Comments on: Why architecture isn’t collectible http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: 99 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/comment-page-1/#comment-3434 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:28:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/#comment-3434 You shouldn’t downplay the lack of a secondary market that has self-interest as a motive of establishing and increasing value. Even a modest home by an architect (well know or not) is difficult to value or to finance (regardless of the RE market). So the traditional secondary market is unstable. If galleries bought and sold actual structures (which, given the pricing, isn’t unreasonable — Gagosian or Saatchi could quite easily afford a number of notable home, even speculatively) instead of drawings, then the market would probably increase. This might encourage museums to do the same, though problems of access would arise. The Lowell House in LA was for sale (maybe still is? I think you covered this a while back) and being marketed as a collectible of sorts, but there is next to no public access. You can’t even see it (at least you can walk down the street in Silver Lake and see a collection of three Neutra houses with some degree of satisfaction) from the street, let alone appreciate the complexity of the plan. The best you can get is watching L.A. Confidential.

]]>
By: bdbd http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/comment-page-1/#comment-3429 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:34:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/#comment-3429 Today’s unobtrusive web cams would enable the art collector owner of a significant architectural space to display visually striking or significant views of the space on a large screen at the collector’s lavish and spacious primary residence.

This possibility could be combined with the renting out that dWj describes, affording the collector a private “watch other people live” web site.

]]>
By: dWj http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/comment-page-1/#comment-3410 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:38:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/why-architecture-isnt-collectible/#comment-3410 If “architecturally-important residences should sell at a premium”, is that due to the pleasure of owning (and conserving) them or the pleasure of living in them? If it’s entirely the former, someone could buy this up and rent it out. If it’s partly the latter, the rent price could go up, but then your observation about the kind of person who would want to live in the neighborhood becomes more salient again.

]]>