Avery Coonley Estate

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 7:53 pm

If the next buyer can both afford the initial purchase and the restoration... this will end up being the deal of the decade for them.

We looked at it and could manage the initial buy... but the total cost of ownership would likely kill us.

I hope it lands in capable hands!

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:10 am

jfkaestnerjr wrote:From your comments, it seems you'd be more comfortable with them getting into the business of flipping FLW properties....

I'm sorry that you have completely misunderstood what I have previously stated. Never, ever would I suggest anything to do with any 'flipping' of any FLW properties or assets. The general connotation of the word suggests that a buyer purchases a property at a (hopefully) below-market value with the intention of sinking just enough money into it to maximize their profit potential - things that the Conservancy has zero business being in.

Rather, what I see the Conservancy's role as - and what they have mainly done - is 1.) a facilitator in finding the correct buyer (i.e. - preservation minded and open to easement suggestion) in a given situation and 2.) being the 'buyer-of-last-resort' (funds allowable), with the knowledge going into these type purchases that the need to timely turn it over to a "correct buyer" is paramount for both the Conservancy and the property itself.

The key in all of this is the notion of "short-term". The Conservancy does not need to have their funds tied up in anything long-term that can potentially interfere with their mission - the ability to react quickly when needed to 'ride to the rescue'. They most certainly have very limited resources to work with - and they will be the first to tell you so. And they currently do have a (growing) fund for the specific purpose of being able to step in on a moment's notice to facilitate a quick purchase/rescue. But, by it's very nature, they would need to turn any purchased property over to a correct buyer rather quickly to be able to free up those funds for usage once more in the next situation.

David

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:36 pm

Withdrawn

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:21 pm

Aggressively argumentative new members are always such a charming addition to our company . . . aren't they ?

SDR

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:35 pm

Most especially when they instantly go personal:

"I'm not trying to get in an argument with you, but..."

"This leads me to believe that you have an ideological opposition..."

"It is clear you don't believe this preservation strategy is appropriate..."

" From your comments, it seems you'd be more comfortable..."

"That said, you are being absolutely unreasonable regarding what you admit is your own personal..."

"...the contractual obligations assumed by the conservancy that will, in your opinion..."

"Would it be appropriate for you to speculate..."

"...but that is not what you have done here."

"You have made significant assumptions based on your own preferences..."

"...you reiterate your point as if the matter has been decided..."

David

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:37 pm

Withdrawn

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:56 pm

Politesse is so overrated. Engaging in discourse, whether polite with tea and ladyfingers or in the mud, should be welcomed. Tossing the occasional brickbat should not get everyone in a lather. Say what you please, jfkaestnerjr, whether new or old.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 6:53 pm

Roderick Grant wrote:Politesse is so overrated. Engaging in discourse, whether polite with tea and ladyfingers or in the mud, should be welcomed. Tossing the occasional brickbat should not get everyone in a lather. Say what you please, jfkaestnerjr, whether new or old.

Thank you. Nevertheless I have withdrawn the posts in question, as well as my admittedly hasty and vindictive farewell. While I do not believe my comments were out of bounds, it is clear they have caused some offense, and for that I apologize. I simply and passionately believe in preservation of our shared cultural heritage by any means necessary.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:23 pm

Speaking of discourse, I would welcome your comments on my thoughts on how the floor plan of the bedroom wing was altered when the estate was divided, as in reviewing my posts, I see that we had come to different conclusions. If you've toured the site, or have seen a plan I do not have access to, I would be very interested as I have been semi-obsessed with this subject since 3/4 of the estate was on the market (last year?).

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:08 pm

I believe Roderick has the skinny on where the bedroom wing was divided. I produced a copy of the plan with a red line drawn where I thought the division must be (see p 1 of this thread), and he corrected the misperception. I'll see if I can find the page. . .

Here it is: http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewt ... c&start=15

SDR

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:27 pm

I found this while browsing thumbnails on google. It appears they are scanning images from public and private archives, and digitizing and reproducing them, so I've just posted the link instead of posting images directly to the thread.

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Buildin ... e&id=11979

...and I have absolutely no personal or professional connection to this website.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:34 pm

Comparing these plans to the one in this thread, it appears all the planters in the bedroom wing besides the one at the end of QFC's dressing room were converted to interior space. Is it safe to assume this was done at the same time as the addition at the end of the master bedroom?

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:40 pm

Oh dear, I was so wrong, twice. I meant to say the dividing line should be moved to the left to include both bedrooms and the study, but in Mono 3/1, an aerial view shows the fire wall between the study and the first bedroom. A photo of the garden facade in "Selected Houses #1" pages 174-5 also confirms this.

A photo in SH 1/181, taken from the north stair well toward the (removed) south stair shows that the space of the stair plus the study may have been merged into a room of some sort.

Having reviewed my assessment, I tend to agree with JF's more logical conclusions (without going to great lengths to figure it all out). I believe the master bedroom was moved to the end of the wing over what is now a double garage, the end squared off. The other bedroom would seem to be a logical location for the kitchen; I can't find room for it anywhere else. And the bedroom wing also seems to have been kept almost intact.

As originally built, the access to that unit, with the stair coming from the ground floor sewing room (plan, SH 1/176) up to the bedroom hall seems lackluster. That's one detail that might be interesting to investigate.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:33 pm

I watched the Chicago Magazine interview video with Mr. Eastman two more times. There is only a brief segment about this part of the house, but it looks like the area where the south stair was removed is used as a den or office, while the study is the third main floor bedroom. This corresponds to the plan I linked which also shows a bathroom was craved into what appears to have been some sort of built in, and the exterior planter.

As for the entrance, there seems to have been a stair added to west facade to the south of QFC's dressing room, which leads to the southwest corner of the living room of the bedroom wing. The bottom is visible in the photo that was published with the story regarding the vandalism earlier in this thread. Perhaps this was intended to be the "front" door with the stair off the inner court remaining a back door.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:58 pm

jfkaestnerjr wrote: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?

Looking at the original plan, I count at most 13 windows and 2 doors (really to me it looks like 10 windows and 2 doors) that would have been removed when the bedroom wing living room was added in place of the master, so whoever was responsible for this addition would have needed a lot more art glass to end up with 26 windows in the living room plus looks like an additional 8 in the dining room.