Avery Coonley Estate

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:08 pm

I think the addition has new windows and doors, which could affect their monetary, but not aesthetic, value.

It has been speculated that the architect of the addition was Wm. Drummond, mostly because of the excellence of his work. But it may have been Harry Robinson. According to Storrer, Robinson did the remodel of the Roberts House in the mid-20s. On the back side of that house, on the second floor, is a wrought iron balcony very similar in outline (though of different design) to the Coonley balcony. See photo in "FLW Prairie Houses" Weintraub & Hess, page 214.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:38 pm

According to the house's 1970 National Register application (http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/nhls/ ... 000243.pdf, the subdivision - if that's what you mean by "addition" - took place "around 1960", well after Drummond's time. I've also seen 1952 as the date, though I can't remember where.

jfkaestnerjr · Post by **jfkaestnerjr** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:53 am

Discussion of the "addition" refers to the expansion of the master bedroom (now the bedroom wing's dining room) which squared off the narrow end of that room, eliminating several windows in the southeast corner and the exterior tile decoration in the southwest corner, and adding an approximately 600 square foot room in place of the master bedroom balcony (now the bedroom wing's living room). The general consensus seems to be that the addition occurred well in advance of the subdivision due to its seemingly high quality attention to detail, and I suspect, published photos showing the current size and shape predates the subdivision. Several other rooms have also been simplified and expanded with the area of their exterior planters incorporated into the interior volume.

Correction: sw exterior decoration appears to remain intact

http://www.architectstudio3d.org/AS3d/about_avery.html

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 2:18 pm

The subdivision referred to concerns the perimeter of the Coonley property, which was sectioned off for several MCM houses crowding the lot (making a full restoration of the property virtually impossible). The addition I refer to is, as JF notes, the alteration to the original house. The owner in the 50s, who subdivided the north and west extremities, wanted to demolish Coonley (main house; not the carriage house, which was already a separate property), but was either forced not to or talked out of it, I don't recall which.

jmcnally · Post by **jmcnally** » Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:53 pm

I was at Coonley today. The exterior is suffering - especially the garage, where pieces of the facade are missing. I did not view the interior, but I was saddened by the outside view.

On the other hand, the Winslow residence in River Forest - which had let its landscaping suffer - looks picture-perfect now.

jmcnally · Post by **jmcnally** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:10 am

Example of Coonley damage:

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:41 pm

The Coonleys moved to Washington, D.C. in 1917, leaving behind the house and all of its furnishings. The Kroehler family purchased the house from them and lived there so long it was referred to as "the Kroehler House" for many years (according to David Hanks). Peter Kroehler and his family are listed in the 1940 census as living in the house. Its probably safe to assume that the house was subdivided after the departure of the Kroehlers in the early 1950's.

PrairieMod · Post by **PrairieMod** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:43 pm

With the success of the D.D. Martin House restoration and all of Buffalo's subsequent investment's in architecture for the sake of increased tourism, what is the likelihood that an entity in Chicagoland would see the benefit in purchasing the Coonley estate and restoring it back to its full original glory?

It's a long shot, but with the steady growth in area properties that the FLWT now manages and with patrons like Jennifer Pritzker around...this would not seem like an impossible dream.

Thoughts?

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:09 pm

I suggested long ago that the Smithsonian undertake such a project. They collect all sorts of Americana, including Archie Bunker's chair. But architecture is a bit huge to mount in a museum beyond the occasional room, so they ought to go shopping for iconic American houses, fix them and open them up for tours. They could even take their DC collections to the people, mount shows in these houses, place Archie's chair in the Coonley living room.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:37 pm

Another complication is that Coonley, like many Wright houses, is in a high-end residential neighborhood where a tourist attraction (call it what you will) would not be welcome. A plan to turn Willits into some kind of scholarly retreat foundered for that reason, and Ennis had epic problems when Gus Brown made such a move. More recently, plans to turn Blossom (or was it MacArthur?) into a B&B have run into trouble. Meyer May succeded because was in a deteriorating neighborhood and helped to bring the tone of the place up.

To this one might reply that you could turn Coonley into a restricted, by-appointment-only sanctuary as the Barnes collection near Philadelphia used to be (so was Fallingwater, according to Toker, before Kaufmann the Younger gave it away). The neighbors might not object, but it's still not a plausible prospect for such a famous building.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:09 pm

It isn't a final solution, but one worth discussing. I doubt the Smithsonian would bother, however, and it is probably the only institution with the clout to make a go of it in that neighborhood.

Ennis could have survived as a publicly accessible structure if not for Gus, who was willing to let anyone who paid the price do whatever they wanted at the house. Fortunately, it has ended up in the hands of someone who has the means to take care of it as a private house. If someone of similar wealth could be found for Coonley, that would be the ideal.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:36 am

...you could turn Coonley into a restricted, by-appointment-only sanctuary as the Barnes collection near Philadelphia used to be...

The Barnes eventually ran into financial issues with that model: income from limited hours and "by-appointment only" tours + income from endowment < expenses of operation, maintenance, and collection conservation.

Fallingwater is still standing because of the 1998-2000 structural repairs that would have been unaffordable for a nonprofit without the revenue generated by 200,000 ticket and tchotchke sales per year. I believe if EJjr. had not "given it away" in 1963, Fallingwater would presently be in rough shape at best, or at the bottom of the falls at worst. It has worked because the house was on extensive acreage with few neighbors in a very rural setting that has benefitted from the added tourism. Paul Cret's Barnes, Ennis and Coonley don't have the luxury of that degree of extensive acreage, and ready access for large crowds through open farmland and rural arterials.

I will counter this with the fact that Johnson's Glass House in New Canaan has worked with an off site visitor's center and small shuttle vans to the property.

PrairieMod · Post by **PrairieMod** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:58 pm

The Oak Park Home & Studio is in a heavily residential neighborhood and does alright. Robie House is technically in a neighborhood too (though more a neighbor of the University of Chicago). Isn't D.D Martin House and Dana House in a residential neighborhood too? It seems like if handled correctly, being in a residential neighborhood does not have to be a "deal breaker" for these sorts of concepts.

It would definitely be ideal to have a wealthy private owner fix it up "Wright" but there just are not that many people out there who could handle a project like Coonley (maybe Jennifer Pritzker...but she might be put off from such an idea based on the Blossom and MacArthur experience...)

I would think if Riverside took a page out of Oak Park's book and saw the immense value that tourist and their $$$ brings to a community that supports its hometown architecture they would rally around such a project...

jmcnally · Post by **jmcnally** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:13 pm

It is easy to navigate the grid street pattern of Oak Park. Riverside is broken up by the river and parks and seems designed to limit access. That said, Riverside does pay tribute to its architectural history (local designations of key houses, etc.). Whether the community would welcome what I saw in Oak Park last weekend (children walking on lawns up to porches so mom could take pictures) is highly questionable.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:20 pm

The beat goes on. As we get further and further from the time when these properties are first built, when Wright is alive, when the original clients and the apprentices survive, we enter fully the post-Wrightian era. Preservation and restoration efforts will accelerate for those properties not already under protection -- to the extent that the veneration and respect for the architect continue and well-heeled individuals and entities appear on the horizon to join those already in existence and active.

Like the proverbial stages of grieving, or the shift in disaster response from search-and-rescue to stabilization and reconstruction, the focus of Wright studies may be expected to evolve, through stages as yet unnamed. The evolution will almost surely include further examples of relocations, like those of the Pope, Gordon, and Bachmann-Wilson houses. We might also expect other replacement of lost structure, as at Martin, and of reconstruction of unbuilt designs such as the FSC faculty residence. Slowly, it will become more accepted to find Wright -- including perhaps full-size recreations -- in museum and museum-like settings, where the designs of the architect, if not the "original fabric," will be available for study and enjoyment.

It is understandable that many today find some of these projected manifestations distasteful, given the possibility of the alternative on the ground -- the real thing -- today. A study of history would likely show parallel developments and evolutions of valued art and architecture. Time marches on, and, as has happened again and again, the further we get from the date of inception the closer we may find ourselves to information and inspiration, fact and truthful interpretation. It becomes a matter of further scholarship in concert with improved technology, which we can surely predict will appear.

(The surviving Parthenon in situ is no doubt priceless. As it exists today is it an accurate representation of the architect's intent ? Hardly. A combination of original fabric and correct facsimile give the truest picture of the historic object, it seems to me.)

Naturally, every scrap of information that can be gleaned and recorded -- now, today -- will make heyday of first-generation research and restoration is happening all around us as we speak. It must be encouraged and funded.

Imagine if you will the future student and fan, with the ability to surround himself at will with full-color holographic representations of the spaces, forms, and surfaces of Wright's buildings -- all of them, potentially -- in one walk-in warehouse-like space. Movable platforms will recreate the floor levels so that the visitor can wander at will. Yes, many of the buildings themselves will still be out there -- some of them in their third or fourth state of restoration and repair. Here in the warehouse, all will be as it was on day one, visually and perhaps even acoustically.

Time cannot be stopped nor decay entirely eliminated; neighborhoods evolve around the precious properties. The traditional means of preservation will need augmentation and alternatives, if we are to continue indefinitely to be able to appreciate the work of Frank Lloyd Wright.

SDR