BenH Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 http://www.mottalini.com/click on 'the mistake by the lake'I stumbled across this today while looking for information on Paul Rudolph. It's shocking to see the condition some of these houses were in when they were destroyed. Some of them like you could have moved right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domus48 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 http://www.mottalini.com/click on 'the mistake by the lake'I stumbled across this today while looking for information on Paul Rudolph. It's shocking to see the condition some of these houses were in when they were destroyed. Some of them like you could have moved right in.I believe you intended to identify the section "After you left, they took it apart"... and as you mentioned, it is indeed shocking. Something strange happened with respect to these properties as they most certainly are multi-million dollar examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenH Posted December 23, 2008 Author Share Posted December 23, 2008 I believe you intended to identify the section "After you left, they took it apart"... and as you mentioned, it is indeed shocking. Something strange happened with respect to these properties as they most certainly are multi-million dollar examples.You're right. I went stupid while posting...again. Chris mentions in an interview that there is at least one McMansion in place of one of these houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domus48 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Here's a short NY magazine piece on Rudolph: http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/feature...st-emailed-24h5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domus48 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 And another piece from a blog... includes an apropos quote too: http://thissphere.blogspot.com/2007/01/pau...s-house-in.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokeyhawk Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Wow, thanks for posting this. I wasn't familiar with Paul Rudolph's work. Those houses are really neat, but it is sad to see them in such disrepair. Knowing that they were destroyed just makes me cringe. The house in Florida looks like it might have been a hurricane victim at one point. The first house looks like it really could have been saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan the Man Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 What a shame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strickn Posted December 26, 2008 Share Posted December 26, 2008 I found more value in each of Chris' other topics than this one. However skilled a handler of geometry Rudolph was, and that seems to be what he's credited, all of his buildings that I have seen have been such self-consciously architectural presentations that there just wasn't much inspiration except in a precious object kind of way. That's fine to go see the jewels on display, but artwork's not good architecture: Alden Dow said, normatively, "Buildings never begin and gardens never end", to describe a much more fitting way of creating places to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domus48 Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 I found more value in each of Chris' other topics than this one. However skilled a handler of geometry Rudolph was, and that seems to be what he's credited, all of his buildings that I have seen have been such self-consciously architectural presentations that there just wasn't much inspiration except in a precious object kind of way. That's fine to go see the jewels on display, but artwork's not good architecture: Alden Dow said, normatively, "Buildings never begin and gardens never end", to describe a much more fitting way of creating places to live.A thought provoking and articulate reply Strickn... hope you are a frequent respondent. And yes, your observation that Rudolph's work is of the "precious object" ilk is spot on. My initial response to the images of Rudolph's work by Chris Mottalini was: Meier derived. I'll maintain that position as both architects create work that appears to be more about the architecture than the occupant -- which is to say that while much architecture is in fact as previously mentioned, the act of inserting occupants into the architectural setting should activate the machine, not serve as an affront to the edifice. There is certainly a place for the "precious object"... but residential architecture should -- in my opinion -- be reserved for the occupant as a welcome guest, a engine, the life blood.Viewing Mottalini's images of Rudolph's work left me cold -- albeit intrigued -- but regardless, it is an architectural loss of significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Such a shame that such a great house could be treated that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 I especially liked the "notch" for the palm tree growing. The first one was a bit homely yet looks quite functional. It looks like it wouldn't take millions to restore/renovate.Shame, shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.