Masterpieces at bargain prices
I’ve always been interested in the visual arts, especially painting, film and architecture. For some reason, painting has much more prestige than the other two. Many film masterpieces from the first half of the 20th century are lost forever, as no one spent the small amount of money necessary to preserve them. Buildings such as the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo were torn down and replaced, despite being widely recognized as masterpieces.
A relatively high income professional (doctor, business executive, etc.) cannot afford to buy even a mediocre painting by a famous painter from the 1890s, but can easily afford to buy and live in an architectural masterpiece. I recently ran across a good example, as Frank Lloyd Wright’s excellent Winslow House from 1893 recently saw a price cut to $1.375 million, a price that would not bat an eye in my home town of Newton, MA, even if it were an ugly colonial. And let’s not even talk about LA.
At first I thought the low price might reflect a run down interior, which was out of step with the times. Wright’s buildings often deteriorated over time, due to poor quality construction. But a slideshow over at Huffington Post shows a beautiful interior, with a nice updated kitchen. (It’s worth checking out).
Part of the low price reflects the fact that Chicago suburbs are cheaper than Boston suburbs. And yet, there are obviously lots of affluent people in the Chicago area, and many fans of Wright’s architecture. The house has been on the market for years, with no takers. Why don’t I buy it? I could never convince my wife to move to Chicago. But if you already live in Chicago, that’s not a valid excuse.
PS. I wrote this a few days ago, but it looks like a sale is now pending. The house is over 5000 sq. feet.
Tags:
26. April 2016 at 11:11
“I’ve always been interested in the visual arts, especially painting, film and architecture.”
-Interesting. Never quite felt that way.
-Holy crap! What makes Boston so desirable, anyway? Taxes? Is there any fundamental difference between Boston and Detroit or Chicago?
Ray, how much does real estate in Manila cost? Anything pretty there?
“The house has been on the market for years, with no takers.”
-Imperfect information? Maybe they didn’t know it was on sale?
26. April 2016 at 11:13
I think the best way to rectify the public’s lack of appreciation for architectural beauty is for the Fed to adopt an NGPLT tbh.
26. April 2016 at 11:36
Boston housing is expensive because there is not enough of it. Plus, there are jobs in Boston! I keep hoping they will extend the commuter rail to Springfield. When they did that to Worcester, it drove up property prices in that area.
26. April 2016 at 11:44
We live a couple of blocks away from this house and I can shed some light on the pricing:
— It is only about a block away from the Desplaines River this house was flooded several years ago in one of several recent 100 year floods.
— If this house were on the North shore it would probably cost about $1M more. River Forest/Oak are surrounded by areas where the houses are not nearly as nice. When we were looking for houses about 10 years ago, I concluded that the North shore premium for “being around a lot of other rich people” was about $500K. It is probably higher today.
— There are quiet a few Frank Lloyd Wright houses in the area. The fact that they are not that unusual in this area combined with the fact that they are often not designed to contemporary tastes (size and type of closets and bathrooms, lack of family room, open kitchen, etc.) means any premium is slight.
— Frank Lloyd Wright houses are notoriously expensive to fix and maintain.
26. April 2016 at 11:53
My favorite architecture in LA is also it’s most affordable:
https://www.instagram.com/dingbatsandmore/
26. April 2016 at 11:55
“Plus, there are jobs in Boston!”
-But why? What’s so special about that place? There are universities in Michigan and Illinois, too.
26. April 2016 at 13:04
“-But why? What’s so special about that place? There are universities in Michigan and Illinois, too.”
The Boston area has a long history of having computer and medical technology companies. And I would bet that these companies have extensive partnerships with the local universities that help to keep the number of such companies at a certain level.
26. April 2016 at 13:33
Is the house subject to historical preservation, or being ‘landmarked’?
26. April 2016 at 13:41
Many film masterpieces from the first half of the 20th century are lost forever, as no one spent the small amount of money necessary to preserve them.
Silent films are barely watchable. They’re not masterpieces.
26. April 2016 at 13:43
The house is over 5000 sq. feet.
A dimension appropriate for a household which has at least eight members. Cut it up into bloody condos or sell it to an institution.
26. April 2016 at 13:46
Why don’t I buy it?
Because you’re 60 years old and need neither the space nor the mortgage payments. Get a small rowhouse, rent out the 3d floor, and tell your kids to stay in a B & B when they want to visit you.
26. April 2016 at 14:18
@Patrick Sullivan,
The Winslow House is on the National Register of Historic Places. If prior owners used federal monies or tax incentives to maintain or restore the property then federal regulators may be able to impose restrictions on what is done to the property in the future. Also, state and local agencies feel free to impose special restrictions on what is done to NRHP properties. I’m a Wright fan so I’d hate to see any of his work torn down. However, rules intended to prevent teardowns often have the unintended consequence of causing properties to sit idle while waiting for a buyer to come along who is willing take on the regulatory risk, all the while the property will deteriorate (I think the Ennis house in LA had such problems.) If not that, the regulatory risk depresses the selling price enough that buying a property just for the land and tearing down the structure makes even more economic sense than if there were no restrictions.
Slightly Off topic: I reccoment any Wright fans that can get to Manchester NH visit the Zimmerman house:
http://www.currier.org/programs/zimmerman-house-tours/
26. April 2016 at 14:56
-But why? What’s so special about that place? There are universities in Michigan and Illinois, too.
Jerome Cavanaugh and Coleman Young haven’t got hold of any piece of it, that’s what.
26. April 2016 at 15:14
Indeed, if you want (relatively) inexpensive housing in Los Angeles buy a (crumbling) Frank Lloyd Wright House. Beautiful Mayan Revival, textile block. Incredible lighting and Interiors.
How to keep a straight libertarian face when Pennsylvania Station is destroyed to make way for mediocrity?
26. April 2016 at 17:24
Or you can get this one http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2806-Taliesin-Dr-Kalamazoo-MI-49008/74155600_zpid/ for a $1 million less in Kalamazoo.
Why pay inflated Chicago prices?
26. April 2016 at 17:53
I’m glad to see this good news for Noah Smith, he’s one of my big three (along with Sumner and Yglesias)…..
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/life-update-leaving-stony-brook-joining.html
26. April 2016 at 18:11
Personally, I feel the best of architecture and film has continued to have great, innovative works, greatly helped by improving Engineering/technology. While most modern painting and fine arts make a mockery of their customers and of their glorious history …..
To me, while I greatly admire Frank Lloyd Wright innovative mind and his willingness to break from the past and draw inspiration from different cultures..his homes were known for shoddy workmanship, engineering that could not (at the time) implement his vision, and not being homes that people enjoyed living in. To me, the interiors of his homes with low ceilings and long hallways are not homes I would like to live in. They served as inspiration for much of the horrible architecture from the 1960s and 70s. I’d rather buy a dilapidated 1500 year old villa in Tuscany and restore it..or a house in old town Boston or Alexandra.
27. April 2016 at 00:30
The dining room looks a bit like the one in Django. Apart from that the house is pretty ugly. Is this a light-frame construction with useless thermal insulation? 1893? I didn’t even know American houses last that long. I thought they fall apart after 40 years. Like DWAnderson said: I bet there are several very good reasons why this house got no buyer for years.
27. April 2016 at 01:35
LOL the comments section comes out majority as boorish on the arts as it is narrow minded in its politics. At first I thought, hey, people will come together over some discussion of esthetics for a nice break, you know, les beaux-arts etc. But no. I could have guessed.
Thanks, Scott, for this piece. Some things are just nice to dream of, regardless of real or imagined practicality.
27. April 2016 at 02:15
“Silent films are barely watchable. They’re not masterpieces.”
I haven’t watched a silent movie in years (The Artist was most recent, before that god only knows) but there is no question that some are absolute masterpieces, particularly in the area of physical comedy. Keyton, lloyd, Chaplin… took a medium with so many limitations and yet conveyed so much information.
Then of course there is ‘Silent Movie’ – that was piss on yourself funny when it came out.
27. April 2016 at 05:41
Thanks DW.
Chargercarl, Nice pics.
Art, You said:
“Silent films are barely watchable.”
That’s the sort of moronic comment I’d expect from a person named “Art.” Silent films include some of the greatest works of art of the 20th century, in any medium.
You said:
“Because you’re 60 years old and need neither the space nor the mortgage payments.”
What’s a “mortgage”?
Capt., I tried to visit that house this February, but found it’s closed to the public in the winter.
Ben, Didn’t the government own Penn Station?
Travis, Congratulations to Noah!
Engineer, I would very much enjoy living in the Winslow House. I’d probably stop blogging, and just stare at the house all day long.
I’d guess it’s much more solid than his later houses, because it’s designed in a more traditional style.
Christian, You said:
“I didn’t even know American houses last that long. I thought they fall apart after 40 years.”
Is this some sort of joke? I’m writing this in a nearly 100 year old house, and there’s a 250 year old house (wood frame) 100 meters away. Go to zillow and check out prices in expensive areas, you won’t see much difference between a 50 and a 100 year old house.
To put it politely, you’ve been misinformed. But I have read something like that about Japan—can dtoh confirm?
mbka, Regarding silent films, when someone tells me they don’t like silent films it reminds me of people who say “I like impressionism” when you ask them about painting. They don’t want to make any effort to understand something that doesn’t immediately look pretty.
In fairness, my taste in music is lousy, but at least I don’t denigrate forms like opera and jazz, just because I don’t understand them.
27. April 2016 at 06:07
Off topic for this thread, but Russ Roberts EconTalk podcast this week is with Alberto Alesina;
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/04/alberto_alesina.html
‘So, the first step is to try to isolate changes in spending-over-GDP and taxes-over-GDP that come from movement in the economy from changes that come from actual policy changes. So that’s one piece of the puzzle. The second piece of the puzzle is the idea that many think happen at the same time. So, take, for example, monetary policy. And suppose you are trying to make the argument that spending cuts are less costly than tax increases. How do we know that spending cuts are not accompanied by more relaxed monetary policy and tax increases by less relaxed monetary policy? And that would explain the difference. Two answers. The first one is that you can do that by various measures of trying to hold constant monetary policy; and we have tried to do that, and the IMF has tried to do that. And the answer is that if monetary policy has been indeed slightly more relaxed during spending cuts than tax increases; but not enough, it is not enough to explain the difference. And, in addition, as you also mentioned in your question, monetary policy is itself endogenous. That is, suppose I have a central bank and I see a government that is serious, is cutting spending and announces permanent spending cuts, which will lead to not raising taxes or even reducing taxes in the future. I am relaxed and I can reduce rates. If I see a government that is in a crisis, raising taxes desperately and then raising taxes again in the future because it cannot keep with spending, then I get worried, and then monetary policy has to be different because I am afraid of a crisis. So, even monetary policy is endogenous; but in any event, even forgetting this second order effect on the endogeneity of monetary policy, all the constant monetary policy in the best way you can, the difference in the effect of spending and taxation remains very strong and actually surprisingly large. Now, structural reform, labor market reform, these are clearly much more difficult to measure than monetary policy. And so, two ways of answering your question. One is to hold them constant, of course; to say there are measures–in fact we are collecting measures of structural reform. And you can hold them constant. And the results survive. So that one way of answering your question is to say, as best as we can we can hold these structural reforms constant. But then the second way is actually to embrace, rather than holding them constant to embrace them and to see: Suppose I am an adviser to a government and I tell it, especially a European government, what is the best way to do an austerity plan that is going to work and be least costly as possible? By looking at the data, we should cut spending and engage in this structural reform, because it would appear from the evidence that the combination of spending cuts and structural reform is the one that works best. So, you can try to hold them constant if you are interested in the [?] to measure as well as possible versus tax increases; or you can embrace them from the point of view of policy recommendation and saying it would appear that the best austerity is the one that is based on spending cuts and structural reform.’
27. April 2016 at 06:54
Silent films include some of the greatest works of art of the 20th century, in any medium.
They were seat-of-the-pants commercial ventures, just like Morris commercials for Nine Lives cat food (except that Morris was actually entertaining). The people who made them didn’t value them, which is why you’re looking in reference books for descriptions of them, because the film stock was allowed to deteriorate or thrown in the trash.
They don’t want to make any effort to understand something that doesn’t immediately look pretty.
Or they get right away that it’s trash and the people buying it are marks and the people promoting it are in on the con.
27. April 2016 at 06:58
They served as inspiration for much of the horrible architecture from the 1960s and 70s.
I think that’s more Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier. And the horrors are ongoing, both in architecture and in urban planning. Especially urban planning.
27. April 2016 at 07:01
but there is no question that some are absolute masterpieces, particularly in the area of physical comedy. Keyton, lloyd, Chaplin…
Some are mildly entertaining (Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy’s early work). What’s interesting about them is looking at the background and costumes. You see what was thought of as a credible period cityscape and credible period clothes.
27. April 2016 at 07:04
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/nincompoopprize.html
Nice take on contemporary art.
27. April 2016 at 07:06
Indeed, if you want (relatively) inexpensive housing in Los Angeles buy a (crumbling) Frank Lloyd Wright House. Beautiful Mayan Revival, textile block. Incredible lighting and Interiors.
You’d have to live in Los Angeles, around Homo Californicus. No thanks.
27. April 2016 at 07:49
“Or they get right away that it’s trash and the people buying it are marks and the people promoting it are in on the con.”
ya mean like… Robert Rauschenberg.
27. April 2016 at 07:58
Scott–
The Pennsylvania Station in 1963, when it was destroyed, was owned by the private Pennsylvania Railroad. The railroad wanted to sell something about air rights, so yes there is government entanglement.
Still in this particular case the libertarian model probably doesn’t work. That’s okay, because in real life all Libertarians are “LEFs”. That is “libertarian except for.” Including me!
BTW is Art Deco the one and same as “Mr. Crushed Dick” or whoever that guy was you banned?
27. April 2016 at 09:07
Scott,
“They don’t want to make any effort to understand something that doesn’t immediately look pretty.”
In terms of art I think you nailed it. More widely I’d enlarge this to “they don’t want to make any effort at understanding anything that came after they set their opinions in stone around the time of puberty”. Rigid, petty, uncaring, mean spirited, keeping with their own herd. Yet very touchy when it comes to themselves. Trump’s world.
BTW talking architecture, in LA there should be some nice Richard Neutra still standing around too. Strangely as I get older I get more modernist in my tastes. I now “get” the Bauhaus style much better, and even to some extent, brutalism. At least when it comes to single family homes, not high rises.
27. April 2016 at 09:48
BTW is Art Deco the one and same as “Mr. Crushed Dick” or whoever that guy was you banned?
I only used one handle. I’ve on rare occasions used something like ‘Banned Guy’ where I’ve been banned temporarily. I’ve only attempted that at two sites, one of which has been inactive for several years now. If you’re interested, I’ve been banned in addition at Inside Higher Education and The American Conservative and threatened with it at League of Ordinary Gentlemen. I’ve never actually been banned for the use of obscenities, hijacking threads, threats, savaging other posters or any of the reasons you’d sensibly ban someone.
27. April 2016 at 09:51
In terms of art I think you nailed it. More widely I’d enlarge this to “they don’t want to make any effort at understanding anything that came after they set their opinions in stone around the time of puberty”. Rigid, petty, uncaring, mean spirited, keeping with their own herd.
Yeah, that’s just why I can’t be bothered with a mess of dried flowers strewn across a table (seen in a gallery at the University of Washington) or a bathtub flecked with sticking plaster (a masterpiece of one Joseph Beuys).
27. April 2016 at 15:35
Art,
you don’t have to like Beuys. I don’t connect with his art either. I feel uncomfortable with a lot of modern architecture, and there’s quite some Jazz that goes over my head. And Opera. Still, they’re all legitimate art to me. Sometimes it’s too technical for me, sometimes it’s too ironic, sometimes it’s the esthetic. Sometimes I get around after a while, sometimes I don’t.
But all of this is besides the point. It is about accepting that people are not all the same, nor do they have the same tastes or values even. It is about respecting those who like and think differently.
27. April 2016 at 16:47
Art, Why am I not surprised that you get your art criticism from John Derbyshire at the National Review?
And if you hate modern art so much, then why aren’t you a fan of silent film? With the exception of Bunuel and Eisenstein, there’s very little modernism in the silent era.
Mbka, Brutalism is not my favorite, but I’m willing to make an exception for the great Louis Kahn. In general, there’s good and bad in all styles, and of course architecture faces real world constraints that force more compromise than some other art forms.
Ben, But in that case the government model also doesn’t work. After all, the government failed to save it. And the government failed to spend money to save the silent films of Ozu.
No, Art Deco is not bad enough to be banned, I don’t ban on the basis of content, no matter how much I disagree. BTW, the person you mentioned has tried to come back under other names. I’m pretty sure he’s a Trump supporter.
28. April 2016 at 20:08
Looking at the slideshow, I am not as impressed with this house as with some of Wright’s other work. The Pope-Leighey house near me is very small, but I find it really stunning. Wright uses golden ratios, perspective, suspended walls and all kinds of neat tricks to make a space that somehow manages to both uplift and sooth you as you experience it. It’s like a drug. The only other time I felt that way was in Merchants National Bank in Winona, Minnesota, which was inspired by the Prairie style of Wright’s teacher Louis Sullivan. There is something that just hits you standing in the lobby there and I didn’t want to leave.
29. April 2016 at 05:43
1893 is pretty early in FLW’s career, but the Winslow House looks forward. His brilliant and strikingly modern 1902 Heurtley house (Oak Park) was converted into a duplex in the 30’s by Wright’s sister! It stayed that way until it was sold in the late 90’s for about $700k. The new owner spent about 3 times that much was spent restoring it.
Side note: the great paean to small colleges: “Colleges That Chnage Lives” was written by Loren Pope, after whom the Pope-Leighey house is named.
29. April 2016 at 17:30
Jeff, Thanks for pointing that bank out, I was not aware of it. I’d also love to see Sullivan’s superb bank in Owatonna.
Copans, Interesting.