Avery Coonley Estate

[DavidC]

Couldn't the Conservancy conceivably sell the windows back to a future owner w/ a conditional preservation easement stating that they are to never be sold from the property - thereby releasing the Conservancy from the liability of ownership and returning funds to the till in the process?

In other words, should the Conservancy really be in the long-term window (or any other Wright asset, including homes/buildings) owning business???


(from the Conservancy website):

"Mission statement

The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, an international preservation organization, is based in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 1989, its mission is to facilitate the preservation and maintenance of the remaining structures designed by Frank Lloyd Wright through education, advocacy, preservation easements and technical services."


No where in there do I see "long-term ownership of FLW assets"


David

[jfkaestnerjr]

Couldn't the Conservancy conceivably sell the windows back to a future owner w/ a conditional preservation easement stating that they are to never be sold from the property - thereby releasing the Conservancy from the liability of ownership and returning funds to the till in the process?

In other words, should the Conservancy really be in the long-term window (or any other Wright asset, including homes/buildings) owning business???


(from the Conservancy website):

"Mission statement

The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, an international preservation organization, is based in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 1989, its mission is to facilitate the preservation and maintenance of the remaining structures designed by Frank Lloyd Wright through education, advocacy, preservation easements and technical services."


No where in there do I see "long-term ownership of FLW assets"


David

Withdrawn

[jfkaestnerjr]

To change the subject slightly, the article indicates the 26 windows are from the living and dining room, which would be the expanded and reconfigured master bedroom. Were the original windows reinstalled in a different configuration, or were these windows new at the time the addition was constructed? Would this cause any issue with a restoration of the original FLW footprint, which I think is a much more aesthetically pleasing design, and more practical if the structure was to ever be returned to a single residence?

[DavidC]

Preserevation easments is mentioned in the Mission Statement ....... absolultey nothing about the Conservancy being a FLW asset holding company.


David

[jmcnally]

Thank you DRN. I understand the concept and the need for protecting those windows. Did the current owner actually receive the $390,000 a decade ago? If that is the case, the current and future owner do not and will not own those windows, no matter what their intentions are. Who is responsible for repairing those windows if they are damaged? Should those information be disclosed in the sale?

Chances are the ownership interest is recorded with the register of deeds (or its equivalent in Illinois). It would be revealed when a title search is done.

[jfkaestnerjr]

Preserevation easments is mentioned in the Mission Statement ....... absolultey nothing about the Conservancy being a FLW asset holding company.


David

Withdrawn

[DavidC]

I'll give one recent example: Perhaps the Conservancy would have been better prepared - and it's overall mission much better served and fulfilled - if the $390,000 tied up for 10 years (worth more if invested over those past years) in windows had been on-hand and instantly availalbe when an immediate crisis such as the one that ocurred at the David Wright House took place.


David

[outside in]

Easements are set up as donations- the windows are essentially given to the conservancy (501c3) as a donation in exchange for a tax write-off - no money changes hands.

[Tim]

Long term, the two parts of the house are probably too big to be a single, viable home. The market in that area probably can't support it.

Would it help the value of the main house (with the pool) if the houses were separated? How? Demolish some portion and then reconfigure the north portion of the bedroom wing (house without the pool).

I get that this is a harsh option. But long term, it may make both houses more viable. Otherwise, these houses will always carry the attributes and stigma of a duplex. (Those in the real estate profession can speak to this...)

[DavidC]

Easements are set up as donations- the windows are essentially given to the conservancy (501c3) as a donation in exchange for a tax write-off - no money changes hands.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

It seems a rather odd/unique situation to have separtate, multiple ownership of differing assets within this single physical structure.

I'm not an accountant, but my guess is that the windows are carried on the Conservancy's balance sheet on the asset side (the asset being the value of windows themselves at time of dontation - $390,000). So, if they were 'given' back to a future Coonley owner (under the guise of a protective easement) the Conservancy would lose that value while the homeowner would need to declare the increase in value.

Is it safe to assume that the Conservancy therefore has the responsibilty to maintain the windows over time, as well as replace them should they be damaged in a fire, vandalism, etc.? If so, it takes it back to where long-term ownership of these type assets (liability, maintenance, insurance coverage costs, etc.) doesn't appear to be in the best interest of the Conservancy's overall mission/goals. Acting as a short-term facilitator/interim go-between certainly is, though.


David

[SDR]

Given the choice, I'd rather that a dedicated entity like the Conservancy had responsibility for a valuable asset like the windows, rather than a private owner for whom the windows would be both a pleasure and a burden -- and a possible source of revenue via the auction block or the eBay listing ?

SDR

[DavidC]

But that can be said for any Wright structure - not to mention all of the various 'parts' there within. Where would the Conservancy end up drawing the line (not to mention that they could never even afford it given their current budgets)?

If the Conservancy wants to set up a separate non-profit entity to buy-and-hold FLW items and properties to safeguard them for the long run - more power to them. But that is a whole and completely different line of work than what they have set themselves up to be.


David

[jfkaestnerjr]

Withdrawn

[jfkaestnerjr]

Long term, the two parts of the house are probably too big to be a single, viable home. The market in that area probably can't support it.

Would it help the value of the main house (with the pool) if the houses were separated? How? Demolish some portion and then reconfigure the north portion of the bedroom wing (house without the pool).

I get that this is a harsh option. But long term, it may make both houses more viable. Otherwise, these houses will always carry the attributes and stigma of a duplex. (Those in the real estate profession can speak to this...)

I'm nearby in Chicago and know that to be a fairly affluent area, and there is little stigma against attached or semi-attached homes here. While it's true that such a large house would require a unique buyer that is generally true of all very large houses, all FLW houses, and many historic properties in general. It also helps that most FLW buyers know they're unlikely to recoup their full investment, but realize that they get to own and live in a work of art, and in many cases write themselves into history. If I had the money, I'd do it without a seconds consideration.

[jfkaestnerjr]

Photos referenced in R Grant's posts, above:









bonus Manson photo:





Coonley plan. At one point I indicated a conjectural division between the two separated residences; I believe this was corrected by another reader (?):

I'd restore this footprint, and floorplan for the most part, and simply repurpose the rooms to better serve a modern lifestyle.

- the two bedrooms and bath in the guest wing would become the children's bedroom wing

- the master bedroom with restored fireplace and balcony would become a master den or sitting room

- QFC's dressing room would become the "his" dressing room

- the children's bedroom closest to the original master bedroom would become a simple master bedroom

- the other children's bedroom would become the "hers" dressing room

- the master bath would become the "his" bath and shift away from the southwest exterior wall into the closet space against the interior corridor to make space to form a short hall between what would connect the master bedroom, "his" dressing room, and the master den

- the children's bath would be replaced by a soaking tub, and a three piece "hers" bath would be installed in the closet space opposite with the jack-and-Jill style corridor remaining to provide access between the master bedroom and the "hers" dressing room

- the space below the master bedroom, which is identified in this thread as the sewing room and seems to be described as a family room in the real estate listing has a separate access point, and could be an office for a home business or a "mother in law" suite with it's own kitchen

- the space below the original children's bedrooms, which is seemingly unfinished, might be able to be a garage with access off the inner court. This area could also serve as another great indoor outdoor entertainment space

In the other portion of the house, most of the Eastman's restoration and adaptive reuse works just fine, though I think I would make what was the servents dining room/lounge a breakfast room with a restored balcony and a half-height wall joining it to the kitchen. The remainder of the servants wing would be a guest room (or two) and bath.

While this layout probably seems extravagant, it provides the amenities expected in a five-plus million dollar home (figuring roughy 3 million to buy the two residences and at least another two to finish the renovation).