Homeless in Arizona

Source

Frank Lloyd Wright home debate pits preservation vs. property rights

by Philip Haldiman - Oct. 7, 2012 11:12 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Voices fighting to preserve a famous Frank Lloyd Wright home in east Phoenix have been loud and resolute ever since its new owners indicated earlier this year they would demolish it to make way for redevelopment.

But when the owners of the David and Gladys Wright House publicly threatened a lawsuit against the city last Tuesday, the controversy reached a new level, centered squarely on the fundamental issue of historic preservation vs. private-property rights.

The property owners contend that the city's effort to designate the residence a historic property is illegal based on several factors. Preservationists argue that the property's historic value is immeasurable because of its architectural innovations and ties to Wright, perhaps the most well-known architect in American history.

The battle lines are being drawn as preservationists around the Valley argue that the Phoenix area in general is too quick to pave over its past and that historic structures are useful in promoting everything from economic development to civic engagement.

In downtown Phoenix, preservation advocates are trying to save two century-old hotels in the warehouse district, and similar efforts are playing out with historic properties in cities from Glendale to Mesa.

On Tuesday, the Phoenix Planning Commission will consider the Wright home's historical significance, paving the way for an eventual decision by the City Council.

The issue erupted June 5, when the city granted the owners of 8081 Meridian LLC approval to split the property, located near 56th Street and Camelback Road in the Arcadia area. The owners sought the lot split with the intent of tearing down the house and redeveloping it with at least two new residences.

The Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, a Chicago-based group devoted to preserving Wright's works, had taken an interest in the house. When members found out about the lot split, they urged Phoenix to initiate historic-designation proceedings.

On June 12, the city started rezoning for historic designation.

On Sept. 27, the law firm representing 8081 Meridian submitted a letter to the city manager, stating the city violated the law because it did not obtain consent from the owners to rezone the property. Meridian also contends the rezoning could diminish the value of the property, in violation of state law.

Last Tuesday, at a meeting of the East Camelback Village Planning Committee, a lawyer representing Meridian announced the owners were prepared to sue the city.

Phoenix officials say that a city ordinance allows them to initiate historic designation without the consent of an owner and that a diminished property value would probably have to be argued in court.

The owners cite a 2006 voter-approved law known as Proposition 207 to support their claim about property value. Prop. 207 was a statewide initiative that requires owners to be compensated when the government adopts regulations that affect the value of their properties.

The owners were granted a permit Sept. 4 by the city to demolish the home. But city officials now claim it is invalid because it was granted after the process for historic designation had begun.

In a Sept. 27 letter, David Lanksy, a Phoenix lawyer representing 8081 Meridian, wrote, "The city has no legal authority to unilaterally suspend, revoke or cancel the permit and certainly cannot do so without due process of law. ... In our view the city cannot legally prevent our client from demolishing the structures on the property." City's right to start process

Michelle Dodds, a Phoenix historic-preservation officer, said the city is usually the applicant in historic-preservation overlay cases, but a property owner can be an applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission can initiate the process.

"The city has the right to initiate a historical overlay if the (Planning or Historic Preservation) commission deems a property has significant historical value," she said.

Earlier this year, the Wright Conservancy called the Historic Preservation Office about the potential sale of the Wright House. Officials discovered a lot split on the property, which the conservancy feared could lead to demolition.

"The split appeared to shave the end off the house, and they were very concerned," Dodds said. "They asked that we initiate historic-preservation-landmark overlay."

The Planning Commission initiated the process in June.

"We started getting all the letters, and there was a huge response," she said. "The initiation was made because of how significant the Wright House is."

The proceedings put a stay of demolition on the home until the council makes its decision. If historic overlay is approved, changes to the exterior of the property would require design review by the Historic Preservation Office.

Dodds said the Mayor's Office contacted 8081 Meridian.

But Meridian's co-owners, Steve Sells and John Hoffman, said they didn't find out about the proceedings until late August.

Sells said that he was in Idaho and that Hoffman was in Montana this summer. Sells said he had conversations with officials with the city and the conservancy after the process was initiated, but nobody told him about the overlay.

"It's like they were the judge, the jury and the executioner," Sells said. "Quite frankly, we were scared and fighting for our lives. We felt like we were deceived. ... That's when we got some legal advice." Need to prove case

Nick Wood, a Phoenix zoning attorney who is not involved with the case, said the owners will probably have a hard time proving their case.

He said the zoning ordinance permits the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning change without the consent of the property owner.

Historic-preservation overlay does not deprive property owners of any rights, it simply prevents the owners from demolishing the building for up to three years, Wood said.

"There has been an attempt to balance property rights versus the need to preserve historically relevant buildings," he said. "As a result, there's not an absolute prohibition of demolition."

Barb Pahl, vice president for the Western field offices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said many municipalities have ordinances similar to Phoenix's.

However, she said many major U.S. cities have the ability to deny demolition for a building that is landmarked, including in Denver, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

She said California has one of the strongest state laws to defend historic buildings.

"The rules in Phoenix are not uncommon, but a demolition is forever," Pahl said.

Sean Malone, president and CEO of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, said the Phoenix home is one of Wright's last homes, designed for his son David and David's wife, Gladys, in the early 1950s. It was based on the spiral plan that Wright created for the Guggenheim Museum in New York City, Malone said.

Wright created buildings that were deeply appropriate to man, space and time, he said.

Taxpayers stuck with $300,000 cost of fixing Wright home???

Source

Wright house fix-up cost may top $300,000

David Wallace/The Republic

By Philip Haldiman The Republic | azcentral.com

Tue Nov 6, 2012 10:35 PM

Now that a buyer has come forward with intentions to preserve a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house in east Phoenix, it appears the landmark has escaped demolition and will be saved.

But after the sale closes and the new owner’s intentions for the house emerge, the next question is: How much will it cost to return the iconic home to its original luster?

Although experts say the David and Gladys Wright House in the Arcadia area isn’t in bad condition, the buyer, whose identity has not been revealed, could face improvement costs in excess of $300,000, according to an assessment commissioned by Phoenix to determine the cost to restore the house.

Today, the Phoenix City Council is scheduled to consider designating the house a historic landmark. But Mayor Greg Stanton and Councilman Sal DiCiccio, whose district includes the area where the house is, confirmed they will ask to postpone the vote for 30 days to reach out to the new owner.

Stanton has said the city still intends to follow through with the designation, which was initiated this year to stave off the threat of demolition by the old owner for three years.

Robert Graham, architect and owner of Phoenix-based Motley Design Group LLC, which oversaw the assessment, said that compared with some well-publicized repairs of Wright buildings, the renovation of this house would be relatively easy and inexpensive.

“This is not major surgery,” Graham said.

Aging structure

Wright built the Arcadia home in the early 1950s for David and Gladys Wright, his son and daughter-in-law. Experts say it is one of his most personal works, in which he oversaw all aspects of its design and completion, down to the home’s furnishings and interior design.

The 60-year-old house is a complete circle around a central courtyard with a broad, curved ramp leading up to the living quarters, built entirely on raised concrete piers. The home has views of Camelback Mountain on one side and the Valley on the other.

Many experts consider the house, with its spiral form, a precursor to Wright’s design of the Guggenheim Museum in New York City, one of his most famous works.

David and Gladys Wright lived in the home, near 56th Street and Camelback Road, until they died — David in 1997 at age 102 and Gladys in 2008 at 104.

Last week, the house was sold by Valley property developers 8081 Meridian for about $2.38million.

Graham said the condition of the home, after being vacant for about four years, is largely the result of its age and the specifics of Wright’s original design. Construction of the house began in 1951 and was completed the following year.

He said many of the home’s problems would occur over time to any house and will involve taking care of past-due maintenance.

“I don’t really see that much has happened to the house in the last five years, other than a few blocks falling off, which looks like a dramatic failure but is actually not,” Graham said.

The roof has a history of leaks and should be reroofed or patched, according to the assessment. Graham said this should probably be the first thing fixed because the highest priorities in the restoration of a historic building are areas that have failed or are hazardous.

“The Number 1 enemy of any building is water. ... So, if any part of the roof is leaking, that needs to be fixed sooner rather than later,” he said. “Anything that is just tired-looking or slowly weathering, without danger of loss, is a lower priority.”

Key restoration issues

The assessment says the most significant restoration issues center on the structural stability of the house, in part because of its unique construction but also because of the history of repairs on other progressive Wright houses.

The study outlines three significant issues:

Water seeped into the pad upon which the home sits, cracking the concrete.

In certain sections, the concrete slabs between the floor beams were too thin and need to be reinforced.

Exterior concrete-block walls have deteriorated.

Graham said these issues involve the structural integrity of the house, which the owners and city officials had been concerned about.

“None of this is particularly difficult work, but certain items require specialty subcontractors,” Graham said.

Larry Woodin, president of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, said the organization, which provides expert technical conservation and restoration advice and assistance to Wright property owners, would be a good resource for restoring the famed architect’s creation. The conservancy has had input in the restoration of more than 100 Wright structures.

Woodin toured the house in July and said restoring the home is achievable, but it’s up to the new owner to determine the direction of the restoration.

He said Wright homeowners vary in their restoration decisions — from a strict interpretation of the design, down to using the same appliance models that were used originally, to updating subtly.

But if the owner strays too far from Wright’s original design, it could cause the property to lose value, he said.

“Knowledgeable purchasers’ first question is often: ‘How much of this is original?’” Woodin said.

“In restoring a Wright house, it’s important to take note of the characteristics that are essential to the design — the color scheme, materials and other elements — and try not to depart too far from that. Inserting elements that are jarringly discordant distract from the harmony of the design,” Woodin added.

“You can update and do it intelligently. There is a way to modernize, but you don’t want to walk into the room and think, ‘These things don’t fit.’ Instead, you want to pause, enjoy the surroundings and say, ‘This all fits beautifully.’”