Archinect
anchor

People who live in historic homes

I'm researching a story on home preservation, and I'm in search for examples of people who live in architecturally significant buildings – whether as caretakers, owners, family members, whatever. Or failing that, historic homes that are preserved in some way (either as museums or landmarks).

Examples include the graduate students who inhabit the Gamble House; the architect/academic caretaker for Neutra's VDL; the American who owns and is restoring Paris' Maison de Verre, etc.

Anyone (or home) come to mind? 

 
Jan 6, 15 8:00 pm
The Saarinen House on Cranbrook's campus is lived in by the Academy of Art's Director, currently Christopher Scoates, previously Reed Kroloff.
Jan 6, 15 8:24 pm  · 
 · 
Also I think a high percentage of people who live in FLW homes, whether they are the original client or not, are adamant about *still* not changing a single thing from what Wright designed.
Jan 6, 15 8:29 pm  · 
 · 
awaiting_deletion

May I ask what information you may need?  I know an architect who lives in I believe a national historic registered house, has been renovated, added to, I even worked on some drawings for it once.......
 

Jan 6, 15 11:07 pm  · 
 · 
mightyaa

I've lived in three houses in historic landmark districts.  My office is a historic landmark building achieved through a cooperative agreement with the city who owns the property. None are "famous" published buildings or the sorts where you might do a study..  I've also been the architect of record on several others (mostly commercial adaptive reuse) but a couple period actor museum structures are clumped in there (those used historic means and methods to construct). 

What are you looking for? 

Jan 7, 15 9:56 am  · 
 · 
shellarchitect
citizen

The Gamble House scholars-in-residence program has been going on for forty years or so.

An interesting piece would be longitudinal: interviewing SIRs from back in the day, now, and somewhere in between.  Attitudes toward and policies of preservation --and the day-to-day practices and behaviors these mean for residents-- would be illuminating.

Jan 7, 15 12:06 pm  · 
 · 

@Donna yes, Cranbrook, thank you!

@Olaf, I'm interested in who these people are, the house's status, and what their responsibilities are for living there. Eventually I may contact individuals to get more information or interview them for the piece.

@mightyaa, as I understand the "historic landmark" title, that comes with no guarantee of maintenance or upkeep. Can you elaborate on the "period actor museum structures"?

@citizen: totally agree longitudinal studies would be fascinating. I poked fun at the potential absurdities of certain preservationist attitudes in my latest piece in our Art + Architecture series.

Generally: I'm most interested in people who live in homes that have their own architecturally significant identity, and the person who lives there has some responsibility (either legal or informal) to maintain that in some way. The more iconic the home or its architect, the more juicy the example. That being said, I'm also interested in homes that have *become* memorialized/preserved in some way because someone famous lived there, regardless of their architectural quality. Like the Trotsky House Museum in Mexico City.

Jan 7, 15 8:08 pm  · 
 · 
mightyaa

The two museums I've done work for are those sort of school retreat kinds of places where the employees are actors and pretend to be from a specific time period. 

No one 'lives' at these places permanently.  But they did build the structures there just like they would have 'back then' (and we snuck in some things for safety, security and convenience).  Maintenance is handled the same way; period actors... 

Also done some 'weird' stuff like dealt with historic façade easements that predate historic designation and have maintenance requirements in them; One required the City maintain the façade and the non-profit the rest for the old town hall..  I've also heard of very strict covenant type language being placed into the sales contract that requires certain things to remain historic... basically if you buy it, you are shackled.

The historic landmark designation varies.  Oddly enough it's usually backwards from what most people think in that the Federal level is wide open and not very protective, but the local designation can be quite restrictive and be tailored individually to the structure and site.  So locally we have landmark districts which are basically zoning type laws (and have bare bones maintenance/upkeep requirements). 

The local code I was part of writing did actually give us quite a lot of authority and punitive powers should a owner decide to let the local treasure decay. Basically, using laws already on the books, the City could do the work, and place a lien on the property in a bad situation where the owner refuses to comply.  There can be jail time too and fines if a judge has to get involved.   They can do the same if you don't mow your yard and ignore the code violation notices, letters, etc.  And on the flip side, the City earmarks $100k annually that can be applied for as grant money for maintenance and upkeep as well as has a resource officer who's a historic architect to offer advice and tips on how to maintain your old building if you want. A lot of that goes unused.  So basically, if you submit your painter's bid and go to the hearing, it's really probable the city will pay to paint your house.

Jan 7, 15 9:06 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: