Ferris Bueller Movie Set Tour - PICTURES

Andreas, Mark made the one for Frank Beard, and he made a yellow GTO roadster for Hillary Raab. Is that the car you're thinking of? He's in Indiana I think.
I know owners of two of the Cal Spider replicas I'll see if one of them might be okay with me giving their contact info

 

Thanks.

 

So now it appears that potential buyers have their bulldozers poised to knock the Rose house and pavillion down if purchased?

 

What makes you think/state that?

 

A recent article in the Trib, along with news spots on the local TV stations, as well as a story on the main AOL homepage indicate that several inquiries have been made to the local planning and zoning agencies regarding the procedure for demolition of both structures and the subdivision of the property. Illinois landmark agencies place it on the highest level of the "endangered" list. Sad to think some greedy builder would replace it with two forgettable generic "builder homes". Some people just don't get it.

 

That's the story in the news. Hope it doesn't happen!

Andreas, why don't you buy the property?

 

Pretty sad and pathetic.

I can't buy it because I don't have that cash (well, hmm, that didn't stop a lot of other people from buying houses in 2006) and I wouldn't want to live out there in the woods.

I hope somebody with a sense of history for architecture and deep pockets will buy it and keep it the way it is. Taking down this house is like bulldozing a Frank Loyd house.

I know (and cherish) this is a free market and money rules, but c'mon, maintain your heritage please. But I said the same thing when they destroyed the world's first parking garage downtown a couple of years ago.

 

The video:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=d86e68e1-c6b4-4e67-9890-cfc097c2b71b&src=front

 

The photos:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/redeye-photos/ferris-buellers-day-off-the-remake/

 

Agreed!

In Europe historic places are preserved, not bulldozed. In Ireland, you'll see buildings that have 3 new walls and one old wall hundreds of years old. New walls, only because the original walls disintegrated over the centuries!

In the USA, we tear down old stuff and build new stuff to look like old stuff. Just go to the burbs and you'll see what I mean. New street lights made to look like gas lights, street signs made to look antique and sidewalks made to look like cobblestone.

Here we tear down the old stuff to build new stuff that looks like the old stuff. It pisses me off!

 

My hope was that as we emerge from this economic storm we would begin to have a different mindset. I hoped people would begin to see the value and logic of keeping and re-using things of intrinsic value rather than disposing of them in an effort to have the "newest" or "latest" or "trendiest". It's that kind of superficial thinking that has kept us Americans from having the kind of rich architectural character that defines our friends in Europe. Unique homes are always hard to sell. Unfortunately the Rose estate may not be in a position to wait until that unique buyer happens along. It takes a buyer with good taste, and I'm afraid buyers like that are in the minority in this country. But that is another story in itself.

 

But it's borderline duplicitous to say what you did about the Rose estate. It's a unique design, to say the least. But built in the 50s, it hardly falls into the "timeless" category vis-a-vis European architecture. Much of what was produced during that era deserves to get knocked down--many of the middle class suburbs are teeming with buildings from the 50s and early 60s that look horrible. I think the Rose house is, at best, a design that appeals to a very narrow market. I was never a big fan of the futuristic attempts at design from the 50s, and the Ferris Bueller aspect won't hold much value into the future. There is enough money in that area, and if more people felt so strongly about it, the house would have sold.

 

Duplicitous? Really. In what way? And I never said the Rose house was timeless. It is very clearly of its time. It is true that there were many ugly buildings designed in the mid-century years by hack architects eager to cash in on the "seemingly simple" international style design formula. We are seeing the same type of thing today as architects ape the freestyle design concepts of people like Frank Gehry. You are certainly free to dislike mid century design. I was just lamenting the fact that they have not found the right person for the house. It's ironic that one of the criticisms of the house is that the spaces are not "big enough". Moving forward we need to think less "big" and more "efficient". The house needs a buyer who can see its positive attributes and perhaps tweek the plan as required to update its function. Not enough people have that kind of vision. Perhaps instead of using the term "good taste" I should have used the word sophistication. As for the North Shore demographic, wealth is not a barometer for either trait.

 

I chose the word "timeless" in the sense that it embodies the opposite of the "newest, latest, trendiest" descriptions you dislike. When I look at the Rose house, I imagine that if it were built today it would receive more negative feedback than positive, but ultimately that is for each individual to determine. I agree with you 100% about less being more as well as the relationship between wealth and taste. I'm sure you see your share of ostentatious homes in your area--we certainly do down here. Somewhere along the way people felt they absolutely need 20,000 sq. ft. for themselves and their two kids.

 

You have to think differently when it comes to the US: This country is barely 200 years old, so a building from the 50s has basically 25% of the country's history. That would be the equivalent of a house in Europe that is at least several hundreds of years old.

Also this is not just any house (and I don't refer to the Ferris Bueller aspect), but an offspring of the Bauhaus school. Right there lies the historic architectural value.

Daryl is right, that sadly in this country we don't preserver our history. I'm a big fan of manned space flight and am saddened when I see what this country has done to that heritage. Ever visited KSC and driven by the old metal scrap yard where remnants of the tower lie that once serviced the rocket, which took men to the moon? In Portugal they built a monument at the harbor from where the explorers left.

 

I see you and Daryl agree with me; thank you!

Think of what history wouldn't be lost, if our country didn't believe in destruction rather than preservation.

I love visiting European and middle Eastern countries; their heritage is preserved. Not so here!

 

Tried to buy it but my wife hates Highland Park....

 

Don't get me wrong--I absolutely agree that ours is a far-too disposable society. I love that our neighboring town is full of 100 +/- year-old Victorian homes that benefitted from a concerted effort to restore and preserve during the 80s and 90s rather than raze and rebuild. Perhaps this just comes down to personal taste, but I think a lot of the results that emerged from the 50s modernism movement are unappealing, and I wonder how many others feel the same way. You could easily say that the design is an offense to the natural surroundings and belongs in a more urban setting. Obviously Frank Lloyd Wright is a name with which most are familiar, but his designs rarely linger on the market. This is a unique style of property, with the added notoriety of being a film set, and the level of interest seems to be more curiosity than interested buyers.

An interesting argument begins to emerge when you discuss restoration and preservation. Using the brownstones found throughout Chicago as an example, many have been gutted and rehabbed into high-end single family homes. You preserve the architectural shell, but completely rebuild the interior that was once part of the comprehensive design. I like that the exteriors have been retained, but what constitutes true preservation versus desecration? Suppose somebody purchases the Rose estate and chooses to 'refurbish' it, and doing so completely re-configures the interior in a manner inconsistent with the original concept. What becomes the opinion then?

 

Yes, you're right. This is mostly a matter of personal taste. Interesting that you feel the design is too "urban". I must assume that you mean David Haid's design for the glass pavillion. Speyer's design for the house, being single story and using natural wood with the steel, is better suited to its wooded, secluded setting. As for Haid's addition, I remember an all glass house that was built on a inner city lot some time back that was lambasted by the critics. They contended that the house would better better off out in the woods someplace where the owners could leave the drapery open without privacy issues. As to a remodel program for the house, I'm certain that Mr. Speyer would be the first to say that there is a way to adapt the home in a sensative manner. I think home should have provenance, much like classic automobiles. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a place that has history like the Rose house? I think so.

 

Haha--hard to win sometimes. I don't mind the wood parts, even the windows. I've always been a fan of lots of windows. I suppose it's the box-like angularity of that style I don't care for.

 

+1

It's amazing how many Frank Lloyd Wright houses had to be "saved" from developers who didn't care about the history. Buffalo is a good example, thankfully it's now under a full restoration.

A friend of mine lives a couple miles away from the Bueller house. He has story after story of other "original" houses destroyed if favor of an ugly McMansion in this neighborhood.
Driving around the area I was not impress by the new architecture compared to the older homes.
Wow, you can spend $10million on a brick wall with windows......how original.

 

FYI - price reduction - $1.65 Million

http://gizmodo.com/5725230/who-wants-to-buy-camerons-house-from-ferris-buellers-day-off

 

Sold for $1.06 million:

Remember the glass house from Ferris Bueller? It finally sold - Road & Track

 

Years ago when we did the FOC event at the house we thought that the original asking of 2 million was nuts and that it should go for half. Proof was in the pudding.