The School of Architecture at Taliesin (SoAT), which maintains campuses in Scottsdale, Arizona and Spring Green Wisconsin, is closing down following an 88-year run as the institution tasked with carrying on the intellectual design legacy of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.
An announcement from the school states: "The School of Architecture at Taliesin will cease operations after this semester, after a gut-wrenching decision by its Governing Board on Saturday. The School of Architecture at Taliesin was not able to reach an agreement with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation to keep the school open." The school is currently directed by educator and critic Aaron Betsky.
Dan Schweiker, Chairperson of the Board of Governors for the School of Architecture at Taliesin, added, "This is a sad and somber day for our school, our students and staff and the architecture community. We are saddened we could not reach an agreement with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation to continue operating the architecture school. Our innovative school and its mission were integral to Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision for connecting architecture to our natural world. Wright’s legacy was not just building. It was a school to promulgate the lessons for all future generations."
A separate press release from the Frank Lloyd Wright states that "In discussions between the organizations, SoAT Board leaders had communicated unequivocally to the Foundation that the School did not have a sustainable business model that would allow it to maintain its operation as an accredited program. As a result, leaders of the Boards of the two organizations had developed a proposal that would have allowed the school to continue operations on the Foundation’s two campuses—use of which was donated to SoAT by the Foundation since it became an independent organization—through the end of July, 2021. During that transition period, the organizations would have worked collaboratively to develop alternative programs for which accreditation was not needed."
That agreement, however, appears to be off, as SoAT's earlier announcement today projects that the school's education functions will cease as of June 2020. Instead, the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation will seek to "expand its impact on the field of architecture and design by advancing Wright’s legacy through its educational programs, K-12 through adult ongoing education," according to the latest press release.
In the announcement, Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation President and CEO Stuart Graff writes, "The Foundation had reached an agreement with the leaders of the SoAT Board that would have allowed for second- and third-year students to complete their education at Taliesin and Taliesin West, and we are disappointed that it was not approved by the full SoAT Board. We continue to stand ready to assist in making sure that this change occurs in the best interests of the students."
There are currently roughly 30 students enrolled at the school, according to the SoAT. The school, which is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, the National Architectural Accrediting Board, and the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, is currently working out an agreement with The Design School at Arizona State University’s Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts so that current students can transfer the credits they have already earned in order to finish their degrees.
The school was previously named the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture until 2017 when it adopted its current name as part of a formal separation from the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation that allowed the school to keep its accreditation. When the name change was announced, Dean Betsky stated, "“Adopting this new name, the School of Architecture at Taliesin, helps us to secure our identity as an experimental, forward-looking architecture program that is deeply rooted in the Taliesin Fellowship."
The school was established in 1932 and has graduated over 1,200 students during its 88-year existence. The two sites used by the school were recently included among six other Wright-designed structures in a UNESCO World Heritage listing.
Regarding the closure, Schweiker added, “The closure of the school is very emotional for our students, our faculty and staff and all of us who worked so hard for this one-of-a-kind institution and its important role in Frank Lloyd Wright’s legacy," adding, "We did everything possible to fight for its survival but due to other forces it was not meant to be."
Its a tragedy. The foundation has removed the soul of Taliesin for selfish interests. They don’t see the school (as an accredited MArch program) as part of their mission of preserving Taliesin. The irony is that Taliesin was always an architecture school and the foundation was established to protect that tradition. Shutting down the school undermines Wright's legacy by denying the teaching and evolution of his ideas in an environment of higher learning.
Other people’s comments here constantly reference money being the issue. It’s not and don’t be fooled into that convenient story. The School has a lot of support. This is about the Foundation quashing a fledgling institution just as it was gaining steam in the name of control and greed.
As an educator I'm personally offended that this Foundation, whose mission it is to preserve Wright's legacy, does not see these graduate students as the life of the place. That somehow the life of an architecture school, in all its spontaneity and late night conversations, models and sketches all over the place, is not the same beating pulse of Wright's legacy they pledge to preserve. These students build their own shelters in the desert and live there while they learn. Who else does that? The architectural community is gutted by this as I am too.
Benjamin and Orhan: The question of money is that the Foundation has a lot more than the School, and doesn't want to share, right? It's not like either party is running out of money, it's that the Foundation wants to control the school and is using funds as a way of maintaining control? I don't know the reality of it, this is speculation, but my recollection is that the Foundation didn't want the School to have sufficient independence to be an accredited SOA.
All 24 Comments
this really sucks. was lucky enough to visit during final reviews last year. this is a seriously valuable institution, if only for the ability to build the new from the old while still being allowed to reject the old in favor of the new. where else can you live and work in such a beautiful campus as taliesin? students lived in projects built by other students and then built a shelter for future students. that's insane. no other school could ever get away with that.
surely this is just to pack more tourists in. now the mess hall can be converted to a $$$ unique dining experience.... also the mere attempt by Betsky to run a contemporary architecture school absolutely pissed off the donors/members/tourists who just wanted a conservative pedagogy to honor (see: copy) the FLW style. it's a shame.
This is a good comment.
Lack of alignment between the missions of the two schools certainly played a large part here. But NAAB was another huge factor - I can't imagine how a school with only thirty students (and two campuses) could handle the overhead associated with meeting their curriculum and administration requirements. There is a reason why architecture schools are getting larger and less differentiated.
sad
I'm guessing the "other forces" impacting its survival is the FLW Foundation. I may be misremembering, but didn't the Foundation *not* want to give up sufficient control of the School to allow it to become accredited?
Something should be done to save this treasure. Reach out to Elon Musk of even Jeff Bezos.
The campus/building will be fine. The FLW Foundation will keep it as a tourist attraction - it’s quite popular. The *school*, the educational institution, is what is dissolving.
The FLW Foundation's job is to preserve the buildings and legacy. Was there a School plan to expand or build a independent but adjacent facility? Would have liked to know that. The Foundation probably didn't want the school to become dependent.
Damn. I guess the girls were sick of wearing milkmaid outfits and the boys sick of the group sex.
This does not surprise me. If the architecture profession was run more businesslike, working architects could have helped support the program. But graduates are too busy working long hours, paying off large amounts of student debt while being paid crumbs. I don’t donate a penny to the school where I graduated.
Too bad even a national treasure like this becomes a victim of "it's all about money!" The School wasn't making money?!! Every "brand" must make money! The success, is based on making money!
No school can survive by graduating 14 students per year. Very sad.....
To clarify the school shutting down is not because of the schools financial situation. The school is financially sound. When they close in June they will be closing without debt
Maybe if they'd been a bit more honest in advancing Wright's legacy by calling it the School of Pretentious Design, Inadequate Structural Integrity, Leaky Buildings and Substandard Materials.
Is that chip on your shoulder shaped like the Parthenon?
I thought leaky buildings were a sign of good architecture.
TIL that Taliesin was not accredited.
It WAS accredited.
Donna, when did it loose accreditation?
I believe it is still, now, accredited. I'm trying to recall, and feeling too lazy to google, but I believe it was threatened with losing accreditation unless it became a separate educational institution NOT owned by the Foundation. So despite the Foundation resisting it separated, re-achieved accreditation, hired Betsky, and is now closing because the Foundation still can't let it go - but I may be misremembering.
This is the text from their job posting from when they hired Aaron. "At 82 years old, the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture has reached a stage most schools only dream about: it is venerable, fully accredited, and comfortably in step with contemporary standards of architectural education. Fortunately, we’re not most schools. Frank Lloyd Wright started our program to challenge normative educational models, not emulate them. Given the state of the profession, and architectural education in particular, we think it’s time to renew that commitment. Therefore, in the spirit of Wright, a grand master of re-invention, we are remaking the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. And when we’re done, it will again be like no other. We’re looking for a Director with the energy and vision to help us make that happen...." it goes on from there.
Thanks for doing my homework Donna. Sounds like a bad soap opera.
It’s too bad some rich donor and visionary architect couldn’t build a larger structure so that the program could continue expand on what they were doing without conflicting with whatever museum purpose. Then the Taliesin building could continue to serve as an inspiration.
Unfortunately nobody thinks like that anymore. Who are the Kauffmans or Johnson’s of today? Architects shouldn’t have to go to the Middle East or Brazil to have to do anything visionary.
I'm hesitant to start blaming the FLW Foundation, if it's not really their responsibility to run a school but to preserve buildings and promote the legacy (and sell some t-shirts, which are good!). But I would be interested in knowing more about the proposed plan from the School. Perhaps they wanted support but the Foundation didn't want to go down that road of dependency.
Either way, I would have liked to see the school try to fundraise for a new adjacent building. They had big name architects coming there all the time, why not a proposal? It seems like if you aren't expanding and growing, you are dying. That's just the reality of institutions. Just trying to tread water is not a real plan.
Chemex, my understanding, and it's speculation (tho it may be supported based on a conversation I'm having later today), is that the Foundation is "treading water" by focusing on hero-worshipping Frank without attempting to update his ideas for the current world. I think Betsky, and the School, are/were trying to do so by moving forward, but the Foundation wants to freeze time.
Its a tragedy. The foundation has removed the soul of Taliesin for selfish interests. They don’t see the school (as an accredited MArch program) as part of their mission of preserving Taliesin. The irony is that Taliesin was always an architecture school and the foundation was established to protect that tradition. Shutting down the school undermines Wright's legacy by denying the teaching and evolution of his ideas in an environment of higher learning.
Other people’s comments here constantly reference money being the issue. It’s not and don’t be fooled into that convenient story. The School has a lot of support. This is about the Foundation quashing a fledgling institution just as it was gaining steam in the name of control and greed.
As an educator I'm personally offended that this Foundation, whose mission it is to preserve Wright's legacy, does not see these graduate students as the life of the place. That somehow the life of an architecture school, in all its spontaneity and late night conversations, models and sketches all over the place, is not the same beating pulse of Wright's legacy they pledge to preserve. These students build their own shelters in the desert and live there while they learn. Who else does that? The architectural community is gutted by this as I am too.
Benjamin, with all due respect, you can call it a "fooled into" but I am pretty sure money had a major role. To your credit, your insights are far more sinister and I am even more disgusted with the short-sighted Foundation. I was interviewed as the reference to a candidate for the position and the conversation was mostly about the fundraising abilities of the shortlisted potential director. I thought at the end, Betsky was an excellent choice for his visibility and his passion for forward ahead architecture (the candidate I spoke of was even more radical with a great track record and visibility as well.) However, I felt from a few interviews that Betsky gave, the money issue was brought up and he mentioned that he was able to raise $24 million which is a great number. But as often happens with those, not all the donors come through. So, anyway, I have my reasons to speculate on the money issue. I am also arguing for the cultural value which, as you say, Foundation has not strongly valued. And guess what, when that happens, there is usually money issue in these corporate structures.
Orhan,
From what I read, if money is indeed at the heart of it, it is just not clear what they want. Read this from Blair Kamin, Chicago Tribune
The board claims:
"the school did not have a sustainable business model that would allow it to maintain its operations as an accredited program," foundation said in a news release.
Countered by this:
"In an email to the Tribune, the school’s president, Aaron Betsky, responded that the school had come up with a sustainable business model and accused the foundation of making unreasonable financial demands."
Benjamin and Orhan: The question of money is that the Foundation has a lot more than the School, and doesn't want to share, right? It's not like either party is running out of money, it's that the Foundation wants to control the school and is using funds as a way of maintaining control? I don't know the reality of it, this is speculation, but my recollection is that the Foundation didn't want the School to have sufficient independence to be an accredited SOA.
Oops, wrong post.
Donna, you are right! If I am reading the published accounting correctly, the school support was roughly 4% of the foundation's assets in 2019 @ (+,-) $ 640,000. Certainly not big enough to cause the school's demise. A nonprofit business plan should not equate corporate for-profit business plan. If Talesin wasn't (east and west) architecture school, then what is it? Tourist attraction? How short-sided!
I would encourage ASU to do something. They have more money than the Vatican.
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...
Article in the Phoenix paper with over 40 recent photos of the school. Beyond sad. Crickets so far from the AIA, NCARB, and NAAB?
Not to change the subject but let's look at the school by Amelia Taylor-Hochberg. Looks like Taliesin was just getting organic as if young days of SCI-Arc Betsky knew.
What the Foundation was thinking? The school was going to pop and sell like hot cakes next day, otherwise no go? Or say, we're not into school business (that would be even more embarrassing since Taliesin is a school)? Or say, "That's not FLW!" ?
Whatever. It was a great attempt to revive the school. A sympathetic advertisement for architecture money can't buy. Hello AIA.
"The gift shop at Taliesin West tells you everything you need to know about the closure of the School of Architecture at Taliesin."https://archpaper.com/2020/01/opinion-shame-on-the-frank-lloyd-wright-foundation/?fbclid=IwAR2HH7npCaigA1dsDBPBfyMYFPjdkR9EKBuQC_EtrzYnRch3dgX4m5NPv_0
The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation's 2018 Form 990 shows that they have net assets of $15million and that their president was paid $260,561 in salary that year.
I think it's important to know financial basics of every non-profit.
Betsky has always seemed quite genuine and clear about things. It would be useful if the foundation responded with something more than boiler plate and fluff. How exactly is the school not sustainable? After 2 years already they know this? It feels like a petty dispute ratcheted up to 11, because the foundation couldn't deal with something. What a waste.
Exactly, Will.
Nothing on the AIA's wsbsite about Frank LLoyd Wright's school of architecture closing.
According to the NAAB website the School of Architecture at Taliesin is accredited for their Master's program. It was first accredited in 1996 and is not due for a reevaluation until 2023.
This was my response to the school's call for a new director in 2013 (I think?):
The call for applicants straightforwardly stated that the position is not about replicating Frank Lloyd Wright, but is about thinking as idiosyncratically as he did in his time. The legend of Wright, truly a unique genius, has always had the potential to overshadow the work of the school's students. The pedagogy of the school needs to draw attention to, respect, and appreciate Wright's genius, not denying the enormity of his influence but also not allowing it to hold the students back from discovering their own voices.
It seems to me the school asked for a (respectful) change but the Foundation isn't really that into it.
it's hard not to imagine some kind of discussion along exactly those lines was going on. Or something just as murky
About five years ago Sweet Briar College, a women's school in central Virginia near Virginia Tech, was in danger of closing. The school's president wanted to shut it down because of finances. The students, faculty, and alumni united, threw out the president and half the board of directors, rolled up their sleeves and went to work. The school never shut down, has turned the corner financially and is getting plenty of alumni support from alumni and non-alumni friends and is pretty much out of the financial woods.
This is very sad...but, I must comment that each time I've visited, I have never seen students working in the studio. I found this peculiar. This begs the question, "How do they attract excellent professors who would rather be in practice or teaching at stronger research institutions?" Regardless, I hope that the alumni and friends will gather forces to preserve this beautiful school.
Ironically your assumption begs the question "what does seeing students in the studio have to do with the premise of the point you're trying to make?" The irony is your misuse of 'begs the question'.
You can be sad (or pretend to be sad) for this, but really, ask yourselves if we need more schools of architecture in this day and age, let alone outdated ones. Sorry to be the outlier here.
sameold, probably no, but this one does or can have a different mission in its special context.
The foundation is more concerned with licensing opportunities to generate revenue.
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.