A Retrospective on the Journey

| | EDUCATIONFRANK LLOYD ADVOCACYWRIGHT BUILDING PRESERVATION CONSERVANCY

SPRING 2014 / VOLUME 5 / ISSUES 1 & 2 SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE A Retrospective on the Journey

Guest Editor: Ron Scherubel Past, Present, Future: The Conservancy at 25

2014 Conference Phoenix, Arizona | Oct. 29 – Nov. 2

Stay for a great rate in the legendary Wright- influenced Arizona Biltmore. Tour seldom-seen houses by Wright and other acclaimed architects. Get a private behind-the-scenes look at Taliesin celebrating years of saving wright West. Attend presentations and panels with world- 25 renowned Wright scholars, including a keynote speech by New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman.

And cap it all off with a Gala Dinner, silent auction, Wright Spirit Awards ceremony, and much more!

2 Editor’s Welcome: OK, What’s Next? 2 Executive Editor’s Message: The Power of Community 3 President’s Message: The Challenge Ahead 4 Wright and Historic Preservation in the United States, 1950-1975 11 The Origins of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy 16 A Day in the Conservancy Office 20 Retrospect and Prospect 22 The ‘Saves’ in SaveWright 28 The Importance of the David and Gladys Wright House pedro E. guErrero (1917-2012) 30 Saving the David and Gladys Wright House The cover photo of this issue was taken by 38 A New Book Explores Additions to Iconic Buildings Pedro E. Guerrero, Frank Lloyd Wright’s 42 A Future for the Past trusted photographer. Guerrero was just 22 46 Up Close and Personal in 1939 when Wright took an amused look at his portfolio of school assignments and 49 Executive Director’s Letter: For the Next 25 hired him on the spot to document the construction at Taliesin West. For the next 20 years until Wright’s death, Guerrero continued to photograph both the architect and his architecture while at the same time pur- suing his own freelance career in New York City. No other photographer is so closely associated with Wright’s work. Guerrero SaveWright is a semi-annual publication of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy. shot the David and Gladys Wright House in Guest Editor: Ron Scherubel 1953 for House and Home magazine. Executive Editor: Susan Jacobs Lockhart Managing Editors: Jeffrey Levine, Joel Hoglund Copy Editor: Linda Botsford Contributing Editor: Janet Halstead Designer: Debra Nemeth The mission of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy is to facilitate the preservation and maintenance of the remaining structures designed by Frank Lloyd Wright through education, advocacy, preser- Cover photo: The exterior of the David and Gladys vation easements and technical services. Wright House in Phoenix, 1953. The desire to preserve tel: 312.663.5500 the impact of Guerrero’s full composition, guided by email: [email protected] one of the original renderings of the house and visible web: savewright.org when laying the magazine flat, led to the first wrap- around cover of SaveWright. © 2014, Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy

Any images not credited are from the Conservancy’s collection.

1 editor’s Welcome

ok, what’s next? executive editor’s message

the power of community Every five years we have published a brief summary of our most recent activities and accomplishments. In this, our 25th anniversary issue, we have included not only references to our history You, dear readers, are our future in this global era, but also some articles we hope you will find interesting that place where the message and meaning of SaveWright can the Conservancy’s work in the context of historical preservation travel instantly. You helped make this happen, most generally, and give some hints of what preservation might look recently, by joining an amazing and committed com- like in the future. munity of active supporters across the world, from It is always fitting on a major anniversary to extol our past. But we Phoenix to Paris and beyond. would be remiss if we did not also contemplate the challenges facing the preservation of Frank Lloyd Wright’s works in the fu- As we complete the Conservancy’s 25th year, we have ture. We are continually pondering such questions as: honored our past accomplishments, and the large number of Wright buildings preserved. My early • How can we maintain and expand awareness of the work of participation was to brainstorm initially with Tom the Conservancy? In the face of changing demographics, a maturing membership, economic fluctuations and expand- Schmidt, our first president, and then guest editor, Ron ing entertainment options, how do we attract an informed Scherubel, on how to look back but also forward; to younger and more diverse constituency to enthusiastically define topics and invite authors to contribute from support our mission going forward? Will Froebel Blocks still be many points of view for this SaveWright—a double relevant under the mushroom cloud of exploding technology? issue for a silver anniversary.

• How can we advance both the interest in and physical condi- My personal wish was to also feature the people of tion of Wright-designed buildings into the indefinite future? our global community: the original homeowners, Only by keeping them viable, meaningful and livable for generations to come. We must lead the effort to preserve, yet the founders, the executive directors, the trustees, appropriately upgrade them for 21st century use, or no one the diverse and hardworking members and support- will want to buy, own or live in them. And living in them is the ers worldwide, the older and younger generations. key. One hundred years from now we do not want to have only “Up Close and Personal” (p. 46) features a random a dozen Wright house museums while all the rest are gone. selection from this community of people dedicated to • How can we maintain an intellectual and academic interest in our mission. But they’re also attracted to the fun and Wright’s philosophy, design, art, influence and significance? excitement of pulling together in advocacy work and Currently there are several books published every year on enjoying equally the social events that knit us together some facet of Wright’s life and career. But when all the books and help us grow strong personal relationships. are written, will there still be more to say?

These issues, and others, will require new collaborations among Susan Jacobs Lockhart preservationists, academics, agencies, financial institutions, real Executive Editor estate developers, media and the public to advocate the value of protecting noteworthy touchstones of our past in order to rational- ize the continuum of our inevitable development.

The future begins today. Whatever that future embraces, the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy intends to be there to influence the conversation.

Ron Scherubel Guest Editor

2 president’s MESSAGE

the challenge ahead

Succeeding Larry Woodin is a daunting assignment. For many years Larry has con- tributed to our organization in ways too numerous even to outline here. Recently, he has not only pursued his presidential duties with characteristic aplomb, but also has continued his tireless efforts to stage events that have been of enormous benefit to our financial well-being. Without his many skills, the David and Gladys Wright House (1950-52) in Phoenix, Arizona, might have been lost. And last fall he initiated a process by which the board is at work identifying our organization’s “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT)—an institutional self-examination

that will set strategic priorities for the years ahead. PHOTO BY mark hert z berg While it is premature for me to outline any future initiatives, a few basics are worth noting and reiterating: The Conservancy is in sound fiscal condition thanks to the hard work of our treasurer, Leo Koonmen; the adept, frugal management of our executive director, Janet Halstead, and her staff; and the generous financial contributions that many Conservancy supporters have made. Our resources have been bolstered by generous bequests from the William and Elizabeth Tracy estate and the Maynard and Katherine Buehler estate. Both bequests involved the sale proceeds of Wright houses. Woodin and board member Deborah past conservancy Vick had special relationships with the Buehlers and the Tracys, which no doubt strengthened their commitment to the Conservancy. Both gifts will help in two areas, presidents, 1990-2013 with the majority of the funds allocated to the Legacy Fund and a small amount to the General Operating Reserves Fund; a portion of the Buehler gift also will benefit Thomas Schmidt 1990-1992 the Easement Monitoring Reserve Fund. Deborah Vick 1993-1995 The challenges of doing preservation work are formidable. Most buildings in the United States are not fully safe from disfiguration or destruction. The exceptions are those designated under strong local preservation ordinances. Even so, very few Jonathan Lipman 1995-1997 interior spaces are protected. Most Wright buildings will never be preserved by this method, for they exist in places unlikely to get such an ordinance. Lynda Waggoner 1997-2001 The other means of safeguarding is through easement. We need to continue to work John Payne 2001-2003 with property owners to encourage the use of this essential instrument for ensuring the integrity of Wright’s work for future generations. Tim Quigley 2003-2005 There is also a third path, one that is not guaranteed, but that can prove very effective. Wright buildings enjoy a public prestige that the work of few other architects Ron Duplack 2005-2007 shares. Pride of ownership and the court of public opinion are both important ways to preserve buildings. Furthering the knowledge and appreciation of Wright’s archi- Jane King Hession 2007-2009 tecture will always be a key component of the Conservancy’s mission.

Susan Jacobs Lockhart 2009-2011 Richard Longstreth President Larry Woodin 2011-2013

3 S tudio , 1915 P hoto C ourtesy of R ichard L ongstreth , by I nternational Midway Gardens (1913-14) in Chicago was demolished in 1929 and replaced with a car wash. Wright and Historic Preservation in the United States, 1950-1975 By Richard Longstreth

The nation’s most celebrated architect, who laid the essential foundation for modern architecture worldwide, and the rise of a coherent national movement to preserve valued historic buildings and landscapes in a systematic fashion, may seem more like a juxtaposition than a coupling. AB OU T TH E A U O R

Frank Lloyd Wright himself disparaged the kinds of buildings preservationists sought Richard Longstreth is profes- to protect. Like most architects, he saw even the buildings he admired, especially his sor of American studies at own, as things to be modified, sometimes transformed, with changing needs over time, George Washington Univer- not necessarily as things to be conserved for future generations to appreciate. Ironi- sity. He is a past president of the Society of Architectural cally, under the circumstances, a number of the buildings Wright designed became key Historians (1998-2000) and players in the struggle to establish historic preservation as a substantial and widespread vice president of the Ver- practice between 1950, when the need for this objective was becoming understood in a nacular Architecture Forum number of circles, and 1975, by which time a national program was well established, (1989-91). He was elected involving myriad parties in the public and private sectors alike. president of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy Efforts to save examples of Wright’s work helped to define the scope of this movement in October 2013. Long active in terms of its embrace of architectural design as a key attribute of historical signifi- in the historic preservation cance, its concern for modern architecture, its strategies for protection, its methods field, he is the author and editor of numerous books. of interpretation and its conceptual parameters for restoration. Finally, the stature of Wright and of his major works helped define America’s architectural heritage in a 4 global context. P hoto by R ichard L ongstreth , 1977 The movement to protect the Frederick C. Robie House (1908-10) in Chicago from demolition became an international cause célèbre.

In 1929, Midway Gardens (1913-14) in Chicago, one of Wright’s largest and most complex projects realized to date, was summarily demolished for a car-washing During the 1950s, a growing contingent of practitioners, critics, operation. Destruction of this once glamorous entertainment center, a victim of prohibition, drew only scholars and others who care for heritage began to believe that passing notice and no lament, let alone protest, in the the loss of important examples of architecture in the United States press. Twenty-one years later, an even more conse- quential project, the Larkin Company’s administration should not be considered an inevitable result of progress. building (1902-06) met a similar fate in Buffalo, New York, to be replaced by a warehouse that was never constructed. During the intervening years between the demise of Midway Gardens and the Larkin Building, Wright’s stature rose from one tainted by scandal, legacy defied age prejudices. With the loss of the little work and a widespread feeling that he was well Larkin Building fresh in people’s minds, the imminent past his prime to that of an international celebrity that threat to Wright’s Robie House (1908-10) in Chicago eclipsed his fame in the early 20th century. The demise became an international cause célèbre. of the Larkin Building met with some protest locally but received little attention in print beyond Western When officials of the Chicago Theological Seminary New York. announced in March 1957 that the Robie House, which the institution had owned since 1926, would During the 1950s, a growing contingent of practitio- be demolished for a new dormitory, it is doubtful ners, critics, scholars and others who care for heritage they anticipated the avalanche of criticism their move began to believe that the loss of important examples of would trigger. Within a month, opposition was heard architecture in the United States should not be consid- nationwide and abroad. Pleas to spare the house ered an inevitable result of progress. At a time of pros- abounded from the architectural community as well perity and optimism, great cultural works could surely as the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It was be saved, and many Americans grew more confident the first time the Trust advocated for a 20th century that they had an architectural heritage worth saving. property. The Society of Architectural Historians While most of this concern was channeled toward buildings erected before the Civil War, the Wright 5 The Robie House was designated a national equated the dwelling with the U.S. Capitol and Mon- ticello in its cultural importance. Poet Carl Sandburg historic landmark, one of the few that was visited the site and declared the impending destruction worse than the book burnings in which the Nazis had chosen for its design attributes rather than indulged. The faculty of the State Academy of Fine Art in Hamburg, Germany, wrote the seminary’s president its historical associations. that his plans were “evidence of the shameful tendency to subordinate the creative spirit of man.” No preservation crusade had elicited such widespread support, one observer noted, since the rescue of Mount Vernon 100 years earlier. Locally, the newly created Chicago Architectural Landmarks Commission designated the Robie House its first listed property in April 1957—perhaps also the first 20th century property given landmark status in the country—and a committee spearheaded by the commission’s vice chairman was formed to save it three months later. Near the year’s end, developer William Zeckendorf, whose firm of Webb & Knapp was engaged in extensive urban renewal plans for nearby blocks, bought the house to use as his field office while that project was underway. A champion of cutting-edge modern design, who had I. M. Pei head his architectural division, Zeckendorf pledged to turn the house over to an appropriate institution once his project was completed. No historical group seemed to have the funds, o perhaps the courage, to step up to the offer, so in June 1962 the property was given to the University of Chicago, with the provisions that it be restored and accessible to the public. The following year, 1963, the Robie House was designated a national historic landmark, one of the few that was chosen for its design attributes rather than its historical associations (famous figures, battles, pioneer settlement, etc.) at that time and the first work of modern architecture to be so recognized. Over the next half-century, 22 additional Wright buildings received the designation as well, almost equaling the total number of modern, post-1930 buildings by other architects listed, and far exceeding the number by any other single architect. The next closest are Henry Hob- son Richardson with 13 and Louis Sullivan with 10. The circumstances surrounding the preservation of an equally important and well recognized Wright house, Fallingwater (1935-39), the following year offered a stunning contrast. Here, Edgar Kaufmann Jr., son of the clients, deeded the house and 500 surrounding acres to the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. An endowment of $500,000 and an annual $30,000 education grant for five years were simultaneously be- P hoto by R ichard L ongstreth , 1985 stowed by the family foundation. Although Kaufmann Edgar Kaufmann Jr. viewed Fallingwater (1935-39) as a public resource and deeded it to the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy for preservation. adored the house (it was he, of course, who suggested his father commission Wright) and remained closely

6 involved in its operation as a public site, Kaufmann A second victory for preserving work of the recent explained that the “very intensity” of Fallingwater’s past and an equally important precedent-setting case renown made it “a public resource, not a private in- began to unfold the same year as Fallingwater’s open- dulgence.” He gave it to the Pennsylvania conservancy ing, 1964, with Wright’s Pope-Leighey House (1939- rather than an organization such as the National Trust 40) in Falls Church, Virginia. Unlike the Kaufmann to ensure the presentation of “powerful art and pow- residence, the house built for Loren Pope was an early erful nature into something beyond the sum of their Usonian, modest in size and appearance and little separate powers,” and in so doing was a pioneer in known as a work of architecture beyond a cadre of seeking unity and reconciliation in the often still frac- specialists. The threat of demolition for an interstate tious relationship between the protection of culture highway was a source of consternation for its second and of nature. owner, widow Marjorie Leighey. Through a series of serendipitous circumstances the case caught the Kaufmann also set an important precedent for house attention of National Trust executive director Robert museum interpretation. Unlike most such properties, Garvey Jr. and some National Park Service officials. which were then presented to the public primarily After the house’s fate seemed sealed and attempts by because of their antiquity, their association with a the Trust failed to alter the situation, Leighey wrote famous person or event, or their Gilded Age extrava- to Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall offering to gances, Fallingwater was shown as a work of art, deed her dwelling to the Park Service. Udall, who had with guides taking small numbers of visitors at a time a keen interest in Wright and was already involved to explain the intricacies of its arresting and intricate in efforts to protect the Robie House as well as the design. Finally, Fallingwater had been completed only Imperial Hotel in Tokyo, threw himself into the effort. 25 years earlier, making it the youngest house-museum In March 1964 Udall convened a meeting with the property in the United States and probably across the federal highway administrator, Virginia Highway De- globe at a time when few preservationists were inter- partment and Fairfax County officials, the chair of the ested in much that was less than a century old. National Capital Planning Commission, the director P hoto by R ichard L ongstreth , 1967 The living-dining area at the Pope-Leighey house (1939-40) in Falls Church, Virginia, during Mar- jorie Leighey’s occupancy. The house was reconstituted in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1964. 7 of the Park Service, and the chairman and executive the 19th century. The only exception was Woodrow director of the Trust in the Leighey living room. While Wilson’s house in Washington, which was acquired the “tour” was intended to achieve accord, highway for its presidential association and collections. As the representatives insisted that their project had gone leading private-sector organization in the preservation too far to reroute. The session did, however, lead to field, the Trust’s embrace of the Pope-Leighey House a commitment to reconstitute the house at another, was a conspicuous and, for some time, controversial compatible location and open it to the public. The step in advancing the historical significance of modern Pope-Leighey House still stands in its second home on architecture. the Trust’s Historic Woodlawn property, near Mount While far from American soil, Wright’s Imperial Hotel Vernon. (1913-23) became a major preservation cause in the Udall’s inclination toward personal diplomacy in this United States. Udall’s efforts in the early 1960s were in case helped lay the groundwork for a key provision in support of a temporarily successful campaign to stave the National Historic Preservation Act that was passed off demolition led by Japanese architects. Despite an two years later. Section 106 of the act stipulated that international outcry, the hotel’s owners gained the all federally sponsored or licensed undertakings affect- upper hand in 1967 and by the following February ing properties listed on the National Register of His- ground was broken for the replacement structure of toric Places, which the act created, be subject to review 17 stories. For many Americans, the hotel, before and by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a after its demise, was emblematic of the challenges at body comprised of federal agency heads, which the home to preserve even widely acknowledged master- act also created. Since its implementation more than works. The case also underscored the problems with 40 years ago, the 106 review process, as it is known, saving large commercial buildings, especially those has had an enormous impact, resulting in the preserva- that lay on land that had soared in value, that were tion of countless historic resources nationwide. The considered functionally obsolete and were beset with case also was significant in that a house even younger structural and other physical problems. As demolition than Fallingwater was taken by the National Trust, commenced, architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable whose seven other properties dated to the first half of summarized the frustration: The hotel “focused world

The Imperial Hotel (1913-23) in Tokyo was demolished during 1967-68 despite public outcry in Japan and abroad. 8 attention on one of the major problems of our time— the loss of the heritage of the 20th century.” She added gloomily: “The course of preservation today is largely a series of losing battles by people of knowledge and sensibility trying to act as custodians of our culture While far from American soil, against strangely stacked odds.” In startling contrast to the Larkin House’s demise 17 years earlier, few, if Wright’s Imperial Hotel (1913-23) any, buildings had generated the extent of popular and professional press coverage that was devoted to the became a major preservation Imperial’s fate. The loss of the great Tokyo hotel also likely spurred cause in the United States. preservationists to ensure remaining portions of Wright’s built legacy receive the protection they deserve. “Now—and not a moment too soon,” art and architecture critic Aline Saarinen wrote follow- district’s historic character. The ordinance came as part ing Wright’s death, “it is time to worry about what of the first major wave of such legal provisions for will happen to Wright’s buildings during the next 20 cities and towns nationally, but probably differed from to 40 years.” More than a decade later residents of all the others at that time in its focus on early modern Oak Park, Illinois, assumed a leading role to expand architecture. The Wright legacy was the catalyst. the net, exploring the possibility of nominating a Concurrently, Oak Park residents took action to save 1.5-square-mile area as a historic district on the newly the compound that Wright had designed in 1889 for created National Register of Historic Places in order himself and his growing family, and where he did to capture the majority of buildings by Wright and his his professional work for nearly two decades, when followers within their community. In February 1972 it went up for sale in October 1972. Two nonprofit the Village Board opted instead to establish a local organizations were formed, one to hold the property district and a commission to oversee it. While the in trust until a preservation plan could be developed commission lacked police powers, its primary role at and the other, the Frank Lloyd Wright Home and first was to educate the public as to the value of Oak Studio Foundation, to undertake management and Park architecture, especially that of Wright and the restoration. While the latter had difficulty raising the Prairie School, and to recommend changes in zoning $190,000 purchase price, it struck a precedent-setting and other municipal measures that might improve the P hoto by R ichard L ongstreth , 1984 Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio in Oak Park, Illinois, seen during a restoration to its state as of 1909 9 partnership with the National Trust, which bought as income-generating apartments, documenting the the compound in April 1975. Under the terms of the sequence of changes and then deciding to what state agreement the Foundation paid the Trust roughly half the complex should be restored was seen as a major of the acquisition cost. The Trust, in turn, leased the challenge from the start. After two years of study the property to the Foundation for a nominal fee over report, issued early in 1979, carefully examined all the a period of up to 40 years. This cooperative venture options and provided a detailed rationale for restoring allowed the Foundation to get on its financial feet and the building as a palimpsest, but only one spanning benefit from the Trust’s strategic and technical exper- Wright’s own term of occupancy, when the changes tise as well as its national standing, while it allowed most reflected those in his own thinking about archi- the latter group to expand its portfolio of proper- tecture. “Probably no residence in the nation has ever ties at a fraction of the cost that would otherwise be been restored [actually, prepared for restoration] with incurred. While such an exchange never became a so much advanced planning, research and attention to widespread practice, it was a harbinger of the new complicated details,” wrote Paul Gapp, architecture entrepreneurial ventures that were increasingly becom- critic for the Chicago Tribune, adding, the project has ing a part of preservationists’ efforts to expand their already become a national model for similar endeav- parameters of operation and their success record. ors. Published by the University of Chicago Press, the report was indeed a benchmark in the growing level of Within three years, the Home and Studio Founda- sophistication toward the treatment of historic build- tion also completed work on a restoration strategy ings at a time when practices in the United States often that would establish a new level of sophistication in were more elementary in nature than those of Euro- preservation practice. Since Wright was constantly pean countries. modifying as well as adding to his quarters, with the last major changes made in 1911, when the studio was By the 1980s, taking steps to protect significant exam- recast as his estranged family’s residence and the house ples of modern architecture became less unusual and less controversial as the preservation movement itself had grown in numbers, become more professional, had greatly increased the scope of resources deemed It is hard to find the work of another architect that has been worth saving and had marshaled an array of tools to so important in helping shape the movement as were a forge an impressive record of successes. But even then or in the decades since, it is hard to find the work of number of Wright’s buildings in the formative period that another architect that has been so important in help- spanned the third quarter of the 20th century. ing shape the movement as were a number of Wright’s buildings in the formative period that spanned the third quarter of the 20th century. n

10 P hoto by R ichard L ongstreth , 1977 The Edwin Cheney House (1903-04) and, at far left, Harry Goodrich House (1896), in the historic district in Oak Park, Illinois Brochure for the first gathering of Wright Public Sites administrators, the genesis of the Conservancy and its meetings

An early Conservancy board at Unity Temple in Oak Park, Illinois

The Origins of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy BY Jack Quinan

The Darwin D. Martin House (1903-05) in Buffalo, New York, vacated by Isabelle Martin in 1937, suffered a long period of neglect, alteration and partial demolition until 1976, when the threat of turning the principal Martin residence—then a property of the University at Buffalo (SUNY)—over to the State Office of Mental Health for use as a halfway house precipitated the community’s heightened awareness of the potential value of the house.

Having joined the art history faculty of the University at Buffalo in 1975, I had be- AB OU T TH E A U O R gun to use the Martin House as a teaching tool for students in a course dedicated to Wright’s work. From 1977 to 1981 I served as co-chair of The Friends of the Darwin D. Martin House with Lorelei Z. Ketter, the wife of the university president, Robert Jack Quinan, distinguished Ketter. We organized a tour of Wright’s Buffalo buildings, raised modest funds for service professor emeritus, University at Buffalo, is a the repair of the collapsed front porch, and lobbied our congressmen, Jack Kemp and scholar concerned with the Henry Nowak, on behalf of the house. Ineffectual as fund-raisers, we used to speculate work of Frank Lloyd Wright, that it could take as much as $5 million to restore the house. To date, the current resto- modernism and American ration has cost nearly $50 million. architecture. He is a founding board member of the Frank When Steven Sample became president of the University at Buffalo in 1981, he shifted Lloyd Wright Building Con- the responsibility for the Martin House to the dean of the School of Architecture and servancy and a member of Environmental Design, who appointed John O’Hern resident curator of the house in the board of directors of the 1983, a position that he held until 1989. O’Hern wrote a Master’s degree thesis on the Darwin D. Martin House. Martin House, involved architecture students in numerous research and restoration projects, and raised funds for specific restoration activities, but the house continued to present ever-increasing problems of maintenance, surveillance and programming. 11 Another early board gathering at Taliesin in Spring Green, Wisconsin Founding board members Jack Quinan and Virginia Kazor, hosts of the first two ad hoc gatherings in Buffalo in 1985 and Los Angeles in 1986

Through discussions born of O’Hern’s and my own Early in 1985 I proposed to O’Hern that we stage a concerns over the fate of the house, it became appar- conference to be titled Frank Lloyd Wright’s Publicly ent that many of its problems—how to raise funds, Accessible Buildings: Problems and Programs, using how to effectively promote the house, how to organize art history departmental funds. A brochure was print- and train docents, how to employ the house as an ed and sent out to likely individuals and institutions educational tool—were problems that other publicly involved in Wright preservation issues; the registration accessible Wright sites, of which there were about 25 fee was $15 and the dates were set for October 25-27, across the country at that time, also were facing and 1985. Neil Levine gave a stirring keynote presentation solving. It seemed eminently reasonable to create some entitled “Frank Lloyd Wright’s Own Houses and His kind of venue for sharing information about Frank Changing Concept of Architectural Representation” at Lloyd Wright’s distinctive architecture. the Albright-Knox Art Gallery. During the following

Carla Lind was hired as the first executive director at the first Tom Casey speaks at a panel discussion while (from left) Barbara Conservancy conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. Elsner, Ginny Kazor, Jack Quinan, Carla Lind and Jeanette Fields wait to present. 12 Carla Lind, working with Jay Champelli to develop the organization’s first membership database

Board members gather around Winged Victory during an early board meeting at the Storer House in Los Angeles. Top row: Debra Pickrel, Bob McCoy, John two days there were tours of Wright’s Buffalo build- Thorpe, John Payne, Cherilyn Widell and Sara Ann Briggs. Bottom row: Donna ings and presentations by Ginny Kazor, curator of the Butler, Frank Matero, Susan Olson, Susan Jacobs Lockhart, Eric Lloyd Wright, Hollyhock House in Los Angeles and by Wright pres- Joel Silver, Millie Ablin, Judith Bromley, Neil Levine, Lynda Waggoner ervation specialists John Eifler, John Vinci and Donald Kalec. Ample time was set aside for the attendees, who came from Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Kansas City, Ithaca, Washington It seemed eminently reasonable to and Toronto to get to know each other and to discuss common problems. How successful was it? Attendance create some kind of venue for sharing was modest with 60 participants but sufficient to stimulate conversations. I would measure its success information about Frank Lloyd Wright’s by what followed. Ginny Kazor immediately proposed to continue the distinctive architecture. conference the following year in Los Angeles, but under a different title, “Frank Lloyd Wright’s Build- ings Preparing for the Future: A Conference for the Owners and the Administrators.” By any measure The high point of the presentations, in my estimation, Ginny’s conference was a much greater success than was a panel discussion moderated by John O’Hern the one in Buffalo. The tours included buildings by that included Wright clients Roland and Ronny Reis- Frank Lloyd Wright, Lloyd Wright and Eric Lloyd ley, George and Millie Ablin, Don and Virginia Lov- Wright, along with others by John Lautner, Bernard ness, and Arch Oboler. A Hollywood booking agent Maybeck, the Greene Brothers, Richard Neutra and couldn’t have assembled a better cast. Each of the Rudolph Schindler. Presentations were given by Don- paired spouses played off one another in their individ- ald Hallmark on the Dana-Thomas House (1902-04) ual ways with hints of George Burns and Gracie Allen in Springfield, Illinois; Henry Whiting II on the Archie not to mention Lucy and Desi. The Lovnesses nearly Teater Studio; Aaron A. Gallup on the National stole the show as Virginia, a petite woman given to Register of Historic Places; Nicholas Olsberg on the designing her own Bruce Goff-like outfits, sparred ver- Getty collaboration with the Archives of the Frank bally with her strapping husband, Don, who treated Lloyd Wright Foundation; and Joel Silver, Eric Wright and the whole affair with a bemused grin. Arch Oboler, Martin Eli Weil on the restoration of the Storer House, fol- a Hollywood screenwriter, really did steal the show lowed by a reception at the Storer House, hosted by Silver. with his recollection of having Wright, on the occasion of their first meeting, throw an arm over his shoul- der (which made him very uncomfortable because he 13 From left: John Thorpe, Steve Gottlieb, Bill Dring, Tom Casey, John Tilton, Don Kalec and Wil Hasbrouck in deep contemplation at the First Architectural Advisory Committee

significantly, owing to the concentration of Wright buildings there. Two days of programming included five panels featuring aspects of restoration, resources, marketing and ethics. Participants included Tim Samu- elson, John Eifler, Donald Kalec, Lynda Waggoner, Eric Lloyd Wright, Tom Gentle, Robert Furhoff, John Thorpe, Jeanette Fields, Donna Sack, David Hanks, Donald Hallmark, Donald Hoffmann and Carla Lind, interspersed with individual presentations by Tony Puttnam, John Tilton, Jonathan Lipman, Ted Smith and Susan Shipper-Smith. The high point of the meet- Wright clients Katherine Jacobs, Mildred Rosenbaum and ing was Don Kalec’s stunning multi-projector slide Roland Reisley at a committee discussion at Taliesin West during the first official conference of the new Frank Lloyd presentation, a visual feast entitled “Nature Patterns: Wright Building Conservancy Nature, Geometry and Frank Lloyd Wright.” From September 15 to 18, 1988, Waggoner, then Most important was a plenary session in which Thomas M. curator and administrator, hosted the meeting at Fallingwater, always a powerful draw. Following is the Schmidt, then director of Fallingwater, proposed the formation projected program for the meeting as published in the of an ad hoc committee to study the feasibility of forming a Friends of Fallingwater newsletter: national Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy. Although not all of the activities have yet been confirmed, the current schedule outlines sessions on the preservation of Fallingwater and the restoration of nearby Kentuck Knob. Architectural conservators Norman Weiss and Stephen Gottlieb will make pre- didn’t feel he knew Wright) and point to the site of sentations on the conservation of concrete, stucco Oboler’s proposed house, saying, “Arch, we are going and masonry, and a panel of experts will discuss to build something wonderful over there.” Only later legal and financial strategies for the preservation did Oboler learn that Wright was overheard at a party of Wright buildings. Jack Quinan will moderate a saying, “Well, take Arch Oboler. He is a sentimental man, continuation of last year’s discussion concerning the so I put my arm around him and talked to him about the ethics of ownership. Wright’s approach to landscape enduring qualities of the building we would build.” design will be presented by Cornelia Brierly of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and Katherine In the third year, 1987, John Thorpe, Donald Kalec Howett of the University of Georgia. An informa- and Jeanette Fields continued the conference in Oak tive session on how to go about documenting one’s Park, Illinois, where interest and participation grew own house is also planned. Some of the expected 14 A gathering of some of the 140 participants at the Conservancy’s second annual conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan

speakers include Edgar Kaufmann Jr., to deliver the keynote address; Joel Silver, restorer of the Storer House and recent purchaser of Auldbrass Plantation [Silver was unable to attend in the end]; and Edgar Tafel, Byron [Bob] Mosher and Wes Peters, former Taliesin apprentices, to discuss the building of Fallingwater. In addition to the informational sessions, confer- ees will be treated to a reception at Kentuck Knob, a house designed by Wright in 1954 for the I.N. Hagan family, and a gala dinner at Fallingwater. Most important, however, was a plenary session in which Thomas M. Schmidt, then director of Fallingwater, proposed the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the feasibility of forming a national Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy. That was The first, and probably the largest, gathering of Wright house owners at the 1996 Conservancy conference in Seattle the true beginning of the organization. The next step was an organizational meeting at Wingspread (1937) in Racine, Wisconsin, from June 23-25, 1989, based upon information gathered from a survey that Jeanette Fields and Sandra Wilcoxon sent out in spring 1989 to frame the mission, membership and structure of the Conservancy. There it was decided to incorporate the Conservancy in Illinois and to house the office in Chicago. Against the background of subsequent meetings in Los Angeles, Oak Park, Fallingwater and Wingspread, it is apparent that there was an inevitability about the formation of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conser- vancy. If it hadn’t begun in Buffalo, the moment was imminent. The organization’s extraordinary achievements of the past 25 years attest to that. n An enthusiastic audience is ready for the stimulating lectures at an early conference session.

15 A Day in the Conservancy Office

Command Central for the Conservancy has always been the office. We asked each of our executive directors past and present to recall their personal experiences, most memorable events and biggest challenges they faced “in the trenches.”

[Editor’s note: Judith Trent served as Exexutive Director form 1992-94 but was unable to contribute a statement to this issue.]

preserve the legacy of Wright, one building at a time. Every issue was a new issue and before the Internet, the research was time-consuming. Fortunately, the new board was knowledgeable about so many aspects of the world of Wright. I had cut my teeth as a volunteer and then executive director of the Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio Foundation so had a web of contacts as well. Together, via long-dis- tance conference-call board meetings we attacked one issue after another. Tom Schmidt, our first president, sent me a quote, probably by Churchill, about not giv- Carla Lind ing up. It hung over my desk for years. It amazes me Executive Director | 1990-92 now, how well known, sophisticated and effective the organization has become. It’s like seeing my own child The decision to create the FLWBC began with find- all grown up, healthy and doing meaningful work. ing staff and a home. I was the staff, but there was no office or funds for one. So the world headquarters of this visionary organization began in my basement Carla Lind was associated with the Frank Lloyd in Oak Park. We added another desk and I asked my Wright Home and Studio Foundation for 12 years, neighbor, Sue Sandvoss, to be our part-time secretary. serving as its executive director from 1980-85. She It was a short commute for both of us. Together we set directed the restoration of Wright’s Meyer May up the basic systems and language that guided us out House, lectured about Wright restorations and of infancy. We needed letterhead, a logo, membership served as a consultant to preservation organizations. materials, a newsletter, information explaining what She has authored various books on Frank Lloyd we were about and what services we offered, and most Wright, including The Wright Style and Lost Wright. of all, donors. It was an exciting time as we created, defined and communicated the ways we could help

The Conservancy was relatively new when I became its director in January 1995. Working out of a home office proved a challenge. The organization was in a growth spurt, which soon led to the Conservancy relo- cating to the Fisher Building in downtown Chicago for more space and a professional location. Much of my time, assisted by a single staff member, was devoted to developing standard operational procedures and assisting private homeowners. We worked tirelessly with a consultant to develop a relationship database of the extant Wright buildings. We tracked current and previous owners, sales records, preservation and Sarah Ann Briggs restoration efforts, conservation easements and more. Executive Director | 1995-2000 16 It was a difficult database to use, as it was one-of-a- kind, built from scratch, but it enabled us to document the “life” of the building. We used the information Sara Ann Briggs is an experienced professional in for a variety of projects, a valuable and useful tool nonprofit management and fund development. She to build relationships with Wright building owners. earned her Master’s degree from Colorado State But most importantly, it helped our staff to develop a University and started Briggs Consulting in 1990. relationship with the homeowners and help them with She has raised millions of dollars during her career the preservation of their homes. We also concentrated through direct mail and major gift campaigns and efforts on membership building, planning conferences grants. Briggs continues to provide a full range of and, with the help of a designer, developing templates services in fund development and also works with for the conference brochure, newsletter and letterhead. her clients in strategic planning, board training and We developed the first gifts using the Conservancy logo: budget development. T-shirts, coffee mugs, lapel pins and umbrellas for the conference in Seattle (it never rained once). It was a fun and exciting time for me as well as the Conservancy.

House. Our initial task was to separate the valid prospective future owners from those who might have been good stewards but could not afford to move or care for it. We then followed up with those prospects offering some promise. During a given day we experienced emotional highs and lows as the future for the Gordon House looked bright and then hopes dimmed. Many passionate Conservancy board members assumed multiple responsibilities. Larry Woodin and Deborah Vick held an open house to stimulate interest and enable a closer look. As we narrowed the selection to the Oregon Garden, Conservancy board members Carol Wyant viewed the proposed new site determining exactly Acting Executive Director | 2001 where the Gordon House should be, factoring in its angle to the sun and relationship to the surrounding Saving the Gordon House in Silverton, Oregon, for woods. They also outlined restoration and maintenance our small office, was challenging as well as exciting. needs that were included in the contract and easement From the beginning, it was clear to us that the new documents drawn up by our board attorneys. owners wanted the site but not the house. We suggested the owners donate the house to the Conservancy, qualifying for a tax deduction. In turn the Conser- Carol Wyant has been involved with design and vancy offered to give it to someone who would pay preservation of the built environment for more than to move it, make it open to the public at least once a 30 years, drawing on her experiences in commercial year, donate a preservation easement on it to the Con- real estate development and leadership of nonprofit servancy, and commit to be a good steward for it. We historic preservation organizations to advocate distributed a request for proposals. The media loved for preservation of historically and architecturally it—a free Wright house!—thus helping us promote the significant sites and structures, context-appropriate opportunity. new design and land-use strategies, and community Staff member Megan Quirk and I shared a small, one- beautification. room office located in a strip of industrial buildings on Ravenswood Avenue, north of downtown Chicago. Seattle Sutton’s was a neighbor, but finding places to Saving the Gordon House in Silverton, Oregon, for our small office, buy lunch was a challenge. The only restroom avail- was challenging as well as exciting. From the beginning, it was clear able to us was down a corridor and into the offices of another tenant. The bathroom flooded from time to to us the new owners wanted the site but not the house. time. Megan’s desk and mine were almost adjacent to one another. On a typical day Megan and I were fielding phone calls from many people interested in the free Wright 17 From left: Marla Felber, Anthea Hartig, Jennifer Emerson, Robert Leary, Eric Lloyd Wright, Stephen McAvoy, Linda Dishman and Ron Scherubel break ground for the Ennis House restoration project in 2006 Ron Scherubel Executive Director | 2001-09

The fun was the variety—no two days the same. n Experiences like hearing about the endangered Memorable experiences include: Goetsch-Winckler House on Monday and purchas- ing it for the Conservancy by Friday; learning that n Enjoying every day from my interview in Falling- the Ennis House retaining wall had collapsed dur- water’s living room to my retirement farewell at ing heavy rains, and only 16 months later helping the Guggenheim Museum. Eric Lloyd Wright and the Ennis House team turn n Taking Chicago’s public transportation on my sec- the ceremonial first shovel of dirt on the extensive ond day, getting on the wrong bus and arriving an restoration project; traipsing through muddy fields hour and a half late. I’ll never forget Megan Quirk on a rainy day with John Thorpe trying to find and Carol Wyant’s look of relief when I finally another suitable lot for the prospective buyer who arrived—they were betting I wouldn’t return after wanted to demolish the Allen Friedman House; my first day. drinking a toast with Diane Keaton on my birth- day in the Storer House. n Within my first few months, appearing on the front page of the Chicago Tribune picking through the n Working with exceptional staff members Megan rubble in the Bradley Coach House, and being Quirk, Audra Dye, Stella Schulte, Lisa Dewey- interviewed on Chicago TV about our advocacy Mattia, Andrea Obey, Christine Gloriosa and of efforts. course my wife, Jan.

n The variety of calls and emails, from a grade n Most memorable was driving Eric Lloyd Wright schooler writing a report and asking me to send from the hotel to Fallingwater, getting lost on the him “all available information on Frank Lloyd country roads and asking an old woman at her road- Wright,” to someone insisting they owned a side mailbox for directions. We laughed all the way Wright-designed mobile home. to the reception after I remarked, “That poor woman will never know that she just told Frank Lloyd Wright’s grandson how to get to Fallingwater!”

See p. 22 for Scherubel’s article on the Conservancy’s saves over the years

Scherubel with preservation advocate Diane Keaton at 18 the Storer House in Los Angeles on, depending on the depth of response needed. An urgent case of a building at risk may require weekly or even daily consultations as the project-specific team moves to quickly identify the critical factors and players in order to design an effective strategy. Working to support the Conservancy’s effort to inscribe 10 Wright buildings on UNESCO’s World Heritage List recently led me to an unexpected foray into congressional communication and U.S. international relations: I briefed Illinois, U.S. Senate and House staffers about the project and explained that non-payment by the United States of UNESCO dues, including the portion allocated Janet Halstead to the World Heritage program, is likely to put pending Executive Director | 2009-present U.S. nominations at a distinct disadvantage. One of the most unusual consultations was helping Participating in saving the David and Gladys Wright horrified homeowners who learned that their newly House was one of the best experiences of my life—and purchased Wright house was the named setting of a also among the most emotionally exhausting, given the home invasion video game. After a quick check with twists and turns of that saga. To work with a team of our colleagues at the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, top preservation experts who were passionately but a letter from the Foundation’s attorney to the video pragmatically focused on that shared objective was game company quickly resulted in a different scenario professionally exhilarating and the outcome was, of and removal of any reference to the house or Wright. course, immensely satisfying. It’s all in a day’s work at the Conservancy! n Every day in the Conservancy office is not as dramatic as that seven-month period in 2012, but every day does bring new questions and a variety of challenges. See p. 30 for Halsteadl’s article on the In the course of the day I might have a conversation David and Gladys Wright House with a Wright homeowner about tidewater cypress to replace storm-damaged siding, or an appraiser looking for Wright house sales information, or a reporter writing about textile block houses. Fortunately I have a cadre of specialists on our board and committeesto call

The Monadnock Building (1893) in the Chicago Loop, home to the Conservancy since 2004

Janet Halstead speaking with homeowner and former board member Roland Reisley 19 Retrospect and Prospect By Blair Kamin

With the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy celebrating its 25th anniversary, I think it’s high time to out one of its most effective behind-the-scenes operators, a man who can whisper in the ear of journalists as effectively as Woodward and Bernstein’s Deep Throat.

I exaggerate a bit about a guy who normally goes by the grandiloquent title of Emmet Blakeney Gleason Professor of History of Art and Architecture at Harvard University. But when it comes to pitching a story to architecture critics, like myself, or Michael Kimmelman of The New York Times, Neil Levine really knows how to dish. Every so often, Neil will dial me up in full crisis mode, as in 2012, when he phoned to relay the news that the little-known but significant David and Gladys Wright House in Phoenix, Arizona, could be demolished. I have great respect for Neil, and besides, he can be wickedly funny. So even though I was on deadline on another story, I set it aside long enough to listen to his captivating tale of the two-level home with the spiraling outdoor ramp that grew from the same architectural DNA as Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York. After a half-hour interview, I had what I needed for a quick blog post that ended with Neil’s quote: “We need some national outcry.” Then, after I left my post for a year-long Nieman journalism fellowship at Harvard, Neil dialed up Kimmelman and persuaded him to provide said outcry. You all know the outcome: House saved! If only it were so easy for the Conservancy to

AB OU T TH E A U O R face up to challenges that are far more complex than those present in its founding year of 1989, when it seemed as if Tom Monaghan was trying to snap up every Wright-designed object on the planet. Blair Kamin has been the Chicago Tribune’s architecture What’s changed? Well, there’s the tear-down/knock-down/scrape-off beast, now roar- critic since 1992. Among his ing back after a great recession-induced hibernation. Then there’s the digital revolution, honors are the Wright Spirit which has changed the way we communicate and offers opportunities for educating Award and the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. the public that the Conservancy can seize more forcefully. Finally, there’s the changing ideological landscape of the historic preservation movement, which continues to shift its emphasis from saving canonized masterworks to conserving buildings and landscapes with broad cultural resonance. As someone who’s been covering the Wright beat since 1990, when I wrote up the splendid restoration of the Dana-Thomas House in Springfield, Illinois, for the Chicago Tribune’s Sunday magazine, I’ve had the chance to chronicle these changes and to play a small role in some of the Conservancy’s notable “saves.” These included the preservation of two endangered Wright homes in Chicago’s suburbs, the Glasner House in Glencoe (saved in 2003) and the Duncan House in Lisle (saved in 2004). In each case, the Con- servancy served as the canary in the coal mine, chirping out a warning long before the age of tweets. To me, this remains the organization’s essential mandate and what dif- ferentiates it from other preservation groups. In contrast, the National Trust for Historic 20 Preservation concerns itself with saving the work of a vast range of American architects and styles. Its scope must therefore be broader—and less sharply focused— than the Conservancy’s. Other Wright groups, like the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust, provide tours and programming at such important Wright sites as the Home and Studio and the Robie House. But their work is about education, not preservation, an emphasis reflected in the group’s recent decision to drop the word “Preserva- tion” from its name. Invariably, Wright preservation battles are about homes tucked away in the suburbs, not high-profile downtown landmarks. Those homes are typically out of sight and, as a result, out of mind. They can easily fall through preservation” with “heritage services,” representing a the cracks. The Conservancy, to its great credit, refuses shift from saving “objectified” buildings to preserving to let this happen. Neil Levine will call me. Or John people’s heritage. Others, like Harvard’s Rahul Mehro- Thorpe, a preservation architect from Oak Park. These tra, propose a change to “conservation.” They want to people and others are quite the rebel band—a small but go beyond traditional protection and repair to combine passionate bunch, separated by geography but tightly “historical integrity and creativity to develop narratives knit by their devotion to Wright’s work, lacking the connecting the present with the past.” resources and corporate gloss of the National Trust, I think there’s wisdom in this scholarly ferment. but never lacking for scholarly or professional author- “Saves” are all well and good, but they are essentially ity. Ever the rebel himself, Wright no doubt would reactive. The better way, it seems to me, is to proactive- have approved of this loose confederation that has set ly fight demolition by stepping up efforts at public edu- for itself the heroic task of maintaining his entire body cation—and getting people to experience the magic of of extant work. Wright’s work firsthand. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick I mean these words sincerely, but they should not did the Conservancy’s cause a great service with their provide a false sense of comfort. With bulldozers again PBS documentary on Wright, but that was 16 years ago. clearing suburban plots, the Conservancy needs to Ask yourself: How can the Conservancy communicate gird for new battles—or better yet, improve its capac- Wright’s path-breaking achievements in the building art ity to defuse such crises before they occur. The Web, to the digital, ecological generation? How is the Con- it seems to me, is an underutilized weapon. Consider: servancy to rouse the architectural press to aid Wright’s The Conservancy is celebrating its 25th anniversary cause? The answers are anything but academic. Every and the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust is celebrating the generation takes what it wants from the architectural 125th anniversary of the Home and Studio. Yet neither past. Every generation also must decide what, if any, organization highlights the other’s milestone on their eras of the past it will fight to save. For the last 25 respective Web sites. This could be a mere oversight. years, riding a new wave of interest in Wright, the From my vantage point, it’s a revealing lapse. The more Conservancy’s efforts to preserve his legacy have been the public experiences Wright’s buildings, the broader remarkably successful. But a failure to communicate the the political constituency will be for saving them. In fresh relevance of Wright’s protean creativity will surely this case, the two organizations appear stuck in their result in the destruction of what matters most: The built own silos, to the detriment of their shared cause. New evidence of his astonishing genius. n alliances need to be forged, not only with the Trust, but also with other preservation organizations such as Docomomo International and the ICOMOS Interna- tional Scientific Committee on 20th Century Heritage, two important groups that champion the work of the With bulldozers again clearing suburban plots, the Conservancy modern movement—and, by extension, presumably that of Wright. needs to gird for new battles—or better yet, improve its capacity The bigger issue is how to preserve Wright’s work to defuse such crises before they occur. at a time when some in the academy are questioning the very term “historic preservation.” Some, like Ned Kaufman, an architectural historian and preservation specialist from New York, suggest replacing “historic 21 The ‘Saves’ in SaveWright By Ron Scherubel with input from Ron Duplack and John Thorpe

The “Interventions” issue of SaveWright (spring 2012) reported that the Conservancy had intervened in the situations of more than 100 Wright buildings. Since that issue, a few more can be added to that list.

Many of those interventions took the form of meetings, telephone consultations, hearing appearances, letters of support, preservation easements, National Landmark and World Heritage nominations, peer-review studies or providing assistance from AB OU T TH E A U O R s architects, craftspeople and other experts. But the most visible examples of the Con- servancy’s success are those situations where Wright buildings that you can visit today Ron Scherubel of Evanston, would either not be standing due to demolition or would be rotting away from severely Illinois, served as executive deferred maintenance and care without the Conservancy’s involvement. This is the director of the Conservancy ultimate manifestation of what the Conservancy works to prevent, as the following until mid-2009, after retiring in 2000 as vice president and examples will demonstrate. general counsel of Sara Lee The seeds of the Conservancy’s proficiency in successful saves were sown even before it Foods. Ron is a member of the Conservancy’s board and was officially formed. In 1986, three years before its incorporation, concerned indi- several committees and is viduals who were to become founding members and officers of the Conservancy were chair of the advocacy com- instrumental in rescuing Auldbrass Plantation in South Carolina from terminal dete- mittee. He is also actively rioration. Their negotiating prowess helped structure a deal whereby the owners of the involved in many other Wright derelict property, then being used as a camping site for duck hunters, would donate the organizations. property to the Beaufort County Open Land Trust in return for a charitable tax deduc- Ron Duplack, a partner in the tion. They also helped convince Hollywood movie producer Joel Silver, then owner of Chicago law firm of Rieck and the Wright-designed Storer House in Los Angeles, to acquire the property, protect it Crotty, P.C., and his wife Tan- nys Langdon, AIA, restored with a preservation easement with Historic Charleston, and meticulously restore the the Henry Peters House, estate to Wright’s original intent. their 1906 Walter Burley Griffin residence; two Edgar Miller-Sol Kogen residences in Chicago; and the 1851 George Woodward House in Galena, Illinois. He serves on the Conservancy’s board. John Thorpe is a restoration architect in Oak Park, Illinois. John has worked and consulted on many Wright projects including the Home and Stu- dio, Arthur Heurtley House, Unity Temple, Avery Coonley Estate, and the Isabel Roberts and Robie houses. He is a longtime Conservancy board member and co-chair of its advocacy and architectural advisory committees. P hoto by A nthony eres The Auldbrass Plantation in Yemassee, South Carolina, was the first successful save of a Wright 22 building by the group that was to become the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy. P hoto by B rad F einknopf The beautifully restored Westcott House (1906-08) in Springfield, Ohio, was rescued in 2000 from its fate as a dilapidated boarding house.

During the first decade after the Conservancy’s founding in 1989, its primary vehicles for saving Wright buildings were the Wright on the Market section in its Bulletin and the commencement of its preservation easement program. After its premiere on the Conser- vancy’s website, Wright on the Market has generated inquiries from literally all around the world. Over the years, many Wright buildings that would otherwise have gone to developers have found new and sensitive owners through this service. A preservation easement is a legal agreement that protects a property from inappropriate development or demolition in perpetu- P hoto by B rad F einknopf ity. By accepting and monitoring such easements, the The restored dining room at the Westcott House Conservancy has now protected nearly 40 Wright properties from irreparable harm. In rapid succession during the The Conservancy’s advocacy efforts transformed dramatically after 2000. A restricted gift from Bruce first years of the 21st century, the and Lynette Haines, owners of the Lloyd Lewis House (1939-42) in Libertyville, Illinois, created the Lewis- Conservancy was instrumental in Haines Revolving Fund, available as a last resort to assist in the purchase of severely threatened Wright several significant saves. properties and resale to sympathetic new owners. This, along with an impressive maturity of its advocacy skills and tools, not to mention greatly increased ex- into a rooming house shortly after World War II. Fifty posure through judiciously acquired relationships with years of harsh use had taken a severe toll. The Con- influential media professionals, allowed it to become servancy helped form a Westcott House Foundation an effective force in facilitating the survival of some of that acquired the house from the Conservancy and, the most endangered Wright properties. In rapid succes- with the aid of the locally based philanthropic Turner sion during the first years of the 21st century, the Con- Foundation, engaged in a five-plus-year, $5.8 million servancy was instrumental in several significant saves. thorough restoration project, returning the house to In September 2000 the Conservancy first used its its original grandeur in accordance with the terms of a Lewis-Haines Fund to purchase the Westcott House preservation easement held by the Conservancy. That (1906-08) in Springfield, Ohio. This 1908 Prairie foundation continues to operate the Westcott House as house had fallen on hard times, having been converted a museum and education center. 23 P hoto by J enerick I mages hotography The Gordon House (1956), an exception to the rule. Originally located in Wilsonville, Oregon, the house was rescued and relocated to nearby Silverton beginning in 2001 to escape demolition.

Another save requiring nimble action involved the On July 9, 2001, the Conservancy learned that the Goetsch- Goetsch-Winckler House (1939) in Okemos, Michi- Winckler House was in mortgage foreclosure. The Conservancy gan. On July 9, 2001, the Conservancy learned that took possession on August 8, making it one of the quickest this house was in mortgage foreclosure and that within four days would likely be sold to a developer inter- historic house saves in preservation history. ested only in the property. The executive committee voted unanimously and without hesitation to use the Lewis-Haines Revolving Fund to purchase the house. By the end of the fourth day the Conservancy’s offer Also, late in 2000 around the holidays, the Conser- was accepted, a title commitment was rushed through vancy received notice that purchasers of the Gordon and funds were wire-transferred to pay off the mort- House (1956) in Wilsonville, Oregon, were seeking a gage. With the foreclosure deadline met, the necessary demolition permit so they could build a new mansion documents were prepared for purchase of the owner’s on the desirable site with a view of snowcapped Mt. remaining interest. Hood. The Conservancy immediately mobilized a team consisting of several local preservation organizations, The Conservancy took possession on August 8, a legal team and the local media. Protracted negotia- making it one of the quickest historic house saves tions, threatened litigation and national publicity ul- in preservation history. Publicity and a request for timately persuaded the owners to donate the house to proposals seeking a buyer to take over this important the Conservancy in return for a sizeable tax deduction, house generated interest from 36 parties from coast to provided the house would be removed from the site coast, and even some from Europe. Ultimately a local within 105 days. The Conservancy issued a national homeowner with strong preservation interests met request for proposals seeking a third party willing to all of the requirements. The new owner launched a purchase, move and restore the house. The Oregon careful and well researched restoration. The house has Garden Foundation, an 80-acre botanic garden in since changed hands again, and is currently owned by Silverton, Oregon, presented the most appropriate site sensitive owners carefully maintaining it in accordance with public access and the financial resources to move with the Conservancy’s preservation easement. and restore the house. A team consisting of local archi- Also in 2001, a disaster was averted in Bannockburn, tects, contractors, house movers and experts from the Illinois. Word reached the Conservancy on April 17 Conservancy were able to deconstruct the house, load that the Allen Friedman House (1956) was in immi- the pieces on trailers, transport it 25 miles and proper- nent danger of demolition. As in the Gordon House ly site it on its new location just four days short of the situation, this exemplifies the Conservancy’s promi- deadline. The accurate reconstruction was completed nence as the go-to source when demolition of a Wright in about one year in accordance with a preservation house is rumored. Friendly media contacts were im- easement held by the Conservancy. The Gordon House mediately notified, and the threat received widespread is now open to the public as an attractive educational coverage. On May 5, Conservancy board members addition to the beautiful gardens. 24 met with the prospective buyer and his attorney and The original table and chairs in the Goetsch- The Coonley Coach House (1911) in Riverside, Illinois, before its most recent Winckler House (1939) in Okemos, Michigan, conversion into a residence saved in 2001 It is said that demolition, like were pleased to learn that he would consider alterna- extinction, is forever. It is also true tives to demolition. Considerable time was devoted to investigating other available and suitable proper- that a rescue without a preservation ties that might interest the purchaser. The closing was cancelled at the last minute for reasons unknown to easement may not be permanent. the Conservancy, but the national media exposure may have had some influence in causing the buyer to reconsider a role as the first person to demolish a Wright building in nearly 30 years. Within weeks a houses designed by Wright. In late 2001 the law firm new preservation-minded owner was found who is owners of the Bradley estate sought to demolish the still maintaining the house in exquisite condition. neglected stable to make room for increased parking. Even outbuildings on Wright properties do not evade Again, extensive print and TV publicity initiated by the Conservancy’s attention. In Illinois, the stable at the Conservancy, along with invited letters from the the Bradley House (1900) in Kankakee and the Coon- National Trust for Historic Preservation, Landmarks ley Coach House (1911) in Riverside represent two Illinois and many local residents, as well as testimony significant saves. These structures are among the very by the Conservancy at hearings, postponed demolition few remaining late 19th to early 20th century carriage long enough for a new buyer to come along, purchase the entire Bradley property and restore the stable. Four years later, in another widely publicized project, the Conservancy again joined forces with the Na- tional Trust and Landmarks Illinois to deter the Cook County Public Guardian, entrusted with the affairs of the elderly owner of the Coonley Coach House, which had been converted into her residence, from making inappropriate roof repairs that would have seriously altered the historic character of this house. In the process, the Conservancy was able to broker an arrangement whereby the owner of the major portion of the Coonley estate purchased the Coach House and undertook its sensitive renovation, allowing the elderly owner to live in it for the remainder of her life. It is said that demolition, like extinction, is forever. It is also true that a rescue without a preservation ease-

P hoto by J ohn clouse ment may not be permanent. For example, in 1997 the The Allen Friedman House (1956) in Bannockburn, Illinois 25 P hoto courtesy of W right in K ankakee The stable at the Bradley House (1900) in Kankakee, Illinois, was converted to the gift shop at the restored house museum. The Glasner House (1905), shown here before its current restoration, twice escaped demolition, in 1997 and 2003. Conservancy announced in its Bulletin that a caring family purchased the Glasner House (1905), and thus saved it from the teardown-development frenzy then becoming evident in Glencoe, Illinois. But as lifestyles Moving a Wright house has been sanctioned by the are altered by growth of families and employment op- Conservancy only when there was absolutely no portunities, these owners found that by the spring of alternative to its demolition. Such was the case with 2003 they had to reluctantly sell their treasured house. the Duncan House (1957), an Erdman Prefab in Lisle, The favorable location on a beautiful ravine feeding Illinois. In the fall of 2003 word was received that into Lake Michigan immediately attracted the attention shortly before his death, the owner granted a devel- of developers. The Conservancy paid for a listing in the oper the right to demolish his small house on a large National Trust’s Historic Homes for Sale, and initiated lot and build three large, multi-story houses like those widespread publicity surrounding this unique house and that had by then all but engulfed the Duncan House. its 50-plus art glass windows. Just as developers were The developer was immediately contacted and was measuring the property for the mansion they intended surprised to learn that he had just purchased a his- to build after razing the house, a Washington Post toric house. To the Conservancy’s delight, he became article came to the attention of a preservation-minded engaged in the efforts to save the building and donated Chicagoan who appeared in the nick of time, purchased it to the Conservancy. But it had to be removed before the property and has engaged in a painstaking and me- spring. During the next four months, countless hours ticulous restoration of the entire property. were devoted to publicizing, negotiating and ultimately contracting with a buyer who deconstructed the house and moved it to Pennsylvania, where it is now a part of Polymath Park Resort. The Duncan, One of the most involved and complicated saves along with three Wright apprentice houses, now serves in the Conservancy’s history spanned 2005 to 2007 as an overnight stay location for those visiting the and involved the Ennis House (1923) in Los Angeles. Pennsylvania Laurel Highlands near Fallingwater and Kentuck Knob.

26 The developer who purchased the Duncan House (1957) in Lisle, Illinois, had no idea it was a historic home before the Conservancy informed him. The Ennis House (1923) in Los Angeles, after its complete restoration in 2007

One of the most involved and complicated saves in the Conservancy’s history spanned the years 2005 to 2007 and involved the Ennis House (1923) in Los Angeles. The 6.7-magnitude Northridge earthquake of Janu- ary 1994, and unprecedented rains during the winter of 2004-05, led to the collapse of large portions of the prominent retaining wall and caused significant damage to the house itself. National media suggested that the house was in danger of sliding down the hill, and the City of Los Angeles “red tagged” the house as unsafe to occupy. The Conservancy successfully P hoto by ron S cherubel nominated the Ennis House to the National Trust’s 11 The Ennis House, damaged by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Most Endangered Historic Places List for 2005, bring- was one of the Conservancy’s most complicated rescue efforts. ing national attention to its plight. The Lewis-Haines Fund helped secure the architectural drawings necessary to obtain building permits before stabilization The Conservancy’s most recent and highly success- work could commence. Conservancy contacts helped ful save in its long history of victories, involving the identify a preservation-minded backer to secure a loan Gladys and David Wright House in Phoenix, Arizona, needed to match a FEMA grant and carry out the is chronicled on pages28-37. stabilization work. A new Ennis House Foundation was formed, managed by a board consisting of two Throughout this article, the Conservancy was given members each from the Conservancy, the Los Ange- credit for the actions that led to these extraordinary les Conservancy and the National Trust. This group saves. But the Conservancy can only act through managed the $6.5 million construction project that people: its board, committee and staff members, and continued from mid-2006 to mid-2007 and included its outstanding volunteers, too many to mention in building a new structural frame to support the motor the limited space of this magazine. The Conservancy court, chauffeur’s quarters and the collapsed retaining and the entire preservation community are forever wall. The project also replaced the roof and repaired grateful for their tireless assistance in fulfilling the and restored interior woodwork, floors, ceilings, organization’s mission. The story is far from over. art-glass doors and windows, and a mosaic glass tile Unfortunately, there are other Wright buildings out mural. Nearly 3,000 of the home’s 27,000 concrete there that are vacant, poorly maintained and in need blocks were repaired or replaced with new blocks that of the Conservancy’s help. There is much to do in the were cast from the original molds. The house is now next 25 years. n in excellent private hands and the Los Angeles Conser- vancy holds a preservation easement on the property. 27 , columbia university archives at P hoto circa 1952, courtesy of the frank lloyd wright foundation architectural and fine arts library avery The David and Gladys Wright House (1950-52), one of Wright’s most prominent examples of a regional, site-specific approach to architecture

The Importance of the David and Gladys Wright House by Neil Levine

When the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy heard, in May 2012, that the David and Gladys Wright House (1950-52) in Phoenix, Arizona, not far from Taliesin West, was threatened by developers intending to demolish it to subdivide the property and build several McMansions, it was galvanized into action by the outrageous news.

This house was one of Wright’s greatest efforts and could in no way be lost. We immediately formed a task force, including members of the Conservancy and interested parties in the Phoenix area. This task force often met weekly and sometimes biweekly over a period of seven months, finally succeeding in saving the house in late December 2012. AB OU T TH E A U O R The David and Gladys Wright House is one of the architect’s most innovative, unusual and personal designs. Built for his third-oldest son and his wife, the house was Wright’s Neil Levine has authored numerous publications only residential design based on the circular spiral plan employed for different reasons on Wright, including The and to a different effect in the Guggenheim Museum (designed 1943-45; built 1956-59) Architecture of Frank Lloyd in New York City. The attention to detail and level of artistic control, which creates a Wright. He is now completing complete work of art even more developed than was usual for Wright, is remarkable. a companion volume tenta- Few plans were drawn with such elaborate decorative motivation as here. The wall-to- tively entitled The Urbanism wall living room carpet was a tour de force of what Wright called organic design; the of Frank Lloyd Wright, for which he received grants from shaping and laying of the concrete blocks would have been an outstanding advertise- the Guggenheim and Graham ment for the client’s business, had he and his wife shown any inclination to have the foundations. He is the Emmet house become more publicly available for visitation. Blakeney Gleason Professor of History of Art and Architecture The house is one of Wright’s most prominent examples of a regional, site-specific ap- at Harvard University and proach to architecture. He characterized its patio design as an answer to the question: was recently elected to the “How to Live in the Southwest.” Along with Hollyhock House (1919-21) in Los Ange- American Academy of Arts les, it is a rare case of such an appropriately closed composition in Wright’s residential and Sciences. work. When the house was finished and first published in 1953, the editors of House and Home described it as the most exciting house by the architect since Fallingwater. While entirely different from the latter in terms of its physical relationship to the landscape, it is just as dependent on its desert site and topography as Fallingwater is on its mountain stream and waterfalls. Here the flat desert spreading out beneath the peaks of Camelback Mountain provides the cues to the house’s circular, spiraling space. 28 , columbia university archives at P hoto circa 1952, courtesy of the frank lloyd wright foundation architectural and fine arts library avery The entrance ramp externalizes the spiraling design Wright had used elsewhere, providing a 360-degree panorama of the surroundings.

Wright employed a radical design concept that he had first proposed in the mid-1920s for the Strong Auto- mobile Objective and Planetarium (1924-25) to give the David and Gladys Wright House a character that went well beyond the merely domestic—in order to In the Phoenix house, the spiraling ramp, open to the say something more powerful in relation to the affec- landscape surrounding the patio-courtyard that is open to tive presence of the landscape setting. It was a concept that Wright first revived for the Guggenheim Museum the sky, creates the most monumental, processional in relation to the monumental, and what he took to entrance sequence to any Wright house I know. be spiritual, program of a museum for modern art. Be- tween the Guggenheim and the house for his son and daughter-in-law, he used the idea once again, in the Morris Shop (1948-49) in San Francisco, to make the consumer goods displayed desirable and the shopping experience elevated.

In the Phoenix house, the spiraling ramp, open to the The bedroom wing is cantilevered beyond this in a ges- landscape surrounding the patio-courtyard that is ture that gives Wright’s favored structural device new open to the sky, creates the most monumental, proces- meaning. As the upper level of the spiral thrusts into sional entrance sequence to any Wright house I know. space, anchored by a tower-like chimney and under a It externalizes the Guggenheim and Morris spirals in double-peaked roof, the form returns the design to the a way that provides inhabitants and visitors with a ground and to the awesome reality of desert living by continuous, slow-paced, 360-degree panorama of the closing the spiral in the shape of a rattlesnake coiled surroundings that brings the mountains intimately into and ready to strike. For anyone who has faced such one’s subjective space and creates an almost cinematic a sight in reality, the “dramatic” quality of the rep- experience that is unmatched elsewhere in Wright’s resentation, as the article in House and Home put it, work. Furthermore, the visual immersion in the land- stops one dead in one’s tracks. This house is a work of scape is complemented by a mythic dimension that a rarely seen dynamic, affective and emotional force. adds depth and meaning to the experience in symbolic When the Conservancy heard of the threat of demoli- and figurative terms. The ramp continues up to a tion, it had no choice but to act to prevent the destruc- ringed, Tower of Babel-like ziggurat that climaxes the tion of an amazing work of architecture. n ascent in a kind of roof observatory, offering a plat- form to connect more closely with the jagged shapes of Camelback Mountain. 29

Saving the David and Gladys Wright House By Janet Halstead

In 2012 the world almost lost a highly personal and unique work of architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright—the David and Gladys Wright House (1950-52).

Wright designed the Phoenix, Arizona, house for his son David and David’s wife Gladys. David died in 1997 at the age of 102. Gladys continued to live in the house until her death in 2008 at the age of 104. David’s only son predeceased his father and the property was inherited by three granddaughters. David and Gladys Wright were private people and the house, despite its remarkable design, was not well known or studied. It was reported that David and Gladys had not considered legal protections desirable during their lifetimes and, when the house was placed into the estate, the heirs could not agree on formal protection. They opted to sell the house in 2009 to a buyer who stated that she planned to restore it and use it as a residence. The Conservancy was tracking the status of the house and was encouraged by these reported plans. But our concern grew after that sale. The house stood vacant for two years without any sign of life during which time the custom-designed carpet based on a circular motif was removed and sold at auction. Bought for $2.8 million in 2009, the house came back on the market in 2012, at an asking price of $2.3 million. In late May 2012 the Conservancy was notified by a preservation-minded local Real- tor that the house was under contract. As we tried to learn the identity and plans of

the prospective buyer, a bombshell hit: One of the buyers was overheard saying that he AB OU T TH E A U O R had purchased a Frank Lloyd Wright house in the Arcadia neighborhood and planned to demolish it and build two large mansions. The conversation was related to Fred Prozzillo, preservation director at Taliesin West, and he informed Jack Quinan, Conservancy Janet Halstead became ex- board member, who was visiting in Scottsdale. Quinan contacted the Conservancy ecutive director of the Frank immediately. It was 6 p.m. on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend when an intensive Lloyd Wright Building Conser- vancy in 2009. She previously seven-month effort to save the David and Gladys Wright House began. served in a variety of execu- My first call that Friday evening was to restoration architect John Thorpe, then vice tive positions in not-for-profit international development or- president and advocacy committee chairman of the Conservancy. Though it was a ganizations and foundations. holiday weekend Thorpe was able to reach Conservancy president Larry Woodin and She earned an M.A. in public board members Susan Jacobs Lockhart and Neil Levine, who together gathered more and international affairs from local intelligence and identified those who would become key local partners. When the the University of Pittsburgh Phoenix city offices reopened the Tuesday after the holiday, we learned that indeed a and an M.A. in anthropology from Northwestern University. lot split application had been made. This clearly indicated the demolition intention. Her preservation focus is Our task force quickly determined that we should rush a request to the city for consid- fueled by a lifelong interest in eration of landmark status. If accepted, this would trigger an automatic hold on any history, art and architecture. demolition permit until the landmark question was decided. Since the process involved

One of the buyers was overheard saying that he had purchased Photo circa 1952, courtesy of the frank lloyd wright foundation archives at avery architectural and a Frank Lloyd Wright house in the Arcadia neighborhood and fine arts library, columbia university planned to demolish it and build two large mansions. 31 several steps and three recommending bodies, it would Combined with the impressive background brought buy precious time as we worked to find a solution. It by our own Conservancy task force, now joined by was very important to enlist other organizations, both David De Long, professor emeritus of architecture at local and national, to support our request. Time was the University of Pennsylvania, this group constituted short before the next meeting of the Phoenix Planning a dream team for the preservation task ahead of us. Commission on June 12, a meeting that would occur Starting on June 4 the team met weekly or biweekly before the closing on the property, so it was possible through the summer and into December, coordinat- that the buyers might abandon the purchase if it was ing the calls with all U.S. time zones and Paris time clear there would be substantial opposition to their (where Levine and Lockhart were residing for several plan. Several local organizations joined our request, as months). The support of Phoenix Mayor Greg Stan- did the National Trust for Historic Preservation and ton was unequivocal from the start. Few preservation the Society of Architectural Historians. challenges are fortunate enough to have a preservation proponent at the head of government, but Stanton Credible and knowledgeable local involvement was had issued a letter shortly after he came to office, and critical, and the Conservancy recruited a stellar set of well before the Wright House issue emerged, urging local partners. Debbie and Scott Jarson of AZarchitec- the city’s historic preservation commission to take ture/Jarson & Jarson provided expertise in the local steps to safeguard the midcentury modern legacy of real estate market and access to a wide network of Phoenix. However, the city manager form of govern- colleagues involved in modern architecture in Phoenix. ment limited his powers and the city council was the Jim McPherson, president of the Arizona Preservation decision-maker. The mayor’s special assistant, Brendan Foundation, knew the statewide and local preservation Mahoney, was intensively involved and represented community and grassroots organizations and became a the mayor in communicating with all parties to save valuable liaison with groups such as Modern Phoenix the house and find an equitable solution. and related blogs and social media. Grady Gammage Jr., noted real estate attorney and member of the firts The Conservancy prefers to work quietly behind Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission, agreed to the scenes whenever possible. However, in this case work pro bono and became our guide in the technical the immediate goal of protection from demolition process as well as the state and city political factors had to be accomplished quickly and publicly. On impacting our mission. June 12 the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of our petition to consider landmark status. Approximately one week later the deal closed, and The Conservancy prefers to work quietly behind 80/81 Meridian, the partnership of Steven Sells and the scenes. In this case protection from demolition John Hoffman, became the new owners. We turned our attention to the buyers, attempting to convince had to be accomplished quickly and publicly. them of the special value of the house and the tragic

32 P hoto by S cott jarson The David and Gladys Wright House as it appeared during the preservation campaign. P hoto by S cott jarson The custom-designed carpet was sold at auction in 2010 while the house was vacant. implications of their demolition plan, and offering Meanwhile the landmark process was ongoing. Com- alternatives that would still provide a respectable plicating this scenario was the issue of owner consent. return on investment. Several options were considered, Because of a state law that paved the way for com- including using the Wright House as a guest house for pensation claims for alleged financial losses resulting a larger new primary house on the property, or even from state and local government actions, including a three-way lot split. Though these approaches might preservation actions, Phoenix had adopted a practice trivialize Wright’s architecture and fracture the site of requiring owner consent before proceeding with they were preferable to losing the house altogether. any hearing or recommendation process for historic Even so, the developers rejected those proposals as not designation. Initially it was not clear if the landmark satisfying their profit objectives. Somewhat counterin- consideration process would proceed at all, given the tuitively, a scheme for a much denser development— adamant opposition by Sells and Hoffman. At one subdivision into five or six parcels combined with a point Sells was even quoted in the media promising viewshed easement—became the best development that if the building was landmarked, he would wait option from a preservation perspective: smaller units out the mandatory three-year demolition delay and would cluster around the Wright House as the cen- then destroy the house. Fortunately, instead of stop- terpiece and focal point. This creative proposal came ping the process in the initial stages, as it would have from Will Bruder, architect of the Phoenix Central done for a less important house in the face of owner Library and award-winning residences. The Jarsons opposition, the city decided to proceed through the developed economic feasibility numbers illustrating that recommendation hearings and deal with the owner the innovative cluster approach was likely to be more consent issue when the matter reached the city council. profitable than the owners’ plan to replace the Wright Undoubtedly, the Conservancy’s involvement, the let- House with two undistinguished, over-built mansions. ters we marshaled from national architecture experts attesting to the importance of the house, the concerns It became clear that Sells and Hoffman were not of vocal citizens, local media coverage and the mayor’s interested in any alternatives. The only solution would support all helped bolster the city’s decision to allow be to find a new preservation-minded buyer or buy- the matter to work its way through the process. ers. The owners did leave the door ajar to reselling the property if the Conservancy could bring purchase Michelle Dodds, then acting historic preservation offers to the table. The balance of summer 2012 was director for Phoenix, oversaw preparation of the city dedicated to identifying prospects that might be inter- staff recommendation, written by her colleague Kevin ested in buying the entire property to preserve it or to Weight. It was a strong recommendation for landmark serve as transition owners to allow more time to find a status. As local support and public comment grew, lasting solution. the Conservancy sought to create a larger national and even international outcry and mounted an online 33 P hoto by J ohn clouse Wright’s design mimicked a coiled rattlesnake.

petition campaign (see sidebar). The owners’ public nix. The young man came to the microphone and said and private comments became more threatening. As he was not used to public speaking but felt compelled a precaution against a stealth and illegal demolition, to comment. As a teenager in Buffalo he learned about Modern Phoenix and other grassroots preservationists the demolition of the Larkin Building and he vowed organized a neighborhood watch on the property. if a similar situation arose he would speak out. He said he did not want to be a resident of another city September 17 was the meeting of the historic preserva- that would allow a second tragic loss of a significant tion commission, whose positive advisory opinion was Wright building. The historic preservation commis- a must-win step. Recognizing the importance of the sion unanimously recommended landmark designa- commission’s deliberations, I testified at the meeting tion. Protection from demolition continued—or so we to underscore the Conservancy’s commitment. There thought. were many eloquent statements made that evening, but the remarks I recall most vividly were from a former In late September the city made a startling discovery. resident of Buffalo, New York, now residing in Phoe- A demolition permit had been issued in error by an inexperienced clerk who had handled it as a routine matter without checking for flags on the property. It became obvious that instead of a Through a fortunate twist of fate the demolition company called to double-check the validity of the permit business proposition the owners’ before beginning the work. Clearly embarrassed by what could have been an error of disastrous propor- position resembled a ransom. tions, the city acted immediately to rescind the permit, touching off legal wrangling by the owners claim- ing the permit was valid and announcing additional threats. Our team then requested and obtained police protection for the site. The Conservancy had contacted many buyer prospects and received a few purchase inquiries; local inquiries were fielded by Scott and Debbie Jarson. However, by late September there was only one that was sincerely interested in preserving both the house and the site. A reluctant buyer, who to this day wishes to remain anonymous, stepped forward because no one else had done so. Three very fair offers were made and all, in-

34 Police protection was deployed after a demolition permit was issued erroneously. Petitioning for Preservation By Jeffrey Levine

On August 21, 2012, the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy posted an online petition to spread the word , columbia university about the impending peril facing the David and Gladys Wright House. Compared to the more diplomatic, behind- the-scenes advocacy the Conservancy usually engaged in, it was an exceptional step to take, but the situation of the David Wright House was anything but ordinary.

Posting one of the first ever preservation-focused peti- archives at P hoto circa 1952, courtesy of the frank lloyd wright foundation architectural and fine arts library avery Frank Lloyd Wright on the site of the Wright House. tions on Change.org, the Conservancy’s appeal to the City Council of Phoenix to grant the house landmark designation resonated with people across the country. By the end of the petition’s first full day, more than 2,500 people had already cluding the last at $2.1 million—$300,000 more than signed, with many taking the time to write individual com- the June purchase price—were immediately rejected ments. By the end of the first week more than 11,000 people with no effort to negotiate. It became more and more had added their (virtual) signatures to the petition. At a obvious that instead of a business proposition the time when the story of the Wright House had already been owners’ position resembled a ransom, and the prospective buyer dropped out. reported, the creation of the petition gave media outlets throughout the country a new development to share with Every week the local media reported something con- the public, while simultaneously giving conscientious readers nected with the Wright House saga. Blair Kamin, an actionable step that allowed their voices to be heard. Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic at the Chi- cago Tribune, had published an article back in June In addition to the Conservancy’s own electronic communi- after Neil Levine alerted him to the situation. A few cation, other social media and online resources were used architecture journals and blogs chimed in as well, but to augment the reach of the petition. A Facebook group by summer’s end the team felt that the next national entitled “Save the David and Gladys Wright House” created media attention should be strategically timed. Levine contacted Michael Kimmelman at The New York by local preservationists provided timely updates and gave Times and on October 3 the story made the paper’s group members a place to interact, while the midcentury front page. Conservancy office phones rang for two architecture website Modern Phoenix (modernphoenix.net) days straight and hundreds of articles appeared—in alerted its readers to what the destruction of the Wright USA Today, the Washington Post, the San Francisco House would mean for their city. Chronicle as well as Le Monde, The Guardian and El País. CBS This Morning featured the threat in a live- By the time the Conservancy shot report and there were radio interviews with Levine and its preservation partners on BBC and CBC. had succeeded in saving the The creation of the Wright House, more than 28,000 The Times article was a game changer. There were petition gave con- more potential buyer inquiries, and the number of people had signed the scientious readers petition signers shot up. One very thoughtful in- Change.org petition. With quiry was from Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, signatures from more than 100 an actionable step and the Eisner Foundation. After the Conservancy’s countries, the petition not only that allowed their preliminary discussions with the Eisner Foundation, showed the strength of local Eisner further consulted with Robert A. M. Stern, support but also demonstrated voices to be heard. architect and dean of the Yale School of Architec- the worldwide interest in ture, and Levine at Harvard. I contacted the mayor’s preserving Wright’s work. office to arrange a visit for Eisner and Foundation

35 P hoto by S cott jarson The Wright House’s cantilevered bedroom wing gave new meaning to Wright’s favored structural device.

officials. After the visit and sensing a potential sale, options, and proposing future actions. It was decided Sells and Hoffman then agreed to something they had that Woodin and I would attend the city council meet- previously rejected—a full building assessment study ing and urge the city to move to landmark the house. paid by the city. This was progress. The Conservancy On Halloween we received a surprising call from the developed alternative-use low-neighborhood impact mayor’s office; a mystery buyer had stepped forward options for the Eisner Foundation, such as an artist/ and the house was under contract for $2.38 million. scholar-in-residence program or a shared university Although it seemed to be good news that the property or city guest house for visiting speakers or dignitaries. would be in new hands, not knowing the identity or Discussions progressed, but the Eisner Foundation felt the intentions of the new buyer tempered our opti- it was incumbent on the city to landmark the building mism. We felt our testimony at the city council was first. The city wanted to avoid the owner consent issue still needed and kept our plans to attend. by securing a new preservation-minded owner first. It The November 7 city council agenda did not include a was a classic Catch-22. vote on landmark status; the property was under con- Meanwhile, two more recommending commissions tract and the city would wait for the new, presumably had met. The village planning committee of Cam- preservation-minded owner to give consent before vot- elback East, in a very contentious meeting, finally ing. We were, however, permitted to speak to the issue recommended landmark status by a vote of 9-5. On and we urged the city to take action to landmark the October 9 the planning commission also recommended house. The council delayed the vote until December. landmark designation and the stage was set for city Three days later the deal was dead; the buyer dropped council action on November 7. The Conservancy’s out for unspecified reasons. The team redoubled ef- task force continued to meet throughout the entire forts to reach potential buyers and the group-purchase period, assessing each new development, generating option was kicked back into high gear. Woodin and other potential buyer ideas, weighing strategies and I called city council members personally to discuss why the Wright House should be landmarked immediately. The decision could not be delayed indefinitely. If they designated the house as a landmark without The save was a truly collective effort, involving many the owner’s consent, the three-year demolition stop passionate advocates and culminating in a magnificently period would allow time to find a preservation-minded buyer or other solution while it was protected. If they generous gesture by an inspired philanthropist. decided not to landmark it, the house would have no protection and would become a pile of rubble immediately. It would be the first intentional destruction of an intact Wright building in 40 years. We argued that if ever there was a case in which public good should 36 One respected blogger wrote,

, columbia university “Historic preservation will never be the same in Phoenix after the heroic battle to save the David Wright House.” archives at P hoto circa 1952, courtesy of the frank lloyd wright foundation architectural and fine arts library avery The cinematic experience of the Wright House with its site would have been lost if plans to subdivide the lot and build more houses had succeeded.

be afforded additional weight in the face of individual opening the house to the public. The save was a truly property rights, surely this was it. But it was a hard collective effort, involving many passionate advocates sell in an area of the country steeped in a history of and culminating in a magnificently generous gesture range wars, cattle grazing rights, and special land and by an inspired philanthropist. The Phoenix preserva- property rights issues. tion community was motivated and energized by the struggle. One respected blogger appreciated “the high We were running out of time and options but making level of respect for preservation that the Conservancy progress slowly in putting together a group purchase has introduced to Phoenix,” writing, “historic pres- with a plan to transition to a future nonprofit organi- ervation will never be the same in Phoenix after the zation, but we were still short of the cash commitment heroic battle to save the David Wright House.” And needed to make an offer. One potential group pur- the Conservancy, buoyed and strengthened by this col- chase partner had been communicating with Woodin lective win, continues to develop practical approaches anonymously through his lawyer. In early Decem- to protect Wright properties and help ensure that they ber that individual identified himself and informed are controlled by those who value them. n Woodin that he and his family were willing to take on the project solo. They would buy the property, presumably at the Halloween price accepted earlier, and restore the house and the site. We were elated, but then the other shoe dropped. The offer was rejected. It was hard to fathom the response. The only conclusion one could draw was that this was no longer simply a business proposition for the current owners (since they would profit by almost $600,000 for holding a property for seven months). Did they intend to hold out for even more money or was this now just a contest of wills that would inevitably result in the destruction of the building soon or in three years? Fortunately rationality won out; Sells and Hoffman changed their minds and accepted the deal the following day. The buyer asked the Conservancy to announce the sale and that confidentiality was to be a condition of the sale until the closing and the public announcement. On December 20, a few minutes after the closing, the Conservancy authorized The New York Times to release the information, and the preservation community breathed a collective sigh of relief. P hoto by john clouse The new owners continue to prefer anonymity, but The David and Gladys Wright House will be restored and opened the family, together with the newly formed David to the public thanks to Conservancy action and an inspired owner. and Gladys Wright House Trust, are working toward 37 photo by neil levine Gwathmey Siegel Kaufman’s 1984-92 addition to the Guggenheim, one of the notable examples of new architects adding on to Wright’s work detailed in a new Conservancy publication

A New Book From the Conservancy Explores Additions to Iconic Buildings By David G. De Long

Additions to buildings by Frank Lloyd Wright threaten their integrity, yet such changes are often necessary to support ongoing uses that keep those buildings alive. A new book compiled by the Conservancy stands to be the first major publication to my knowledge to address this issue as it relates specifically to Wright. AB OU T TH E A U O R Frank Lloyd Wright: Preservation, Design, and Adding to Iconic Buildings was compiled by the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy and is scheduled to be pub- David G. De Long, an lished by the University of Virginia Press late in 2014. The book—a fitting tribute to architect and architec- the Conservancy’s dedicated efforts to save all of Wright’s buildings—also will comple- tural historian, has chaired graduate programs in historic ment the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Conservancy’s founding. The preservation at Columbia problem of adding to buildings by Wright was, in fact, the focus of the Conservancy’s University and the University annual conference in 2010, held in Cincinnati. Through current Conservancy president of Pennsylvania, where he is Richard Longstreth’s efforts a selection of papers presented over three days of presen- currently professor emeritus tations were gathered together, edited and organized into book form. And it is also of architecture. Among his through his efforts that a publisher was secured. books are Auldbrass: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Southern Plan- The first introductory section of the book consists of two chapters. Longstreth begins tation and Frank Lloyd Wright: by laying out the groundwork for discussion through an evaluation of a wide-ranging Designs for an American Landscape, 1922-1932. group of recent additions to significant American buildings by other architects and cites various guidelines and regulations that have been created in an effort to achieve suitable results. Particularly influential in American practice are the U.S. Secretary of 38 architects photo courtesy of kuala washatko Kubala Washatko Architects won a Wright Spirit Award for its restrained design of an addition to the First Unitarian Meeting House in Madison, Wisconsin.

the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, especially the stipulation that additions must be clearly differ- entiated from the historic building they adjoin. This Wright himself saw change as inevitable, seeming to accept the has often been invoked to justify jarringly modern, fact that his buildings, too, if they were to continue in active use, sometimes ill-fitting encumbrances, as Longstreth relates. But recently, he adds, relaxed interpretations would change as a consequence of their organic nature. of this stipulation have resulted in more sympathetic solutions. He stresses that in all cases preservation in itself never stifles creative design, a point elaborated in de Teel Patterson Tiller’s second chapter, which goes into greater detail about the standards. These two chapters, together with their extensive bibliographical sin. Sidney K. Robinson focuses on the studio alone, references, could form the basis for a college class on limiting his discussion to the years 1911 to 1914, the subject of additions to any historically significant when, almost at once, Wright began making changes. building. As Robinson argues, those changes were made with reason, reflecting Wright’s ongoing explorations Wright himself saw change as inevitable, seeming to of how work could be meaningfully related with accept the fact that his buildings, too, if they were to domestic space. continue in active use, would change as a consequence of their organic nature. As Wright once said in 1939 Beginning in 1932, to house the newly established during the London Lectures, published in The Future Taliesin Fellowship and a greatly expanded studio, of Architecture (Horizon Press, 1953), “Architecture Wright began to adapt the nearby Hillside School is that great living creative spirit which from genera- (1901-03) that he had designed for his maiden aunts. tion to generation, from age to age, proceeds, persists, In the book, Anne E. Biebel and Mary Kieran Murphy creates, according to the nature of man, and his cir- describe the many alterations Wright subsequently cumstances as they both change … the law of organic made to Hillside and its related structures, which change is the only thing that mankind can know as included the removal of some of his own earlier work. beneficent or as actual!” But clearly he thought it Had Hillside and its adjacent structures been on a essential that changes to his own buildings be in ac- register of historic buildings at the time, he no doubt cord with the original concept so as to sustain their would have gotten into trouble. organic nature. Wright’s addition of the Research Tower and enclosing Wright never seemed to hesitate in making changes to courtyard (1943-50) to the S.C. Johnson & Co. Ad- his own buildings, examples of which are examined in ministration Building (1936-39) in Racine, Wisconsin, the second section’s three chapters. Few of his build- could serve as a model of how to add sympathetically ings underwent as many changes as his home and to an earlier building without mimicking it. Mark studio, Taliesin (1911-14) near Spring Green, Wiscon- Hertzberg writes of how Wright’s bold conception 39 But for me it is inappropriate, however well inten- When changes affecting buildings by tioned. In drawings, its vast size appears to overwhelm Wright’s comparatively small-scaled tower, and its Wright are made, paying attention to con- willfully angled forms seem to parody Wright’s logi- cally derived shapes. text is of particular importance. Additions that do not compete so aggressively in terms of scale and form fare better, as discussed in the last three chapters of this section of the book. For a of a vertical laboratory departed from convention, needed addition to the First Unitarian Meeting House but provided dramatic form that came to symbolize (1946-52) in Madison, Wisconsin, fundamental prin- the company itself. In later years the tower proved ciples governing Wright’s design were identified before resistant to changing needs, and it now stands empty, any design was initiated, as Tom Kubala explains. yet to its very great credit the company continues to The addition that resulted by applying those prin- maintain it while alternate uses are explored. ciples relates respectfully to Wright’s building without imitating it. The visitors’ center added to the Darwin Additions to Wright’s buildings by other architects D. Martin House (1903-05) in Buffalo, New York, is are more problematic, as the six chapters of the third immediately adjacent to, rather than connected with, section of the book make clear. Dale Allen Gyure Wright’s building, hence a slightly different situation. shows how, at Florida Southern College (1938) in Eric Jackson Forsberg writes of how the committee Lakeland, Florida, large, clumsy buildings inserted supervising its design sought an architect of emerg- within the campus have disrupted the cohesive unity ing talent rather than a world-famous figure likely to of Wright’s brilliant scheme. As Neil Levine writes, produce a competing design. Toshiko Mori, who was the Guggenheim Museum (1943-59) in New York selected following an invited competition, worked City has changed over the years, for example, with with the committee and a range of skilled consultants the conversion of the office wing to gallery space for so that the visitors’ center, as built, succeeds in re- which it was ill-suited, compromising its integrity. lating respectfully to the adjacent Wright structure, But he concentrates on Gwathmey Siegel’s addition amplifying its elements without replicating them. As of 1984-92, documenting with stinging clarity how recorded by Lynda Waggoner, an addition proposed the over-scaled, spatially disruptive design was partly at Fallingwater (1935-37) in Bear Run, Pennsylvania, justified by misrepresenting historic facts of Wright’s is more different still, for the small community of original intentions. For an addition to the Price Tower cottages needed to support Fallingwater’s expanding (1952-56) in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the Price Tower educational mission are to be located on a remote site: Arts Center—which occupies the lower section of undeveloped land never owned by the Kaufmanns and the building—sought a world-famous architect with not visible from Wright’s masterpiece. Here the charge the hope of stimulating architectural dialogue. Zaha was to explore relationships between building and Hadid was selected from a stellar list of finalists and landscape, reflecting another of Wright’s principles. In Scott W. Perkins mounts a noble defense of her design, which as yet is unbuilt.

40 arhitects image courtesy of patkau Proposed cottages at Fallingwater sit on undeveloped land never owned by the Kaufmanns and not visible from Wright’s masterpiece. photo by mark hert z berg The addition of the radically vertical Research Tower (1950) to Wright’s earlier dramatically horizontal design for the S.C. Johnson & Co. Head- quarters in Racine, Wisconsin, has been so well accepted that it now serves as a symbol of the corporation. accord with this charge, the design by Patkau Archi- design had responded, and without them a full under- tects—like the Martin House visitors’ center, selected standing of his design becomes more difficult. The book through an invited competition—will enhance the un- thus ends, in a sense, with a strong reminder that when dulating ridges of its open setting. Even in so respect- changes affecting buildings by Wright are made, paying ful a situation, lively controversies have arisen, and the attention to context is of particular importance. n design remains as yet unrealized. The last two chapters of the book are grouped together in a section called “Subtractions.” In the first, Patrick J. Mahoney outlines the complicated history of Darwin and Isabelle Martin’s country house, Graycliff (1926-27) in Derby, New York. We learn of its many revisions while being designed, of later additions by Wright and others as requested by the Martins, of the more radical changes made when it was converted to a residence and school by a group of Piarist priests and finally of its restoration by the Graycliff Conservancy. This restoration involved the removal—or “subtrac- tion”—of disfiguring additions, always a difficult and sometimes questionable process, but here, as described, it seems fully justified. In the last chapter, Tomas Templeton Taylor relates the complicated history of the Westcott House (1907-09) in Springfield, Ohio, and its many modifications before its sensitive restoration. But he focuses on subtractions of a different sort: the demolition of a group of

neighboring working-class houses. These constituted bann photo by iwan an important part of the context to which Wright’s Toshiko Mori’s design for the visitor’s center at the Darwin D. Martin House (1903-05) in Buffalo, New York, reveals the features of the house without mimicking it. 41 A Future for the Past By M. Jeffrey Baker

We are all products of our own time. Everything we wear, everything we eat, the products we use, the people we know, the places we have been and sights we have seen are fixed to the short time of our existence here on earth.

Indeed, we are connected to the earth and we are inextricably connected to a vast web of humanity. In the same way, all the things we create are a snapshot of our knowledge, skills, sensibilities and aspirations present in that moment of creation. Those things created are a tangible embodiment of the pulse of life at a fixed time, and although this human record can be altered, it can be completely erased only when it ceases to exist. This inescapable fact applies to our built world. Our structures are an embodiment of a time and place. Each was created to serve a specific purpose in a specific moment. The very materials used in their construction represent the opportunities and the limitations faced by their builders and even represent the state of human technological development, the web of humanity, at the time they were used. As our built history passes through time, each new generation must use and adapt it to its own time. Because of technological advancement, we live in accordance with different standards, different needs and different expectations, and we apply those to our historic buildings. By doing so we rightfully place the needs of the living over the dead, but our level of appreciation of their efforts dictates the level of our intervention into the life of our historic structures. We now live in a time of unprecedented expectations for our historic buildings. Like AB OU T TH E A U O R the original builders, we expect them to be safe and comfortable, yet even the basic definitions of safety and comfort have evolved. More over, our society has developed M. Jeffrey Baker has been a a heightened awareness of our environment, energy consumption and the needs of principal partner in the firm disabled citizens. These concerns and more are now reflected in current building codes of Mesick, Cohen, Wilson, Baker, Architects for the past 17 years. His resume includes restoration work at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, Poplar Forest and the University of Virginia. Other restoration work includes the New York State Capitol, the Vermont State House, several New- port mansions, Gore Place in Waltham, Massachusetts, and the Frank Lloyd Wright- designed campus at Florida Southern College.

Photos courtesy of M. Jeffrey Baker

During the restoration of the roof at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, modern materials and substrates were used to imitate the original appearance but eliminate historic failures. The 42 application substituted Jefferson’s tin-coated rolled iron shingles with custom tin-coated stainless steel shingles. During the restoration of James Madison’s Montpelier, modern building sys- The missing fireplace and chimney breast in James Madison’s tems were integrated in locations with minimal disruption to original fabric, bedroom provided an opportunity to introduce modern systems including an underground mechanical bunker situated to avoid archaeologi- into the wall during the reconstruction of the lost fireplace. cal resources.

and other statutes, and practitioners who must apply these expectations and mandates to historic buildings are often placed on a collision course with mandates designed to protect those buildings from profound Any modern intervention must be change. These challenges are compounded by the reality that the very skills and materials employed to cre- accompanied by a determination of what is ate our historic buildings are now rare or even extinct, making it increasingly difficult to make changes that important about the building in question. will not cause immediate or long-term harm. Nevertheless, today’s restoration architects have taken these challenges in stride and developed alternative determination of what is important about the build- and creative approaches that in many cases are im- ing in question. Its importance must be considered in provements over past efforts. More historic buildings its own specific context as well as within our culture are being restored or rehabilitated to meet modern as a whole. We must also remember that while we environmental and sustainable standards. Alternative can make our own contribution to the story of the wood species from certified sustainable sources are building, we should be sensitive to the value of the more often specified; highly efficient energy-saving contributions of earlier generations, and our great- systems are now installed; and a vast array of modest contribution may be passing that along to oth- ern materials are used that support a healthy and ers. Determining what is important is linked to an safe living and work environment. In many cases, understanding of what has changed and why. This in sustainability efforts are measured by the U.S. Green turn often reveals and defines opportunities for new Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and changes that make sense and how they can be achieved Environmental Design) program and these standards in ways that meet contemporary needs while retaining are increasingly applied to every conceivable building what’s important. type of every period. One example of this is the recent restoration and rehabilitation by my firm—Mesick, Although restoration architects frequently ponder the Cohen, Wilson, Baker, Architects—of Thomas Jeffer- past, it is essential that they keep an eye toward the son’s Pavilion X at the University of Virginia, which future. While forgetting the past endangers our future, is expected to achieve LEED certification. Although forgetting to imagine a viable future endangers the many of America’s early historic buildings are inher- memory of our past. It is impossible to predict how the ently green, it is our responsibility to ensure that our future will unfold, but in the near term emerging tech- current interventions are equally so. nologies are already affecting our built heritage. These technologies are as remarkable as they are exciting. As we press our contemporary lives into our historic buildings, our codes and mandates attempt to offer At this moment, portable scanners are scanning our prescriptions for how to strike a balance between buildings and landscapes. In some disciplines this modern concerns and our concern and respect for is accomplished with drones, which are becoming our built heritage. However, these prescriptions are small enough to scan interiors on their own. These not designed to relieve us of thoughtful discernment. scans will be used to create highly defined three- Any modern intervention must be accompanied by a dimensional computer models, and the models will 43 More than 50 different mixes were tested during the restoration of the President’s Terrace at Frank Lloyd Wright’s Florida Southern College. In order to avoid historic failures, the final mix featured natural cement, a material discovered and used since the late 18th century.

highly defined scan of unearthed archaeological features. Once these scans are linked with above-ground scans, a complete picture of both above- and below- ground built fabric will be available for any historic site. These comprehensive images will be invaluable in understanding a site’s evolution and more clearly defining how it should be treated. This same kind of technology is already being used to discover a building’s infrastructure, which will be increasingly helpful when evaluating the condition of a structure or trying to thread new building systems through its armature. In an unforeseen turn of events, computers have enabled us to understand our history more holistically and more profoundly than ever before. As libraries around the world are scanning their collections, ar- The restoration team substituted mild steel reinforcing with stainless steel and chival material that would have taken years or even a epoxy coated reinforcing bars during the restoration of the “textile blocks” at lifetime to assemble can now be reviewed and digested the President’s Terrace at Florida Southern College. in days, hours or even seconds. Word-search programs streamline the effort immensely, and translation programs are even dissolving the language barrier. Al- ready, archival availability has led to the understand- Because of technological advancement, we live in accordance ing and reinvention of extinct historic materials such as American natural cement-based mortars, grouts with different standards, different needs and different and concrete. This newly found yet old information expectations, and we apply those to our historic buildings. was pivotal in the repair and restoration work thus far completed on Frank Lloyd Wright’s textile blocks at Florida Southern College. The fact that building technologies reflect the sophisti- be used to record and recreate damaged or partially cation of the entire web of humanity has not changed missing features using 3-D printing. It is likely that in through time. Materials and systems not intended the near future large building features or even build- or even imagined for the building industry are being ings themselves will be manufactured in this way, and applied to our historic buildings. For nearly 40 years, how this technology will affect our historic buildings acrylics, epoxies and high-tensile carbon fiber products is limited only by our imagination. Ground penetrat- have been used to stabilize and strengthen both struc- ing radar and more advanced imaging techniques are tural and non-structural members, and they continue rapidly becoming capable of producing a complete and to be refined and improved. Other materials, includ- 44 ing both sheet and liquid applied membranes of every description, are used as coverings or substrates to allow for the restoration or reinstatement of historic We may be products of our time, coverings with the benefit of avoiding historic failures. There is no question that emerging materials will but we have the capacity to imagine continue to be integrated into our historic buildings in unimaginable ways to allow for a higher and more and shape our future. secure level of restoration. Advancements in building systems have made it possible to restore and protect our most precious landmarks while retaining a high degree of original fabric. For example, it is now possible to secure our historic buildings from fire by threading high pressure mist systems throughout the structure. These systems, originally conceived for marine vessels, may be inserted with very little disruption to the building fabric, yet they are highly effective in rapidly extinguishing fires with little or no damage to the building or its contents. Similarly, newly developed super-sensitive air sampling smoke detection systems may be introduced into any given structure, and these systems are so effective that a fire can be detected and extinguished long before any serious damage can occur. As our society continually searches for creative ways to interpret the story of our museum sites, it is certain that emerging technologies will play a large role. Ad- vancements in Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) screens may conceivably provide museums with the ability to show the public what historic spaces or even entire landscapes looked like in some distant past with views provided through window sashes fitted with OLED glass. Our portable devices will assist in this goal immeasurably. Those who have wistfully wished that walls could talk may experience just that as voice recognition technology is introduced into historic spaces, allowing visitors to interact with a room. Even now, speakers provide voice, music and sound effects through any glass surface equipped with a small microphone that turns the glass itself into a high-quality sound system. These are just a few examples of how emerging technologies will create unprecedented opportunities for us to understand, conserve, restore and interpret our built heritage. We may be products of our time, but we have the capacity to imagine and shape our future, \ and as we use our technology to remember who we 3-D printing was used to create this study model of the new Wright-inspired were, we bring deeper meaning to who we are—and fountain at Florida Southern College. This model and others were found to humanity is better for it. n be very helpful during the manufacturing of the actual fountain built on the campus. The near future will see not only the molds but blocks and other building elements constructed by 3-D printers.

45 Up Close and Personal From widening the Wright community, to springing into collective action whenever a building is threatened, to creating lifelong friendships (and even a marriage!), our members built the Conservancy into what it is today. We asked a few of them for their fondest memories.

After 27 years, with now longtime friends and good times, the Conservancy is like family! Professionally, I remember the thrill of being recognized in 2000 for saving the Westcott House in Springfield, Ohio, with others of the Advocacy Committee. The seller had the usual hesitations about property transfer. Our expertise and building of trust led to a responsible new owner.

Donna Butler

For years, I have been attending preserva- Our second Taliesin visit was a magi- tion conferences. Not until I attended my cal experience, dining and listening to first Conservancy conference in Milwaukee a concert exactly where the Wrights did I realize how great a preservation orga- dined and enjoyed music. After I nization can be; preserving Wright buildings joined the board, we had a meeting and allowing members to visit Wright struc- in Bartlesville and enjoyed a fabulous tures, becoming aware of their importance. evening at Carolyn Price’s Wright Tours also included contemporary archi- home. Seeing it in the light and then tects: Purcell & Elmslie, Neutra, Erickson, the dark was a thing of real beauty. Lautner, Dow and Kahn, increasing one’s appreciation of modernist architecture. Judy Corson Eugenio De Anzorena

My first conference (Milwaukee, 1994) was eye-opening—not the Wright architecture in which I grew up, but the strangers I met that would become longtime friends. Our bonds were formally cemented with a Jell-O ritual at a Cold War themed (Spy vs. Spy) pub called the Safe House. Jack Quinan, I never expected you to keep up! And yes, Debra Pickrel and Jerry Morosco can corroborate.

John Elsner

With the small group meeting in June 1989 to evaluate the feasibility of a national conservancy, I proposed the statement, ‘To facilitate the maintenance and preservation of the surviving Frank Lloyd Wright buildings’ (with no additional language). Elizabeth Wright Ingraham asked incredulously, ‘All of them?’ The resounding response was, ‘Yes, all.’ And we have done pretty well.

46 Roland Reisley Chatting with Millie Rosenbaum, she said only one thing was wrong with her house and it was her own fault. She had insisted on adding a door; Wright dis- agreed, but finally included it. ‘That door doesn’t belong, it’s in the way all the time,’ she admitted. I suggested taking it out. She said, ‘I couldn’t do that. It keeps me humble. Every day I’m reminded what a per- fect damn fool I was not to listen to Mr. Wright.’

Robert Fordyce

My fondest personal memories are of people: wonderful When I was president of the Conservancy I homeowners, who found ways took seriously my job of keeping its board to make their dreams of hav- stocked with brilliant and committed people, ing a Wright-designed house and we invited Susan Jacobs Lockhart and come true; dedicated board Neil Levine onto it. To my delight they have members who always went since married; little did I know that I was the extra mile, were not only innocently a matchmaker! colleagues, but fun, exciting friends; and dedicated staff Jonathan Lipman members who kept everything going, at times on a shoe- string. I miss them all.

Joan Smith

Being a Conservancy board member and a part of the ‘Wright community’ literally changed my life. Nearly 20 years in, I have a graduate thesis, a co-authored book, magazine articles, blogs and a host of cherished friends as a result.

Debra Pickrel

Inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s work, everyone seems to have fun on rescue projects. And they work without bureaucracy, for free! Never in the history of preservation have so many owed so much (so cheaply) to so few.

Tom Schmidt

The Conservancy has played an enormous role in my personal life. It has allowed me to put my scholarly dedi- cation to Wright’s architecture into a real-world context of active engagement. It has introduced me to wonderful people I would probably not have met otherwise. Above all has been Susan Jacobs Lockhart, who eventually became my wife and partner in all things Wright and more.

Neil Levine 47 Seventeen years of involvement with the Conservancy has provided memorable places with memorable people, some famous, many now my friends. One special evening was spent sipping single malt scotch in the wee hours at the fireplace inglenook in Taliesin’s living room with the director of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.

Tim Quigley

The Scottsdale Conference 25 years ago conjures up vivid images: a star- lit desert picnic at Taliesin West; Fellowship dinner with music; the Arizona Biltmore Gold Room, with a gala dinner, sitting with people who had lived and worked at Taliesin for many years, like Tom and Effi Casey, Dick Carney, and Heloise Christa. The Conservancy, as if a suitor, swept me off my feet, keeping me smitten ever since.

Deborah Vick

The people! Members, board, staff, homeowners, volunteers, docents… Conservancy events are like a family reunion. My experiences working in the office with staff, at conferences registering participants, problem-solving issues, acting as a ‘first responder’ to injuries, or learning about Wright and architecture have all been memorable and great fun.

Jan Scherubel

At the 1986 homeowners conference an attendee, Roy Peterson, showed a video of Auldbrass in a dilapidated, If I were to give an example ruinous state. The house and outbuildings were obviously of a single memorable in danger of failing. It was for sale. Ginny Kazor contacted conference moment, I would Joel Silver. He was interested. Tom Schmidt, director of have to say it was in New Fallingwater at the time, offered his help in making the York in 2002. I had the op- deal happen. The rest is history. portunity to ask the keynote Rod Grant speaker, Herbert Muschamp, ‘Can you explain, what is a city?’ He replied, ‘My dear boy, a city is sex.’

Kurt Roessler I have been inside more Wright buildings than my age (24) because my parents were on the board. At age 7 Mrs. Adelman invited me to crawl the ridge of her roof, I roamed through Auldbrass, and in high school Robert Leary showed me the Ennis House. My entry to this world was not as an acolyte, but I am profoundly glad to be here.

Emily Johnson 48 executive director’s LETTER

for the next 25

The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy moves into a new phase in its history with this benchmark 25th year. The essential ingredients in our success to date have been our cadre of passionate experts and their networks, our committed members and supporters, and a bare-bones but stable economic base. To continue to safeguard Wright’s extant work as the challenges of aging materials, environmental factors and land development pressures multiply, we will need to carefully maintain and expand these human and financial resources.

A year ago I reported that the Conservancy was in the threatened with immediate demolition and the Lewis Haines process of receiving several bequest gifts. In large part Revolving Fund monies are not adequate to temporarily those have now been received. Our Legacy Fund is the acquire the building, the Legacy Fund may provide a loan. primary repository for estate gifts, and that fund is grow- Likewise if an extraordinary expenditure is needed to legally ing thanks to William and Elizabeth Tracy and Maynard and defend an easement and the Easement Monitoring Re- Katherine Buehler, who were among the first to recognize serve Fund is not sufficient, the Legacy Fund may provide a the importance of including the Conservancy in their wills. loan to cover the costs. A strong Legacy Fund will help the They became early members of the Legacy Circle, and we Conservancy build the financial muscle necessary to protect are enormously grateful for their foresight and the trust they Wright’s buildings for generations to come. placed in the Conservancy. Their commitment to protecting Wright’s architectural legacy reaches beyond their own life- Providing a bequest to the Conservancy in your will or other times in several ways. Both families commissioned and built estate plans is an enormously valuable, practical and simple Wright houses and both families protected those structures step to supplement your annual membership and help by donating preservation easements to the Conservancy. secure the Conservancy’s future. The Legacy Circle honors Further, they helped secure the Conservancy’s continued individuals and families who have notified us that they have ability to protect these houses and other Wright buildings in made that special commitment. We invite you to join the the future by making a planned gift from their estates. Buehlers, the Tracys and others in underwriting the extraordinary legacy of America’s greatest architect through your The Legacy Fund is structured as a quasi-endowment fund. own personal legacy—a planned estate gift to the Conser- The goal is to preserve the majority of the fund and grow vancy in this our 25th anniversary year. it through appreciation, earnings and additional gifts to support the Conservancy’s operations, but it also has the Janet Halstead flexibility to back-stop, if needed, two special-purpose Executive Director funds that are critical to our mission. If a Wright building is board of directors and staff

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE John Blew Debra Nemeth Deborah Vick PRESIDENT Retired Partner, K & L Gates LLP Owner, Guy C. Smith House Former Owner, Ray Brandes House Richard Longstreth Design Director, Board Member, Frank Lloyd Wright Director of the Graduate Program Ron Burkle Swimmer Design Associates Marin County Civic Center in Historic Preservation, Chairman, The Yucaipa Companies Conservancy George Washington University Scott W. Perkins Donna Butler Director of Preservation, Fallingwater Tom Wadlow VICE PRESIDENT Real Estate Appraiser President, Smith Wadlow, LLC Lynda S. Waggoner Executive Director, Jack Quinan Vice President, Western Pennsylvania Harper Fowlkes House Distinguished Service Professor Conservancy Emeritus, Department of Visual Studies HONORARY BOARD Daniel Chrzanowski Director, Fallingwater University at Buffalo Owner, John J. and Syd Dobkins House Senior Curator, Martin House Elizabeth Wright Ingraham* Visual Artist Restoration Corporation Vincent Scully SECRETARY William Tracy* Edith K. Payne Ronald P. Duplack Eric Lloyd Wright Owner, Richardson House Mary F. Roberts Partner, Rieck and Crotty, PC Thomas Wright Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey Executive Director, Martin House Restoration Corporation Dale Allen Gyure *deceased TREASURER Professor of Architecture, Leo Koonmen Ron Scherubel Lawrence Technological University Retired Vice President and General Commercial Real Estate EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Investment Consultant Counsel, Sara Lee Foods T. Gunny Harboe, FAIA Retired Executive Director, Frank Lloyd Janet Halstead Founder and Principal, Past President Wright Building Conservancy Harboe Architects, PC Susan Jacobs Lockhart Sandra Shane-DuBow STAFF Board Member, Patrick J. Mahoney, AIA Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Member, Board of Directors, Joel Hoglund Vice President, Graycliff Conservancy Taliesin Preservation Inc. Communications Lauer-Manguso & Associates Architects Member, Board of Governors, Frank and Events Manager MEMBERS AT LARGE Lloyd Wright School of Architecture Vincent Michael Justin Phillips Diane Belden Executive Director, Operations Manager Senior Sales Representative, Global Heritage Fund 49 Tai Ping Carpets Americas Inc. FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT BUILDING CONSERVANCY

The David and Gladys Wright House, photographed in 1953 by Pedro E. Guerrero, was recently saved with the help of the Conservancy.