John Lautner's Concannon Residence, designed in 1960, was built in a blurry area contested by the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, with BH having the post office address but not collecting the property taxes. Both cities have a sad track record with the protection of historically significant structures, and have countless modernist architecture bones in their walk-in closets. Both are gleaming their real estate teeth, and are penchant for greed and mediocre architecture. And both have a negligible clue of the cultural values bestowed upon them by their architectural heritage.
Strangely, the Concannon Residence was demolished by its eccentric owner James Goldstein, to make place for Lautner designed additions to the Sheats/Goldstein House, on the adjacent lot, a masterpiece of the architect, which Mr. Goldstein also owned since 1972, and values with an obsession. The erasure of the Concannon Residence is the result of those planned improvements for the more famous and fortunate Goldstein Residence.
Even though he had the Concannon Residence torn down, to his credit, James Goldstein made sure in his will that the expanded Goldstein House, and with that the legacy of both structures, will never be sold. The compound could very well become a publicly accessible cultural treasure for the entire city.
Architectural preservation is a nebulous subject.
As we hear more and more about the destruction of irreplaceable pieces of architecture, our gut feeling as architects and interested public usually prompts us to say, “Shame.”
But the issue is more complicated.
Do we change the rules of private property ownership, which grants owners the right to choose between wrecking ball and destruction, and preservation? Can public agencies designate a cultural significance label on architectural work which is privately owned? If so, who can make those decisions and judgments? Do we helplessly try to protect structures built from materials that crumbles in a few decades' time? What is, to you and me, the cultural value of a modernist abode we can't even get near without knowing the secluded owner? What is the cultural significance, in this age, of something that represents wealth and privilege, lot after lot, and is protected by private security patrols around the clock?
In short, what is the value of preserving, and who preserves the privately owned American house? Should the ultimate decision on preserving and historically monumentalizing such architecturally significant structures remain strictly in the hands of their owners and depend on their dedication and educated contribution to the rest of the city's cultural capital?
Perhaps, bringing forth these questions and discussions could make the public more aware about the value of architecture, a critically malnourished area in our society.
From 1995 to 2002 my friend Andrea Kreuzhage, an accomplished filmmaker and documentarian, rented the Concannon Residence from Mr. Goldstein. She redesigned and updated the bedroom and the kitchen of our fallen heroine Concannon the way Mr. Lautner himself would probably like and documented the house during the construction and after the repairs were done.
After living in the house for seven years Andrea moved away to another neighborhood in Los Angeles and later said this,
“I went back once -- but only ever so briefly -- to see the empty space where Concannon once stood, and felt queasy.”
Following are the links to this documentation with the footnotes of Andrea Kreuzhage.
Part 1 Concannon renovation
Part 2 Alive: Lautner's Concannon Residence
*In 2011, the City of Beverly Hills, adopted an ordinance at last to put some rules on demolishing significant architecture older than 45 years.
A long-time contributor to Archinect as a senior editor and writing about architecture, urbanism, people, politics, arts, and culture. The featured articles, interviews, news posts, activism, and provocations are published here and on other websites and media. A licensed architect in ...
19 Comments
Piece has a nice emotional feel Orhan. It captures many subtextual issues with very few words. Brilliant title.
I would definitely save the Concannon. It would be a beautiful folly of the main house.
Orhan,
Nicely done. Andrea's links fill in the gaps of this not so well known Lautner residence.
eric
WWTD???
What would Tony do?
op-ed and eric, thank you!
mdler, I just saw T today measuring a new beam at *Orans House (wish it was Orhan's House!) probably there was a WWmdlerD? moment somewhere in that frame... Just kidding. T surely knows the size of beams and windows and heights of all things architectural, I didn't have to stick my nose into his business either..;.)
* coming soon to Archinect!
More comments at Curbed LA
Mr Ohan bey, great article. I saw this house back in the day, too long ago to announce but it left an impression. Strange design for the Lautner master, reminded me of an early European modern along the Mallet-Stevens early Corb style, with a little LA flash. Odd for Lautner to have that much white paint and drywall but still a great space. I am also convinced that Jim, a huge Lautner fan discussed in great detail with Lautner the legacy and meaning of the house and I am sure John gave him the blessing, however I was not a fly on that wall so this is ass-u-m (tion).
Which brings us to the bigger discussion...preservation/restoration of what we perceive to be great buildings, after all who are we to say what is better than the next piece, well we do have the training (Architects) have seen the better and worse in the world and therefore do have the wherewithall to know good from bad. As you saw yesterday, how I was pondering the discussion of the 3x10 meeting up with the 3x12 fascia on the addition to the Or(h)ans house. This project has been a major struggle for me in terms of my 'architectural moral compass' I was given the incredible opportunity to take care of this beautiful gem and fix up a house that was in sad shape. Do I preserve it or do I modernize it and put my ego into this project. I took the latter route and spent countless hours having a conversation in my head with Gregory Ain asking questions constantly, how would he have addressed the issues if he came back to work on this house, given that lifestyles have changed, construction has changed (a little), and the clients had certain desires. The decision to extend the kitchen and tear out the low ceilings in the service wing and match and push a little further the heights and volumes of the rest of the building, I hope will not offend too many and will delight some. There are some details that I am adding that are on other parts of the house, but of course I have challenged the structural aspects a little.
So now this place has been messed with, no longer the pure thing that it was and therefore perhaps not 'historical'. And even though I have added on most will be hard pressed to know that this addition/remodel in fact did take place although windows and ceilings are a notch up in scale, mostly brought on by the fact that the shed roof went out further and therefore a little taller. Still in spite of my joke that I call the project Ain (ag)Ain it is now a house that is no longer original.
So unless an organization like the Getty Center buys original (or slightly modified houses and turn them into offsite Museums (I do think this would be a brilliant move, not only for their portfolio, but also to the value of architecture) we will be at the mercy of the fools who tear them down botch them up or have no sense of their historical value. (we just witnessed this down in Palos Verdes with the LLoyd Wright)!
Anyway keep up the great posts, I do liek your writing a lot.
Tony, here is the situation from my angle. Most of Ains in this town with the exception of few (I am sure you know which ones they are) are altered and remodeled beyond recognition for various reasons. As far as Orans House ongoing remodel is concerned, I don't think the house is beyond recognition at all and / or disrespectful to original design. It would have been disastrous if somebody came and added another floor, expanded the garage, clipped off the curved wall at the carport, etc.. Don't be surprised, people will do most awful things. I have witnessed a complete eradication of Irving Gill's workers' bungalows in Torrance without the knowledge of anyone. I mean Irving Gill, the grand daddy of modernism in Southern California. People who demoed them for buildings not unlike these, didn't even know who Gill was.
Yes, Oran House has been altered but I think it will be a better house for your friends than the one you started with. At least with leaks, falling plaster, falling tiles, substandard kitchen.., and such. Specially opening the kitchen to the backyard which was isolated before, having two small patios instead of one nicely sized one. I guess small patio front of the kitchen was for the maid which is not the case anymore. When you first showed me before the work started, I thought the house was literally falling apart and I don't think you have touched the things that made the house a Gregory Ain design. Your major move was to extend kitchen few feet in plan which I think is a welcome addition. As It is mentioned in the book, and in my opinion also, the house is mainly about vertical stacking and subsequent sectioning which you have not altered in any way.
At the end, the house is still very recognizably Gregory Ain with a great interpretation, revive, reconditioning and upgrading by you. You played the piece well.
The Goldstein interview link is real good also. And yet another Larry Totah connection...Goldstein - Maxfields - Totah, as well as Andrea. eric
Below is an e-mailed letter from Mr. James Goldstein, the owner of the Sheats/Goldstein House, giving a background, expressing his views on the article and the relevancy of the Concannon Residence to a conversation on architectural preservation. It is published with his permission.
Dear Mr. Ayyuce,
I have read your article regarding the destruction of the Lautner Concannon residence and would like to set the record straight. Prior to my purchase and demolition of the Concannon Residence, I had extensive discussions with John Lautner regarding his feelings about the home. He was 100% in favor of the demolition of the Concannon Residence. He did not feel that the residence was a good example of his work and believed that it was far more preferable to expand the Sheats Goldstein Residence into one estate, rather than to have the Concannon Residence share the driveway with the Sheats Goldstein Residence.
I feel as strongly about the importance of preserving architectural properties as anyone. Therefore, due to the specific circumstances of the Concannon demolition, I feel it was a very bad example to use in the discussion concerning architectural preservation.
Sincerely,
JG
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
With all due respect, I stand to disagree with your statement that the Concannon Residence is a bad example to bring forth a discussion about architectural preservation. In fact, I will say, it is a very good one because it is exceptionally nuanced, quasi non-partisan since it's lacking "the bad guy," and even includes the post-mortem voice of the architect himself.
By comparison, if there are ever anything like open and shut, clear-cut cases, to mind come the stories of the Dodge House by Irving Gill, whose destruction to make place for a condo project was fought and lost by no other than late Esther McCoy herself; or of Lloyd Wright's beautifully daring Moore House, demolished for some palace fantasy; or even more close to home, of Lautner's Shusett House, a cousin of the Concannon, which was demolished for possibly a McMansion to fit the new owners' taste, who didn't even know about John Lautner.
These incidents and culturally brutal decisions will be remembered forever with shame and regret regardless of the owners' needs and rights.
On the other hand, your decision to demolish the Concannon sets up an interesting and fascinating situation because of your passion, knowledge and appreciation of architecture, especially Lautner's, and the discussions you had with the architect himself.
It is beautifully complex and a perfect case to shine a light on the passionate, educated and perhaps painful processes that lead to the demolition of a work of architecture.
Almost like in a Greek tragedy, almost biblical, it is the story of sacrificing a related structure of merit to make the other one more pronounced and beautiful.
It is provoking these initial questions:
What makes one of Launtner's works architecturally more significant than the other?
Did the previous owners and occupants of Concannon love the house less than you love your Sheats/Goldstein House? Is Lautner's cast-in-place concrete work more important than his wood frame work? If so, do we ignore how he got there? Is the value of architecture defined by extra-curricular celebrity drama and entertainment factors? What defines "good" in architecture?
In short, my point is that the story of the Concannon Residence has several intriguing parts and particulars that trump the typical, black and white "demolished architecture" events I found worthy of writing about when discussing architectural preservation.
I'm looking for clues to what makes something culturally and historically significant and how we calibrate architecture, and our history.
Sincerely,
Orhan Ayyuce
Concannon is indeed a very nuanced circumstance.
My first question is: why did the Goldstein house need to become larger?
Surely there are other options for entertaining. Adjusting everything to meet "today's lifestyle" means none of the Gothic cathedrals should still be standing, every Carnegie library should be torn down, all the Painted Ladies in SF have to go away, etc. Adjustments to daily routines to accommodate a masterpiece is part of living with art, and why we like to have art in our lives.
Also: once a good building is gone it's never coming back. No one is building more Lautners.
I also find it dismaying that no mention was made of which architect might be designing the addition. What a challenging project that must be and, like the Barnes project by TWBTA in Philadelphia, a job that leaves one vulnerable to searing criticism from every side.
Will that addition be as significant in 50 years as any building, even a mediocre one, by Lautner?
The Concannon house was demolished because John Lautner was asked and agreed to design another building on its site. The question as to whether or not the house should or should not have been demolished is a non sequitur. The new solution desired by Jim Goldstein and envisioned by John Lautner is the apparent evidence that both men agreed with the decision to build anew.
John's boss' s boss famously stated "Form follows Function." I will riff on Louis Sullivan's dictum and state that Fact follows Fiction. The ruminations back and forth in this blog while interesting, merit a deeper understanding of the circumstances that led to my old boss's decision. Consider, that John's book had recently been published. After many attempts over the years, with various publishers, Artemis Press agreed to take it to print. As he had done for each house, John described the Concannon design and arranged the images graphically surrounding the text. My memory of that time in the Lautner office, was that since the project was finally recorded for history, it was agreeable with John to begin again on the site, especially since the home had lapsed into disrepair.
The architectural photographer and preservationist, Richard Nickel once said that "the enemies of building's are rain and stupid men." Architects endeavor to protect Clients from the elements but providing protection against ever-present ignorance or negligence is impossible. In 1992 the greatest Pacific cyclone ever recorded to hit Hawaii bore down on the Islands and toward Kuaui in particular. The owners of the Concannon house, were living on Kauai when Hurricane Iniki smashed through their property. The storm financially devastated them. After the storm, they sold the Concannon house to Jim Goldstein in order to marshall their resources. As Jim gained ownership he found that the the building had fallen fallow from the past owners absence and neglect. This circumstance influenced his decision to visit John Lautner about a new design.
The project was schematically designed by John in the Spring of 1994. By the fall he was dead. Two meetings occurred over the course of that Spring and Summer, with each giving more definition to the design of the Tennis Court and to the adjacent Guest House. Many years past before the project was taken up in earnest and much circumstance and thought occurred between those years. Two major factors occurred with design implications in the early years of this decade. First, a geological investigation found that the original Lautner Schematic had planned for the Eastern portion of the Tennis Court to be built upon ground that had thirty feet of fill beneath it. Instead, Andrew Nasser, Lautner's long time Structural Engineer and avid Tennis Player, recommended a post tensioned structural slab with eight large diameter reinforced concrete caissons. This approach would eliminate any chance of court surface cracking due to ground settlement. The second factor influencing the design was that Jim had lost his lease to his Lautner designed office located in a Century City office tower. An existing law firm in the building desired to expand vertically and won the right to take over two more floors beneath their present space. They had the muscle and Jim lost the lease after an expensive, lengthy and valiant effort to preserve his office for future generations.
Considering these circumstances, I suggested to Jim that the new structure necessary to build his court would allow for a home office to be built underneath it. Since then, other programmatic requirements have organicalyy arisen over time and they have been incorporated. The designs have been instituted in the same way as John taught me, in that; the answer is always to be found in the problem. From this, ideas are created. Jim and I still work the same way as we did when I worked with him and Lautner as project architect. This has been the ongoing alchemy on the job for over the past thirty years. Whether it was me or one of the other Lautner trained project architects before me, we have all exercised the carefulness, exactitude and ideals that John taught us to practice with.
@Dustin thanks for the additional backround. Does this mean you are/were the architect of record for the expansion/addition?
Re . Concannon Residence demolition
I am Helena Arahuete, Architect. I was the Chief Architect in John Lautner's office for more than 20 years and his Associate Architect at the time of his passing. I was the Project Architect of the Concannon-Walters residence remodel and the Goldstein Residence Addition from 1989 to 1994. The residences were located on adjacent lots, sharing one access driveway and parking area. Mr. Walters decided to cancel the remodel and sell his house. Prior to buying this house, Jim Goldstein consulted John Lautner and got his approval to demolish the Concannon house and build a tennis court, tennis house and guest entertainment area and maid's quarters, to be designed by Mr. Lautner. I was the Project Architect in charge of the original design, under John Lautner's supervision, until his passing in October of 1994.
I hope this clears all the speculation.
Helena Arahuete, Architect
Lautner Associates
WWW.LAUTNERASSOCIATES.COM
Dear Helena Arahuete,
Thank you for your response. As to what speculated here is not related to Mr. Lautner's assurance to his new client about demolishing the house.. It is simply an interesting case to write about preservation from a writer's point of view specially when connected to a documented event. I wrote about this in detail in above response and not interested in repeating them. No one is being accused.
However, as an architect myself, I can speculate on this; I wouldn't know if I get an offer from a wealthy client at the end of my career, semi broke, pissed off at the community as Mr. Lautner was, probably I would jump on the opportunity to further glorify one of my more heroic designs with a client whose willing to pay well for it. Even it would mean to demolish one of the houses I previously designed on the next lot. That is very speculative. But I don't pound on it in my article.
As to Concannon's historic value, I would defer that to historians, not to deceased Lautner, not to you, not to other draftsman and anybody else. However, I would be interested to know if you had anything to say architecturally about the Concannon Residence since there is very little on it. Both you and Mr. Nicholson, who worked for Mr. Lautner and Mr. Goldstein refer to Concannon as if it was a mistake needed to be taken down.
Anyone for tennis?
MAK Games 2013
October 26, 2013
Cocktails, Architecture, and an Invitational Tennis Tournament
A Benefit for the MAK Center for Art and Architecture at the Schindler House
3-6 PM
at The Sheats/Goldstein Residence
The MAK Center is thrilled to host the first tennis tournament to take place on the newly constructed infinity court at the Sheats/Goldstein Residence designed by John Lautner.
Renowned cultural figures will compete for the MAK Tennis Cup.
Support the winners and you may win a big prize!
Please join us for drinks, light fare, tours of the house, and good fun as we cheer on the players.
Tickets go on sale September 10, 2013
For more information, call (323) 651-1510 or email office@makcenter.org
More on the owner Mr. Goldstein.
https://www.nowness.com/story/fabulous-james
as one commenter pondered: was there really a need for the "sheats house" to be transformed into the "sheats/goldstein" creation at the expense of the concannon residence ?
…but it was for a tennis court & even more entertaining-space
really ?
thank God that james kimsey didn't tear down frank lloyd wright's marden residence in va. kimsey's mansion next door is literally 20 yards away & he could've just as easily used that land to expand (which goes without saying is any homeowner's right) but fortunately for the modern architectural community, kimsey was sensitive to its signifance & generously allowed it to be restored to its original glory http://www.nbm.org/about-us/publications/blueprints/marden-house.html
the comment about the aging lautner being put in a position where he was given an offer that he couldn’t refuse is admittedly speculation… but the same thought also crossed my mind ...
What an amazing thread!! I visited the Sheats Goldstein house a long time ago, sat on the sofa and washed my hands in hte sink. I didn't know there was another Lautner on the driveway. (Damn you Martin :)
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.