Where do I send the $1?

If someone doesn't save that house, my heart will officially be broken. That is just about the epitome of Northwest Modernism and is in absolutely beautiful shape - look at the interior photos - terrazo floor, mosaic bathroom tiles, teak built-ins... Not to mention the giant NW Coast Indian motif on the street-facing facade - beautiful!

$240,000 to move it is a pittance. It's having a place to put it that's the kicker.

Seriously, who would I need to get in touch with to buy this house and move it?

Someone please buy this house! It would be so awful if it was demolished, it's amazing.

Use this link at seattle modern for a video walk through - these little pictures don't do this house any justice.

http://www.seattlemodern.com/

If I could afford to bring it over to UK I would. I love it! Someone please save it.

SERIOUSLY! People, do you want me to cry?

Just dismantling all the wood and tile in that house piece by piece and re-using it in some other fashion is worth $240,000.

Watch the video tour. I beg you.

ugh I need more money!

Here's the number for those seriously interested: 206-841-0003

What. The. Hell. I HATE the current owners. That house is a piece of history already and they're going to tear it down because they have "other plans for the site" and they "prefer to remain anonymous" what MORONS. Why aren't people picketing their house (they live next door apparently) or chaining themselves to the Thiry house? Come on, you serious lovers of beautiful architecture, where are you? Get your chains! I don't live in the north west, or I just might.

they should try bill gates or paul allen.....they live up there.

i would donate $1 to the person who would purchase and move this house.

"What. The. Hell. I HATE the current owners..."

Their land, their rights. Get over yourself.

What you think is beautiful they might think is hideous. I don't find any appeal in this place, and so I can't blame them for wanting it gone. At least they are willing to hand the building over for a pittance so someone who loves it can keep it. They don't owe anyone even that much.

The video is very interesting. The house is very intriguing but a little sterile with all the concrete slabs, aluminum, and industrial bath fixtures. It really deserves that water view with all those windows and the made for entertaining floor plan.

RQ: but it's not like this is some run-of-the-mill home in a subdivision. it's an iconic structure. wouldn't you feel any kind of "WTF?" if someone was planning to tear down, say, Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water home?

I get that you don't "find any appeal" in the house, but you shouldn't tell people to "get over" themselves simply because you don't dig the place.

geez.

http://mylittleapartment.blogspot.com/

I hate to say this, but everyone here must truly be apartment renters (hence the name Apartment Therapy, right?). I own an original 50's MCM home. Owning such a home takes more input than you would think. 50 y/o plumbing/sewer issues along with non tempered glass windows and reflecting pond renovation are daunting tasks I currently face. So how does one move a 200 ton concrete home and rebuild it? Along with getting a proper lot in the Seattle area, no less? Just sayin'. And if a rich dude has the money for THAT, I'd encourage him to donate the money to Haitian relief instead. Let this one go people. It would be great if the owners had bought it to keep it. This is unfortunate but not worth getting enraged over. Perhaps I feel this way because I just think it's "meh". It's hardly iconic and cannot be compaired to Wright's Falling Water home. I mean come on! I've seen much better MCM. Hey...we could call that MBMCM. Still... the reigning champ remains "Bertoia Butt".

Anyway....if you want to shed tears look at these.

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20030501/big-plans-small-houses

http://www.dailyicon.net/2009/02/icon-travertine-house-by-gordon-bunshaft/

DoctorEcks, those articles made me really sad. :(

DoctorEcks, it should be rather obvious from the numerous "House" tours actually featuring houses, some small, some not so small, that all Apartment Therapy readers are neither apartment dwellers nor renters.

To some people, the house is a "meh". That's perfectly reasonable. I've seen plenty of, say, Victorian houses that I found even less than "meh", but that people were desperate to save (and rightly so). I probably wouldn't shed a tear (well, maybe one) if Falling Water was demolished, but I recognize that it is an important piece of architecture and it would be a loss if FLW's house was bulldozed and ground into dust.

This house may not fit your ideal of mid-century modern, but it is in fact an iconic example of a very specific style of Northwest Modernism that some people feel very attached to, and do not find "meh".

SO sad. If you read up, the moving costs plus the required waterfront lot (logistically it could only be barged to a new site) the costs to re site this place would be astronomical.

The new owners say they don't have plans for another residence. Then what in the hell are they tearing it down for? a bigger yard?

I live here, and i have to say, preservation isn't a big of a movement here as even in smaller less progressive towns. Sad.

someone call brad pitt!

My brother saved a historical house in Phoenix that he "bought for a dollar." Believe me, the original plan to move it was estimated at about the same as above, but in reality it ended up being much more and took years to complete. Depending on where you move it to there are many factors which dictate cost - ie. raising electrical lines so that the house fits underneath while moving it, paying union workers to raise those lines because no one else is allowed to touch them, paying those workers extra to raise those lines at 2 am because a moving house shuts down traffic so it must be done in the middle of the night. Then there are permits, more permits and oh yeah, permits. You get the idea. Although, even with all of the headaches involved, my brother was glad he did it. There aren't many historical buildings in Phoenix.

My little apartment:

Would I feel any kind of reaction if someone was tearing down Fallingwater...? Probably not. Yes, it is quite the looker. It also has serious structural issues that have been addressed over and over again. I'm not overly sentimental about buildings.

I can understand people feeling sad to see a building go, but hate the owners? Seethe and rant? Not worth it.

Why on earth do they covet that lot so much?! Something more to this story than is being told.....

McKillme, that is completely uncalled for. I, for one, like seeing both sides of an argument - even if I do not necessarily agree with a certain side. If you have nothing more to add to the discussion than personal attacks that insult an entire region of the United States, then it is you who should go away.

McKillme:

Sorry, sweetheart, but racism and hatred isn't my thing.

Besides, I can see you are keeping up such traditions perfectly well by yourself.

RQinGeorgia,

I guess we know where you stand on the issue of individual versus collective rights. If your property were found to have sacred burial mounds that were important to a native culture, I assume you would feel free to desecrate them.

These people didn't have to buy a landmark residence along with their neighboring home. I'm sure they can afford whatever they want. To that point, maybe they should pay to move the house to a new location, or at least split the costs with the new owners. They are basically making out really well by having someone else clear the site for them.

I also really don't understand the "time is running out" angle. Why the urgency?

sally305:

A mass grave is not a house. Sorry, but the two are simply not equal. A house is not deeply rooted in anyone's spiritual beliefs, like a church, grave, or temple.

The owners did not have to buy a landmark residence, but they did. They prefer to use the land it sits on for other purposes. Instead of demolishing the house (which is completely in their rights), they encourage anyone who wants to preserve the house to step forward and take it.

You say they are getting away rather cheaply by giving it away--would you prefer they charge the potential buyer for the house's true worth? They could easily offer to sell it for hundreds of thousands, apart from the lot it rests on, and still stipulate that it be moved.

If someone wants the house to remain intact and in place, I am sure a sufficiently large sum of money could convince the sellers to rethink their plans. Otherwise, pay to move it, or mourn it and move on.

It is sad when any landmark is destroyed or neglected, but it isn't worth hatred, malice, or vitriol toward the owners. If you find any kind of architecture worth saving, join a private service organization to help preserve them, or lobby the local government to do special-purpose tax-rates to pay for it.

Demanding the owners put forward money to save it just so it won't offend your aesthetic sensibilities? Seems like passing the buck.

RQ, I completely agree that a burial site is not the same as a building. But there are plenty of people who would say "so what?" if they owned property containing either and wanted to alter it. It's the same idea, with one having spiritual underpinnings and the other secular.

Let's try another example closer to home. Say someone buys a historic residence in Savannah that for whatever reason isn't protected from demolition--yet it is a landmark recognized and beloved by all. The new owner wants to put up a steel-and-glass monstrosity in its place. So do you think this person has the right to do whatever he wants with the existing structure, or extort members of the community to pay ridiculous sums to keep it intact and move it off its site? And isn't site an important aspect of architecture? In the case of the Seattle house or the hypothetical Savannah one, I am sure they would lose a lot of their specialness once they were relocated to another plot of land. I don't find this home particularly appealing but it's obvious it was designed for that setting. A lot of its effect would be lost anywhere else.

This is a quite beautiful house, although i prefer the outside to the inside... but maybe it just needs some paint and TLC. And you guys who find the need to rant at one another are proof of just what this house is...
art. art is controversial, art evokes emotions.
It is sad that the owners want to use the lot for another purpose, but they own the land and are not obligated to keep any structure on it that they do not find appealing. It is quite sad that fate had to play out in such a way as to put such a beautiful piece of architecture in hands of those who don't appreciate it. That said, there are many beautiful homes that exist and many more will be made.

Hi McKillme,
I just sent your comment to the editors. I hope they McKill your McAccess to McCommenting.

There are property rights and property wrongs...and tearing down a perfectly good, and historically significant house is a wrong. It's wrecks our design heritage and it's a waste of resources. It should be difficult to do this, certainly not just to provide room for a tennis court or swimming pool. It would be nice for a buyer to be found, but it would be even better if the current owners realized how wrong they are and move to a site that meets their needs.

Deke

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011503079_thiryhouse02m.html

Unfortunately, no rescued the house....

oops "no one"