I'm all for historical preservation. But if the preservationists are so enthusiastic about preserving this place, they should buy it.

I own a historic home and I have to go through the historic commission if I want to do anything to the exterior, including repairs. It's annoying, but that's the way it is and I love living in our old Victorian house.

It sounds like they weren't notified, which is unfair, but the home wasn't designated until AFTER they bought it, so there was no real negligence, I think. They shouldn't be allowed to tear it down.

There's an upside, though, they now own a house built by Frank Lloyd Wright. I'm sure there are plenty of buyers that might now be more interested in the property, they can make a tidy profit without splitting the lot and building two cookie cutter luxury condos.

How can you NOT know that you've bought a FLW house. Seriously. Didn't they do their due diligence before buying the place?

Why would they want to tear down such an awesome looking house in the first place? I'd buy that house just for it's great looks! I'm sure there's plenty of empty land in Phoenix that the owners could have bought and split and built two "cookie cutter" "luxury" homes on.

Good point, karacooks. But I'm also wondering if some disclosure by the sellers was missing?

The answer is to the question is YES.
Period.

To MDOROTHY: if you are not enthusiastic about a house that needs preservation, why buy it? Why not buy a vacant lot?

As a New Yorker I can tell you how sick I am of seeing places with history (attractive or not) torn down in the name of the almighty dollar. I feel a bad for the buyers but in the end side with preservationists 110%. My hope is that they find a new buyer who'll respect it. However being that they bought it for $1.8 mil and are selling it for $2.379 mil might make that a bit tricky in this economic climate. I hope AT follows up and lets us know what happens.

If the sellers were not made aware that this home was a FLW, what due diligence is it that they owed in the process? Everyone is not "familiar" with architectural design and being that it was sold by Wright's granddaughters, that should have been disclosed. This land and propery belongs to someone else now and to change the designation on it after that legal sale, seems very unfair.
I agree with preservation of landmarks, but I also believe in fairness...and this just does not seem to equate!

It seems like there was something fishy going on with the sellers, buyers, or both. How could the buyers be so naive? (Are they foreign investors who have never heard of FLW?) This house is amazing and should be preserved, and it should be advertised thoroughly in any way that will appeal to FLW afficionados. There has to be someone who has the passion and the funds to take this on. It could even be a tourist destination museum like other FLW homes throughout the country.

Yes, preservasionists should have a say, but also, the buyers should have been notified, and should now have the right to annul the purchase instead of being stuck with a project they never wanted to take on. (Although to be fair I don't understand how you can buy a house like this and think "let's tear that down" but that's neither here nor there.)

@Lorint, I agree. As a resident of a state bordering New York, I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing forests and farms torn down in the name of the almighty dollar. And now, during the hurricane, experiencing the resultant water runoff and flooding.

It does seem mysterious that they would only find all this out now, but that really is an amazing house… I am not even an MCM junkie or even a Frank Lloyd Wright fan, and I think it would be terrible to tear it down.

We own a historic Victorian home, and even though our preservation committee can be a challenge, I do think it’s ultimately valuable… Of course we knew ahead of time, so it’s different.

A lot of times renovation can be even more expensive than demolition.  But from the pictures, the house doesn’t even look like it’s in disrepair!

Individual property rights. I am in agreement with the people here who have expressed support for the owners of the property to do with it what they will. If there are preservationists out there that feel so strongly about this property, let them purchase it from the current owners. It seems we're all too eager to tell other people what to do with their property and money but are reluctant to expend our own.

We are at a point in history where the conservation of materials and art are being challenged by economics. There is a saying-he who knows the price of everything knows the value of nothing. If marble became a scarcity, should the Parthenon be bought by investors to salvage the Greek economy so wealthy people can have marble tables? Or if the copper in bronzes outstrips the auction value of the Rodan's Thinker we should allow it to be sold for smelting? How will we catalog our culture by destroying it? General consensus would say F.L.Wright was a masterful architect- there should be no argument that preservation is necessary. Our children need to see that we value our past to encourage future achievement. Will all our greatness disappear for the ephemeral desires of a moment? Art is an exploration of possibilities, a recognition of great minds and a record of great civilizations.Museums are not built for class trips, they are there for memory. Let's kickstart a museum fund for these rapacious developers so we can be fair in the interest of litigious righteousness and let not our only words of comfort be -There used to be...

I don't think the question fits the situation. I think you should be able to do what you want to your home..if you're going to live in it and make it your home. I think the preservationists didn't step in before because the house was still in the family up until this point. They didn't have a reason to step in. And what of the granddaughters? They're the ones that sold it. They didn't disclose the significance of the property or inquire as to what was going to happen to the property after they sold it. Sounds like they don't care about their grandfather's legacy for the buck. I think the house should stay.

My mom lives in a historic house, protected by the government. She's not allowed to make major changes to the esthetic part of the outside, but she had the roof redone and that was partially paid back by the government because it's an investment to the benifit of the house. That's Belgium ofcourse, don't know if the U.S. government actually funds the houses it protects.

The fact that this is even a question -- should the community have a say in the preservation of a historic and architecturally significant home -- just speaks to the sorry place that architecture, beauty, history, and community values suffer in North American society (it is no better in Canada).

Decisions made purely on the basis of crude economic reasoning is what gives us the compromised quality of life that we have.

It should be considered indecent to even suggest tearing down an F.L. Wright home in order to make way for two McMansions, but sadly, it is not.

As a Phoenician, I would just like to say that lots and lots of people knew that this was a FLW house. It's kind of a "thing." You go hike that mountain in the background and maybe take a detour by the house (and the L Ron Hubbard house, while you're cruising around Arcadia). This developer has sketch-factor x10.

I have trouble feeling sympathy for the new owner. He doesn't want to live in the house, he's a developer that took on a risky, too-good-to-be-true deal and is now fighting to get the full profit he imagined out of the house. He's not stuck with it, he just won't settle for a $500k profit instead of a million dollar profit.

Think about it this way. You can't get this house BACK after you tear it down. The investors are just that, investors. They don't care about architecture or history. Follow the money. I find it hard to believe they can't turn a profit simply by selling this house as-is as a FLW house. This doesn't seem hard to me at all. They are selling the houses they will build anyway. It's not some couple that has scrapped and scraped for their dream home. You can't preserve something after its gone. Sorry, buy another lot somewhere else. I never get this need to destroy everything for profit. If you want new build homes, buy a lot you don't have to tear anything down on.

The attitude of the developer is disgusting. His quote from the article: “I’ll move in, invite everybody to come in and take their pictures, and I’m going to wait three years [preservation protection only lasts for three years in Arizona]. Then I’m going to knock it down to recoup my losses.”

Tearing down historical buildings for the sake of the almighty dollar? Gross. I'm no fan of private property rights in this situation. This country doesn't need more cookie-cutter McMansions at the cost of destroying homes like this.

I think it was dishonest of the granddaughters to not clarify the house's historical significance to the developers. This is, of course, assuming that what the developers said is the truth.

The house should be preserved. Course, it would have been soooo much better if all this discussion had happened BEFORE someone bought it!

Bottom line, we need to put a stop to these flippers. The houses are not being built for no one in particular, so the contractors do a bad job. Modern construction is horrible when compared to older. Keep that house. Look how awesome it looks.

Wow, some people have no regard for whether they make the world better or worse. Definition of an a-hole. That goes for the sellers too, who didn't care enough to ensure that the property would go to someone who would preserve the home. And the fact that the buyers got a FLW house for a "steal" makes me wonder whether the sellers are carrying some personal resentment for their grandfather.

You don't level buildings designed by masters to build crap. It's indecent. Would we think it was okay to buy a Picasso and paint a hotel-worthy landscape over it? Property rights are not absolute, and where they threaten a shared cultural heritage that is bigger than any one person, they should be curtailed.

I call b.s. There is no way anyone who owns a FLW home sells it without making that fact clear. It should definitely be preserved.

They should preserve it. Supposedly, they are trying to sell again. But if they don't the Landmark preservation laws only protect the property for ONE year until the owners can do what they want with it. I agree, why would they not just buy a vacant lot? I pray that the place sells to someone who loves and cares for it. It is a beauty.

What gives you (anyone) the right to tell someone else what to do and how to live their life?

As someone who lives in Phoenix, the home of a number of FLW masterpieces and Taliesin creations, this very scenario has been plaguing me for the past many months. First and foremost, anybody who has lived in Phoenix for some time and seen the iconic masonry on buildings such as the Biltmore or Grady Gammage should know a FLW when they see one. At least, they should suspect. I am all of 20 years old, albeit a Phoenix native, and it is such a joke to me that a) the developers would not have known ahead of time the history of the house, b) the name of the architect was not stated in any fashion during the transaction, and c) that it's not just the most obvious thing. This building positively screams FLW, sorry.
Cady McGovern argues my point more concisely: "Surely at some point during their real estate development ventures – as I understand it, real estate development is at least peripherally related to the architectural industry – Sells and Hoffman came across some reference to Wright’s work. After all, the American Institute of Architects in 1991 named Wright the greatest American architect of all time."

Long story short: the jig is up. Yes this stunning house deserves protection now and always.

I was surprised the buyers ever thought they'd be able to tear the house down. Did they miss that it was a FLW?

That said, not every interesting house is wonderful or worthy of preservation. I'm not in favor of preservationists going after every interesting or unique property or being overly rigid about what you can do with them. At some point houses need to come into the modern world.

And since this is taking place in Arizona, which doesn't know the meaning of conservation, it's sure to have an unhappy ending.

What @nanobelle said!

There are some things in the world that deserve to be maintained because of their historic or aesthetic importance. This house fits that category.

I suspect the developer knew all along that this was a FLW house, and hopes that the brouhaha will make him a mint. And it might. But even if callous and honestly ignorant, he should be prevented form destroying this house.

In any case, destroying something amazing just because you have the money to do so is immoral. Not everything boils down to personal property "rights". Nor should it. We are a collective society, and we have to take each other into consideration. That doesn't mean in every tiny thing we do, but it does mean in ways that impinge on others. The historical and aesthetic value of this house for future generations is a very real consideration.

(And anyway, if we DID consider each other more in even small ways, it would be a much better world to live in, don't you think?)

Without question, this home must be preserved. Some things ARE more important than money. My understanding is that the sellers were Wright's grandchildren. Shame on them for not protecting their family home.

The buyers are developers from Idaho who grew up without any education. Now that they have been made aware that it's an important architectural building, they still only care about their money.

Absolutely needs to be preserved, and the owners should cooperate. I don't think it will take long before the perservationists raise the funds necessary to buy this home.

I'm disgusted by the attitude of the developer, but I don't think we should dictate what someone can do with their property, within reason. How much of a disturbance will the destruction and construction cause for the surrounding neighbors? How much of an environmental impact on the land? Those should be a factor--do what you want, so long as it doesn't harm others or their property. But people do need to learn accountability and consequences, so make the developer prove the benefit is far more to the community than the drawbacks.

the german constitution says:
"Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good"

I´m living in a unesco world heritage city, many us-citizens are coming to visit our city.
But the people, living in the city and own houses there are obliged by law to conserve the houses. The rents in this houses are very expensive because its very special to live in those houses - built in 1475 before america was descovered- with a modern bath and modern heating.
And i think it´s a public good to conserve old houses for the next generations.

For the property rights advocates out there, I think it's easy to forget about the flipside of preservation laws. By those laws being in place, you're protected from your neighbors making drastic changes to your community, and potentially negatively affecting your property value. It's not an attack on private property rights--in many ways, it actually protects your investment. But it's your responsibility as a buyer to know what you're getting.

All that being said, in this specific situation it sounds like the city dropped the ball if this article is accurate. Not only was the building unprotected, they granted the owner permission to do what he wanted! So, although I totally agree that this place is awesome and should be preserved, I grudingly think the developer is in the right. Ideally the city/partners/FLW groups could pull resources and buy it from the guy at a fair price; more likely, this will probably end up a "teachable moment."

I think we're all overlooking the most important part of this story. Wright's granddaughters sold the house to a developer. What the hell did they think was going to happen? If anyone has failed to do their due diligence in this kind of situation, it's the seller. They were solely responsible for the property before it left their hands. It was their responsibility and theirs alone to not only make any potential buyer aware of the perceived importance of what they were buying, but also to go to the appropriate lengths to choose one who'd appreciate and preserve it. A lot of you are arguing that the developer should relinquish ownership of the house to enthusiasts. Again, that was the granddaughters' responsibility, not the potential buyer's. You're all letting your glands do the talking. Calm the design imperialism and look at the article rationally.

Yes, they should.

We have only the developer's word that for it that "he didn't know".

There is little the seller can do once the house is sold... they may believe that they have sold to a good buyer, but once the house is out of their hands, they can do nothing.

You are looking at it from completely the wrong perspective -- who is ultimately the beneficiary of preserving a FLW building? Not his grandchildren. FLW's work benefits all of us -- all those of us who get to see it, study it, learn from it, be inspired by it. The property value is a very crude and wholly inadequate indicator of the true value of this work. The loss of this FLW building will hurt the community most of all, and thus, the community should decide what is to happen to it, not the developer. The loss is, and will continue to be, all ours.

This is very much the thinking in Europe, and this is why we will never have the historic districts that they do, because we have bulldozed most of our historic buildings and areas. In North America, our heritage designations offer little to no real protection, as this developer himself sneeringly points out.

And until we are able to have a real discussion about what it really means to live and belong to a community, what sorts of rights and responsibilities it entails, we will never achieve quality of life.

Generally-maybe yes. I live in a town with "historic" this and that, but all I've seen is that the people that live in historic neighborhoods use it to preserve their property values while dumping all the "green" projects they don't want on the rest of the town. There was an old school the city sold near a historic neighborhood. The city gave the owners license to put in apartments (these were going to be million dollar apartments and only 12 of them). The original structure was going to stay as is, so not a lot would have changed aesthetically. The mapleton hill neighborhood was all up in arms about it. Apparently high density, eco friendly is great, unless it's in your back yard. Historic designation gets used a lot by people who are just pulling up the ladder behind them. In theory it's great, but in reality it seems to work corruptly.
But my problem with this is that they waited until after the guy had invested a considerable sum of his life savings. But the builder has also been dodgy here...someone in the planning office that was on the project issued the demo permit and the builder wants the property bought at the price he would realize if he rebuilt two houses and sold them. They should come to a reasonable agreement. The builder should sell it back to anyone at purchase price, plus fees, carrying costs, and a reasonable sum for his time and effort and legal expenses. If the preservationists can't come up with that sum, then they lost their chance. It's unfair for them to stick the caveat of development on the property AFTER the deal has gone through.

Frank Lloyd's Wright's grand daughters were a bit dodgy here as well in not issuing a disclosure to the seller.

It's a gorgeous house. Too bad he doesn't want to keep it.

I am hopeful that the landmark designation hearing will be successful.
Too bad the current owners were not notified of the pedigree of the house but tear down this AMAZING house? How could anyone do that knowing it is an FLW house???

A property owner should be permitted to do whatever they like to their property so long as it meets code for their area. If you buy in a conservation or historical district, or buy property that is on a historical registry, you know what you are getting into, and if you don't, that's your fault.

But, to buy a piece of property and have some random people decide after the fact that your property should be 'preserved' and suddenly you can't do anything to it? No.

For those that think that FLW is wonderful, though he is certainly recognized as a prominent figure in architecture, few people beyond those that are in the field or hang out on design blogs know anything about him. It is not as though he is taught in high school art class along with Michelangelo or da Vinci. There are a certainly a number of people that don't appreciate his aesthetic at all. Also, lets not forget that his designs are extremely high maintenance. I don't wonder that someone would buy one of his houses with the intent of tearing it down if it is not to their taste. What I do wonder is why the preservation group hasn't offered to buy the property if they are so determined on restoring/maintaining it.

I think it should be preserved. These days everyone wants something new. No one knows how to appreciate history anymore. If you like new then find an empty lot. Why tear down something with so much history to build something else. Its getting annoying.

This whole story is so, so Phoenician. They will end up leveling it, mark my words!

This is a timely article for me because we have a bit of a situation here in Rochester, NY. There is a 170-year-old church in our Susan B. Anthony Neighborhood that is being threatened with demolition to make way for a Dollar General. Never mind that there are five dollar stores already in the immediate area, including a Family Dollar only 0.3 miles away. The property owner is notorious in the neighborhood for letting his properties fall into disrepair and get overrun by drug dealers and prostitutes. He also owes the city $40,000 in back taxes.

Please consider signing our petition to save this church. The Susan B. Anthony Neighborhood is an historic neighborhood that honors one of Rochester's most famous residents. The area has come a long way in terms of revival and this Dollar General threatens to set everything back.

tear it down, and do whatever you want.

if the preservationists want to keep things exactly the same, forever and ever, they should buy up all these places themselves and build shrines around them.

in the end, it's all just 'stuff' folks. why is someone obligated to preserve something just because other ppl think it should be.

to the person who thinks the buyers are stupid and not dilligent for not knowing who the architect was, PPFFFTTTTHH

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that historical or not, the new owners should be able to do as they see fit to the house.

I have no qualms with using the dollar as a basis of comparison. If the general public truly valued this house, the general public should pool funds and buy it instead of declaring it a historical landmark. Some may argue that it's too difficult to pool funds, or that it's too difficult to organize ownership. If it's too difficult for people who "value" and "treasure" a property to organize, then my perspective is that it is not valued enough or treasured enough to be worthwhile.

While I happen to like this particular house, there are plenty of "historical landmarks" that are eyesores, non-functional, or otherwise inefficient in their current state. I say let the people who have a vested interest in the property do what they can to improve the property. Ostensibly they would improve it such that the rest of society would desire it (and therefore buy a post-renovation/demo property). So if someone were to come and buy the properties later, that purchaser has effectively justified the demolition.

Just my $0.02.

I heard this story a while back, and the developers keep turning down offers to buy. They've been given offers that would make them a fortune but now they're just being greedy. Correction: greedier.

and yes, I believe preservationists should be able to stop demolition or drastic change to our architectural heritage. Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we have so little of it in our young country. Why confirm the world's opinion of us as crass destroyers?

When I first read this story, I was absolutely horrified and disgusted that anyone would want to tear down such a beautiful piece of architecture. And at first I didn't even know that it was an FLW house! I simply thought it was too beautiful to tear down and replace with horrid, generic McMansions. This house is too beautiful and too important to the history of modern architecture to demolish. Some greedy developer's interest in making a quick buck is far outweighed by the general public's interest in preserving our architectural history for future generations.

If the buyers were too lazy and uncaring to investigate a property they were buying then they deserve a legal mess like this. Only the piggishly small-minded would buy a Frank Lloyd Wright house mistakenly or not and STILL want to tear it down, are you kidding...? It's impossible to know all the details but it sounds like that much is clear. Shame, shame.

First of all it's just stupid to sell this house to a developer - everyone knows that developers have only the mighty dollar in mind when they buy a property. Second, with all the property in the world one could possibly buy, why would you buy a house like this if you just want to tear it down. Just buy somewhere else for crying out loud. ABSOLUTELY preservationists should win - I do not feel sorry for anyone who buys a property and plays dumb about a house's historical value. Just don't buy it then. And NO just because someone owns a property does not mean they should be able to erase the history of an important work. If nothing were preserved then eventually our cities would be full of eyesores and cheap crap based on the whims of greedy developers.

I am disturbed about the comments that refer to preservation as a violation of individual property rights. This is not true, according to the Supreme Court, going back to the early/mid-20th century. See the big long quote from the Massachusetts Historical Commission's "Establishing Local Historic Districts" handbook: "Although the basic constitutionality of local historic preservation controls has been recognized by the courts, they are still subject to legal challenge, often involving the claim of ‘taking”. However, unless the regulation is found not to advance a legitimate public interest or the restrictions on designated property are so severe as to deprive the owner of any reasonable economic use, historic preservation controls will remain solidly within the broad spectrum of constitutional land use controls."

It is clear that the restrictions placed on this property would not deprive the owner of reasonable economic use. If they can't tear it down, they can still make a profit selling it. As others have said, it's Frank Lloyd Wright, for crying out loud.

If you're interested in reading reasonable and accurate information about historic preservation, check out your state's historical commission website.

AT - Please check your facts.

The grand daughters did NOT sell this house to the current owner. They sold it in good faith to another owner who promised to preserve it. THAT owner turned around a few years later and sold it to the current developers, who, it should be noted, are located out of Nevada.

As a Phoenician and FLW enthusiast, I've been following this story closely. Many of us believe the current owners/developers knew what they were buying, and they either didn't care, or they threatened to raze it in an effort to drum up media attention (and hence drive up the price).

How did Wright's granddaughter forget to mention it?!

Read through more comments, seems she wasn't the one who sold it -- sorry for the quick reply button! But I still stand by the seller/developer being quite shady.

Mel-Bel, I have to agree. I think someone saw the potential for profit ... not in developing the site, but in pretending that was their intention. I seriously doubt it's even possible to buy a FLW house and not be aware of the fact, particularly one that had remained in his family until quite recently.

Wow. So many mistakes here. How did the city EVER approve the demo? That might be the biggest mistake of all. In theory I wish property owners could do whatever they want. I really do. But in the end there has to be provisions in place to assure the needs of all citizens. For many reasons along those lines, I think this place should be preserved. It is the Wright thing for more people in the long run.

@nanobelle - please accept my most grovelling apologies for hitting the'Flag' button. I absolutely agree with you, and maybe AT should make the 'Flag' option a bit clearer! I am currently fighting a (losing) battle in my neighbourhood here in London against the demolition of beautiful historic school buildings. The Victorian Society - the people who saved St. Pancras, amongst many other landmarks - are on our side, but the developers (and the Council, who have recently granted permission to demolish and re-build) are not.

The intention is to build a new school - yes, tearing down a school to build a school - and 'executive flats'. The developers could, of course, choose to convert the existing buildings, which are perfectly sound and still in use as a college, either back into a school (doh!) or apartments. The latter would actually attract more buyers, simply because of the unique aspect of living in an historic building. There is already a failed 'new' development at the top of the street - and 25 years after a hospital was bulldozed to build it, it is still half empty; this seems to me to be more than adequate proof that the yuppie/exec types they are trying to attract for this latest development don't actually want to live in this part of London. They might well be attracted to a development with something 'extra' - i.e., the historical aspect, and the beauty of the buildings, with their tall windows and other architectural features. But, although that would seem to be the best idea (for all concerned, including the developers), it's not going to happen. And for one reason only - pure greed.

The apartment plans have been shoe-horned in on the back of the school plans, despite there already being three primary schools in the neighbourhood. Not to mention the massive housing shortage in London - what we need is affordable homes for London residents, not luxury flats in a non-luxury area for overseas buyers or other developers who will rent them out for extortionate prices. What we'd like to keep in our neighbourhood is the excellent educational/community facility being booted out to satisfy someone else's greed. The residents' views appear not to matter in the slightest.

I don't agree with the comments that something should always be done to preserve properties before they are sold to people with no respect for the local community, or its history, otherwise all bets are off - because sometimes there is simply no prior threat. In our case here, nobody did anything before the few months we've had to take in the news and that's largely because I don't think anyone believed that anyone would ever be dumb or ghastly or greedy enough to knock the buildings down - and that, if they did intend to do so, the relevant authorities would never give them permission. Public officers should work for the communities they represent, not outside developers out to make a buck, right? We pay their wages, through our taxes - they should work for our best interests. I'm a bit stunned at some of the comments here, saying that if someone's paid enough, they get to ruin not just the buildings, but the neighbourhood they're in.

Oh, and wouldn't it be nice if there were some developers out there who not only had money, but TASTE? I have yet to see a development that looks better than its predecessor. The new buildings planned for my street are just butt-ugly, and I doubt very much they'll last the 130 years (so far) that the existing ones have. And shouldn't people involved in property have even the most basic knowledge of architecture and the history of it? Anyone who can't recognise a FLW building - or at least suspect that's what they're looking at - should be banned from dealing in property for life, imho. I don't believe for a second that professional developers (like these guys) wouldn't know what they were buying, or have someone on staff, or at their lawyers' offices - who wouldn't do a 'search' before the purchase went ahead. If they didn't do the proper research, more fool them. I suspect, however, that what they're really interested in is upping the price now that the building is threatened. And, either way, these guys win - by selling the house, the land, the new houses. Of course, permission should never have been given for demolition - unfortunately, those in authority are often as clueless as the greedy developers. It shouldn't be down to members of the community to protest once the decision's been made - someone should have stopped it long before it got to that point.

If anyone's interested in having a (last) look at a gorgeous piece of British heritage, please check out our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/SaveAmberleyRoadSchoolBuildings - there's also a petition at http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/westminster-city-council-save-amberley-road-school-buildings. Thanks :)

@ELFay - I just signed your petition, and I wish you the best of luck in saving this building for the community.

The agent should have know about this detail and let the new buyers know that the property was a historic building before they purchased it. Now, the property belongs to the new buyers and they can do what they wish, even if it means the destruction of such a beautiful home. I am all for preservation of land and beautiful homes but if the buyer wants to destroy it and make a profit, it's their prerogative. Can the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation purchase the property from the new owners and save it?

@Luella - I signed yours too. Good luck!

Whomsoever owns it can do with it as they please. FLW foundation can buy it to preserve it, developer can raze it.

These designs are so important to preserve, it gives me chills that this is even a question that is under scrutiny. His homes will never be duplicated and this one should have been on the preservation list a long time ago. I don't believe for a second the buyers didn't know the buildings' origin. It's another scam to make money and discard a one of a kind for greed!
Diana Ostreko in Oak Park, IL

I was going to suggest annulling the transaction, but upon reading comments, it sounds like developer is just milking the publicity to drive up price of house. I doubt that it will be demolished -- he'll just get top dollar for the sale. Too bad there wasn't some sort of preservation easement on the property.

The developer may be milking the publicity, but its his right to do so. He OWNS the house and therefore has the right to do with it as he wishes. Although it would be a shame to have this house demolished - where were the preservationists when the house was for sale and why didn't they buy it?

READ VERY CAREFULLY before forming your opinion; the Wright granddaughters did not sell directly to the developer, they sold to the previous owner who intended to preserve it before the economy tanked. I have been following this story for years and can assure everyone here, the MLS listings have always plainly stated the home's provenance as a FLW. The developers do not claim they did not know it was a Wright, they claim they did not know it was a significant Wright. This home has been marketed as a historically significant piece of property from the get-go. Any claimed ignorance rests entirely on the developer's shoulders.

This home is an architectural masterpiece and should be preserved. Photographs only just begin do it justice, and provide only a glimpse into what makes it so unique. For a complete chronological rundown of all the events leading up to this, including the final of four votes needed by the City of Phoenix, visit the right hand column of modernphoenix.net.

I would be really angry if I was them, but I find being them an extremely hard thing to envision, given what an obscene lack of taste you would have to have to want to tear that house down and build two new "luxury homes" (which, frankly, when I hear that it sounds to me like a lot of luxury homes nowadays, that look nice but are built like absolute shit). I have a hard time feeling TOO bad for them, but hopefully they can sell it for good money and find some shittier homes to tear down.

Also, yeah, the notion that someone actually sold them this house without saying CHECK OUT THIS MOTHERFUCKING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT I MEAN SERIOUSLY!! seems insane. If I was buying a house in a unique style from an iconic architect, my assumption would definitely be that tearing it down would be a travesty, or if I didn't think so, I'd at least consider the fact that enough fans would disagree with me that it would inevitably become a headache and not worth contemplating.

PLEASE! This particular house has been published in books and only a few years ago, in a prominent magazine. It is one of the best that he designed (fewer leaks, etc.) and is known for its integration into the area.

Would someone please post who they are so we can either write letters or organize a boycott of ALL of their business interests—since money seems to be the only thing they care about.

I definitely agree with Holler. What is referred to as "luxury homes" these days are big plastic boxes, designed to appeal to people with lots of money, no taste and no understanding of style, grace or artistic value.

I heard that the preservation society tried to buy the house and was told to raise much more money than the owner had paid!!! This is not just an historic house but an extremely rare example that should be saved!

after reading this post and the comments again, I wonder what happened to the house since then. apparently it has been saved from demolishment by the preservationist and a new owner. hurray!
http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gladys-wright-house