To the amateur eye it can be puzzling, but with some education about its juxtaposition of traditional design against more complex forms, its status as a groundbreaking residential design becomes clear.
— Realtor.com
davvid, yes thats correct...a non-archi may appreciate it as an "eccentric cute house" but will not elevate it to some masterpiece of mythical proportions as do achi profesors...
jla-x, I think that different people will appreciate the building in different ways and for different reasons because thats what happens with every building.
I don't really care what people here at Archinect or anywhere else think of this house (I have my own opinion), but if anyone here thinks that the house will be "torn down" anytime soon not only does not understand architecture and its history, he/she doesn't understand anything about anything.
Miles I appreciate the history of your joke. Well-played.
I've been inside this house. It's an architectural masterpiece but it's also just a really lovely and functional interior space, the whole thing. This finishes are very good and well-done, and the quality of light is exceptional. I mean, the quality of light and space, for anyone who appreciates open plan concept* homes, is unparalleled, because the scale is perfect.
It's also in a very desirable neighborhood.
*direct realtor-speak from the epic "This is why we can't have nice things" thread
I was more reacting to other past history here, the many many threads on just about any house or other building by Venturi, or even, say, Gehry, that's been vacated of furniture and the comments start raining down: "piece of crap", "dump it in the river", "not important", etc, etc, and you could bring the Lord Wise Man of Architecture down from the mountaintop and he'd have no success in ever convincing them otherwise. And I agree with you about this particular house.
Unfortunately, Don, given examples like Folk Art and Mechanics Theater, both gone now, and given how frantically Americans seem to believe we need steroidally enormous houses with gift wrapping rooms and man caves I fear that this house actually is in danger of being torn down.
Is it protected, like its neighbor the Esherick house is?
that house is on an open mls listing and realtors are showing it to anybody and everybody, primary driver being neighborhood and price range. people that buy places alter them all the time, teardown, additions, re-siding, painting, whatever. Rich people love to buy houses that are move in ready and remodel them for 8 months before they even set foot in the place. Unless that house is on some historical protection list, there is a huge likelihood it will get modified in some way.
Carrera makes a good point, architecture is not art (except for some very rare cases - kaufman house), it is square footage and you pay low medium or high for what you are buying and where. 99% of all buyers could give a rats ass about the architect or the historical significance, they want a mcmansion sized theater and a water slide to a s &m dungeon so they can show it off to their friends.
Not much hyperbole in a real estate listing. Was the pun Intentional? Every building is groundbreaking.
As to less is a bore, this is why starchitects spend so much time on self-promotion via monographs. Also thanks for PoMo and all the really shitty architecture, my father even did one. Of course it has way to much detail to be real PoMo (as opposed to fake PoMo? LOL) but the essence is still there: a cartoon interpretation of classical elements in Disney materials.
Miles, please. Mother's House *is* groundbreaking, in the innovative and pioneering and influential meanings of that word, whether you decry it as unimportant or not. Culture has spoken on this one.
I actually love the comparison between these two images, both fairly well-known in architecture and art history classes:
Venturi's mother in front of her house:
Judith Lieb in front of her house:
The difference in residential essence and social presentation in these two images is awesome. The proud and appropriate older lady in a blue blooded section of Philadelphia and the summer-loving, leg-baring SAHM with her kids.
No, Donna, I think the present owners were trying to get historic protection for it but not yet. Well, anything can be torn down, sure. I said not "anytime soon". Chigurh, if you dump this particular house in the category of "piece of shit teardown to be replaced by a McMansion", then I repeat, you know nothing of this house and the neighborhood it sits in. The house was in "10 Buildings that changed America" documentary, it's had books and articles written on it, the owners consulted the architect on the color to paint it for Chrissake, but most of all, it's called "Mother's House"....you don't friggin' tear down a house called that, one that was designed for a mom, not unless you have no imagination or heart at all.
Btw, I love blaming one person for every bad fucking thing that comes after him/her: Corbu caused Pruitt-Igoe, Picasso caused every awful painting of crumbled boxes by every two bit painter, the Beatles are to blame for every fucking awful "she loves you" or psychedelic song that came after. Cartoon interpretation of history.
Don, I think you're right that it won't be torn down anytime soon, but I do see the potential for a few years of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and explosive cognoscenti-driven controversy leading ultimately to it being torn down.
if that house is not locally historically protected in some way, the buyers can do whatever they want to it. there is a huge chance the buyers won't give 2 shits about all the historical mumbo jumbo crap you are ranting about, I agree it is a cool house, that doesn't mean the future owners will think the same.
No. 9 down is my favorite...blocking the opening with a large column.
"The daughter of Dr. Hughes, Agatha, currently lives in and lovingly maintains the home, which marked its 50th year in 2013. The estate of Dr. Hughes has listed the property for $1.75 million and Sectura tells us that the family has cherished the home. "It has been maintained in its original condition. [The family] has a real love of the house, and Bob Venturi has been really involved in anything that's been done inside the home." That includes the minor details, such as picking out paint colors. "We're hoping to find somebody that has the same kind of love for the house that his family had," added Sectura. "It's an icon, really."
not a huge chance, really. Also;
"Chestnut Hill is a suburban neighborhood located within the boundaries of Philadelphia. It was first settled in the early eighteenth century and still has many stone buildings from that period. In the second half of the nineteenth century many Victorian Mansions were built in the area. Several residences within a few blocks of the Vanna Venturi House were designed by well-known architects. The entire neighborhood is part of the Chestnut Hill Historic District on theNational Register of Historic Places."
So, unlike Kahn's Esherick House nearby, this house is not itself historically protected but the whole fucking neighborhood is...stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
But hey, if someone wants to buy an iconic 1,986 sq.ft. house for $1.75 mil and then tear it down, more power to them...money talks and bullshit walks, right?
Orhan, No you can't buy The Esherick House for $200/SF because it sold last year for $332/SF….Mom’s House is worth “more” but that “more” would be cash from the buyer…the bank will do the $200 the rest is up to you.
As for historical registration, the article Orhan posted stated Esherick could not be torn down or altered because it’s “registered”, not so according to the National Park Service…..”A property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the property”. Think somebody’s going to want “Mom” to have an attached 2 car garage:)
There are 2 types of value...the type you need a backsrory to appreciate, and they type that is easily recognizable by the average person...both are legitimate, but alone, neither will be safe from destruction...Layers of value are important to gain broad cultural significance...its what distinguishes a flower from a stone...the stone may be increadably important to a geologists, but the average person may toss it away because its value is less apparant...A flower can have extreme importance to a botanist and still be easily appreciated by a layman...Its importance and its beauty exists at different layers and posseses certain characteristics that our main stream culture values ...Its why protecting owls and pandas is so much easier than protecting snakes and snails....of course the criteria for beauty and relevance is all man made bullshit, but it certainly affects conservation...For architecture, one could probably say the same about falling water or the sagrada familia but maybe not for this house or the seagram building...I am not saying this makes it less important overall, but yes its importance may not be legible to the average homebuyer...which will make it vulnerable to demo.
basically...what I am trying to say is that culture is heavily and subconsciously biased...I noticed this as a child when my sweet grandmother was nursing this sparrow back to health for like a month while simultaniously setting mouse traps and tossing their dead bodies in the trash with no remorse...I remember thinking to my self ...why do birds deserve more compassion than mice?... These biases are everywhere..."sure hope their in no dolphin meat in my can of tuna genocide...that would be wrong..." Ever notice that the animals we eat are also insults....you're a chicken...no you're a turkey...you fat cow...fuck you pig...Architecture is not immune to bias...If we ignore this we are stupid...If we submit to it we are useless...The main role of architecture is first to serve a utilitarian need...but secondly...it should act to stimulate the mind and soul of its beneficiaries...making people see things in a different light is one way that architecture can achieve this...making people appreciate things that they would otherwise take for granted...that is the main power of architecture...of course this is usually met with cultural resistance...maybe even allegations of "alien nihilism" or moral decay in the same way introducing a new food like horse meat would be...overtime norms are redefined...Im sure sushi was not openly accepted into our culinary culture at first...now we americans love it... but the value of a thing is not widely accepted until it has weathered the storm...Unfortunatly as in the case of the MOMA...sometimes it dosent make it out alive...when it does however we are usually a little richer...
Awwww....that's all right, chigurh, your mommy and daddy will protect you.
Uffa. Ok, I give up, you guys are right, why didn't I see it before: the house will be torn down as soon as the new owner puts his signature to the deed, and an ugly-ass McMansion will go up in its place because the National Register of Historic Places is not worth the paper its written on, the Chestnut Hill neighbors could give less of a fuck about their neighborhood and won't attend any Historic Commission hearings or potential zoning hearings or protest in any way, there's no lawyers and architects and architecture aficionados around there at all that will take up any cause, and any way they all hate Venturi's architecture and Venturi himself will not chime in at all because he's retired and also this house has nothing to do with Philadelphia's architectural fabric and history. Yep, that house is a goner. See you in the funny papers.
I would definitely talk to VSBA for the garage. Doesn't Bob have conversations about that? Vanna Venturi House can be bought by a cultural institution. I wonder why this isn't even talked about. Museums often spend millions on acquisitions or a donor can do that for them. The price of Vanna House as of now is a bargain for that kind of a purchase. There would be a huge campaign against the tearing down this very important piece. C'mon, it is a full and important piece that influenced the course of architecture one way or another.
Architecture outlives the occupants. That doesn't mean our knee-jerk reaction should be teardown because "the idea of it bugs me". People are entitled to say that, but it addresses the ultimate disrespect and disdain of architecture.
Think we’re just having fun with the tear down, too many cheaper ways to obtain a lot. Took 2 years to sell Esherick and a 40% price cut, imagine the same is in order here. Be nice if a conservancy took things like this over but they rarely have the cash, would take a white knight on threat of a tear down for that to happen.
Following the good thoughts above on the value of things, think the 99% know who Wright was but few know anything about Venturi, back to a 2 year sales plan and probably a 60% haircut.
Yeah, I don't know, Orhan. As a caretaker of Saarinen's Miller House for three years now I'm slowly finding myself opposed to the very idea of house museums. They feel so dead, not at all like a designer intended a house to feel. The living wear and tear of architecture is in many ways what makes it architecture in the first place.
That said, I'm eternally grateful that I was able to visit Sir John Soane's house, so the value of house museums definitely exists.
Donna, I was more talking in the lines of MAK or VDL house. in both cases they turned into very active cultural venues. with great programming of course.
That scenario would be great, Orhan. It's what I'd like Miller House to become. Mother's House is tiny, unfortunately, so it might be mroe challenging, but could definitely be possible. It does have a good-sized lot.
Donna, some of the nicest places to visit in England are the treasure houses, with all the original furniture and artwork and stuff still inside. Yea, the people are gone, or limited to small sections that are closed to public, but you couldn't have gotten inside at all in the past unless you were of a certain class or a servant.
Don, are you in the UK? I'm an Attingham Summer School for the Study of the British Country House alum! Yes, those houses are amazing. Maybe because they're so much older than the US houses they seem to present a story of history better than something like Miller or Mother's houses can.
I suspect the Vanna Venturi house is being sold by the academic couple who have owned it for quite some time (at least one of them is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania). Robert Venturi is so obsessed with the house, that whenever he has been invited over by this couple, he would begin an assessment of what repairs were necessary. Eventually the owners sent him a message, of sorts: when Venturi and Scott Brown arrived for a get together one time, the academics hosted the architect couple out on the front lawn.
The design integrity of the house is now protected by an easement, and, I suspect that the present owners will be quite careful reg who they sell it to.
What confuses many about the aesthetics of the Vanna Venturi house, is Robert Venturi's invocation of both Palladio (ergo the great front lawn as set-up for the Italian-referencing facade), and the effrontery of those aspects of the design that invoke the everyday domiciles of Levittown. This fusion of representations, including its allusion to grandeur, and its appropriation of the humble vernacular, is just too unexpected for some critics, and leaves quite a few of them not knowing how to respond. For ,more background on UofPa owners, see link:
No, Donna, I'm not in England, but I've taken trips there, and visited quite a few of them, including Blenheim Palace, the monumental former home of Winston Churchill. I wasn't of course comparing them 1 to1 to the Mother's House, just pointing out that visiting houses that are no longer homes can still be interesting (Fallingwater anyone?)
"The design integrity of the house is now protected by an easement", not yet though... the article was 2013 and states one was drawn up but not yet executed. I understand what they are contemplating but not familiar with the term "easement".
Don Kashane, Yes, visiting Fallingwater is an extraordinary experience. I saw it while still a teenager (it was my idea, actually), and still remember all of it vividly. Nothing prepares for the crossing of the bridge toward the house, and the opening-up of the prospect of the house itself.
Also, I'd recommend visiting painter Frederic Church's Olana, the house in Hudson, N.Y., designed by both Church and Calvert Vaux. It is beautifully sited above the river, and the preservation values are splendid.
It's true that lived-in houses have their own aura, a quality that is diminished when such houses are turned into architectural museums. But, such is the way of so many preservation solutions in our time.
Wouldn't it be felicitous if Peter Palumbo decided to purchase the Vanna Venturi house. This would extend the list of famous houses by famous architects that he has owned and looked after. That is, so far, at various times, he has owned the Farnsworth House in Plano, Illinois by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the Maisons Jaoul at Neuilly-sur-Seine, by Le Corbusier, and Kentuck Knob, south of Pittsburgh (and proximate to Fallingwater) by Frank Lloyd Wright.
I don't think much about the house architecturally, but culturally it seems worth protecting, only because it allowed elite architects to re-examine the benefit of rain shedding roofs and non- industrial ornamentation. Maybe it will be recognized as an emblem of how out of whack the profession got that it took this ugly house and several books to start thinking about architecture the way most people always have. Back handed enough?
Thayer that was elegantly back-handed but I do want to repeat that the *interior* of this house is truly lovely, anyone would love the scale, finishes, and quality of light whether an architectural elite or not.
135 Comments
Teardown.
ha. miles beat me to it...
don't you really mean "tears, down your cheeks"?
they should throw in some M-arch tuition with the sale so that the buyer can appreciate it...
free scholarship to yale school of architecture with purchase.
problem is, the tuition is worth more than the house.
jla-x, Do you really think that only people with Masters degrees in Architecture appreciate this kind of architecture?
davvid, yes thats correct...a non-archi may appreciate it as an "eccentric cute house" but will not elevate it to some masterpiece of mythical proportions as do achi profesors...
Do the math, at $881/SF with all neighboring homes around $200? Had an appraiser tell me once, “bedrooms are bedrooms, kitchens are kitchens…..”
only people with Masters degrees in Architecture appreciate this kind of architecture
So that's what an MArch is for! All this time I thought they were completely useless.
Next door is a Louis Kahn's Esherick House I don't think you can buy that for $200 sq ft.
jla-x, I think that different people will appreciate the building in different ways and for different reasons because thats what happens with every building.
I don't really care what people here at Archinect or anywhere else think of this house (I have my own opinion), but if anyone here thinks that the house will be "torn down" anytime soon not only does not understand architecture and its history, he/she doesn't understand anything about anything.
Miles I appreciate the history of your joke. Well-played.
I've been inside this house. It's an architectural masterpiece but it's also just a really lovely and functional interior space, the whole thing. This finishes are very good and well-done, and the quality of light is exceptional. I mean, the quality of light and space, for anyone who appreciates open plan concept* homes, is unparalleled, because the scale is perfect.
It's also in a very desirable neighborhood.
*direct realtor-speak from the epic "This is why we can't have nice things" thread
Nice, Donna, taking the high road...very nice.
I was more reacting to other past history here, the many many threads on just about any house or other building by Venturi, or even, say, Gehry, that's been vacated of furniture and the comments start raining down: "piece of crap", "dump it in the river", "not important", etc, etc, and you could bring the Lord Wise Man of Architecture down from the mountaintop and he'd have no success in ever convincing them otherwise. And I agree with you about this particular house.
Unfortunately, Don, given examples like Folk Art and Mechanics Theater, both gone now, and given how frantically Americans seem to believe we need steroidally enormous houses with gift wrapping rooms and man caves I fear that this house actually is in danger of being torn down.
Is it protected, like its neighbor the Esherick house is?
don, that is naive.
that house is on an open mls listing and realtors are showing it to anybody and everybody, primary driver being neighborhood and price range. people that buy places alter them all the time, teardown, additions, re-siding, painting, whatever. Rich people love to buy houses that are move in ready and remodel them for 8 months before they even set foot in the place. Unless that house is on some historical protection list, there is a huge likelihood it will get modified in some way.
Carrera makes a good point, architecture is not art (except for some very rare cases - kaufman house), it is square footage and you pay low medium or high for what you are buying and where. 99% of all buyers could give a rats ass about the architect or the historical significance, they want a mcmansion sized theater and a water slide to a s &m dungeon so they can show it off to their friends.
groundbreaking residential design
Not much hyperbole in a real estate listing. Was the pun Intentional? Every building is groundbreaking.
As to less is a bore, this is why starchitects spend so much time on self-promotion via monographs. Also thanks for PoMo and all the really shitty architecture, my father even did one. Of course it has way to much detail to be real PoMo (as opposed to fake PoMo? LOL) but the essence is still there: a cartoon interpretation of classical elements in Disney materials.
Roslin house, Southampton.
Miles, please. Mother's House *is* groundbreaking, in the innovative and pioneering and influential meanings of that word, whether you decry it as unimportant or not. Culture has spoken on this one.
I actually love the comparison between these two images, both fairly well-known in architecture and art history classes:
Venturi's mother in front of her house:
Judith Lieb in front of her house:
The difference in residential essence and social presentation in these two images is awesome. The proud and appropriate older lady in a blue blooded section of Philadelphia and the summer-loving, leg-baring SAHM with her kids.
No, Donna, I think the present owners were trying to get historic protection for it but not yet. Well, anything can be torn down, sure. I said not "anytime soon". Chigurh, if you dump this particular house in the category of "piece of shit teardown to be replaced by a McMansion", then I repeat, you know nothing of this house and the neighborhood it sits in. The house was in "10 Buildings that changed America" documentary, it's had books and articles written on it, the owners consulted the architect on the color to paint it for Chrissake, but most of all, it's called "Mother's House"....you don't friggin' tear down a house called that, one that was designed for a mom, not unless you have no imagination or heart at all.
Btw, I love blaming one person for every bad fucking thing that comes after him/her: Corbu caused Pruitt-Igoe, Picasso caused every awful painting of crumbled boxes by every two bit painter, the Beatles are to blame for every fucking awful "she loves you" or psychedelic song that came after. Cartoon interpretation of history.
10 Buildings that changed America
Cartoon interpretation of history.
Enough said.
Nothing said.
Don, I think you're right that it won't be torn down anytime soon, but I do see the potential for a few years of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and explosive cognoscenti-driven controversy leading ultimately to it being torn down.
Well, I guess we'll find out (if we're still around to see).
if that house is not locally historically protected in some way, the buyers can do whatever they want to it. there is a huge chance the buyers won't give 2 shits about all the historical mumbo jumbo crap you are ranting about, I agree it is a cool house, that doesn't mean the future owners will think the same.
mothers house? not my mom, not the potential buyers mom, don's wanna be mom, your mom.
No. 9 down is my favorite...blocking the opening with a large column.
"The daughter of Dr. Hughes, Agatha, currently lives in and lovingly maintains the home, which marked its 50th year in 2013. The estate of Dr. Hughes has listed the property for $1.75 million and Sectura tells us that the family has cherished the home. "It has been maintained in its original condition. [The family] has a real love of the house, and Bob Venturi has been really involved in anything that's been done inside the home." That includes the minor details, such as picking out paint colors. "We're hoping to find somebody that has the same kind of love for the house that his family had," added Sectura. "It's an icon, really."
not a huge chance, really. Also;
"Chestnut Hill is a suburban neighborhood located within the boundaries of Philadelphia. It was first settled in the early eighteenth century and still has many stone buildings from that period. In the second half of the nineteenth century many Victorian Mansions were built in the area. Several residences within a few blocks of the Vanna Venturi House were designed by well-known architects. The entire neighborhood is part of the Chestnut Hill Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places."
So, unlike Kahn's Esherick House nearby, this house is not itself historically protected but the whole fucking neighborhood is...stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
mothers house? not my mom, not the potential buyers mom, don's wanna be mom, your mom.
What a finely tuned sense of symbolism you have. Uncle Sam? He's not my uncle! Fuck him!
Moron.
But hey, if someone wants to buy an iconic 1,986 sq.ft. house for $1.75 mil and then tear it down, more power to them...money talks and bullshit walks, right?
wouldn't be the first time.
Orhan, No you can't buy The Esherick House for $200/SF because it sold last year for $332/SF….Mom’s House is worth “more” but that “more” would be cash from the buyer…the bank will do the $200 the rest is up to you.
As for historical registration, the article Orhan posted stated Esherick could not be torn down or altered because it’s “registered”, not so according to the National Park Service…..”A property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the property”. Think somebody’s going to want “Mom” to have an attached 2 car garage:)
Don:
There are 2 types of value...the type you need a backsrory to appreciate, and they type that is easily recognizable by the average person...both are legitimate, but alone, neither will be safe from destruction...Layers of value are important to gain broad cultural significance...its what distinguishes a flower from a stone...the stone may be increadably important to a geologists, but the average person may toss it away because its value is less apparant...A flower can have extreme importance to a botanist and still be easily appreciated by a layman...Its importance and its beauty exists at different layers and posseses certain characteristics that our main stream culture values ...Its why protecting owls and pandas is so much easier than protecting snakes and snails....of course the criteria for beauty and relevance is all man made bullshit, but it certainly affects conservation...For architecture, one could probably say the same about falling water or the sagrada familia but maybe not for this house or the seagram building...I am not saying this makes it less important overall, but yes its importance may not be legible to the average homebuyer...which will make it vulnerable to demo.
basically...what I am trying to say is that culture is heavily and subconsciously biased...I noticed this as a child when my sweet grandmother was nursing this sparrow back to health for like a month while simultaniously setting mouse traps and tossing their dead bodies in the trash with no remorse...I remember thinking to my self ...why do birds deserve more compassion than mice?... These biases are everywhere..."sure hope their in no dolphin meat in my can of tuna genocide...that would be wrong..." Ever notice that the animals we eat are also insults....you're a chicken...no you're a turkey...you fat cow...fuck you pig...Architecture is not immune to bias...If we ignore this we are stupid...If we submit to it we are useless...The main role of architecture is first to serve a utilitarian need...but secondly...it should act to stimulate the mind and soul of its beneficiaries...making people see things in a different light is one way that architecture can achieve this...making people appreciate things that they would otherwise take for granted...that is the main power of architecture...of course this is usually met with cultural resistance...maybe even allegations of "alien nihilism" or moral decay in the same way introducing a new food like horse meat would be...overtime norms are redefined...Im sure sushi was not openly accepted into our culinary culture at first...now we americans love it... but the value of a thing is not widely accepted until it has weathered the storm...Unfortunatly as in the case of the MOMA...sometimes it dosent make it out alive...when it does however we are usually a little richer...
Awwww....that's all right, chigurh, your mommy and daddy will protect you.
Uffa. Ok, I give up, you guys are right, why didn't I see it before: the house will be torn down as soon as the new owner puts his signature to the deed, and an ugly-ass McMansion will go up in its place because the National Register of Historic Places is not worth the paper its written on, the Chestnut Hill neighbors could give less of a fuck about their neighborhood and won't attend any Historic Commission hearings or potential zoning hearings or protest in any way, there's no lawyers and architects and architecture aficionados around there at all that will take up any cause, and any way they all hate Venturi's architecture and Venturi himself will not chime in at all because he's retired and also this house has nothing to do with Philadelphia's architectural fabric and history. Yep, that house is a goner. See you in the funny papers.
I would definitely talk to VSBA for the garage. Doesn't Bob have conversations about that? Vanna Venturi House can be bought by a cultural institution. I wonder why this isn't even talked about. Museums often spend millions on acquisitions or a donor can do that for them. The price of Vanna House as of now is a bargain for that kind of a purchase. There would be a huge campaign against the tearing down this very important piece. C'mon, it is a full and important piece that influenced the course of architecture one way or another.
Architecture outlives the occupants. That doesn't mean our knee-jerk reaction should be teardown because "the idea of it bugs me". People are entitled to say that, but it addresses the ultimate disrespect and disdain of architecture.
Think we’re just having fun with the tear down, too many cheaper ways to obtain a lot. Took 2 years to sell Esherick and a 40% price cut, imagine the same is in order here. Be nice if a conservancy took things like this over but they rarely have the cash, would take a white knight on threat of a tear down for that to happen.
Following the good thoughts above on the value of things, think the 99% know who Wright was but few know anything about Venturi, back to a 2 year sales plan and probably a 60% haircut.
Yeah, I don't know, Orhan. As a caretaker of Saarinen's Miller House for three years now I'm slowly finding myself opposed to the very idea of house museums. They feel so dead, not at all like a designer intended a house to feel. The living wear and tear of architecture is in many ways what makes it architecture in the first place.
That said, I'm eternally grateful that I was able to visit Sir John Soane's house, so the value of house museums definitely exists.
Donna, I was more talking in the lines of MAK or VDL house. in both cases they turned into very active cultural venues. with great programming of course.
That scenario would be great, Orhan. It's what I'd like Miller House to become. Mother's House is tiny, unfortunately, so it might be mroe challenging, but could definitely be possible. It does have a good-sized lot.
Donna, some of the nicest places to visit in England are the treasure houses, with all the original furniture and artwork and stuff still inside. Yea, the people are gone, or limited to small sections that are closed to public, but you couldn't have gotten inside at all in the past unless you were of a certain class or a servant.
Don, are you in the UK? I'm an Attingham Summer School for the Study of the British Country House alum! Yes, those houses are amazing. Maybe because they're so much older than the US houses they seem to present a story of history better than something like Miller or Mother's houses can.
I suspect the Vanna Venturi house is being sold by the academic couple who have owned it for quite some time (at least one of them is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania). Robert Venturi is so obsessed with the house, that whenever he has been invited over by this couple, he would begin an assessment of what repairs were necessary. Eventually the owners sent him a message, of sorts: when Venturi and Scott Brown arrived for a get together one time, the academics hosted the architect couple out on the front lawn.
The design integrity of the house is now protected by an easement, and, I suspect that the present owners will be quite careful reg who they sell it to.
What confuses many about the aesthetics of the Vanna Venturi house, is Robert Venturi's invocation of both Palladio (ergo the great front lawn as set-up for the Italian-referencing facade), and the effrontery of those aspects of the design that invoke the everyday domiciles of Levittown. This fusion of representations, including its allusion to grandeur, and its appropriation of the humble vernacular, is just too unexpected for some critics, and leaves quite a few of them not knowing how to respond. For ,more background on UofPa owners, see link:
http://planphilly.com/articles/2013/04/23/caring-for-the-vanna-venturi-house-like-it-s-family
No, Donna, I'm not in England, but I've taken trips there, and visited quite a few of them, including Blenheim Palace, the monumental former home of Winston Churchill. I wasn't of course comparing them 1 to1 to the Mother's House, just pointing out that visiting houses that are no longer homes can still be interesting (Fallingwater anyone?)
quondam.com, Thanks for the update on who is selling this house
"The design integrity of the house is now protected by an easement", not yet though... the article was 2013 and states one was drawn up but not yet executed. I understand what they are contemplating but not familiar with the term "easement".
Don Kashane, Yes, visiting Fallingwater is an extraordinary experience. I saw it while still a teenager (it was my idea, actually), and still remember all of it vividly. Nothing prepares for the crossing of the bridge toward the house, and the opening-up of the prospect of the house itself.
Also, I'd recommend visiting painter Frederic Church's Olana, the house in Hudson, N.Y., designed by both Church and Calvert Vaux. It is beautifully sited above the river, and the preservation values are splendid.
It's true that lived-in houses have their own aura, a quality that is diminished when such houses are turned into architectural museums. But, such is the way of so many preservation solutions in our time.
Wouldn't it be felicitous if Peter Palumbo decided to purchase the Vanna Venturi house. This would extend the list of famous houses by famous architects that he has owned and looked after. That is, so far, at various times, he has owned the Farnsworth House in Plano, Illinois by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the Maisons Jaoul at Neuilly-sur-Seine, by Le Corbusier, and Kentuck Knob, south of Pittsburgh (and proximate to Fallingwater) by Frank Lloyd Wright.
Miles, I bet you, Venturi is a fan of your dad's work. I am a fan of your dad's work too.
I don't think much about the house architecturally, but culturally it seems worth protecting, only because it allowed elite architects to re-examine the benefit of rain shedding roofs and non- industrial ornamentation. Maybe it will be recognized as an emblem of how out of whack the profession got that it took this ugly house and several books to start thinking about architecture the way most people always have. Back handed enough?
Thayer that was elegantly back-handed but I do want to repeat that the *interior* of this house is truly lovely, anyone would love the scale, finishes, and quality of light whether an architectural elite or not.
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.