Oh, THAT house! I always loved, loved, loved that wonderful golden brick with the rich brown top. Thank you for posting, anele. How exciting to finally see the interior of one of my favorite historic homes.

It was so fun to take that photo tour - thanks for posting!

I lived near this house for a couple of years (and a lot of other FLWs) and loved the deceptively simple symmetrical façade.

But in general I think that FLW houses, and lots of really "architect-y" or historical houses, can be a tough sell when they are so iconic. I think the owner walks a fine line when they own such a house between being a custodian or curator vs. an owner who lives in it but allows it to evolve somewhat, and someone who effectively ruins it somehow. It's a very fine line.

I think they really f----- up the kitchen in this one. I don't care if the other one was "seriously dated" and the seller wouldn't leave that to the new owner. If I were the next owner I would have preferred it left up to me. There's nothing particularly wrong with the kitchen in a vacuum. It's just not right for the house.

The other thing that's problematic about Wright houses, Mies houses, and some Kahn houses, is that almost all furniture looks either bad, misplaced or superfluous in them. For some of these houses the statement is so complete in the structure itself, they almost look better empty. FLWs houses almost dictate FLW furniture exclusively.

All that said, this is why I could not buy an iconic house, because I am afraid I would never relax enough to live in it properly.

I looked at a 200 year old house of which I would've been the fourth owner essentially. 1810-1926 (several hands between 1926-1931) 1931-2010.

The historic house had never had it's plan altered in any way. There was no plumbing in the 1810 front part of the house, there was a small addition for a kitchen and bath next to the back wing, and there was a toilet in the stairwell with plumbing all exposed until it poked through to the addition. So the house needed some changes, but I couldn't do it. I didn't want to touch something that was so untouched.}

"For some of these houses the statement is so complete in the structure itself,..."
What an interesting idea. Now that you mention it, you're right.

So now it's listed for far less than it was a few years ago? The disturbing thing is that the community it noted for it's trees and lush landscaping and this home/property has none of that. The home cannot simply stand by itself. It needs to be grounded to the land it sits upon. They did screw up the kitchen. Needs to be gutted. Should have been wood like the rest of the home. I wouldn't want it.

Thanks for posting this. It was fun to scroll through the pics.

In general, though, I'm not a fan of this house. I think there is too much wood and the interior architecture looks too busy and, in areas, churchlike. I dont like the upper wall trim either. When I look at pics of a lot of FLW homes, I think they have too much wood, not enough windows, too many corners, low ceilings and would feel in general claustophobic.

I loooked at the photos before I read that the kitchen was new. The itchen was a mistake It isn't' horrible -- I could certainly live with it if it was original in an iconic home, but sInce it isn't, I'd gut it. At least they didn't remove all the panelling and paint the trim white!

I've learned to like low ceilings -- it depends on the room proportions, and most of my homes have been small enough that low ceilings feel right. High ceilings look odd if the room isn't large enough to make them look proportional.

@awm03 I have low ceilings in my house. I completely agree that low ceilings do not look bad depending on the architecture. The back of my house is almost all glass so my 8' ceilings arent really noticeable. But I think some FLW homes have under 7' ceilings which, with the wood floors and walls, would feel claustophobic to me. Maybe people were smaller then, and it's all proportional, though...

I love the churchy feel sooooo much! I agree, the kitchen is one heck of a travesty (in context). I think there's still a way to do a light and bright kitchen in this kind of house - for example, here is the kitchen in the otherwise dark and dreary gamble house. The signature wood for this room was, if I recall correctly, maybe white oak. Not sure...just guessing.

Not my photos:

Frank Lloyd Wright was 5'8" and set the scale of many of his houses to suit his height.

Well, I've never been in a FLW house, so I couldnt that I would feel claustrophobic with certainity. Certainly not in all of his homes, but some of them seem very partitioned and cut up that, at least online, appear closed in. I do like that kitchen in the Gamble house. I really need to get to Taliesin West, which is in my neck of the woods.

This house is 122 years old. It was built in the Victorian period. His houses were more open plan than other houses of whatever era he was working in, but this house still has to be put in the context of the nineteenth century, not the twentieth or twenty first centuries. It's compartmentalized by today's standards but not by those of the 1890s.

I didnt realize this house was so old. I actually dont think this FLW is compartmentalized, but some of his other homes appear to be. I just dont like the wall painting strip, the arches, and the railings/gates. For a house that old though, I can see how this home might considered visionary. It does have a lot of windows, higher ceilings, etc. I like this home much nicer than the Craigdarroch Castle from around the same time period that I visited in Victoria, CA a couple years ago. Both my father and I had to get out of the castle after awhile.

The kitchen is a shame yet I adore this house as I do most of Wright's designs. Although I'm more partial to his Usonians. I would have thought the home was built after 1900. I didn't realize the Prairie style was being built prior to that time.