Chahroudi / Massaro residence on Petre Island

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:25 pm

Let's give it to Heinz, "based on a design by Frank Lloyd Wright." After all, isn't that how the Legacy program would have designated it ?
SDR

RJH · Post by **RJH** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:42 pm

I call the house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright simply because I suspect the FLW Foundation doesnâ€™t want it called that. Their Legal Dept. told me Massaro and the Foundation settled out of court. I assume terms canâ€™t be disclosed. But I really think they donâ€™t want the FLW name used. Paul Ringstrom and Heinz are essentially brothers. Perhaps PR can enlighten all of us? Iâ€™d certainly like to know.

Also not sure if anyone read Storrerâ€™s MASSARO VS. WRIGHT. Make sure to scroll down.

http://www.franklloydwrightinfo.com/

I strongly disagree with his argument of having a Taliesin Fellow design the house. Basically, there is nobody left there with any talent besides Rattenburry. I doubt the house would have turned out better.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:28 pm

Without reviewing this thread in its entirety, to learn if the subject has already been addressed, I'll add an image that seems related to the Chahroudi/Massaro
effort: the 1953 Joseph H Brewer residence, East Fishkill, New York. The illustration is published in "FLLW: three quarters of a century of drawings"
(Centro Di, 1976, 1981).

The general form, the jogged and angled deck cantilever at right, and the broad embossed copper (?) roof fascia are of special interest, I think.

SDR

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Wed May 28, 2008 11:39 am

In my online travels I just ran across this article:

"Thomas A. Heinz: No Place Like (This) Home"

David

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:43 am

"Home lives up to Frank Lloyd Wright legend, owner says"

David

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:05 am

'The so-called "whale rock" walls, made of natural rock and concrete, have drawn the ire of Wright purists because the rocks, native to the island, jut out from the walls, rather than exhibiting only the flat surfaces of the stones â€“ a look incorporated in some of Wrightâ€™s Prairie-style homes in the Midwest.

' â€œThis is in New York â€“ there are no prairie rocks; prairie rocks are flat,â€� Massaro says. â€œFrank Lloyd Wright was more of a naturalist; he used what fit naturally, and what fits naturally on the island are this type of rocks.â€�

'He added that the rocks could not be pushed deeper into the concrete because of the space necessary for the required insulation.'

"Prairie rocks" ?

SDR

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:20 am

The pics in the article are a mixed bag for me. At a distance, the composition looks good. Up close, the otherwise neat house jarrs me with the stone detailing, the too high chroma red floors, and the flatness of the copper.

I just don't buy the insulation "excuse" for the desert stone detailing though. If insulation was the issue, the rocks could have been cut or broken on their inboard side to leave insulation space. The natural side of the stone would be pointed outward and set flush or just barely recesssed from the face of concrete. None of those walls is so thin that the rock could not have been dressed to work. As built, in the photos there is evidence of the concrete cracking at the corners of the stones. What is going to happen when wind driven water freezes in the cracks? Was Wright's recessed detail less prone to cracking?

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:31 pm

The photos to not accurately reflect the color of the cherokee red flooring. It is the same color that you are used to seeing on other usonians.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:58 pm

That's a relief. I didn't recall the bright red color in previously-seen photos.

I'm still amused by the much more attractive (and costly ?) stonework in the master badroom. . .!

SDR

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:36 pm

SDR wrote: I'm still amused by the much more attractive (and costly ?) stonework in the master badroom. . .!SDR

As long as compromises are the order of the day with unbuilts, why they did not just veneer with contiguous rubble stone puzzles me. This could be done any time, I would think.

For such an important component of the design the flat spots with occasional stick-outs are not at all attractive, totally un-Wright (as done), and harms any aesthetic value the house otherwise might have.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:12 pm

Certainly. I have previously floated the idea of adding stone, similar to that in the bedrooom, between and around the existing "boulders." While not ideal, this might be a an acceptable and feasible (?) improvement. . .

SDR

Randolph C. Henning · Post by **Randolph C. Henning** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:53 am

Over two years ago I started this string and now, seeing the recently posted images of the completed house, I stand by my comments. Its not Wright; its just plain wrong - in fact, a whole bowl full of wrong!!!

RJH · Post by **RJH** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:15 am

Some pics taken by me before the house was completed. Enjoy!

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:01 am

Very useful, RJH. Thanks. Photos taken in overcast weather are all too rare, and often reveal more detail, texture and color than ones in full sunlight. In this case, the absence of shadow under those stones helps them a lot. . .

Of course, construction photos are extremely helpful in determining how the house is actually built.

SDR

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:57 am

I'm sorry - the stone work is absolutely putrid........