Wright Chat

I'm too old to remember the name, but there is a zinc-oxide based unquent popular with teens that might serve as an appropriate name for this house. What is it?

Pox-B-Gone ? No, that's not it. . .



SDR

Thanks for posting the photographs. What an absolutely dreadful building! I am sorry, but ersatz Frank Lloyd Wright just does not do it here or any place else. Throughout his career FLW valued natural materials, natural finishes, and design consistency among other things. Here we see rocks, not even stone, glued on ordinary concrete in a cheap, ill-conceived manner. Then we have painted concrete that is totally irrelevant to the rest of the building. This building is a poster child for the fallacy of the so-called Legacy Projects. Ersatz Frank Lloyd Wright, even if well intentioned, is worse than the dreaded McMansions. At least McMansions don't claim to be architecturally significant or that they were magically designed by a great architect who passed away 50 years ago.

It is incorrect to call this building a poster child of the Legacy projects, because it is not a Legacy project, nor did Taliesin have anything to do with its final design or construction. It appears to be the result of rich man with poor aesthetic sense influencing the design work of a highly competent architect. It is the detailing, not he design concept, that stinks.

Doug Kottum, Battle Lake, MN

It appears to be the result of rich man with poor aesthetic sense influencing the design work of a highly competent architect. It is the detailing, not he design concept, that stinks.

I don't think it is Massaro's fault. He had a vision and took a lot of risk as all past Wright clients had. A self made man and perfect Wright client. Tom Heinz, Architect, was hired so the house would "turn out" as Wright envisioned. Who really failed here besides Phil Alsop and the FLW Foundation???

GALLERY:

LAST BR AT END OF GALLERY W/FIREPLACE:

Its been driving me crazy, but I finally remembered - instead of Clearview, or Fallingwater, we can call it

CLEARASIL

Got it !

In connection with therapeutic chemical substances, the last photo above shows two kinds of plastic foam insulation, if I'm not mistaken. . .


SDR

RJH, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The mess is Tom Heinz's fault. In the past, Tom did some excellent restorations of FLW buildings, but this is not a success. Knowing that the original construction method could not be used (even though the adjacent cottage has weathered quite well), he should have come up with a better alternative system. Massaro is off the hook, in my estimation.

With all due respect, before you all assign fault onto Tom Heinz, you should personally meet Massaro. After that I bet the bank that you'll most likely change your mind. Doug Kottum hit the nail square on the head. And why RJH continues to bring the Legacy program and the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation into this discussion I'll never understand. They had nothing (NOTHING) to do with this abomination.

I had met Massaro when I was at the property taking all these photos. From what I know about him he is a self made man who invented some sort of new device that revolutionized the sheet metal industry. Or something to that affect. This is no different than original Wright clients such as Gillin, Hoffman, Hughes, Kaufman and all the rest of the mavericks Wright took on as clients. Wright actually preferred this type of client.

Your comments make it sound like Massaro called all the shots and therefore responsible for the failure and not Heinz. You can go back and look at all the other original Wright clients that called their own shots – Hagan (with the enlarged living room, MBR and basement), Neils (use of aluminum window and door frames), and all the others. It is a long list. The facts are all those projects resulted in a successful design upon completion.

This was the opportunity of a lifetime for the Foundation to take on a high profile well funded project. In the end, they failed miserably. Phil Alsop and the Foundation created their own reputation. Not me.

I'm at a loss to understand why the Foundation should be held accountable for a building that they had nothing to do with. Its my understanding that the owner was offered their services, and he felt that the cost was excessive - enter Heinz - old adage here, you get what you pay for........

http://architecturelab.net/2007/09/15/loving-frank/

This is a link to a post with several pictures/views that I hadn't come across before. My bad in advance if the link's already been posted here.

Are the concrete walls as blue as they look in the 6th photo here? Surely, they cannot be and it's just the photo. And I know it's been mentioned before, but what possible reason can there be for stone in the master bedroom and modified/dessicated rubblestone in the rest of the house?

That just feels like a doozy of a departure.

Just my thoughts.. I think the place looks amazing! EXCEPT the rubblestone. Could that be improved upon? Or would it be just too much money after just building the place to fix? I have never been there, but the rest of the place looks very good to me. But that rubblestone looks kind of comical..

hypnoraygun wrote:Just my thoughts.. I think the place looks amazing! EXCEPT the rubblestone. Could that be improved upon? Or would it be just too much money after just building the place to fix? I have never been there, but the rest of the place looks very good to me. But that rubblestone looks kind of comical..

At least dry stack rubble stone to the facade! I never understood that "insulation" bit about all that concrete; and who knows what the controlling factor was (I believe Massaro, since I can't fathom Heinz coming up with that after the attention to other detail throughout-probably the same story with the wierd masonry departure in the bedroom).

The client is often the culprit in a compromised work of architecture. Ennis is another example. . .


SDR