (5/8 combined thickness) used on the inside of the art glass is superior to single pane, in that the chance of condensation occurring on the inside of the art glass is greatly reduced. The condensation can run down the glass and pool on the sill, causing deterioration. It also allows for UV filtering on the 2nd face of the glass (between the panes) so there is no danger of the film becoming damaged over time. Laminated glass is another option, but if the weight is identical to insulating glass, I would opt for the better performance. Care should be taken to specify a colored spacer bar that comes close to the color of the stained wood.

This detail has been effective at greatly reducing the energy consumption at a variety of FLW restoration projects in the past. The lift off hinges are a good solution as well, as a select number of windows can be switched over to screens in the summer. Keeping interior storms for some of the windows during the summer keeps AC costs down if the building is air-conditioned.

Most importantly, is that the interior storm does not affect the appearance of the art glass from the exterior which, (for those who have seen the Dana House), greatly diminishes the quality of the Art Glass.

[pharding]

Thank you all for the excellent insights and information. We are looking further into the insulating glass storm windows. It looks like that is the appropriate solution. Outside In's post also sheds light on why some of the window sills had black water stain marks. Apparently this was from condensation between art glass windows and single glazed interior storm windows.

[classic form]

If there were no art glass in place which would be preferred, inside storms or outside storms (if using single pane)?

[pharding]

Generally interior storm windows and screens are better on FLW and architect designed buildings.