While the buyer’s name and official selling price will be kept anonymous until June, the real estate agency behind the sale, Kurfiss Sotheby’s International Realty, confirmed that the new owner is from the area and apparently wants to preserve the property as it has been maintained thus far. The last known price of the house was $1,500,000 back in March. — Chestnut Hill Local
Previously:
6 Comments
quondam, are you saying once the buildings are well documented they need not to be preserved? That would open a whole new discussion on what it means to preserve in digital or otherwise age. Do you have a specific format or theory of documentation in mind?
"as it has been maintained thus far "
I thought it meant that it has been lived in so far and kept in good shape without any alterations and the owners really appreciated it as a house they owned and live in.
From arcpaper,
Stecura, the real estate agent who handled the sale, said the house’s link to Venturi and its architectural significance were selling points that attracted the buyer. “He’s not an architect by trade, but his interest in the house is sincere,” she said. “He knows all about the house.” She also praised the Hughes family for keeping the house in “pristine” condition and respecting its architectural integrity. The Hugheses “were terrific stewards of the property,” she said. “It was very important to them not to sell to just anyone…It’s a house that needs to be lived in, not turned into a museum.”
I particularly like the last sentence from that quote, which 'somewhat' supports your idea about documentation versus preservation as a museum piece. I often wonder about and see countless samples of decaying stucco buildings. Not a good material for preservation for a fact.
It would turn me off if the Vanna Venturi House was marketed to multiply. I like it as one of a kind and where it is. I visited the site twice, once in 1980 and again early 90's. I really disliked what happened to Lieb House after all. It now sits some place as a possession even though I liked its travel up Hudson River as an adventure. I don't like its new site. That house was beautiful sitting on the sand in Jersey Coast which I also saw twice around the same times as the mother's house and had a lasting place in my mental library of seasonal houses. I preserved that one regardless:)
I agree with Q. If the house remains private, then there really isn't any difference if it was torn down. If it was obtained by a museum, or allowed to be rebuilt, by using plans of the original, then like Q wrote, it could either be "experienced" or re-enacted.
you can't really rebuild the past. if someone tried to build a new venturi house from the same plans, it would still be built with modern trade skills, modern material, modern process, modern local codes and approvals, etc. an imitation is still just an imitation.
I agree with all of the above. The simulacrum argument is valid, but only if the product of design is viewed as the "architecture". I personally believe that in many cases the concept alone can be of primary importance. The built object is secondary In this case...Other projects gain their relevance from the sheer feat of engineering, craft, and scale...ex: Giza, Sagrada Familia, etc...This projects relevance is derived more from its concept than construction, and therefore lends itself well to recreation and/or virtual consumption.
Even if you were a fan of this building why would you not occasionally paint the interior and exterior and implement some landscaping changes and additions. These changes could be undone easily enough when it would it would be time to sell if was necessary to "restore" it. As is, it is like a pickled fish in a jar in a museum, not especially attractive.
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.